* Okay. The rules are: Put up, or Shut up. I put up Mathis' reasoned argument from http://milesmathis.com/hight.pdf. Gottlieb put up nothing. Mathis wins. Gottlieb forfeits.
bill miller
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I've registered for this board for the sole purpose of expressing some problems I see regarding Miles Mathis.
Weird sourcing: In his "papers" Mathis routinely references Wikipedia as his main source. In one of his latest efforts, he references the popular science show "Through the Wormhole." I've also seen him reference general-readership news stories, book reviews, etc. I challenge anyone to find one legitimate researcher who uses Wikipedia, TV shows, and newspaper articles in their research. There is a reason they don't, which is that these are not scientific primary sources, they are digested secondary sources generally simplified for the general public, and in the case of Wikipedia, one that is by itself completely unreliable. It would be like doing a political analysis by reading random blogs and opinion pieces on candidates, and then passing it off as fact-based. If Mathis kept up with the actual literature rather than basing everything on superficial "toy" sources, he might be taken more seriously.
Self-sourcing: As any Mathis reader knows, most of his sources are his own writings. This isn't surprising, since he sees all of science as corrupt. However this is a problem, because if any of his premises are false or any of his arguments are incorrect or incomplete, then further arguments based on these premises and arguments will fail as well. Some Mathis fans say, "I like some of what he says, and so what if some of his other ideas don't make sense." No, this is a problem. It would be like saying that an office building should be built because the suites on the 7th, 35th and 47th floors will be lovely; never mind that the whole thing could come crashing down at any moment because there is no foundation.
Intellectual dishonesty: Hidden by all of Mathis' ranting are some terribly dishonest tactics. My favorite example is his essay on the coriolis effect. He quotes the wikipedia article in his attempt to argue that the coriolis effect does not determine the direction that ("we are told") water swirls down a drain in the north vs. south hemispheres, viciously attacking this "modern theory." However he makes no mention that, as spelled out RIGHT IN THE SAME WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, this connection is a total myth. No scientist claims that coriolis has a real-world effect on water draining — or even that water swirls differently in the two hemispheres! There are plenty of other examples, such as the one often pointed out about his short pi = 4 "proof" that involves static geometry, despite the fact that he admits pi = 3.14 in static situations.
Freaky conspiracy stuff: Ordinarily this shouldn't be an issue, but to get inside the head of Miles Mathis, visit his "art" site and check out the articles called "911 Truth and Obama's Birth" or "Breitbart Proves Obama Was Born in Kenya." There are some wild claims, such as "We know that video of the planes going into the towers was faked," that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, the cell phone calls were fake, etc., etc. And yet we're expected to take seriously Mathis' highly emotional writings about the purported vast conspiracies in the sciences. Anyone see a problem here?
Finally, regarding the experiment posted above. This of course is a step in the right direction — science is about experiments, after all — but it is a difficult and expensive test. When pressed for an experiment, rather than designing something that can be done by anyone anywhere, he comes up with one he knows will never be performed. Well, at least he can always say he tried. By the way, do "antiphotons" actually exist? Maybe if Mathis had an experiment to demonstrate that they do, one that can be performed in any well-equipped lab, someone might be willing to spend millions of dollars drilling his holes all over the world. Until then...the critical, rational mind should realize that it's all empty blather and conspiracy talk coming from one person.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* I haven't checked his art site, but I don't see how it's anything but irrational or disingenuous to claim that there are no conspiracies by governments etc. It takes extreme, and I mean extreme, naivete' to imagine that people in governments even at the highest levels don't conspire against the best interests of the common people. And I personally have not seen proof that flight 193 went down in PA or anywhere. I saw on videos a small hole in the ground and a small amount of debris. That's evidence, but it's a far cry from proof. I imagine there's much better evidence for the planes that hit the twin towers, but it appears highly unlikely that they caused the towers to fall in their own footprints. The fact is that the evidence was quickly removed and the government has not shown much evidence in their investigations. It's not doubters' faults that the evidence is so shoddy. The government is to blame for the poor evidence. Isn't it? * Maybe you never heard of the Watergate scandal that rocked President Nixon's second term in office. Shortly after the Watergate hearings, Senator Frank Church started an investigation into the government's covert operations etc and his committee uncovered serious conspiracy-like problems. It was found that the FBI conducted a campaign against blacks, called COINTELPRO. The CIA or some intelligence agency conducted mind-control experiments and other sinister experiments on unwitting American citizens, called MK-Ultra and several other operations. They're likely still doing similar things, since they're "above the law". * The owners of this website ask that we not discuss politics or religion, except to the extent that it's necessary to discuss a serious scientific topic. So I won't claim that such investigations prove any particular conspiracy, but it's amazing to me how little most people seem to know about actual history, which is full of conspiracies. To imagine that leaders of governments are and have been all well-meaning and without collusion in ulterior motives seems totally naive to me. They seem to live on a different planet than this one. On my planet there's lots of corruption; society is riddled with it; and saints are few. Even the field of science is corrupt. * In the paper I quoted of Mathis, he said there have been lots of experiments done already, and they need to be interpreted better, which is the route he prefers to take. And that seems entirely reasonable to me. But he does suggest a number of experiments, including the one in this paper. He suggests finding the temperature of the ground about 50 feet underground at various latitudes and at the same altitudes. That doesn't sound like such an expensive or unreasonable experiment to me. Lots of wells are drilled throughout the world for water, oil etc. It seems to me it wouldn't be very expensive to put a temperature measuring probe down such well shafts to find out what the temperatures are at various depths. Such studies have probably already been done anyway, so it's likely just a matter of finding the data. Mathis made a start by presenting some of the surface data.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Bill Miller,
Well written and entertaining essay! Great take down (knockout punch, actually) of the internet's most notorious crackpot; the Pee Wee Herman of math and physics – Miles Pantload Mathis. Touche!
CTJG 1986
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
From all the strawmen, ad-homs and red herrings users 'David' and 'Bill Miller' have put forward through this thread it is clear that both harbor a deep, personal vendetta against Mr. Mathis that shows a clear prejudice toward him on a personal level that makes their arguments against him moot to any objective reviewer.
I'm not disagreeing that Mr. Mathis has some views and theories that require an extremely open mind to even consider and I don't agree with many of his views personally, but as an open minded individual I prefer to find the value in his words and not just dismiss everything he says because I disagree with one or more aspects of his work.
No matter how much 'garbage' he may put forward there is a good deal of legitimate science and specifically questions directed toward the established views that need to be asked that should not be ignored.
However, what does Mr. Mathis' political or social views on the state of the world or the U.S government have to do with his scientific works?
Albert Einstein had some pretty controversial views on society and politics and such for his time as well but I've never heard anyone use his social and political views to attack his scientific views and theories before.
And for the sake of clarity and openness may I ask why there is such a clear prejudice evidenced with both of you toward Mr. Mathis?
Did he break your daughters' hearts? Disrespect your fathers? Get drunk and pee in your flower beds?
If your entire issue with him is that he doesn't uphold the same views as you do and this angers you to the point of having to attack him here then I recommend giving up whatever careers you are in currently and joining a Church clergy to continue your mental Crusade against freethinking.
Science is about collecting evidence and building theories from that evidence to help understand the universe we live in, but there are many(potentially infinite) ways to interpret any evidence and Mr. Mathis does not need to have the same perceptions of it as you do.
It is his choice to hold whatever views he desires and your choice whether to agree with him or not, but personal attacks and character assassinations are not needed in an open and honest discussion or debate by individuals that value freedom of thought and expression.
Are you opposed to freedom of thought and the freedom to choose whatever views you wish to uphold?(so long as they don't physically harm anyone)
If Mr. Mathis starts showing up at your door like a traveling salesman and tries to shove his theories and views down your throats then I'll fully support your taking a personal aspect to this debate, but until then your personal attacks and prejudice work against your attempts to demolish his credibility.
Mr. Mathis engages in such behavior himself from time to time and it doesn't help his credibility in my view but at least he tends to stick to his own cyber-world when doing such, he doesn't go to other websites and forums to bash people over their views from what I've seen - he stays in his own lair and people who desire such views come to him.
Debate his theories and/or offer other theories and explain why they are better than his views and what-have-you, but please refrain from personal attacks and or irrelevant character assassination.
Pi=4 has nothing to do with "He's a crazy 9/11 Troofer!" or his art history.
If Pi=4 is so blatantly incorrect you should be able to demolish it without any need to attempt to demolish the credibility of the man suggesting it.
Cheers, Jonny
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Lloyd, you think a couple of sentences calling for underground temperatures to be taken in different places a proposal for an experiment? I can see why you believe so much of what Mathis says. Neither of you seems to know what an experiment proposal is. If Mathis knew he would not have titled his article "An Experiment to Test the Charge Field". His article does not describe in any specific way why a supposed recycling of charge would lead to greater or lesser ground or atmosphere temperature at any given set of locations independent of atmospheric and oceanic climate. He never says how geothermal intrusion could be ruled out. He could say geothermal is charge but he has not proven that either. So he would be proposing an experiment based on assumptions which are themselves untested by experiment.
Besides, below 300 feet or so the temperature in the ground starts rising sharply the deeper one goes and there have been shallower hot spots reported. Mathis seems to have had this get by him. And once he gets these temperature readings he cannot separate out sections of that temperature and assign this much to groundwater, this much to rocky versus sandy soil, this much to geothermal, this much to overlying vegetation, etc. The ground temperature may not vary that much from place to place at 50 feet. The smaller the differences the worse it is for definitively assigning an explanation for any variation. It's just a bad idea from the start. In his zeal to shoehorn in yet another charge field explanation Mathis fails to make even basic sense and has forgotten geothermal heating altogether. And he can't explain geothermal heating as being caused by charge because that has also not been verified by testing.
Getting temperature readings, even if they form a pattern, do not prove charge recycling is the cause. He cannot take a band of 55 degree readings based on averaging and prove anything even if the readings fall on the lines he indicated in his diagram and are cooler than the readings of 59 degrees falling along another line where he predicted they would be higher. Some of you may see already where I am going with this. The problem you may have guessed is with the lines. There will be large areas of average temperatures everywhere, going across and encompassing Mathis' lines and presenting such broad patterns that on a temperature gradient map any geometric construction of predicted temperature lines could be drawn within them. The silliness of this article posted by Lloyd reveals exactly what Mathis has fallen into because of his laziness, theorizing based on untested ideas, untested from the very outset, and using them to go claiming he's revolutionized science. The so-called experiment Mathis proposes " to test the charge field" will do no such thing. It is up to Mathis to put together a convincing proposal for an experiment based on tested principles which would in a test, produce unambiguous predicted results which differ from the results of current science. He hasn't done so if this is an example of one of his proposals. The whole article is vague and borders on the incoherent, especially in the first five paragraphs.
And note, David has in this thread made links to three sites which offer clear step-by-step dismantlings of Mathis' pi=4 and I don't think anyone has referred to them except myself. Before you accuse him of strawmen and ad-homs read those links.
Mathis needs to learn science in more depth, learn to write in a readable style and learn what an experiment entails. To see his handwaving pass as science is, I think, the big problem people with Mathis. This lousy excuse for an experiment is un-workable as it has no framework and is too vague to be followed by anyone. It's lousy even as a summary.
CTJG 1986
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote:
And note, David has in this thread made links to three sites which offer clear step-by-step dismantlings of Mathis' pi=4 and I don't think anyone has referred to them except myself. Before you accuse him of strawmen and ad-homs read those links.
I did read those links but I didn't see anything I haven't seen or heard before, and again I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions presented against Mathis' views. But even those links can't avoid taking shots at Mathis on a personal level at times.
However statements such as "the internet's most notorious crackpot; the Pee Wee Herman of math and physics – Miles Pantload Mathis." from David is most certainly a personal, ad-hom attack that indicates a personal dislike or vendetta against the man for some reason.
If the argument against Mathis' views could be put forward without unnecessary personal attacks I wouldn't have any issues with those arguing against his views as I do agree with them in many respects.
Sadly we live in a world where many people think it's a legitimate debate tactic to make personal attacks, especially in the online realm, that's what bothers me.
On a side note I recommend looking into the occult literature and teachings on 'scientific illuminism'(the occult sciences), for they would likely agree with Mathis that Pi=4, if only indirectly(as the 3 are actually 4).
Cheers, Jonny
borut
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I must say that I am disappointed with some comments on this web page (forum) that is an alternative to mainstream and many times also been ridiculed. It must be that some mainstream mouths registered, just to put some ridiculous comments here. Ok one thing I have to say that many just don't understand. Science is not about you to agree or that he needs to achieve some consensus about his theories with you or anybody. It is about presenting best and viable theories and prove them. He is just doing that .
PS Sorry about my English. It is not my native language.
nick c
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Moderator note: Things seem to be heating up here; just a preemptive caution to all participants in this thread. There is no need for any sort of name calling, whether directed at a forum member or the subject of the thread. If you are tempted to use an ad hominen attack, stop and think; it will be more effective to expose the flaws in an argument rather than simply attach a negative label to the presenter's character. Please keep your attacks focused on ideas.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Despite what you say, CTJG, Mathis talks about reading forums in his articles on his own site. In one article he named one of the forums and was giggling about having achieved some kind of victory over all the participants in it and goes on to actually make fun of the user names. So Mathis does goes in for bashing forum participants' views in articles on his own website, and the article is, "A Mainstream Response to My Dark Matter Paper".
So your response to this CTJG is to let Mathis use his site to attack people on forums, attack nearly everyone else he disagrees with, and yet you accuse some of us of character assassination when all they've done is repeat some of what he has put on his own site. You want the discussions to be reasoned arguments yet you ignore them or say they don't prove anything , so we're all back where we started. A reasoned argument does not magically convince anyone. But since we're not doing any testing, arguments are all we have. You admit that even if Mathis' ideas are largely wrong you still would look for value in his opinions. Good for you. I definitely think most of the opinions of his I've read are wrong. I've stated why I think certain of his opinions are wrong in my posts. That's all any of us can do if we think something is in error. I do not accept alternate science just because it is alternate. That would be as closed minded as accepting mainstream science just because it is mainstream. Some people here seem to forget this.
In my comments on Mathis' paper about the experiment to test the charge field I have specifically referred to the present inability of assigning a single cause for any underground temperature reading. When Mathis bases so much of his test on merely taking temperature readings 50 feet underground he is clearly ignoring the multiple contributing factors to any variation in the readings and he has described no method for accounting for the temperature variations. The whole test, I think, is unconvincingly designed. It is actually not designed at all but merely tacked on at the end of what is really just another of his theory articles. It is up to Mathis to make clear what this test is, how it is to be done and what is to be done with the data. I don't see that in this article.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I mistakenly assumed that the "Mad Ideas" title of this section was simply a polite euphemism for crackpot, and that we would be afforded a degree of latitude (step over the bounds of decorum, so to speak) which generally would not be tolerated in the legitimate sections of the Thunderbolts Forum. Perhaps I took a step too far.
Hereafter, I will refrain from directly calling Mathis a crackpot, and serve up only gentle, tame and subtle hints which lead to that conclusion. It was never my intention to offend anyone's fragile and delicate sensibilities. My comments are leveled directly at Mathis, and primarily for his consumption only; not for the casual reader.
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
David wrote: Bill Miller,
Well written and entertaining essay! Great take down (knockout punch, actually) of the internet's most notorious crackpot; the Pee Wee Herman of math and physics – Miles Pantload Mathis. Touche!
Speaking as a crank, it is amusing...
nick c
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
hi David,
I mistakenly assumed that the "Mad Ideas" title of this section was simply a polite euphemism for crackpot, and that we would be afforded a degree of latitude (step over the bounds of decorum, so to speak) which generally would not be tolerated in the legitimate sections of the Thunderbolts Forum.
While there is much more flexibility in subject matter, the NIAMI board has the same rules of decorum as any other board in this forum. Individual forum members can decide for themselves which topics are "new insights" and which are "mad ideas." Forum Rules and Guidelines here.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
If you Mathis apologists see anything you think is ridiculous in my comments explaining Mathis' errors please specifically show why. For instance, if the "Therefore, if I were more rigid, I would weigh more," comment by Mathis is plausible, show why my criticism of it in this thread, using a reasonable corollary criticizing his idea that more atoms and stronger bonds necessarily mean more weight (greater density), is wrong.
Or show why my explanations criticizing Mathis' assertions in my post on his article, "Lift On A Wing", are wrong.
If it bothers you that I made the criticisms and you can't present any information to counter them, or are keeping them secret, you have self-parodied your own poses as free-thinking individuals.
Lloyd tells me to put up or shut up after putting up another of Mathis' articles which is ostensibly a test of the charge field but is merely another reworking of his charge field theory with a half-baked, feeble afterthought of a test proposal tacked on at the end. What putting up this embarrassing article is supposed to do Lloyd does not say. I see no serious proposal for an experiment in it, but if some of you do, please explain how what Mathis has written directs you to do the experiment and how collecting these temperatures is going to prove anything about a charge field.
CTJG 1986
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote: Despite what you say, CTJG, Mathis talks about reading forums in his articles on his own site. In one article he named one of the forums and was giggling about having achieved some kind of victory over all the participants in it and goes on to actually make fun of the user names. So Mathis does goes in for bashing forum participants' views in articles on his own website, and the article is, "A Mainstream Response to My Dark Matter Paper".
I don't get the "despite what you say" part as I stated in my prior posts Mathis does engage in such behaviour himself from time to time and I don't agree with it.
But why not go to one of those forums he's addressing and apparently participating in and confront him directly in a debate rather than coming here where as far as I know he is not around to debate or defend himself?
You say he acts a certain way and it shows he's a "crackpot" yet you engage in the same behavior and don't think of yourself the same way?
So your response to this CTJG is to let Mathis use his site to attack people on forums, attack nearly everyone else he disagrees with, and yet you accuse some of us of character assassination when all they've done is repeat some of what he has put on his own site. You want the discussions to be reasoned arguments yet you ignore them or say they don't prove anything , so we're all back where we started.
Always the "Bobby and Suzzy did it first/started it, it's their fault not mine" excuse.
Have you ever considered that Mathis himself is reciprocating the behavior he is treated to frequently since the day he began suggesting alternative theories?
As you yourself point out such tactics simply lead us around in circles and get nowhere fast.
And I didn't say that "they don't prove anything" but that I agree with many of the arguments against his work, I simply asked for the arguments to be scientific and free of personal attacks. Is that a bad thing?
A reasoned argument does not magically convince anyone. But since we're not doing any testing, arguments are all we have. You admit that even if Mathis' ideas are largely wrong you still would look for value in his opinions. Good for you. I definitely think most of the opinions of his I've read are wrong. I've stated why I think certain of his opinions are wrong in my posts. That's all any of us can do if we think something is in error. I do not accept alternate science just because it is alternate. That would be as closed minded as accepting mainstream science just because it is mainstream. Some people here seem to forget this.
I agree there, some people do have an anti-establishment bias as evidenced by the frequent assaults on Albert Einstein despite his actual views being quite in line with many "alternative theorists". His 'Unified Field Theory' although perhaps 'perverted' according to some alternative theorists was seeking to achieve exactly what most "alternative theorists" have been seeking for centuries - to unify nature scientifically as it is in the actual universe.
But my question still remains(though not originally directed at you) - why does it matter to you what others believe?
If reasoned arguments fail to convince someone then that is their choice to believe what they will, why do some become obsessed with making everyone else believe the same thing as them? Again, that is a pillar of religion, not science.
If reasoned arguments fail to convince people then just let them believe what they want, resorting to personal attacks and such isn't going to convince anyone of anything if reasoned arguments can't convince them of it, nay they will likely make them even more resistant to your perspective.
In my comments on Mathis' paper about the experiment to test the charge field I have specifically referred to the present inability of assigning a single cause for any underground temperature reading. When Mathis bases so much of his test on merely taking temperature readings 50 feet underground he is clearly ignoring the multiple contributing factors to any variation in the readings and he has described no method for accounting for the temperature variations. The whole test, I think, is unconvincingly designed. It is actually not designed at all but merely tacked on at the end of what is really just another of his theory articles. It is up to Mathis to make clear what this test is, how it is to be done and what is to be done with the data. I don't see that in this article.
Again I totally agree with you here, my personal issue with Mathis is his lack of clarity in many of his views that leaves you scratching your head wondering how he got there. Some of his conclusions may be supportable but not knowing how he reached them makes those conclusions of very limited value at times.
I just really am curious why some people get so worked up over other people putting forward opinions they don't like that they run around all over the internet attacking anyone who even remotely supports those views.
Why not just ignore those views and give other people the freedom to choose their belief's and focus yourself on supporting and expanding on the views you do agree with?
Ultimately no amount of argument on the TB site(or any other site) is going to change Mile Mathis' views or get him to stop putting forward such views, as freedom of speech allows.
Attacking him simply puts those who support his views in a defensive position and makes it less likely that they will be "converted" to your point of view.
With that all said I can't really address any specifics of his theories directly at this point as it's been a while since I reviewed them last and am currently re-reviewing them now but will be gone for a few days starting tonight so it will be a while before I can offer any direct support or resistance to your specific claims against his work.
---
On a side note I'd just like to point out that my statement about the occult '3 is actually 4' point was meant as a bad joke only not as any support for Mathis' views on Pi, as the notion that Pi=3.1415 is a central pillar of the occult sciences as 3.1415 is the numerological "identification" of the Creator, Elohim, the Mother, etc. (in addition to being broken down in many symbolic ways simply adding 3+1+4+1+5 = 14 = 'the sum of all').
