It seems that we have some ideas in common, CTJG, and you have certainly read these posts, including mine, with an eye toward logical thinking. This is a quality some here seem to lack when it comes to Mathis' ideas.
I recently came comments here after being on another science forum (now inactive) when the subject of a young math and science prodigy who had been interviewed on TV came up and this fellow just comes on to recommend introducing the boy to Miles Mathis and praising his opinions. I felt bound to comment, since no one else was, that it was a bad idea all around but emphasized that Mathis' ideas are untested and not proven science. Some people don't know the difference between proven and unproven science and when they push the theories of Mathis I feel compelled to make my objections to some of his claims known. After all, why should only his fans be heard? I know I can't change their minds and I'm not really so concerned with what they believe, but if they advertise their beliefs I should be able to do the same.
Mathis was here on this forum and I just missed confronting him. So my talking about his errors on this forum are entirely appropriate. His fans here seemed so delighted with his work and his responses (one person even addressed him as "Dr. Mathis") that I felt I might as well make my views known. If attacking Mathis' ideas puts his supporters in a defensive position it is no different from the defensive position mainstream supporters are put into when Einstein's ideas are attacked by alternate science supporters. Silence does not help either side.
Your view of only supporting the views we agree with is too impractical to work. One has to point out flaws in conflicting theories. Your notion of ignoring these flaws won't do. My pointing out flaws does not prevent anyone from believing something that is really based on incorrect information but it does put the believer in a clearer light for future discussions.
My goal has never been to change anything about Mathis. He's a lost cause.
If others are going to persist in promoting Mathis' theories, I am going to persist in pointing out his errors, his lack of critical thinking, his lack of clarity, his overbroad assumptions, his illogical leaps, his muddled derivations, his flabby reasoning and his laziness as MY freedom of speech allows.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* I'll use my initials, LK, before my statements and G before Gottlieb's. By the way, it's nice to see that no one contested my earlier claim that history is riddled with conspiracies.
G: 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.
LK: You shouldn't expect anyone to comment on a topic that's too vague or confusing or uninteresting to them.
G: Or show why my explanations criticizing Mathis' assertions in my post on his article, "Lift On A Wing", are wrong.
LK: That topic is a little more interesting to me, but the reasoning is somewhat hard to follow. I don't know if you've read Mathis' paper about the atmosphere being especially influenced or buoyed up by the charge field, but that may have something to do with his idea about lift. Again, I don't know for sure if there's a connection, because I haven't taken the time to check thoroughly. Like most people, I have too many other more interesting things to do before I get to that. Mathis also has a paper about nutrients reaching the tops of tall trees due to the charge field, which may also be related. - His idea of the charge field is that all protons and, to a lesser extent, electrons emit fast photons, which cause repulsion between particles. So bodies that contain a lot of matter would emit the most photons. And the direction of the photon emissions would be primarily outwardly perpendicular to the surface, which is why the atmosphere and plants might be especially influenced. Since all matter recycles photons via polar intake, by his theory, charge enters large bodies mainly via the poles and exits mainly via the equator. I don't know if he explained anywhere why the photons would exit 30 degrees above or below the equator, other than saying that an equilateral triangle is formed, which touches the sides of an inscribed sphere at 30 degrees latitude, but it seems potentially reasonable.
G: 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.
LK: It's more likely that most of us have other more interesting things to read and think about.
G: 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.
LK: I'm not the least bit embarrassed about Mathis' paper. I hope you enjoy whatever embarrassment you get out of it. I found the paper to be quite reasonable. Just because Mathis hasn't explained every detail of his idea doesn't mean it's useless or inferior. Some of us are able to read between the lines and see value in ideas, even when they're not absolutely thoroughly explained. In reality, humans are probably incapable of explaining anything absolutely thoroughly anyway. We have to settle for biding our time and filling in more and more gaps in our knowledge over time.
G: It seems that we have some ideas in common, CTJG, and you have certainly read these posts, including mine, with an eye toward logical thinking. This is a quality some here seem to lack when it comes to Mathis' ideas.
LK: Actually, anyone who lacks the ability to reason would likely not have much interest in this website. Some of you folks are just naive in your judgments of others' ability to reason, because they come to conclusions that differ from your own.
G: ... Mathis' ideas are untested and not proven science. Some people don't know the difference between proven and unproven science and when they push the theories of Mathis I feel compelled to make my objections to some of his claims known. After all, why should only his fans be heard? I know I can't change their minds and I'm not really so concerned with what they believe, but if they advertise their beliefs I should be able to do the same.
LK: Nearly all of the bases of science are unproven and it seems naive to think otherwise.
G: Mathis was here on this forum and I just missed confronting him. So my talking about his errors on this forum are entirely appropriate. His fans here seemed so delighted with his work and his responses (one person even addressed him as "Dr. Mathis") that I felt I might as well make my views known. If attacking Mathis' ideas puts his supporters in a defensive position it is no different from the defensive position mainstream supporters are put into when Einstein's ideas are attacked by alternate science supporters. Silence does not help either side.
LK: Mathis wasn't actually here. I interviewed him by email and he allowed me to quote him here. You can contact him via his website and confront him any time. I don't have any problem with you or anyone critiquing him or anyone else. I think it's a great exaggeration to call criticism an attack. To me an attack is a physical act and it can harm someone physically. But that's just my prejudice. Anyone is free to use whatever words you like, of course.
G: Your view of only supporting the views we agree with is too impractical to work. One has to point out flaws in conflicting theories. Your notion of ignoring these flaws won't do. My pointing out flaws does not prevent anyone from believing something that is really based on incorrect information but it does put the believer in a clearer light for future discussions.
LK: I've stated all along the doubts or disagreements I've had about Mathis' ideas. I don't have a problem with pointing out flaws, but you haven't convincingly explained any flaws in his more interesting theories. If you want to be useful, critique his reasoning and math in his universal field theory, UFT.
G: My goal has never been to change anything about Mathis. He's a lost cause.
LK: Worst enemies often become best friends.
G: If others are going to persist in promoting Mathis' theories, I am going to persist in pointing out his errors, his lack of critical thinking, his lack of clarity, his overbroad assumptions, his illogical leaps, his muddled derivations, his flabby reasoning and his laziness as MY freedom of speech allows.
LK: His reasoning is excellent by and large; you're just not a good judge of good reasoning. And Mathis doesn't look at all lazy to me. If you actually get down to doing some useful critiquing, that would be a relief. Mostly all you've done so far is beat around the bush. - By the way, are you German? My ancestry is about 87.5% German. I've traced most of my ancestors back to their European (and American) areas of origin.
Chromium6
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Mathis is something rarely seen these days. He's in my opinion a Natural Philosopher. This is similar but not the same as a scientist studying in a certain field with an advanced degree and looking for publication. This is why he comes across from a certain point of view as — "random", "incomplete", "fluff","unexpected", "just words", etc. Einstein too was actually more of a natural philosopher than what might be called a "scientist". Hence, Mathis uses extensive deduction over induction. There is a need for this point of view since massive amounts of money and time are essentially "wasted" on scientific experiments that add little to getting "the big picture" (e.g., Higgs-Boson). To me, most of the complaints about Mathis are that he doesn't exactly "practice the Scientific Method" as it is known today. He doesn't have to go through the motions of "other" scientists trying to "prove" a testable fact. I think this has been missed by many here.
Today, Natural Philosophers can reason with things like "Aether" while modern science treats it as untestable "junk science".
Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.
Forms of science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors. Modern notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century. The naturalist-theologian William Whewell was the one who coined the term "scientist". The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word to 1834. Before then, the word "science" simply meant knowledge and the label of scientist did not exist. Some examples of the term's usage are Isaac Newton's 1687 scientific treatise is known as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait's 1867 treatise called Treatise on Natural Philosophy which helped define much of modern physics. Origin and evolution of the term
The term natural philosophy preceded our current natural science (from the Latin, scientia, meaning "knowledge") when the subject of that knowledge or study was "the workings of nature". Natural philosophy pertains to the work of analysis and synthesis of common experience and argumentation to explain or describe nature—while, in the 16th century and earlier, science was used exclusively as a synonym for knowledge or study. The term science, as in natural science, gained its modern meaning when acquiring knowledge through experiments (special experiences) under the scientific method became its own specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy. In the 16th century, Jacopo Zabarella was the first person appointed as a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Padua.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, natural philosophy referred to what is now physical science. From the mid-19th century, when it became increasingly unusual for scientists to contribute to both physics and chemistry, it just meant physics, and is still used in that sense in degree titles at the University of Oxford. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural history, in that the former involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas the latter was essentially qualitative and descriptive. Scope of natural philosophy
In Plato's earliest known dialogue, Charmides distinguishes between science or bodies of knowledge that produce a physical result, and those that do not. Natural philosophy has been categorized as a theoretical rather than a practical branch of philosophy (like ethics). Sciences that guide arts and draw on the philosophical knowledge of nature may produce practical results, but these subsidiary sciences (e.g., architecture or medicine) go beyond natural philosophy.
The study of natural philosophy seeks to explore the cosmos by any means necessary to understand the universe. Some ideas presupposes that change is a reality. Although this may seem obvious, there have been some philosophers who have denied the concept of metamorphosis, such as Plato's predecessor Parmenides and later Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and perhaps some Eastern philosophers. George Santayana, in his Scepticism and Animal Faith, attempted to show that the reality of change cannot be proven. If his reasoning is sound, it follows that to be a physicist, one must restrain one's skepticism enough to trust one's senses, or else rely on anti-realism.
Beginning with Schelling, the mode of change studied in natural philosophy has been development, rather than evolution. Development is predictable directional change, while evolution is the irreversible accumulation of historically mediated information.
René Descartes' metaphysical system of dualism describes two kinds of substance: matter and mind. According to this system, everything that is "matter" is deterministic and natural—and so belongs to natural philosophy—and everything that is "mind" is volitional and non-natural, and falls outside the domain of philosophy of nature.
(snip) Figures in natural philosophy
The scientific method has ancient precedents and Galileo exemplifies a mathematical understanding of nature which is the hallmark of modern natural scientists. The 19th century distinction of a scientific enterprise apart from traditional natural philosophy has its roots prior centuries. Proposals for a more "inquisitive" and practical approach to the study of nature are notable in Francis Bacon, whose ardent convictions did much to popularize his insightful Baconian method. The late 17th century natural philosopher Robert Boyle wrote a seminal work on the distinction between physics and metaphysics called, A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature, as well as The Skeptical Chymist, after which the modern science of chemistry is named, (as distinct from proto-scientific studies of alchemy). These works of natural philosophy are representative of a departure from the medieval scholasticism taught in European universities, and anticipate in many ways, the developments which would lead to science as practiced in the modern sense. As Bacon would say, "vexing nature" to reveal "her" secrets, (scientific experimentation), rather than a mere reliance on largely historical, even anecdotal, observations of empirical phenomena, would come to be regarded as a defining characteristic of modern science, if not the very key to its success. Boyle's biographers, in their emphasis that he laid the foundations of modern chemistry, neglect how steadily he clung to the scholastic sciences in theory, practice and doctrine.[8] However, he meticulously recorded observational detail on practical research, and subsequently advocated not only this practice, but its publication, both for successful and unsuccessful experiments, so as to validate individual claims by replication.
"Quantitatively, this may be THE biggest error in all of math and physics, since every single physical equation with π in it must now be thrown out and redone. The transform π must be jettisoned from all of kinematics and dynamics." — Miles Mathis
Updated list of links to web sites that prove that pi does NOT equal 4:
Note: Be sure and read all the comments, many of the errors are explained in detail.
Updated list of errors in the "pi equals 4" theory:
1) Pi is acceleration 2) Pi has two values: 3.14 and 4 (static and kinematic, respectively) 3) The radius is a velocity 4) The circumference is not a length, it has units of m^2/s^3 5) Newton monitored the wrong angle in Lemma 6 of the Principia 6) A circle is composed of only straight lines, no curves; a stair step 7) Time is "embedded in the curve" and adds to its length. 8) The "short version proof" does not contain any motion or a time variable. 9) The tangent is never taken to a limit, as claimed 10) The chord is converted into its x and y components, which are then summed together creating a new, longer length. 11) The tangent is substituted into the proof illegally 12) NASA is hiding information relating to pi (Conspiracy theory!)
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Actually, Lloyd you have not addressed any of the specific explanations I've made concerning specific errors Mathis has made in some of his articles. It may be that you can't bear to read them, that you aren't interested or you just can't spare the time to read my explanations, but I have made them. If you can claim to read between the lines of Mathis' article you can do the same with mine. And if my explanations are not specific enough for you, please show why the are not.
What is bothersome about your approach to Mathis is that you seem too easily satisfied. Reading between the lines? I love the scientific rigor of that process, Lloyd. But that notion of reading between the lines is consistent at least with claiming that Mathis actually proposed an experiment in his Test of the Charge Field article. I contend, however, that the reading between the lines notion is absurd when reading a proposal for a scientific experiment. I cannot grant Mathis leeway which I would not grant to any other theorist. I mean is the idea with Mathis to not hold his ideas as testable because you're uninterested or to, as Chromium6 seems to think, not hold his ideas as testable because he's actually a philosopher? By the way Chromium6, Einstein was very specific verbally and mathematically in his papers and he was really a scientist and the degree to which he was a natural philosopher can be assigned however you like but not, I think, superior to a scientist in his case.
I'll actually criticize what I want to about Mathis' theories, Lloyd, because there's no shortage of errors in each of the articles I've read, including the one you posted and I've made my objections to it quite clear. But if you're going to claim between the lines reading power, no discussion could possibly ensue. CTJG commented on the article you posted and found at least two points of agreement with me that the thing was just too vague and the whole temperature readings business was not explained as to why it would prove anything about the charge field. I've done you the honor of responding directly to your posted Mathis article. Maybe you can do the same regarding what I've said about Mathis' errors in this thread. Or, how about responding to what David has just presented? I've referred to his links in my own posts already.
I am an American of Ugandan and Scottish ancestry.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
G: Actually, Lloyd you have not addressed any of the specific explanations I've made concerning specific errors Mathis has made in some of his articles. It may be that you can't bear to read them, that you aren't interested or you just can't spare the time to read my explanations, but I have made them. If you can claim to read between the lines of Mathis' article you can do the same with mine. And if my explanations are not specific enough for you, please show why the are not.
LK: I said I'm not much interested in the pi = 4 question at the moment. I didn't pay close attention when I read Mathis' paper on that, so I don't remember his reasoning, but it didn't impress me, or I likely would have remembered it better. I consider it possible that he knows what he's talking about, or that he erred. For now, it doesn't matter to me. Maybe it will some day.
G: What is bothersome about your approach to Mathis is that you seem too easily satisfied. Reading between the lines? I love the scientific rigor of that process, Lloyd. But that notion of reading between the lines is consistent at least with claiming that Mathis actually proposed an experiment in his Test of the Charge Field article. I contend, however, that the reading between the lines notion is absurd when reading a proposal for a scientific experiment. I cannot grant Mathis leeway which I would not grant to any other theorist. I mean is the idea with Mathis to not hold his ideas as testable because you're uninterested or to, as Chromium6 seems to think, not hold his ideas as testable because he's actually a philosopher? By the way Chromium6, Einstein was very specific verbally and mathematically in his papers and he was really a scientist and the degree to which he was a natural philosopher can be assigned however you like but not, I think, superior to a scientist in his case.
LK: By "reading between the lines" I mean being able to discern what someone is getting at, even though they don't spell it out in its entirety at the moment. In my previous post here I gave an example of that when I mentioned ideas from Mathis' other writings that help explain his paper about Earth's hottest places on the surface being at 30 degrees latitude. Speaking of natural philosophy, the Natural Philosophy Alliance is an excellent organization worth joining for a lot of folks. Natural philosophy is supposed to be the foundation for science, but science was co-opted and increasingly taken over by big business since the late 1800s. That's a historical fact. It's also taken over the education system. And these facts help explain why the guiding paradigms of science have become largely nonsense.
G: I'll actually criticize what I want to about Mathis' theories, Lloyd, because there's no shortage of errors in each of the articles I've read, including the one you posted and I've made my objections to it quite clear. But if you're going to claim between the lines reading power, no discussion could possibly ensue. CTJG commented on the article you posted and found at least two points of agreement with me that the thing was just too vague and the whole temperature readings business was not explained as to why it would prove anything about the charge field. I've done you the honor of responding directly to your posted Mathis article. Maybe you can do the same regarding what I've said about Mathis' errors in this thread. Or, how about responding to what David has just presented? I've referred to his links in my own posts already.
LK: If there's mutual interest between us in discussing a topic, then discussion can easily ensue. I don't care how many people agree with you about the paper I posted by Mathis lately. If you're dissatisfied with it, then you should contact him. I'm satisfied with it and, as I explained recently here, I think the data to prove or disprove his theory might be already available and may simply need someone to look them up. You claimed that the data would not prove anything, but I think you're probably wrong and simply lack the experience to realize the potential. As for responding to David's last post, I already did in my first paragraph of this post.
G: I am an American of Ugandan and Scottish ancestry.
LK: And you have a German name. Or is it just your username?
bill miller
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
When I pointed out Mathis' odd conspiracy views, some thought that this was a personal attack or irrelevant. I don't think so. If I say your ideas on politics are wrong because you are eight feet tall, that would be an irrelevant personal (ad hominem) attack. However if your claim is that all doorways are too short for the average person, then your height is extremely relevant to your opinion.
In this case we have Mathis telling us that physics is a worldwide, pan-cultural conspiracy to muddle physical explanations through abstract mathematics that even the leading researchers don't really understand, the primary goal being to deceive the public and make physics inaccessible to the layman, because the "authorities" are so afraid that we will point out the obvious mistakes they've made. (Correct me if that is an inaccurate portrayal of Mathis' position.) Meanwhile, he writes things like, "We know that video of the planes going into the towers [on 9/11] was faked. We know that many people, including newspeople, were paid to tell false stories." Including, apparently, all of the eyewitnesses present and every one of the dozens of video sources. In the same article, he claims that the people celebrating in front of the White House after OBL was killed were all paid to be there. Do you think this might be a pattern or mindset, the intense conviction that thousands of people routinely come together in silent conspiracy to deceive the masses, so as to prevent some awful truth from coming out — one that Mathis sees with perfect clarity? (I'll take the non-answer of this question as a yes.)
Others have asked why Mathis' detractors are so motivated. Why not just let his opinions be heard. The problem is that Mathis has created enough of a cult of personality that people are buying his ideas without critically looking into them. This becomes especially distressing when excuses are made for not confronting the serious problems in his arguments: "I haven't looked at that closely yet, but what about..." "You're just blindly defending the official story," and of course the classic, "Miles must be right if you are so threatened by him." Anyone who has confronted a creationist will recognize these tactics of argument-by-deflection.
What we actually find threatening is the loss of rigor. It's a bad thing for people to get the idea that physics is a "whatever" proposition, that it's a matter of opinion, that any non-trained person can find the real truths in physics (or evolution, or structural engineering) by reading one amateur's personal web pages, deciding for themselves, and then willfully closing off their minds. That will not move us forward; it will send us back to the dark ages. That is when science becomes conspiracy and superstition. That is when science becomes ignorance.
We don't want that to happen.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
"Which brings us to the title of this paper. No one has to take my word for any of this. We could test my theory simply by testing ground temperatures at some depth and equal elevations, at 23o N and 30o N. We could do the same thing south. In order to take climate, elevation, and weather patterns out of the mix, we would measure ground temperatures at some depth, say at least 50 feet. This would minimize direct warming of the ground by the Sun or atmosphere, and leave us measuring internal heating by charge. We should also be careful to take all measurements at the same elevation above sea level. The measurements in the south should be taken 6 months away from the measurements in the north. We would have to take a fairly large number of measurements at different longitudes, and average them, to avoid the highs and lows caused by variations in crust thickness and density and so on."
When Mathis writes things like the above and asks us to believe that it is the product of clear thinking, I must disagree. It ignores water-saturated versus unsaturated soils, does not clarify why 50 feet is a good depth for minimizing the influence of the atmosphere, and does not consider frozen versus not-frozen ground surfaces among other things. There is also the conduction of heat from Earth's interior which has to be considered. Mathis does not explain why variation in the amount of heat coming near the surface is not explained by differences in the conductivity of differing qualities of rock and soil. He explains no method for using these temperatures to test anything about the charge field other than say along certain lines temperatures should average higher or lower. Without explaining how the same temperatures occurring outside these areas can be attributed to manifestations of some other kind of heating other than charge(unverified in itself), the readings wouldn't test anything.
"I predict two things: 1) the average temperatures found at 30o N will be higher than at 23o N or at the equator. 2) the average temperatures N will be higher than S. Since current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at depth at 30o, and my theory does, this would be a confirmation of charge recycling. The same goes for the N-S variation. Current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at 30o N than S, and my theory does."
Can anyone see that this is nowhere near being a serious proposal for the testing of charge recycling? Even if these readings conform as Mathis said he has not explained why they are the result of charge or charge recycling. He must prove charge before using charge as an explanation for anything. Besides, the larger part of the world would have to be drilled to even get started on this idea. So, Mathis has proposed a test which may be unworkable and has not specified why it would be a conclusive test of charge field heating as distinct from other causes. The lack of scientific rigor in his article is a big red flag.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
bill miller wrote:
Others have asked why Mathis' detractors are so motivated. Why not just let his opinions be heard. The problem is that Mathis has created enough of a cult of personality that people are buying his ideas without critically looking into them. This becomes especially distressing when excuses are made for not confronting the serious problems in his arguments: "I haven't looked at that closely yet, but what about..." "You're just blindly defending the official story," and of course the classic, "Miles must be right if you are so threatened by him." Anyone who has confronted a creationist will recognize these tactics of argument-by-deflection.
Mathis and his fellow travelers are seasoned, well-versed professionals at the art of "argument-by-deflection", as you so aptly put it. All criticism is swiftly shouted down as being a straw man, a red herring, or an ad hominem attack; these three phrases have become virtually synonymous with the name Mathis itself. Another favorite tactic is to claim that you just don't like Mathis personally, so your whole argument should be ignored and rendered moot. Yeah, I have heard it all before; countless times.
But at the end of the day, no one ever does actually step up to the podium. Mathis won't debate the pi equals 4 theory, nor will his staunch supporters.
bill miller
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I was just reading Miles' latest essay. Having seen an episode of the pop-science show Through the Wormhole, Mathis references the research of "scuba diver Tim Tate of U.C. Irvine." He actually means Tim Tait, who is on UCI's physics department faculty. Whether Tait scuba dives or not, I don't know, but it's interesting that an artist with no physics training would call out a university faculty member for being a scuba diver. I guess that watching a TV show counts as physics research — and, I realize it's hard to make sure you have the right person when you're transcribing Morgan Freeman, the narrator. But who has the time to check the name of the theorist you're criticizing in your scholarly paper?
Mathis writes, "My photons can be caused to spin simply by edge hits among themselves." That's right, edge hits. Meanwhile, he describes Tait's speculative idea as "some half-baked theory, dressed up as revolutionary." Yes, he actually wrote those things, on the same page even.
More brilliant insights from page 1: "We are told that dark matter is 95% of the mass/energy of the universe." We are? Actually, lambda-CDM, the leading mainstream theory, puts it at 23%. (In fairness, that is a NASA page, and I suppose we can't trust NASA to tell us what the government wants us to believe.) As usual, he doesn't include a professional reference for this claim, which is kind of a thing in the hard sciences. To prevent people from just making up numbers, see.
Mathis fans, anytime he says "we are told," can you do your brain just one little favor? Rather than nodding and accepting his statement as a given truth, perhaps consider checking it. Chances are, Mathis just made it up, because he's pretty sure you will believe him.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
You are right, Bill,
What one usually gets with Mathis' "papers" is a load of phrases used to ridicule others. Often he puts up articles which mostly consist of this language. This Through the Wormhole article by Mathis seems to have been written mostly to insult all physicists and prop up his own "charge field" theory, in that order of importance. The charge field business is merely suggested, but the insults against all physicists is palpable. Therefore, these excerpts...
"In a recent Through the Wormhole edition, narrated by Morgan Freeman, we get another extended lesson in propaganda. We get various physicists propped up, windblown, inflated, and idolized. We also get some half-baked theory, dressed up as revolutionary."
"But like all contemporary physicists, Tate simply proposes whatever he likes, with no nod to rigor or any old rules of physics."
"not a mysterious fourth dimension like you are sold by the mainstream. It is not spooky, mystical, or quasi-religious. It is simply spin, like you could experience by watching a top. I don't need a Vangelis soundtrack every time I mention it to you."
" Since they are incapable of correcting the old field equations, or unifying them in any logical fashion, they constantly revert to these physical cheats, whereby particles cause changes upon themselves to fit contradictory theories. This cheat started with the virtual field, out of which real particles could appear and disappear. But now, the cheat has infected every nook and cranny of physics."
"This cheat then requires other cheats. Since charge is non-physical, dark matter has to be explained in non-physical ways as well. And since charge is a ghost, it can't be unified. You can't unify a ghost."
"Dark matter is just charge photons. It is charge. It is not something new, it is something very old, that even Ben Franklin knew about."
This last quote is an indirect slur, yet the insult to current physicists is there just the same. It's not true, but Mathis does not seem to mind. Any old historical figure who dealt with electricity would do. Just imply that current physicists don't even know what Ben Franklin knew. Mathis reached a high point of attention by 2010 but internet activity concerning his ideas has diminished to a fraction since. His two vanity-published books seem in retrospect to have been a bad idea as far as his reputation goes. The first exposed him to savage Amazon book reviews in which his detractors carried the day and his supporters came across as semi-literate. The second book shows no evidence of having been bought by more than a handful of people. Mathis is getting what he deserves. And every day that he spends hiding in New Mexico writing junk on a personal website brings him closer to the day he'll finally have to admit his colossal failure. No amount of "history will make the judgement" self-delusion will make any difference when reality hits him.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* In reply to Bill Miller's last message, edge hits means limb hits. Do you know what the limb is? Edge hits are more likely than center hits, and edge hits cause more spin. * I believe 95% was about the estimate of the dark matter in the universe by the mainstream a few years ago. * Mathis often says don't take his word for anything and check things out yourself. * You guys make mountains out of mole hills.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
The lack of clarity in the typical Mathis article and the scarcity of references could reasonably be expected to invite some misunderstanding among readers. Some, but not much. Mathis is too lazy to do the work to make his writings more accurate and readable and, perhaps unconsciously, leaves himself lots of wiggle room on that account. He is an amateur in the worst sense of that word.
The folly of his saying pi=4 in kinematic situations of 3 dimensions and using a 2D diagram of a plain circle to explain it all is characteristic of his carelessness. It is as if he doesn't know the meaning of scientific rigor. That is perhaps not surprising since he isn't a scientist. So who is his audience? Lay people. People he proposes to explain phenomena to in natural language. Yet he gets angry at lay people when they have sent questions to him. See excerpt below from "Eleven Big Questions You Should Have For The Standard Model", in which Mathis, on his website, ridicules a reader who sent a private e-mail to him asking for clarifications.
"The mainstream sicks these people on me, thinking to show me how superior they are, but all they end up doing is confirming my original thesis: the mainstream is built on little but bluster and propaganda, and the people who defend it are small people posing as large people. Dear Mr. Mathis:
'I found your website and have been looking over your writings. It's highly commendable and admirable the time and thought that have been put into this impressive quantity of work.
I have three questions if you don't mind:
1. In your article "A New Definition of Gravity Part 7," you write, "If I were more rigid, I would weigh more." So if you were dipped into liquid nitrogen, or just frozen solid in a way where no atoms of molecules left or entered your body, would that alone cause you to weigh more? For that matter, why do 10cc's of rigid ice melt to produce the same measured weight of liquid water (10 grams in both cases)? Can't an experiment be designed proving that structural rigidity creates weight, and if so, why aren't you performing it?
2. Regarding expansion theory of gravity: If two bowling balls, one 50% hollowed out, were placed 1 meter apart in space, surrounded by a frame of rulers, would they gravitationally meet at the midpoint (as measured by the rulers), or somewhere else? If at the midpoint, I would think that as a scientist you'd want to perform a version of this experiment and blow the roof off general relativity. And if not at the midpoint, how is this possible through expansion if both balls remain the same size?
3. Regarding the stacked-spin theory of wave/particle duality: In my experience, objects seem to only spin freely about their center of mass. Try as I might, I can't think of a way to get a ball to spin about an axis that does not pass through its center of mass (instead, intersecting its surface or a point outside its surface). Wouldn't a pitcher be interested in getting a baseball to spin that way, so that the batter is swinging at a wave? To put it another way, if QM is all about real-world mechanics, why can an electron move this way but not a baseball?'
I won't give the name of this person, since I believe it was signed with a pseudonym anyway. But hopefully you can see how pathetic these questions are. Out of the 1,500 pages I have on my site, this is the best he could do?"
I think the above comments by Mathis are inexcusable. I see nothing disrespectful in this reader's e-mail. Yet Mathis treats him as one of the "small people posing as large people". Really? This is the attitude Mathis has toward his audience and this is only what he admits to on his website. There is nothing scientific in Mathis' attitude, it is just plain meanness and arrogance.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote: I would normally feel sorry for someone like Mathis, seeing that he has so publicly gone down a wrong path and is now hiding like a child.
Well, it looks like you called it right. <moderator edit> Even Steven Oostdijk (Mathis' alter ego) has yet to make his customary appearance. Are they really that frightened of a few pesky naysayers?
And by the way Mathis, write some new material for your minions; the "straw man" and "red herring" harangue has worn threadbare.
D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Who are you people? Writing essays about Miles Mathis while making not one actual interesting remark?
What made you come out of the darkness and drew you to the thunderbolts.info forum, it is not wisdom, because you all seem to have that in spades.
