hertz wrote: oh, and to david...i'm not the last holdout...waves don't believe pi is an irrational number either (no matter how often i tell them, "no, your curve is determined by 3.14ever" they continue to break over my deck and tear stuff up...go figure)
I will consider your half-hearted and meager response as a tacit admission of defeat, and put forth this advice: never enter the battlefield unarmed!
hertz
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
that's an interesting metaphor david...i'm guessing, just guessing, that you are a bright young fellow who's only experience with a battlefield is from behind an xbox console, and as such not aware that battlefields, real battlefields, are dirty, smelly, scary, and really ugly places (to be avoided if at all possible); in other words they are very physical places, with little or no room for theoretics...this place, on the other hand, is a forum, where guys like socrates, plato and aristotle hung out and had lively debates punctuated with liberal doses of libation...a convivial place...a collegial place if you will and a veritable dreamy place to anyone who hasn't showered for days or weeks while scuttling about like a rat amongst the ruins...no comparison my boy, no comparision at all...as i was reading through your list of "errors" it quickly became apparent (from number 1, in fact) that no amount of "debate" would be productive...if you don't see a curve as an acceleration, then the discussion is pointless, because with the exceptions of numbers 6 (which i believe is a misread of mathis) and 12 all of the other questions hinge on the notion of an acceleration...sorry to disappoint mate, but (hopefully) my fighting days are done...semper fi
phyllotaxis
Can we focus on technical discussion and cut out the pissing contests?
This thread is dying by pee.
Thanks
bill miller
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I'd still like to see an example of Mathis demonstrating an understanding of conventional integral calculus, partial derivatives, or differential equations. And I don't mean just ridiculing a Wikipedia article. I mean, showing us how such a problem can be done more simply using his methods. For example, how he would more easily calculate the length of an elliptical curve (orbits are never perfect circles!), or how he would predict the solutions for a damped harmonic oscillator given initial conditions. These are rudimentary first-year problems.
It isn't much to ask; it should be a piece of cake for our New Leonardo, as well as extremely illustrative of the power of his methods. But it would be difficult or impossible if he never learned the conventional mathematics in the first place.
As any mechanical engineer knows, a person simply cannot do predictive mechanics calculations without having these three basic tools in their toolbox, anymore than you can calculate your month-to-month savings-account balance without using multiplication. Sorry if I disappoint anyone, but that's just a simple truth.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Ardwolf, it took me a couple of minutes to see where my error was in my reference to the GPS clocks running slower than earth clocks. What I should have said is that the time dilation was in the other direction and the clocks ran faster in support of GR which is the stronger influence at the high orbital height of the GPS satellites. Less gravity up there meant a faster clock as GR predicted. But the GPS satellite clocks are also corrected for SR, the weaker influence at such a height and slower velocity. So the clocks ran faster minus the slowing predicted by SR. When both GR and SR effects were both calculated the faster time recorded by the GPS clocks agreed with the amounts predicted by relativity. I made an error in just saying that the GPS clocks ran slower altogether. Thanks for the correction.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Orbits would be perfect circles except the current supply is not steady, and there is drift in the direction of the galaxies movement.
The trouble with reading essays by Mathis is that he is disinclined to action. He likes to call people names, he calls scientists incompetent, he claims physics is in trouble, etc. But besides putting up articles on a personal website, what else has he done? Practically the whole world is corrupt according to Mathis' conspiracy theories, as is peer review, as is the process of obtaining grants for research, as is everything that is associated with, well... doing something besides sitting around writing thousands of pages of hyper-critical, poorly founded musings. Mathis has created for himself the perfect set of excuses for doing nothing. He claims he is solving problems that could be of use to someone. Strange this, because he's done absolutely nothing to make anything of use to anyone. No attempt to test his ideas. No attempt to get funds for research. Nothing. Mathis said the following in "The Revolution is Now".
"Real cranks don't make any headway in physics, because cranks don't have good ideas, by definition."
Mathis has made no headway in physics because of the truth of the above. He leaves it to lay people, his readers, to defend him. Not to defend physics, mind you, but to defend Mathis. Being lay people they can really only defend his ideas on a superficial level, which is the way the ideas themselves are presented, so they end up defending the rights we all have, the right to express our ideas. And this gets us nowhere in the end because the New Leonardo hides and doesn't want to do anything but write more essays. But you have to honestly ask yourself the question: if Mathis hasn't made any headway after writing thousands of pages of ideas, how is writing more thousands going to help? Insanity may indeed be doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Mathis and his fans keep accusing his critics of not reading all his "papers". Yet if he keeps writing new ones at the rate of two a week, who, besides Steven Oostdijk, is going to be able to come current? And we know that Steven Oostdijk is Mathis anyway. So Mathis has insulated himself once again with the "not reading all my papers" dodge.
So what is the way forward with all the supposedly correct ideas of Miles Mathis? I have no confidence in Mathis, but what of those who do? Is Mathis going to do a presentation before a grant committee? No, he is nowhere near capable of that. Do you want to form a Mathis agency to work on verifying his ideas? Because that's what it's going to take friends. You cannot expect physicists elsewhere to work on even one of Mathis' ideas as they are currently presented. Just as Mathis doesn't consider challenges to his ideas worth responding to, physicists will feel the same way about his ideas. So, if it is going to get done, you believers will have to do it yourselves. You're going to actually have to appeal to physicists, however, because you'll need someone to do the actual work of research and experimentation.
Has anyone direct knowledge of any such research group committed to verifying the ideas of Mathis?
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote: Has anyone direct knowledge of any such research group committed to verifying the ideas of Mathis?
To the best of my knowledge, the only research group committed to studying and verifying Mathis' theories is the "Save The Artists Foundation". This shady and fly-by-night outfit is run by Steven Oostdijk, who is in charge of research and development, and Melisa Smith, who is the chief financial officer. Oh, there is also a kitty named Pirouette, who has taken up residence in their cramped and disorganized office. Rumor has it that the only one who has ever done any actual work at all is the cat. All attempts to reach Oostdijk or Smith for comment proved futile; but Pirouette was always readily available and seemed genuinely eager for attention.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
It is universally suspected that Mathis has gone online numerous times using Steven Oostdijk as his username and Melisa Smith is merely the scrambled letters of Miles Mathis. The New Leonardo thinks this is clever.
I have just finished reading "The Mechanical Cause of the Golden Ratio" in which Mathis, in response to an article he read reporting that the moon was shrinking, ignored the stated cause that the shrinking was due to the cooling of the core and instead went off on a tangent claiming that the moon was shrinking and increasing its density to conform to an Earth to moon density of the Golden Ratio 1.618 to 1. He does not explain why this should be so but attributes the shrinkage itself to.............the bombardment of the moon by his proposed "charge photons"."I mean that the bombardment is actually squashing it a bit ", he assures us."The nearside crust has been almost completely blasted away, with the heaviest blasting centered at the nearest point. The nearest part of the Moon IS being squashed the most, as we would expect given a charge field" he says. Really? The face of the moon has been nearly blasted away by "charge photons"? Blasted how and to where? But Mathis does not stop there; he claims the universe is 95% dark matter, which he airily defines as (you guessed it), charge.
"Some readers will balk here and tell me that the charge field, or whatever I am using as this limiting wall, is not big enough to act as a wall. They will say we have no evidence of such an "ether," and so on. But of course we do. We have centuries of evidence, if not of an ether, then of an electromagnetic space that surrounds everything. Mainstream physics has just ignored it for the last century, because it conflicts with their current equations. They don't want to rewrite all their Nobel-Prize-winning math, so they ignore mountains of old evidence, and new evidence coming in every day (see my other papers to find these many mountains). I have shown that the charge field exists prominently in the field equations of Einstein and Newton, and has all along. Not only that, but I have recently shown that this charge field is what physicists are now calling dark matter. Dark matter is not non-baryonic, it is photonic. The only thing these physicists have right is the percentage of "dark matter." They tell us that 95% of the universe is dark matter. No, 95% of the universe is charge photons. Charge outweighs everything else by 19 to 1. Which makes it perfectly capable of acting as a wall in this current problem."
Mathis is also eager to claim he has also derived this 19:1 ratio of "charge" to everything else by dividing the fundamental charge of the electron by the mass of the proton and comes up with 19.19. This sort of thing veers straight into wishful thinking or, just as bad, numerology. The problem with Mathis' notion is that the percentage of dark matter in the universe is only 23%. The rest is 72% dark energy and 4.6% ordinary matter. Adding dark energy and dark matter together is a serious error as the two are distinct enough from one another (I won't go into the details here) to warrant separation. So the false 95% "dark matter" against the 5% ordinary matter gives Mathis the false 19:1 ratio. The actual ratio of dark matter to ordinary matter is 5:1 (23% to 4.6%). See, map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html. By contrast Mathis references no sources. His chronic problems with numbers and units continue to undermine him. By such bungled means he manufactures a 19:1 ratio of "charge" to ordinary matter and uses it to propose that the moon is being sandblasted by his unobservable "charge photons". Mathis is always accusing others of making things up, but how is this any different? These "charge photons" are supposed to continue "squashing" the moon until they have made it dense enough to conform to an Earth/moon density ratio of 1.618 to 1. And then they will stop. This is pure unsupported number play of the kind which has already caused Mathis to be associated with numerology. But that doesn't stop Mathis from attacking others.
The question remains; why should any mainstream physicists change any part of any thing they are doing based on this kind of junk posted by Mathis? He makes mistakes in the very smallest of things and his big things are guided by them, and that's no small thing. He takes simple phenomena and complicates them into absurd explanations and he takes complicated phenomena and gives them fancifully simple, incorrect solutions. Mathis' approach to physics is seriously broken.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
And standard cosmology has given us what, 100 years down the wrong road? At least Miles knows how to think outside the box. His problem like standard cosmology is they both leave the electric out of electromagnetism. Standard cosmology can't even explain gravity when its such a very simple thing.
We don't need 50 theories to explain the universe, just one. How the electromagnet force combines separated charges in a plasma universe.
But I do have hope for the future of science, even though we've had to wait so long for mainstream science to catch on to the fact that, as a great man once said: "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. — Kristian Birkeland 1913 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/ ... phere.html http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html
There is no greatness in thinking outside the box, Sjw, if Mathis is unable to think critically or logically. Mathis shows an inability to approach problems with an open mind when he is trying to shoehorn his pet notions "charge field" and "charge photons" into almost every explanation he makes.
And I would not get too hopeful for a unified, one theory fits all, theory for everything that happens in the universe. We still have numerous theories for light itself, and they're not especially complementary, much less unifiable. I don't deny it's possible to have a unified theory, I just think it's overreaching and overbroad in scope at this point in our development while so many things are left unexplained bit by bit all around us. Mathis' "charge field" does not explain a blessed thing, neither do his unobservable "charge photons" for the simple reasons that he can't prove their existence and he can't convincingly account for their influence on anything in a verifiable way. So much for his version of thinking outside the box. I do not think anyone should take Mathis seriously until he gets some real testing of his ideas. Until then he remains an essayist, and not a very good one.
When it comes to aether and matter there is no reason why they both can't be conductive.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Sort of like standard cosmology trying to fit everything to gravity? I Don't believe Miles is any more correct than anybody else is, including the EU. They (the EU) are just a little more correct than everyone else. But if you can't think outside the box, even if incorrect, then science goes nowhere except round in circles, rehashing the same thing over and over. We wouldn't know what electricity was if someone hadn't thought outside the box, and the first ones to do so were incorrect, but over the years the theory was refined. Miles can no more prove his charge field than standard cosmology can prove space-time warps, yet that's a quite accepted theory. Just as a quark cannot be proved, only inferred. Just as the speed of c can not be proved. It travels at c in the space inside our solar system, a space filled with all sorts of electrons, ions and positive charges as well. Just as it travels slower in air or water. Since you have never been outside the galaxy, what proof is there it travels that same speed in the voids between galaxies except belief that it does so? The space inside the galaxies influence area is filled with plasma and dust, pulled in along the Birkeland Currents.
The dielectric medium responds magnitudes of orders faster than c, because it does not rely on the long range movement of particles to transmit force, just a slight polarization which transmits the stored energy in polarized fields. Matter moves, the dielectric responds instantly to this excess charge by polarizing itself between objects of mass and transferring that energy not instantly, but orders of magnitude faster than c. Exactly what is observed, gravity always points to the instantaneous positions of objects, not their position of aberration. This is because the dielectric medium already contains charge and magnetic energy in storage, it simply needs to polarize to transmit that energy. Conductors on the other hand must rely on the movement of charged particles which travel at c or less, a process that undergoes aberration and is much too slow to match observations.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Sjw, if you have the mistaken notion that the speed of light can't be measured you probably also can't see how measuring it confirms its speed experimentally and therefore proving it has a speed. As far as light speed in other solar systems is concerned, no one is sure except to say light has a certain speed in our own. With other galaxies no one can say.
I have no problem with thinking outside the box. But as I have repeatedly said, without getting through to some apparently, Mathis' ideas are so often built up on remarkably avoidable misconceptions and errors that the credibility of whatever he is proposing is undermined. I have read enough of his things to know of these errors and misconceptions and have to conclude, based on those essays I've read, Mathis is poorly equipped in rational thinking, critical thinking, and testing his own ideas.
This becomes a problem when his fans hang on his every word and repeat falsehoods about Mathis having "solved" or "disproved" something. They strain after the gnat of implausibilities in the standard model, yet swallow horseflies of bungled, flabby theorizing from one man who is too lazy to check his own work critically. Instead of wondering why Mathis keeps putting out stuff that doesn't hold together, his diehard fans don't even want to evaluate what they've read but would rather keep up their Mathis Admiration Society of unexamined ideas and shout down anyone who dares to explain why he's wrong.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I never said light speed cannot be measured, I said it can not be proved it doesn't travel faster in a less dense medium. Just as it travels slower in a more dense medium. Are you aware of one experiment of the speed of c outside of any medium whatsoever? If so, please point me to this experiment. I would be interested in reading it. Our galaxy is not a true vacuum, so any measurement of its speed within the boundaries of our galaxy is only the measurement of its speed of propagation through the medium of our galaxy. It is more dense than the voids between galaxies, just as our atmosphere is more dense than is the medium in our solar system. We haven't even measured the speed of c outside our solar system, yet it is assumed it is constant, when experimental evidence shows it propagates slower through denser mediums. Do you really believe the vacuum between galaxies is the same density of vacuum within our planetary system? The only place besides Earth it has been measured and on earth it propagates even slower?
The speed of c is wholly dependent upon the medium it propagates through as is supported by all experimental evidence.
I no more agree with his interpretations than you do, but every theory has its fans, I am sorta a fan of the EU. Just as standard cosmology has its fans. His theories will stand or fall on their own, but I applaud his efforts, even if the reasoning behind his efforts I do not agree with. He is not interested in theories that fit, but in contention. Miles lives to stir up controversy, but at least it makes people think, if for no other reason than to prove him wrong. Charge fields, warped space, neither can be proven nor dis-proven, so aren't really theories.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Just as I've always understood, we're stuck with the speed of light, and no clear way of knowing how to find "outside of any medium whatsoever". So what?
There is plenty to occupy us now with c in a vacuum. Until something changes we can somehow manage to inch forward with the tremendous burden of c in nothing still unmeasured on our backs, hoping all the time it doesn't crush us.
