Gottlieb680 wrote: 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?
Mainly because all of our calculations are based upon the unsupported fact that light is constant, but only in a vacuum, and in this vacuum free of any other force it travels at 299,792,458 metres per second, yet that is the speed we have measured in our solar system, not in a true vacuum as the math calls for. How many other formulas based upon these equations does that assumption effect?
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
A few weeks ago I finished "A Hole At the Center of the Sun", in which Mathis tries to shoehorn his go-to response for almost everything, "charge", into the Sun's fusion and makes a complete cockup. It appears Mathis can't do basic reading with much reliability, as I will show. Mathis starts by claiming that the Wikipedia source he uses gives the layers of the Sun densities which make no sense. He thinks the photosphere is just above the core and that the density split between the photosphere and core is just too great to make sense. "I would say that is grossly counter-intuitive", he says. Even the lower photosphere, the level just above the core, is given a density of only 2x10 -4kg/m^3. The real counter intuitive thing is Mathis never checked to see what the layers of the Sun are in the first place. There are two big layers between the core and the photosphere. The layers are core, radiative zone, convective zone, photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. The densities are: core: 150 g/cm^3 radiative zone: 20 g/cm^3 (lower) to 0.2 g/cm^3 (upper) convective zone: 0.2 g/cm^3 photosphere: 2x10^-4 kg/m^3 chromosphere: 5x10^-6 kg?m^3 corona: 1x10^-12 kg/m^3 These represent a logical progression of densities from core to corona, which Mathis can't see for some reason. This misunderstanding fuels his rants about how the mainstream falsely presents the Sun, when in fact it is Mathis who has trouble doing plain reading. He, of course, tries to insert "charge" into fusion and concludes, incredibly, that both are creating the Sun's heat. And he continues to botch other things along the way. Witness his doubts about the density of the Sun's core: Another problem is that a density of 150 times that of water is still not very high. Platinum at room temperature is 1/7th that dense. We can actually heat and pressurize platinum to densities nearing that, so it isn't that extraordinary. Really? I'd like to see the machine that could compress one of the world's heaviest metals to such a small size and to 7 times its density. Platinum's density is 21.4 g/cm^3, gold itself is 19.3 g/cm^c. Mathis, of course supplies no references. And so he goes on to muse that the Sun's reported density is wrong. All because he can't understand plain real world concepts such as metal density. He goes on to fumble the Sun's density in another way, confusing it with the density of the solar wind: Wiki tells us the density of the Sun has dropped 20% in the last two decades, so the charge field has dropped about 20% in that time. But the actual Wikipedia quote is as follows: Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed has dropped by 3%, its temperature by 13%, and its density by 20% So this misreading of the density of the solar wind being the same as the density of the Sun itself sends him off on another mistaken set of calculations. More bungling: From the numbers above, we can now calculate how much of the Sun's energy comes from fusion and how much from charge. If we take the numbers from Wikipedia as correct, we find that "Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago." Well, that doesn't make any sense. You can't compare one minimum to another. They must mean it is at half strength compared to some maximum.[highlight]
But the actual Wikipedia quotes are as follows:
[highlight]It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008. Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the Solar System, has shrunk as a result, thereby increasing the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.
Mathis can't get quotes right and I suspect he can't get much else right either. This is just what I found after two passes at this so-called "paper". Who knows what other errors are contained? Mathis uses these mistaken readings of data to spin out fanciful theories and call physicists incompetent, deceitful, dishonest, and corrupt. He says at the end of this essay: " If physicists want to be free to propose anything they like, they should stop calling themselves physicists and quit calling the field physics". Mathis has described his own problem perfectly. This "paper" is pure junk based on mistaken data and misconceptions. Mathis cannot be relied upon to deliver a scientific paper with all the mistakes everywhere in his work. Does anyone else understand what this means for future readings, if any, of his essays?
hertz
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
guess that puts mathis with all those other electric sun crazies, like birkeland, jurgens, scott, talbott, thornhill, mozina, etc...why are you here? to save us all from EU perchance?
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Maybe, Hertz, we could all benefit by examining what we read and not unquestioningly accept errors in reading data as the basis for assuming the model is incorrect. If we are going to criticize a model make sure we at least understand it. If we are going to criticize a model we must make sure our alternate theories meet the test of scientific rigor and logic. I am not in favor of a writer simply flinging out theories, the way Mathis does, in opposition to a current model he does not even understand well enough to criticize in the first place. Mathis does this all the time. And instead of writing him to ask about the mistakes he keeps making, some people here question my motives for pointing them out. Mathis was interviewed by Lloyd and a lot of softball questions were asked of him and a lot of airy answers were given by him in response. Fair enough, but I found it interesting that the discussion of his ideas continued. I've read many alternate theories over the years and some of Mathis' as well, but I've noticed a complete reversal of scrutiny mainstream versus alternate, which does not examine alternate theories with any real intent to see if they hold together. Yet the alternate fans are all over Einstein and give Mathis a pass.
I've given you, Hertz, and everyone else a clear explanation of Mathis' errors and assorted nonsense and all some of you can do is criticize me for having the scientific integrity to point out the mistakes in the work of a man who is too arrogant to accept criticism, too lacking in critical thinking to find his own errors, too authoritarian to ask others to proofread, too lazy to properly do research before writing and too puffed up to correct his errors even when informed of them. Mathis, according to one person on another forum has been made aware of some of the problems with his "A Hole at the Center of the Sun", and I am unaware of any changes to his essay in almost two years. The misquotes Mathis has made from Wikipedia, and have let stand, are as clear cut as you can get, as I have shown. But if all you can do is mock me for daring to point out these and other errors, Hertz, knock yourself out. At least I have made the effort to read with understanding the essays Mathis has posted. If you want to swallow his nonsense, go ahead. I am adhering to the principle of scientific integrity in my criticisms. And my criticisms clearly show the real reason Mathis doesn't submit to peer review, not because peer review is corrupt ( how convenient), but because what Mathis writes isn't physics. It would rightly be rejected. The business about the supposedly corrupt peer review process is just another one of Mathis' excuses. Who is to say, maybe he's already submitted and been rejected, maybe many times, and instead of looking at his shoddy work as the reason, puts the blame on peer review. He really is pathetic.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
bill miller wrote: I'd still like to see an example of Mathis demonstrating an understanding of conventional integral calculus, partial derivatives, or differential equations.
You can easily tell, straight away, just how little Mathis knows about mathematics. One need only examine his childish methods of measuring the circumference of a circle, to realize that he is a deplorable and woefully misinformed mathematician. The man uses stair steps, for Saint Peter's sake, to calculate the length of curves. By all odds its doubtful Mathis is even aware of the work done by Archimedes and Leibniz in this area.
You won't find integrals, partial derivatives, or differential equations in a Mathis toolbox; these are the tools of engineers and scientists. All you're likely to find in his toolbox (if he has one at all), is a dog-eared copy of the novel Trilby, and a worn-ragged pair of ballet shoes.
John Lennon wrote the song "Sexy Sadie" right after he became disenchanted with a con artist and fraud who just like Mathis, made fantastic yet deceptive claims. Lennon's flippant lyrics seem eerily tailor-made for the guru of math and physics.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
You can just as easily see how little standard cosmologist know about math as well. Do you believe E=mc^2? Yet standard cosmology assumes a neutron has no charge, yet E=mc^2 demands all particles with mass contain charge. So is a neutron chargeless as standard cosmology asserts which means E=mc^2 is wrong, or is standard cosmology wrong and a neutron possess charge and E=mc^2 correct?
hertz
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
ok folks i'll bite...i'm going to go back and read this one to see if it still rings true (it did a few years ago)...it's really one of his foundation papers that define lots of later work...i already know you won't like it, but...let's see...at the very least we can brush up on some history...no rush (it's kind of long)...cheers
is a neutron chargeless as standard cosmology asserts which means E=mc^2 is wrong, or is standard cosmology wrong and a neutron possess charge and E=mc^2 correct?
Neither. Energy and charge are two different things, according to the Standard Model of particle physics (not "standard cosmology," whatever that is). Surprise, this is not just a dumb oversight by stupid physicists.
Science by straw-man BS doesn't work. It doesn't work for Miles Mathis ("we are told the universe is 95% dark matter" - no we aren't; "we are told the coriolis force makes drain water swirl" - no we aren't, etc., etc.), and it won't work for you either.
Chromium6
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
So besides Mathis what do you guys (professional Mathis critics) think of Dr. Wolff's Space and Motion site and publications? Worth several long-winded attacks too? He's another "Natural Philosopher" with just a few "experiments". ----------- Complex Quaternions & Physical Reality Representing Plane Waves in Three Dimensional Space http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-q ... uation.htm
Nope, not on a thread about Miles Mathis. On that note, let's discuss something Mathis actually said in his interview:
A photon at rest is like a sitting duck in the field, and it gets reboosted back up to c by collisions.
Can anyone explain how an object at rest might be mechanically accelerated to c by collisions? And, along the way, not encounter any collisions that would slow it down?
What I mean is, how can an object (any object) be positively accelerated by the force of collisions, but never negatively accelerated by the force of collisions? This must concern a basic foundation of the Mathis worldview, otherwise there would never be photons from distant galaxies (or from across the room for that matter). They would never travel in a straight line. So I'm sure you guys who understand his mechanical take on photons will find this a snap to answer.
Chromium, unlike Mathis, I don't solicit money for any of my views. But I do think it is instructive to point out the errors in the work of a writer whose work was widely promoted on the internet but rarely seriously examined by his fans. I think it is a disservice to knowingly let stand errors both blatant and subtle in what was bandied about as science. If your idea is to deflect the discussion away from Mathis' ideas using the work of some one else, it won't work. Mathis is a pretender. He wants to be in some exalted position but has never been willing to do the work it takes to get there. I think Mathis wants to be the teacher but really needs to be the student. His self-delusions were on full display when he wrote, "The Revolution is Now", back in the heady times before his readership nosedived.
Even on their own sites, these people trying to dismiss me are losing. Even their own readers aren't buying it. And my readers are doing a great job of defending me.
Notice he said his readers are doing the defending. It is up to the one proposing the theories to clarify their ideas, not the readers. And the people dismissing him weren't losing, they were just getting started. Frankly, I haven't seen any real defending of Mathis' ideas on this or any other forum- not a "great job" at all, just the same business about his right to post his views and he's got some good points, which was never the point of any of the criticisms anyway. Mathis is delusional enough to think a great job is being done to defend him. He complains in this essay about people calling him names, but he should reread his own essays to see his own name calling. What is this guy thinking? The truth is that the real revolution is now and it is against Mathis. His appalling laziness in not clarifying his views is probably as responsible as anything else for his decline. He summed up his careless attitude this way:
I don't go to forums and almost never leave comments, especially where I am the topic. My view is that it is up to others to argue these things if they like. I say what I want to say on my own site, in full. Only about once a year do I take a look at what is being said about me, usually in response to a link one of my readers gives me in an email. I always go in hoping to find some real criticism, something I can use. So far I have not found any of that.
He writes what he wants and no corrections are to be made. According to Mathis it's all fully explained. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. His essays are minefields of jumbled, tortured, disorganized theory complete with handwaving and many other vices of an undisciplined, self-indulgent, lazy mind. For Mathis to have looked at the pi=4 mess in the forums, in which his idea was dismantled in numerous ways, and then conclude that he's found no real criticism only indicate how out of touch he is with reality. I'm sure he's feeling it now, though, with the flop of his two books and the drop in interest in him.
So now he is hiding so he can't hear or see too closely the falling of his pseudo-scientific house of cards. Obviously, Chromium you can't come up with anything in a response except quips and youtube links. If you're representative of Mathis' defenders no wonder he has gone downhill.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
BM said: let's discuss something Mathis actually said in his interview:
A photon at rest is like a sitting duck in the field, and it gets reboosted back up to c by collisions.
Can anyone explain how an object at rest might be mechanically accelerated to c by collisions? And, along the way, not encounter any collisions that would slow it down? - What I mean is, how can an object (any object) be positively accelerated by the force of collisions, but never negatively accelerated by the force of collisions? This must concern a basic foundation of the Mathis worldview, otherwise there would never be photons from distant galaxies (or from across the room for that matter). They would never travel in a straight line. So I'm sure you guys who understand his mechanical take on photons will find this a snap to answer. - Sorry for another long-winded attack
* Apology accepted. * I'm not an expert on Mathis' theories, but here's my understanding of this. I suppose you don't really want to have an understanding of it, but open-minded readers probably do, so I'm addressing them. * Matter constantly recycles photons, which photons enter matter mainly via the poles and exit via equators. [protons, electrons and neutrons spin and have poles and equators.] Most matter is concentrated in large bodies, i.e. stars, planets etc. The photons that enter matter are soon emitted, but, if there's much matter around, it recycles or bounces around a lot, until it reaches the surface. At the surface most of the photons are emitted perpendicularly to the surface, straight outward. There's very little matter between stars and planets, so most of the photons that are emitted from them go onward for great distances. * Photons at rest near bodies of matter are likely to get hit by fast photons quite often, so they don't stay at rest for long. Photons at rest in space away from bodies of matter would remain at rest somewhat longer. * By the way, if photons are highly elastic, and don't lose any energy from a collision, then collisions would not decelerate them, but would only change their direction of motion. Isn't that correct?
bill miller
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
if photons are highly elastic, and don't lose any energy from a collision, then collisions would not decelerate them, but would only change their direction of motion. Isn't that correct?
I don't see how. If photon #1 traveling at c collides with photon #2 at rest, #1 should decelerate and #2 should accelerate, giving two photons traveling at 0.5c. That's exactly my issue. What am I missing here?
Does Mathis believe that slowing down and speeding up are not both accelerations with different signs? Because if a collision can result in a positive acceleration, it should be able to work in the other direction as well — a slowing down negative acceleration, like what happens to a pool ball when it hits a stationary ball dead-on. His whole schtick is about particles experiencing simple pool ball mechanics, right? So, I don't get it.
I also don't see what could possibly collide with a photon traveling at, say, 0.98c, that would be capable of "boosting" it (or any photon, at any speed) up to exactly c.
I'm glad you're willing to answer my questions, despite having decided for yourself that I am a closed minded person....
Goldminer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
bill miller wrote:
if photons are highly elastic, and don't lose any energy from a collision, then collisions would not decelerate them, but would only change their direction of motion. Isn't that correct?
I don't see how. If photon #1 traveling at c collides with photon #2 at rest, #1 should decelerate and #2 should accelerate, giving two photons traveling at 0.5c. That's exactly my issue. What am I missing here?
Does Mathis believe that slowing down and speeding up are not both accelerations with different signs? Because if a collision can result in a positive acceleration, it should be able to work in the other direction as well — a slowing down negative acceleration, like what happens to a pool ball when it hits a stationary ball dead-on. His whole schtick is about particles experiencing simple pool ball mechanics, right? So, I don't get it.
I also don't see what could possibly collide with a photon traveling at, say, 0.98c, that would be capable of "boosting" it (or any photon, at any speed) up to exactly c.
I'm glad you're willing to answer my questions, despite having decided for yourself that I am a closed minded person....
Pardon me, but "photons" already travel at c. They don't collide with each other. IMHOP, they are merely an artifact, anyway. Light waves of very close frequency do interact, but otherwise a beam of light does not interact with another beam of light.
When a ray of light reflects from a mirror which is in motion relative an observer, said light is Doppler shifted according to the angle of the ray to the observer.
Your context does not indicate that you meant "protons" which is altogether a different subject.
