© Science AdminsAnyone is welcome to mention any of Mathis' errors here. Please provide lucid evidence rather than mere statements. Thanks.
(NOTE: Richard, I hope you'll move your post to this thread. You were saying Mathis erred saying velocity squared is acceleration?)
I'll try to keep track of questions etc for Mathis here.
RC: [H]is units are usually wrong in nearly every calculation.
- Miles never includes the units in any of his equations [].
- In this article (http://milesmathis.com/accel.html) Miles claims that linear acceleration is equal to the velocity squared.
- [Y]ou can't "dump" units from an equation. But Miles uses this illegal trick all the time.
- This is Miles equation from the article: vf = vo + 2vo2t + avot2. Notice that the units are mismatched and that he has to "dump" the extra meter dimension in order to resolve the discrepancy [].CC: Re Mathis: m = l3/t2 and "G loses all its dimensions, and force is then L4/T4 or (V2)2."
- I don't understand how mass is equal to length divided by time.
- Dropping the subscripts and then substituting into other equations is nonsensical.RC: [T]ry using those same units for density = mass/volume: Density = kg/m3 = m3/(m3*s2) = 1/s2. [It] lacks a rational explanation.
- If the velocity is constant, then the acceleration must be zero.
- According to him, the acceleration is the velocity squared. So by his reckoning, the acceleration would 25 m2/s2.CC: If the "context" is an orbit, the distance might be expressed as a function of the radius. But that doesn't turn the tangential velocity into a vector, much less the equilibrium between centripetal and centrifugal forces.
- How do you "combine" tangential velocity with centripetal acceleration by just multiplying them together?
- [I]f I were to mimic Mathis, I'd say that "time squared" is a nonsensical factor. Time is linear — there is no meaningful concept of time as an area or a volume. To fix the "error" we can just drop the time factor down one order, and say that acceleration is distance/time. Then, if that produces incorrect answers, we can just redefine distance, or let acceleration now start acting like a simple velocity, and redefine other stuff.Miles Mathis has a very appealing and persuasive writing style. When I first encountered his science articles I was blown away by all the errors he claimed to have discovered. Miles had single-handedly uncovered hundreds of errors made by the greatest scientific minds in human history (Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Euclid, and many others). A stupendous accomplishment, by any measure.
And at first glance it all appeared to be true. But then I dug a little deeper into his claims. What I found is that his units are usually wrong in nearly every calculation. Miles never includes the units in any of his equations, so his mistakes aren't always apparent to the casual reader. But an equation with mismatched units is strictly forbidden in physics, and is a clear indication that Miles doesn't understand basic science.
As an example, look at his article "The Difference between Squared Velocity and Acceleration" (http://milesmathis.com/accel.html). In this article Miles claims that linear acceleration is equal to the velocity squared. But that can't be right (the units are mismatched). So how does he resolve this discrepancy? Here is his explanation:
"Acceleration is a squared velocity. But we need to dump some of those extra meter dimensions. Every time we multiply a velocity and a velocity that are in line, we have to dump one of the meter dimensions."
His answer is to just change the result (alter the units to match). Is he serious? Yes, it turns out that he is. Hey, if the units don't come out right, then just go ahead and change them (problem solved).
Needless to say, you can't "dump" units from an equation. But Miles uses this illegal trick all the time. In fact, his articles are filled with these sleight of hand gimmicks and trickery (illegal dumping of units being just one example).
--Richard Cage
Thanks, Richard. Feel free to mention your background, if you like.
Have you written any papers that show Mathis' errors in detail? If so, you should provide a link. Or if you know of such papers, links to them would be good to have.
But it's hard to tell if Mathis is the one who makes mistakes, or those who criticize him make mistakes. I imagine both do. I found a minor mistake that Mathis seemed to make and I told him about it. Offhand it seems to me that velocity squared could be acceleration of an area. Normal acceleration is distance per time {i.e. velocity} per time. It seems that distance times distance {i.e. area} per time per time could have a meaning. And dividing such an area acceleration by a distance would yield a normal acceleration. So, without checking out the example you gave, it seems possible that Mathis may have been correct, or you may be correct on this example.
I think Mathis is likely to be right about a lot of his major claims, such as universal spin, unified field formulae, no attractive forces, no virtual photons, photons with radius, spin and mass, no big bang, no black holes, and so on.
I think it's important to find out any major errors Mathis may have made, but finding errors doesn't discredit all claims, but only particular ones.
Lloyd said:
"I found a minor mistake that Mathis seemed to make and I told him about it."
First off, what was the error you found? And second, what did Miles do about it, if anything?
My own experience with Mathis has been that he tells me his articles are self-explanatory, and he stands by whatever they happen to say. If that is his standard response, then why bother telling him anything? His attitude is that every single word of his three thousand page theory is flawless (beyond reproach).
But as I pointed out above, many of his equations have mismatched units (acceleration can not be equal to the velocity squared – the units are wrong). And it's illegal to "dump" units after a computation. But that is exactly what Mathis does. Read his article: "The Difference Between Squared Velocity and Acceleration" (http://milesmathis.com/accel.html).
This is Miles equation from the article. Notice that the units are mismatched and that he has to "dump" the extra meter dimension in order to resolve the discrepancy:
vf = vo + 2vo2t + avot2
And this is not an isolated case. Miles uses this dumping of units malarkey, every time the units are mismatched. It's an illegal procedure, and all of his equations that have mismatched units are wrong.
Oh, and the only thing I have written is an email to Miles - and that was a wasted effort.
--Richard Cage
m = l3/t2 where: m = mass l = length t = time Mathis then says,G loses all its dimensions, and force is then L4/T4 or (V2)2. Force becomes a velocity squared squared.I don't understand how mass is equal to length divided by time. I can see how in one particular circumstance this might be so, but that doesn't mean that it is a general rule. Dropping the subscripts and then substituting into other equations is nonsensical. And that means that everything past that point is no longer valid.
Charles said:"I don't understand how mass is equal to length divided by time."
I agree, it doesn't make any sense. Stranger still, try using those same units for density = mass/volume:
Density = kg/m3
= m3/(m3*s2)
= 1/s2
So the density of Gold (for instance) would have units of time (1/s2).
What does that even mean? I can't make any sense of it. How can the density of Gold be expressed in units of time (the inverse of time squared)? Density is mass per volume. How is that in any way related to the passage of time? Even if the units work out correctly, it still lacks a rational explanation.
--Richard Cage
I think there might be a misunderstanding on what units actually 'do' and how we should use them. Units are arbitrary and by convention, they don't have any real connection to reality beyond how we define them and assign them. So the fact that the units don't 'work' in some of Miles' equations is not indicative of an error in either his theories or his math; rather, it's indicative of the different way in which he uses math and physics together.
In addition, by judging the theory against the math, we put the math on a higher level than the reality and the mechanics being proposed. In such a case, we're not doing physics any more, we're doing math. That's the problem with the standard model of QM; it lets the math lead and defines reality according to what the math says. This is completely backwards; math is the tool and not the master. Physics is about mechanics first and foremost; only after workable mechanics has been proposed should we then try to apply math to the problems in order to make predictions. But the math used MUST bow to the reality and not vice versa.
This issue above concerning a squared velocity makes perfect sense so long as we follow the mechanics first and then apply the math to the mechanics. Miles derives a velocity squared (m2/s2) and then 'drops' one of the meters so that the units resolve to 'normal' acceleration. But the specific type of acceleration he is referring to is power 2 acceleration; an acceleration in a straight line in other words, not a curved path which would power 3 and above. So the question then becomes: what is a square distance (meter) when we're dealing with motion in a straight line? How can you have a square distance in a straight line? It makes no PHYSICAL sense. Physically , we are only dealing with a SINGLE distance because we're travelling in a straight line. So there's no need for the extra unit. We need the numerical value in order to get a proper calculation, but the extra meter is extraneous as a unit. You see, the math must match the reality and not vice versa.
Miles' explains it this way:
"To start with just the meter: a meter is a distance, so when we multiply a distance times a distance, what do we get? Assuming we are in a straight line, we can only get another distance. That is, if the two initial distances are vectors in the same line, then the quotient can only be a distance. It cannot be a square distance. What the hell is a square distance? If we are in a line, it is meaningless. The only time that a square distance can have any meaning is if the two initial distances have an angle to them. In that case, our answer may be an area, which is a square distance. For instance, if they are orthogonal, then the "square distance" is telling us that we have two distances in two unequal dimensions. We have to keep track of both vectors, with angles or in other ways. But if both distances are in the same line, then they are in the same dimension, and in that case "square meters" just means the same thing as "meters". The "square" part of that has no content. In a line, there is no such thing as a square meter."
The funny thing is that the mainstream drops units all the time and has no problem without so long as the numbers work out. But if an outsider like Miles does it, it's a sign of bad math and theory. Consider the equation for orbital 'velocity': 2πr/t. What are the units of that equation? m/s right? Anyone want to explain how a velocity in m/s creates the curved path of an orbit? Velocities don't curve! If your path is a curve, you are in an acceleration not a simple velocity! A curve at the very least requires two velocities, and in the case of an orbit we actually have three, a tangential velocity and a centripetal acceleration. So in this case the units in the math are off by at least m2/s2 but it doesn't seem to bother anyone in the least so long as the answer comes back right!
The difference between Miles' dropping of units and the mainstream's is that Miles is doing it in order to make the mechanics as clear as possible while the orbital 'velocity' equation covers up mechanics.The idea of mass being equivalent to [L3/t2] comes straight from Maxwell; Miles just takes it and runs with it as mechanics. Maxwell's derivation is as follows:
"For the acceleration due to the attraction of a mass m at a distance r is by the Newtonian Law m/r2. Suppose this attraction to act for a very small time t on a body originally at rest, and to cause it to describe a space s, then by the formula of Galileo, s = (1/2)ft2 = (1/2)(m/r2)t2; whence m = 2(r2s/t2). Since r and s are both lengths, and t is a time, this equation cannot be true unless the dimensions of m are [L3T-2]. The same can be shewn [sic] form any astronomical equation in which the mass of the body appears in some but not all of the terms."Charles, thanks for that link [] for critiques of Mathis, but [it] is not scientific [].
You guys' criticisms of Mathis are fine, but they still seem minor to me so far. Since I'm not an expert, 1/s^2 doesn't seem necessarily irrational, since 1/s isn't irrational, as it means frequency. 1/s^2 could mean frequency per second or something. I don't imagine density could be frequency per second, but, again, not being an expert, I'm open-minded. It's conceivable to me that Mathis may be wrong about mass = L^3/T^2, but I believe he got that from Maxwell (I see Tharkun has just provided some details on that), although I don't know if he explained well how it makes sense.
Dewey Larson was an engineer who wrote books in the 1980s about everything in the universe consisting of motion, s/t, with s and t being to the power of 1 to 3. Maybe he got that from Maxwell too. He said there are 3 dimensions of space and 3 of time. He called his theory the Reciprocal System, meaning everything consists of a reciprocal relation between space and time. And that seems to make sense. Mass has an effect on motion, and it could be a motion somehow, as far as I know. Larson also had the idea, like Mathis originally did, that gravity is due to universal expansion. I read his books for a few years in the 80s and tried to understand them, but ultimately I decided that universal expansion just didn't seem to make sense, esp. if at the speed of light. Maybe Mathis got some of his ideas from Larson. I believe Larson was a very intelligent person, but everyone makes mistakes. But no matter how many mistakes someone makes, they can still get some things right. And finding the things that are right seem worth taking a little time for.
What I think Mathis very likely has right is that there is no force of attraction (no action at a distance), just repulsion, that photons have real dimensions of radius and mass and that charge is mass equivalent. His detailed descriptions of atomic structure and how photons stream through the structure and give it electrical, magnetic, density and stability properties seem to indicate that he's very close to correct about that. The way his microcosmic and macrocosmic findings reinforce each other also seems very suggestive to me.
Miles Mathis has a very appealing and persuasive writing style.That's the one thing that I like about Mathis. I can't say that I agree with any of his solutions, mainly because I can't honestly say that I understand them. But I love the way he approaches the problems. He questions. So he's trying to make sense of things that everybody else simply takes for granted. We should all strive to question in the same way, and to explain ourselves in plain language. We all make mistakes! But clarity should be the standard. ;)
1. Maxwell, J. C. (1873): A treatise on electricity and magnetism. Oxford: Clarendon Press ⇧