© Science AdminsThis is a subset of the posts in the Mathis' Errors or Debate thread, focusing just on laws of motion and the math that describes it, including commentary on these papers:
- The Difference between Squared Velocity and Acceleration
- Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum
- A Correction to the Equation: a = v2/r
- The Equation "V = V0 + AT" Is False
Since we're leaving the general thread in place, with this just as a subset, new posts should be made there, not here, and any new posts there on this topic will be cross-linked here.
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
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.Tharkun said:
"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."
I respectfully disagree. The reason his units come out wrong, is because Miles equation is wrong. Look at his definition for linear acceleration:
"acceleration is a squared velocity"
That's a false statement – it's simply not true. Linear acceleration is not the velocity squared. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity, divided by a change in time (which is not the same thing as the velocity squared). And that's why his units end up mismatched – his definition for linear acceleration is wrong. And to compensate for this error, Miles has to illegally "dump" units.
--Richard Cage
Richard, you completely avoided the argument about WHY Miles drops the extra unit. You didn't explain mechanically WHY it is wrong, you just repeated your inital criticism that the units are wrong, therefore the theory is wrong. As I said before, this is to judge the mechanics by the math and is the opposite of physics. Math DOES NOT define reality, mechanics does; it is the math that must defer to the mechanics and not vice versa. The 'square meter' has no physical meaning when we're analyzing straightline acceleration; a striaght line is a straghtline, therefore only ONE dimensional unit is required to represent the reality.
Please explain how the units of orbital velocity align with a mathematical curve.
tharkun
Tharkun,
Let me put it this way. Assume the velocity remains constant (for instance 5 m/s). Now what would the acceleration be? The answer is zero. If the velocity is constant, then the acceleration must be zero.
But Mathis would claim otherwise. According to him, the acceleration is the velocity squared. So by his reckoning, the acceleration would 25 m2/s2. Well right off the bat, the units are wrong. But also, you would have acceleration without any change in velocity.
Nope, I don't think so — that dog won't hunt.
--Richard Cage
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?You're confusing velocities with vectors. If you just want to know the tangential velocity, that's distance divided by time. 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.Richard, you're just making stuff up now. Nowhere has Miles ever said that a constant velocity is an acceleration and I defy you to provide evidence of such a claim from any of his papers. I'm beginning to question whether you have even read that paper your are criticizing. An acceleration is a change in velocity (and Miles says as much), it is TWO (at least) velocities superimposed over the same time interval. Now, there are only two ways to combine velocities in the same time interval: you can add them together, which would only give you a faster velocity and not an acceleration. Or you can multiply them integrating the second velocity on top of the first velocity over each interval of time, which would give you an acceleration. That's exactly what Miles is doing in multiplying the velocities together. An acceleration is not just one velocity tacked onto another, its the 'velocitizing' of the first velocity by the second. The first velocity is changing according to the second velocity; that takes multiplication not addition.
Again, your argument places math above mechanics. Mechanics comes first! Acceleration in a straightline only REQUIRES a single dimensional variable, any others are extraneous and confusing when applied to the real mechanics.
Still waiting on you to explain the units of orbital velocity by the way...
Charles, I'm not confusing anything. Orbital 'velocity' describes a curve, not the tangential velocity. Newton derived the orbital velocity from the tangential velocity, so they can't be equivalent. He took the tangential velocity as his given in order to calculate the orbital 'velocity'. You can't take your given, derive a new 'velocity' and then claim that it is equivalent to your given. What's the point of the derivation then? Orbital 'velocity' is measured in distance/time as with any velocity. But velocity is always one-dimensional. The path of the orbit is not one-dimensionsal; units have been dropped. Where did they go? The mechanics of orbital velocity REQUIRE that the units be in at least m^2/s^3; those are the units you get when you combine a tangential velocity (m/s) with a centripetal acceleration (m/s^2).
tharkun
