Miles Mathis Interview

[Aardwolf]

As for pi, I donno, but will accept measurement of circumference divided by diameter should equal 3.14159...

Ah but how do you genuinely measure the circumference?

[David]

Mathematical proof that pi equals 4:

1) Divide the circumference by the diameter, which yields 3.14
2) Chant, use the secret handshake, and drink the magic elixir
3) Include an additional 0.86 (due to the charge field)
4) Mold aluminum foil onto the blades of your beanie-copter
5) All it all together: 3.14 + 0.86 = 4

Viola! Irrefutable proof that pi equals 4. When do I get my Nobel Prize?

[phyllotaxis]

Is it that difficult to maintain some semblance of decorum?

[Gottlieb680]

Mathis is the one whose words contain little of worth. And he does claim that charge makes lift in his Lift on a Wing. This is further evidence of his taking long understood, easily explained phenomena and substituting his all-purpose unsubstantiated ideas to explain them. If he has any shred of proof that planes are flying because of the charge field he must be keeping it secret. If you want to worship Mathis go ahead. But intelligent people must evaluate issues logically and with critical thinking. Now some of you might think Mathis should be an exception but don't expect the rest of us will allow ourselves to suspend critical thinking and get dragged down into this guy's private hell.

This is why I brought up the example of the helicopter blades. The blades are moving and can be considered without evaluating force or mass. The circle the tips describe in plan view can be measured and the radius is known. One can go all around this situation and not come upon any variation which would made the circumference of that circle conform to being calculated by anything but pi=3.14 for both stationary and rotating blades.

The jet engine has stationary and moving parts which are especially apt for this pi issue. Air is drawn into the opening of the engine by fan blades attached to a central shaft and the whole is housed in a close-fitting cylinder. Aft of this is the compressor section which has hundreds of blades forcing the air into an increasingly smaller space with great pressure where it is sprayed with fuel and ignited, creating thrust. All of those rotating shafts or blades were measured during testing and none of the successfully operating engines were reported to have had these components increase their diameters or rotating circumferences due to motion of any kind. Any increase in their dimensions, which must occur if pi=4 when they're moving, would result in their impacting the closely fitting, stationary (while on the ground) compressor housing cylinder inside which the blades and shaft are rotating. Mathis can't have it both ways, stationary housing and rotating blades. And there's a narrow clearance between the tips of each blade and the inside of the cylindrical housing.

So we have;
compressor housing inside dia.= 100", circumference is 314"
compressor blades radius from center of rotor shaft= 48", dia. of blades= 96" , circumference is 301.44"
this leaves a clearance of 2" all around
if p=4, blades circumference would increase to 384" when rotating
Having a common center, the rotor shaft, the housing and the blades would exist in different states, stationary and moving. If p=3.14 for stationary as Mathis agrees and pi=4 for motion, the blades and the housing would come into contact as the numbers indicate. The engine only stays intact if pi is the same for both.

Mathis is wrong about pi=4 and is too much of a crank to admit it. He hasn't proposed to prove this idea by experiment because he can't. He hasn't described a real world example of pi=4 because he can't. And he hasn't described a predicted result because he can't do that either. He's wrong and probably wishes he never posted the absurd "paper" but, being a crank, he won't retract or clarify it. When questioned about it he evades the issue of experimentation and says he'd just rather continue writing "papers". Huge red flag.

Mathis has not proven anything and no one to my knowledge has obtained any result based on a prediction he's made. There is a lot of smug disdain leveled against mainstream science on this forum, yet these same people accept Mathis' ravings without the slightest justification except some vague idea that he makes some "good points".

[Goldminer]

IMHO, anything launched into the air from the surface of the Earth, does so as a reaction to an acceleration in the opposite direction. Birds and flying machines maintain lift by the inertial reaction to accelerating air downward. The study of aerodynamics is the pursuit of doing this efficiently. Simple, eh? The same applies to propulsion.

For additional levity, read Mile's take on elliptical orbits. He should have his own TV show!

[D_Archer]

@Gottlieb680

Sometimes it is not easy to grasp physical concepts. Your example of the helicoptor blade is no test of pi=4, the blade has a fixed circumference, of course this does not change with motion.

Mathis says pi=3.14 is valid so you can keep it for your circles and helicopter blades.

What is Mathis saying? That in mathemathical equations describing orbits (real physical 3 dimensional movements) the value for pi should be 4. Historically these equations used pi=3.14 and that yielded the wrong results after the = sign. By substituting pi=3.14 by the number 4, the result are correct. How can you test this? Maybe you should ask NASA.

Regards,
Daniel

[Gottlieb680]

Mathis tries, in his pi=4 "paper" The Extinction of Pi, to use a circle to explain how pi is 4. Read it and see. He says at the very beginning he's analysing orbits but he never does anything but use circles to explain what is one of his main ideas, that pi is an acceleration. His main problem , however, is that uses math and geometry to botch the derivation of pi, see What is Pi. Carrying on he concludes pi is an acceleration and believes using a stairstep approximation of a curve(on a circle) can prove pi=4. A classic of compounding of errors and confusion of units. Pi=4 does not even survive its many disproofs on a math and geometric basis. See a previous posters links in this thread. Mathis' shrinking number of apologists cannot defend his ideas. He himself is hiding to avoid the issue. We are talking massive fail.

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. But I do not feel sorry for Mathis. See, I knew of him from well before he went on his science jag.I attend many art shows during my travels around the country. Mathis was an artist in the '90's and it wasn't long before I came across people who had been victims of Mathis' behavior. He disrupted art exhibits, shouted "f... you" at ladies who declined to accept his work into their galleries, quarreled with his art dealers who then mostly dropped him, refused an offer of $11,000 for a painting he priced at $14,000 while complaining he wasn't making enough money, etc, etc. And the above is just what he admits to on his site, though one of the women to whom he shouted his obscenities told me herself. Mathis ruined his own art career finally when he decided to post bitter criticisms of his fellow artists on his site. He fancied himself an art critic. The obvious conflict of interest was poison to art dealers and he is loathed by artists. He no longer paints at all, but he has kept up the jealous tirades against other artists. Now he solicits money at the bottom of those attacks just as he does for his science attacks. Self destruction in several easy steps.

Mathis now reaping what he has sown. How did Churchill put it?"Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind".

[David]

D_Archer,

The burden of proof of a hypothesis, or the burden to present evidence in
support of it, is upon the scientist asserting it as true, not upon its critics.

[Lloyd]

* Mathis isn't hiding like a child. He's ignoring pests who take up too much of his time without contributing anything useful, that he can see.

[Sparky]

Gottlieb-,

But I do not feel sorry for Mathis. See, I knew of him from well before he went on his science jag.I attend many art shows during my travels around the country. Mathis was an artist in the '90's and it wasn't long before I came across people who had been victims of Mathis' behavior.

Thank you for that insight....there is obviously more going on in Miles than a casual interpretation would allow for.

[Gottlieb680]

Lloyd, as David just reminds us, the burden of proof is on Mathis to provide evidence to support his claims. The people you call pests are calling upon him to provide evidence to support his ideas. He does not. He arrogantly said once in an e-mail , "my papers are clear", when it is all too apparent they largely aren't. He simply keeps dumping more and more of this stuff onto his site. Pi=4 is ostensibly about orbits but his use of a circle to attempt an explanation of pi being an acceleration destroys his premise before he gets far. He actually uses the condition in which he says pi=3.14 to put forth the idea that pi=4. He should have used an ellipse but he didn't, he used a circle and dressed it up with a moving radius to illustrate the pi is an acceleration.

Yet he does no better in his "paper" ," Explaining the Ellipse", which he merely uses as a vehicle for declaring every other method of explaining elliptical wrong without showing why he is right. He wraps it all up in the end by referring to his handy charge field. No mention of justifying pi=4, no plotting of points on an ellipse, no his method versus the others in a showdown of formulas. So pi=4 is left hanging without a single example of practical real world application.

Mathis' laziness and extreme wordiness are clues to the wise. If he can't be bothered to clean up the mess in the articles he writes why should anyone trust what's in them? If he cut the flab out his writings one could get to the point quicker, even if only to conclude all over again he's wrong. For someone who likes to attack other people's ideas Mathis is remarkably thin-skinned. In his article" Eleven Big Questions You Should Have for the Standard Model", he quotes a letter from a reader who wanted to know how Mathis could justify his statement from a previous article" Therefore, if I were more rigid, I would weigh more." The reader asked if that would be the case if Mathis were frozen. Of course Mathis used the occasion to ridicule the man and his question before asserting that it was increased E/M bond strength or more atoms he was referring to which would make him more rigid. But you see the reader's point, and a direct correlation would be comparing the rigidity of a bar of one metal with a bar of another metal. Of course Mathis is wrong about this. Being more rigid does not assure a thing will weigh more as the shear modulus of 5.6 GPa of the heavier, less rigid Lead compares to the much lighter Titanium with its high rigidity of 41.4 GPa. Mathis just can't think critically about his own theories. Yet he is briskly attacking the ideas of almost everybody else.

It is no wonder so many are going off him.

[Lloyd]

* You all are free to criticize Mathis just as he's free to criticize anyone. His "behavior" doesn't bother me. As long as a lot of his papers have good ideas in them, I'm happy to read those, especially since they're free online. If anyone wants to take the time to explain why he's wrong about pi = 4 in rotational velocity etc, feel free. That subject isn't very interesting to me personally. The subject of lift on a wing is a bit interesting. The idea of matter consisting of photons is most interesting to me, and that atoms spin, which is what determines their characteristics. They have to be balanced in order to spin. Stacked spins are somewhat interesting, but I'm skeptical about those, although they may be close to the truth, in my view.
* If I find a free box full of stuff and many of the things in it are valuable to me, I don't see much need to complain about a number of things that seem like junk.

[Gottlieb680]

Thanks for recognizing we all are free to criticize Mathis' ideas. Considering the puffball nature of the questions he was asked I think some analytical rigor is called for. As one poster said, it was a disappointing interview and, as Mathis abruptly ended it and we were left "interviewing his papers", little of consequence was revealed. If all he was going to do was murmur generalities to general questions it is no wonder some people were underwhelmed.

I do not consider the cost of an idea before I evaluate whether it is convincing. Many people used to toss Mathis' ideas around. Some seemed to regard his ideas as correct, but not as many as I would have guessed. Most simply were not able to rationally evaluate them and repeated the old chestnuts about "he makes some good points" without really having the ability know if Mathis really made any good points at all. But I do have the ability to research and critically evaluate what I read and every article I've read by him is totally unconvincing. Every thing I find out about the topics he discusses indicates his massive failure, not because his ideas contrast with other theories, but because they don't hold up under scrutiny with associated principles about which there is no dispute.

There is an undue amount of carping about mainstream science on this forum and too few experimental results exist which would justify alternate science or alternate beliefs. This is hardly the fault of mainstream scientists who, unlike Mathis, had the courage and the smarts to put themselves out there to convince others to fund their experiments. All Mathis can do is sneer, write 3000 articles, and call almost every scientist dishonest and incompetent.

[Chromium6]

Thanks for recognizing we all are free to criticize Mathis' ideas. Considering the puffball nature of the questions he was asked I think some analytical rigor is called for. As one poster said, it was a disappointing interview and, as Mathis abruptly ended it and we were left "interviewing his papers", little of consequence was revealed. If all he was going to do was murmur generalities to general questions it is no wonder some people were underwhelmed.

I do not consider the cost of an idea before I evaluate whether it is convincing. Many people used to toss Mathis' ideas around. Some seemed to regard his ideas as correct, but not as many as I would have guessed. Most simply were not able to rationally evaluate them and repeated the old chestnuts about "he makes some good points" without really having the ability know if Mathis really made any good points at all. But I do have the ability to research and critically evaluate what I read and every article I've read by him is totally unconvincing. Every thing I find out about the topics he discusses indicates his massive failure, not because his ideas contrast with other theories, but because they don't hold up under scrutiny with associated principles about which there is no dispute.

There is an undue amount of carping about mainstream science on this forum and too few experimental results exist which would justify alternate science or alternate beliefs. This is hardly the fault of mainstream scientists who, unlike Mathis, had the courage and the smarts to put themselves out there to convince others to fund their experiments. All Mathis can do is sneer, write 3000 articles, and call almost every scientist dishonest and incompetent.

I'm glad Miles Mathis publishes freely. He has perspectives worth looking at and listening to.

I respect him and his writing much more than any money grubbing medical "doctor" scamming for a cheap buck in the US medical system, or a UCLA scientist with a massive grant that just sits on it.

Mathis is on the money in my opinion. Simple and direct as it should be. See... many scientists these days are just in it for the Fed "Ponzi" Dollar. What is wrong with calling them out, "Gottlieb"? Apparently you are defending several historical "Scams" while Mathis is simply taking direct aim and blowing them out of the water. Maybe he has one of your cherished thereoms in the "sights" next? He's just pulling the trigger on the "easy" targets.

[Gottlieb680]

I have not defended any "scams", historical or otherwise. Mathis has not proved anything. Until he does predict a result and prove it by experiment, he remains unsubstantiated and you have nothing but faith to sustain your belief he's "on the money". Someone on another site summed up Mathis as "an isolated crank who has been unable to learn anything from repeated corrections, and has generated nothing of any real impact or interest." I can phrase it differently but I cannot deny the essential truth of this statement.

Rich people must be exceptionally resistant the snake oil techniques of Mathis. Nobody has offered to fund his experiments in support of any of his many theories. You would think that the "New Leonardo" would have attracted patrons as the old Leonardo did. But nobody has come forward to fund a Mathis experiment. Then again, he hasn't proposed any. All Mathis does is write more and more while asking for money at the end of each article. If he ran a successful experiment he'd attract all the money he would require. If he even announced he is going to run an experiment, if he gets enough donations, he would probably get some support, though I think he has waited too long and people are dropping him. No actual scientists have come together to propose running experiments based on Mathis' predictions. The only real scientist Mathis was able to corral into writing an introduction for his book was Dr. Tahir Yaqoob, who pointedly said he did not verify any of Mathis' claims. Quite a ringing endorsement, or no endorsement at all is more like it. I would not put my name on a book whose author's claims I had not verified.

Mathis has written nothing but speculations and has blown nobody out of the water. You can believe him if you want, but I do not. It seems that Mathis can only convince people who don't know much about science. So his fans are those who are the least capable of defending his arguments, or of defending competing arguments. That's why he writes all this nonsense about" Physics is Corrupt", "The Calculus is Corrupt" and "science-is-in-crisis" in his articles. He tried to lay the ground so the reader feels there is nobody but Mathis who knows the truth. The reader can't trust what scientists say because they are corrupt, dishonest and incompetent.

Mathis is like a student (scientist) who sits by the schoolhouse door bragging that he's made 100 on a test (theory) and then refuses to turn the thing in for grading (experiment), while all the time claiming that the other students are idiots, the other tests are all wrong, and he's not interested in having his own test graded. Big, honking red flag.