## Lloyd Blog

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

David wrote:
Lloyd wrote:Probability of Mathis' Claims
Here I think are some of Mathis' main claims and I give each one a number from (1) to (9) to indicate how probable I think each one is, where 9 indicates nearly maximum probability.

31. (8) Miles' calculus and corrections of physics equations etc.
(I'm not adept enough at math to understand a lot of it readily, but I can understand that assigning numbers to points of no dimensions likely has screwed up a lot of equations etc.)
Lloyd,

Since you readily admit that you don't understand calculus (which is okay, not everyone does), exactly how did you arrive at the number "8"; which implies that Mathis' calculus has a high probability of being correct? Why not just flat-out state that you are not qualified to make a valid assessment of his mathematics?

By the way, the correct answer is 1. Mathis' calculus does not work; which has been demonstrated many times at many different web sites. Anyone who claims otherwise must provide a solution to the following simple problem:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis' method of differentiation.

The above problem can easily be solved using standard calculus; but it can't be solved using Mathis' calculus. Why? Because his calculus does not work for non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), exp(x), ln(x), log(x), sqrt(x), and so on. In other words, Mathis' calculus is basically useless.

So very glad to see you came here to Thunderbolts to read "Loyd's blog".... David.

So why don't you share your personal favorite blog. Let me guess... it is this one?:

Not much is there IMHO. Definitely not a "Pant Load"...perhaps a few scattered posting since 2012. Why don't you take apart a few his papers on that site? Math, logic... everything...just go there and destroy him...clean his shorts! The David over there at wordpress apparently has the background to "get the job done".

David...here's a good paper for you to start a round of criticism with when you go over there at wordpress:

The Manhattan Metric
http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

LongtimeAirman
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Sparky: Distinti's gravity model shows a expulsion of opposite charge. He said that these were "gateway" models, and more specific details were on the way.

I believe that MJV calculated photon mass. It must have spin?! It has a frequency, therefore a oscillation/vibration. Spin, stacked upon spin is acrobatics.
MM's model is just that, a model. It has no relationship to reality.

If matter takes in charges/energy for it's existence, then the energy may be used to produce frequency...
Matter that is emitting and absorbing charge.
Photons with mass, exhibiting frequency, perhaps oscillating or vibrating.

OK, you may not accept spins, or prehaps just stacked spins, but it sounds like these models are more in agreement than not.

REMCB

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Chromium6,

Everything you said is completely off topic, and irrelevant to the discussion. The issue of Mathis' calculus was raised, and I voiced my opinion on the subject. If you feel my comment was inappropriate, or out of line, then bring it to the attention of the site administrator.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

David wrote: - Since you readily admit that you don't understand calculus (which is okay, not everyone does), exactly how did you arrive at the number "8"; which implies that Mathis' calculus has a high probability of being correct? Why not just flat-out state that you are not qualified to make a valid assessment of his mathematics?
- By the way, the correct answer is 1. Mathis' calculus does not work; which has been demonstrated many times at many different web sites. Anyone who claims otherwise must provide a solution to the following simple problem:
- Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis' method of differentiation.
- The above problem can easily be solved using standard calculus; but it can't be solved using Mathis' calculus. Why? Because his calculus does not work for non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), exp(x), ln(x), log(x), sqrt(x), and so on. In other words, Mathis' calculus is basically useless.
I don't understand calculus readily. I understand it somewhat when I take the time to read and think about it. I had 2 courses of calculus in college and got 2 Cs, if I remember right. You mentioned that Mathis' method works for polynomial equations, and his tables and explanations seem to make sense, so I have the impression his writings on math are likely to be correct.

If you can explain how normal calculus handles sqrt(x) with an example, and how Mathis' method handles it, and what results both methods produce, that might help support your claim. But there also may be a need to explain what the results actually mean. Steven seemed to suggest that at leasst some of those cases don't really produce sensible results.

Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

David wrote:Chromium6,

Everything you said is completely off topic, and irrelevant to the discussion. The issue of Mathis' calculus was raised, and I voiced my opinion on the subject. If you feel my comment was inappropriate, or out of line, then bring it to the attention of the site administrator.
What was completely off topic exactly?
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

By the way, David, how would you explain this about "Ice" on the poles of Mercury? Can you find any kind of theory for this one?
http://milesmathis.com/mercice.pdf

Mathis' papers do bring a lot of curious findings into the open. What if he never published the Pi=4 paper? What would you think of his other publications or do you just dismiss everything (publications)? You locked the MM Interview thread here so I'm curious of where you want to take this thread exactly. No "ego stroking" of anyone goes on here (but apparently there is a need out in Utah).

Here's a brand new paper just released today! Be the first one there David to just "BLOW this OUT OF THE WATER".
Waiting patiently for constructive debunking:
http://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf

Chromium
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Lloyd,

This is a quote from the Mathis website:

"My method applies to all of calculus and all functions, not just differentials or polynomials. It applies to trig functions, logarithms, integrals, and so on." -- Miles Mathis

So Mathis claims that his method of differentiation works for all functions. However, Mathis has never given a single valid demonstration that his method will work for a non-polynomial.

Now Steven Oostdijk gave an example that didn't work; he wasn't able to come up with a solution. Which proves my assertion that Mathis' mathematics is useless. So this is the problem that must be solved by Mathis or one of his supporters:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using the Mathis method of differentiation.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Chromium6 wrote: I'm curious of where you want to take this thread exactly.
If it were up to me (and it's not), I would concentrate entirely on the mathematics which underlies all of the Mathis theories. If his mathematics is garbage (and it is my contention that it is), then his theories are sitting on a rotten foundation.

Mathis has redefined calculus, and has developed new methods for finding the derivative of a function. So let's closely examine this new calculus that Mathis has created and see if it can hold up to scrutiny. Isn't that the way science is suppose to proceed; by actually testing the theory?

Here is my challenge to Mathis, or any one of his three supporters:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis' new calculus.

This is a very simple problem, and the solution can be found in nearly every calculus textbook. Or, you can just google "derivative of sqrt(x)" to see the solution. However, this simple, trivial problem can't be solved using Mathis' flawed, broken and useless mathematics; and the same holds true for any and all non-polynomials. His mathematics is completely rotten to the core; literally of no use whatsoever.

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog David, Thank you for your input. As someone who does not know math, and who will listen to anyone that seems to understand those things that I do not, I really appreciate a strong argument debunking nonsense.

I got the impression that Miles Mathis has answered some of his critiques on his site and argued convincingly for his position. There is probably a facebook page set up for MM. I don't do social media, so am not sure.

Thank you... "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Derivative of sqrt x online
Here's what a couple people say online is the normal answer to the derivative of the square root of x.

d(sqrt x)/dx = x^(1/2-1)/2 = x^(-1/2)/2

d/dx(X^1/2) = 1/2 X^-1/2 = 0.5/X^0.5

It looks like the answers are the same. The middle step seems the same in each equation too, but I don't understand how it's derived.

What's a Derivative?
Does a derivative indicate a slope tangent to a curve? If so, what does the curve look like? And what does the tangent look like at various points?

David, what answer would Mathis' method get?

Not Math-Dependent
Also, I don't buy your theory that Mathis' complete theory falls if his math falls. His theory makes a lot of sense and I think his math probably does too.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Lloyd,

It’s meaningless to claim that his mathematics “probably” works. That’s not science, that’s just wishful thinking. You must demonstrate that it does, in fact, actually work.

So here is a very simple calculus problem:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis’ new calculus.

Now provide the solution; thus demonstrating that his mathematics can at the very least, solve simple, basic calculus problems. If his math can’t make it over this tiny hurdle, then it clearly has no useful purpose.

LongtimeAirman
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

David said: Mathis' calculus does not work; which has been demonstrated many times at many different web sites. Anyone who claims otherwise must provide a solution to the following simple problem:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis' method of differentiation.

The above problem can easily be solved using standard calculus; but it can't be solved using Mathis' calculus. Why? Because his calculus does not work for non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), exp(x), ln(x), log(x), sqrt(x), and so on. In other words, Mathis' calculus is basically useless.
Note: I don't know how to create superscript notation on this wifi tablet, the numbers to the right of the x's below are exponents.
Miles mathis said:
In the first line of my table, I list the possible integer values of Δx. You can see that this is just a list of the integers, of course. Next I list some integer values for other exponents of Δx. This is also straightforward. At line 7, I begin to look at the differentials of the previous six lines. In line 7, I am studying line 1, and I am just subtracting each number from the next. Another way of saying it is that I am looking at the rate of change along line 1. Line 9 lists the differentials of line 3. Line 14 lists the differentials of line 9. I think you can follow my logic on this, so meet me down below.

Δx = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...
Δ2x = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18...
Δx2 = 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81...
Δx3 = 1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343...
Δx4 = 1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296...
Δx5 = 1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807
ΔΔx = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
ΔΔ2x = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
ΔΔx2 = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19
ΔΔx3 = 1, 7, 19, 37, 61, 91, 127
ΔΔx4 = 1, 15, 65, 175, 369, 671
ΔΔx5 = 1, 31, 211, 781, 2101, 4651, 9031
ΔΔΔx = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
ΔΔΔx2 = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
ΔΔΔx3 = 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42
ΔΔΔx4 = 14, 50, 110, 194, 302
ΔΔΔx5 = 30, 180, 570, 1320, 2550, 4380
ΔΔΔΔx3 = 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6
ΔΔΔΔx4 = 36, 60, 84, 108
ΔΔΔΔx5 = 150, 390, 750, 1230, 1830
ΔΔΔΔΔx4 = 24, 24, 24, 24
ΔΔΔΔΔx5 = 240, 360, 480, 600
ΔΔΔΔΔΔx5 = 120, 120, 120
from this, one can predict that
ΔΔΔΔΔΔΔx6 = 720, 720, 720
And so on

Again, this is what you call simple number analysis. It is a table of differentials. The first line is a list of the potential integer lengths of an object, and a length is a differential. It is also a list of the integers, as I said. After that it is easy to follow my method. It is easy until you get to line 24, where I say, “One can predict that. . . .” Do you see how I came to that conclusion? I did it by pulling out the lines where the differential became constant.

Now let's pull out the important lines and relist them in order:
ΔΔx = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
ΔΔΔx2 = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
ΔΔΔΔx3 = 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6
ΔΔΔΔΔx4 = 24, 24, 24, 24
ΔΔΔΔΔΔx5 = 120, 120, 120
ΔΔΔΔΔΔΔx6 = 720, 720, 720

Do you see it?
2ΔΔx = ΔΔΔx²
3ΔΔΔx2 = ΔΔΔΔx3
4ΔΔΔΔx3 = ΔΔΔΔΔx4
5ΔΔΔΔΔx4 = ΔΔΔΔΔΔx5
6ΔΔΔΔΔΔx5 = ΔΔΔΔΔΔΔx6
and so on.

...I will continue to simplify...we can cancel a lot of those deltas and get down to this:
2x = Δx2
3x2 = Δx3
4x3 = Δx4
5x4 = Δx5
6x5 = Δx6

Voila. We have the current derivative equation, just from a table

This equation is y’ = nxn-1
Miles has redefined calculus based on a constant differential instead of a diminishing differential, from a simple and easy to understand table. To say the calculus (the derivative equation) doesn't work is a lie.

Your task is not a task at all. We now have the derivative equation, y’ = nxn-1

The derivative of
y = x (1/2)
is
y’ = (1/2)x(-1/2)
David said: The above problem can easily be solved using standard calculus; but it can't be solved using Mathis' calculus. Why? Because his calculus does not work for non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), exp(x), ln(x), log(x), sqrt(x), and so on. In other words, Mathis' calculus is basically useless.
log(x) in: http://milesmathis.com/ln.html
Miles' original calculus paper: http://milesmathis.com/are.html
Miles' simplified calculus paper: http://milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html

REMCB

Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

David wrote:Lloyd,

It’s meaningless to claim that his mathematics “probably” works. That’s not science, that’s just wishful thinking. You must demonstrate that it does, in fact, actually work.

So here is a very simple calculus problem:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis’ new calculus.

Now provide the solution; thus demonstrating that his mathematics can at the very least, solve simple, basic calculus problems. If his math can’t make it over this tiny hurdle, then it clearly has no useful purpose.
Okay, David. Let me throw you a real soft "lob".

Here we have a little video on calculating the area under a "curve".

http://www.rootmath.org/calculus/exact-area

The question is the "number of rectangles" in the "real" world. Can you use an infinite "limit" in the "real" world? Or even a constant perhaps when comparing a "curve" to a "trajectory"... does not an actual trajectory (with acceleration) of a real world object use Hilbert/Mathis over the "concept" of Newton's infinite non-real world "limit"? It is this "basic" logically to start with. No doubt it can get more complex.
Most mathematicians learn that differential calculus is about solving certain sorts of problems using a derivative, and later courses called “differential equations” are about solving more difficult problems in the same basic way. But most never think about what a differential is, outside of calculus. I didn’t ever think about what a differential was until later, and I am not alone. I know this because when I tell people that my new calculus is based on a constant differential instead of a diminishing differential, they look at me like I just started speaking Japanese with a Dutch accent. For them, a differential is a calculus term, and in calculus the differentials are always getting smaller. So talking about a differential that does not get smaller is like talking about a politician that does not lie. It fails to register.
That's what I got from MM' papers here:
http://milesmathis.com/calcor.html
http://milesmathis.com/varacc.html
But wait! There is more:
http://milesmathis.com/are.html
http://milesmathis.com/power.html

Mathis swings the sword! Perhaps you, yourself David, can calculate that with Sqrt(x)?
Now...Don't get nasty on Mathis because you, David, will be fighting an army in the future... instead of a handful of "mere" posters here on Loyd's blog with a couple of typical college calculus classes under their belts. The future is on Mathis' side if you took time to read his papers. Not just the PI papers but all of them. Address the "logic" before the "calculations". Call me stupid... =====
This shouldn't be happening, and is not usually known to happen. You will not see the curves analyzed in this way.

A critic will say, “Of course the curve is straightening out. That is the whole point. We are going to zero to magnify the curve. When you magnify a curve, its loses its curvature at a given rate, depending upon the magnification. Your curve x2 at Δx=.5 IS the same curve, it is just four times smaller. ”

True, but the curve should lose its curve at the same rate you magnify it. If all the calculus were doing is magnifying the curve, then if you magnified 2 times, the curve would lose half its curve. If you are approaching zero in a defined and rigorous manner, your magnification and curvature should change together. But here, you magnify by 2 by halving your Δx, but your curvature has shrunk to ¼ with x2 and to 1/8 with x3. That is not a quibble, that is a major problem. If you change your curve, you change your tangent.

My will critic will answer, “It doesn't matter how much the curve changes as we go in. We are going into a point, and the tangent only hits at a point. Therefore the curvature won't change at that point.
http://milesmathis.com/power.html

Mathis is this and more:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/02 ... built.html
http://www.stewartcalculus.com/stewart_ ... height=240
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

LongtimeAirman,

Hold on, I never said the power rule (y'=nx^n-1) doesn't work. Of course it works. It was discovered by Cavalieri in 1630, before the advent of calculus. But it only appies to polynomials, and cannot be used for sin(x), ln(x), exp(x), etc.

To solve the problem using the Mathis method you must first construct a table for the sqrt(x); that is, showing the table of differences. The table would contain sqrt(1), sqrt(2), sqrt(3), and so on. You must build this table for sqrt(x).

All you have done is use Cavalieri's power rule, which was discovered before Newton and Leibniz were even born. You must provide the Mathis table of differences for sqrt(x) as a solution. Otherwise, you are just using Calarieri's solution; not Mathis'.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

LongtimeAirman,

This is what the Mathis table of differences looks like for sqrt(x):

x: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
sqrt(x): 1, 1.414, 1.732, 2, 2.236
∆sqrt(x): 0.414, 0.316, 0.268, 0.236
∆∆sqrt(x): -0.098, -0.048, -0.032
∆∆∆sqrt(x): 0.05, 0.016
∆∆∆∆sqrt(x): -0.034

Now using only this table of differences, please tell what the derivative of sqrt(x) is? Good luck!

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests