Abstract: Frequently, the new Leonardo will claim one thing in an article, and then claim the exact opposite in another article. This paper gives examples of Mathis outright contradicting himself.

Number 1:

“It means that the radius is a velocity itself.”
What is Pi?

“The radius of the circle is obviously not a velocity; it is a distance.”
A Correction To The Equation a = v2/r

Number 2:

“There is no mechanism to impart tangential velocity by a gravitational field. Both Newton and Einstein agreed on this. Einstein’s tensor calculus shows unambiguously that there is no force at a perpendicular to the field, and Einstein stated it in plain words. How could there be? The force field is generated from the center of the field, and there is no possible way to generate a perpendicular force from the center of a spherical or elliptical gravitational field.”Explaining the Ellipse

“The centripetal force must pull down and back in order to take any object—either a pencil tip or an orbiting spacecraft—out of its original path and into a circular path. The centripetal force creates two velocities: one which pulls the body back; and a velocity which pulls the body down… In other words, gravity must pull down and back. If it just pulled down, no circle or orbit would be created. Because the spaceship is moving forward, gravity must pull down and back.”The Extinction of Pi

Number 3:

“The derivative is not found by going to zero or to a limit, it is found by going to a subchange or subinterval where we have a constant differential of 1… The subinterval for the acceleration is the same as the subinterval for velocity. This subinterval is 1.”A Re-definition of the Derivative

“So normally, we would be looking for a derivative at 1 second. But in the case of the circle, this logic changes slightly. As you can see from the diagram above, I did my “calculus”, or my calculations, over 1/8th of the circle. My solution is therefore over 1/8th of the circle. Therefore, to find a solution for the entire orbit, I have to multiply everything by 8. Even the time of the subchange, or what we call the derivative, must be multiplied by 8. That is why the time here is 8 seconds rather than 1 second.”Clarification of the equation a = v2/r

Number 4:

“In Taxicab geometry, the circumference is 8r…And this means that in the kinematic circle C = 8r.”The Manhattan Metric

“The equation a = r/2 gives us a total acceleration over 1/8th of the orbit, so the total acceleration over the entire orbit is 4r.”The Extinction of Pi

Number 5:

“The velocity of the radius is equal to the velocity of the circumference.”What is Pi?

“The circumference curves, therefore it cannot be a velocity.”What is Pi?

Number 6:

“We cannot have a gravitational acceleration over one interval. An acceleration requires a series of intervals. Over one interval, you can only have a velocity.”An Update on Weight

“I have shown that the acceleration vector Δv can be calculated from a single tangential velocity, given the radius. It is the difference between the tangential velocity and the orbital velocity, measured over the same interval.“A Correction to the Equation a = v2/r

Number 7:

”If the radius is 384,400 km, then the distance traveled by the Moon in one orbit must be 8 times that.”The Extinction of Pi

”Since the Moon is orbiting at 384,400 km, the total distance of acceleration over the orbit is 4 times that.”Clarification of the Equation a = v2/r

Number 8:

“If you take a sphere like the Sun, you will find it spinning in one direction only. It is possible that it is made up of smaller bodies spinning randomly, but as a whole it can have only one spin. Or, its outer surface can have only one spin. The outer surface cannot spin x and -x at the same time. Nor can it spin x and y at the same time. If the body is any sort of solid, it has one and only one main spin on its outer surface.”Guass’ Law as a Unified Field Equation

”If I am going to propose a spinning universe, I am not required to stop at one spin. The universe—like everything in the universe—has three dimensions. So I have three spins to work with without any cheating. Just as with the photon and electron, I have the x spin, the y spin, and the z spin. This makes the universe as a whole just an analogue of my photon and electron and proton. All would have stacked spins.”The Source of Gravity

Number 9:

”I am not a classicist, nor am I in any of the other dissenting groups that are opposed to the standard interpretation of Einstein. That is to say, I am not proposing supra-luminal theories or any other theories that go beyond the math and theory of Einstein.”Preface

”And this may mean that the charge photons emitted by the electron are going somewhat faster than c.”More Proof of the Reality of the Charge Field

Note: This paper was last revised on 05/16/2013

## 64 thoughts on “Contradictions Galore”

1. I laughed at this statement in Mathis’ latest essay, “An Argument for Photons”: “According to my theory of stacked spins, gamma rays are very large photons with many stacked spins. They are the largest particles that can travel at c. If they take on another spin they become too large to dodge the ambient charge wind, and they can no longer travel at c. Their velocity drops and they become what we call electrons.” It’s interesting then that there is a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation and not discrete slots of radiation type, determined by their quantized “stacks of spin.” (If this were the case, radio communication would not be possible.) Of course, this claim contradicts an earlier essay: “The velocity c is a function of the photon’s mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect.” (“Redefining the Photon”) Yet, these “very large” gamma ray photons have the same velocity as UV or microwave energy; the radii are different, but the velocities aren’t (we weren’t expecting that). Curious.

Also, this essay once again demonstrates how totally ignorant Mathis is about the literature and the experimental canon: “If we emit only one photon and discover two hits in the detectors, the initial photon must have split, which would indicate it wasn’t indivisible. If it wasn’t indivisible, it couldn’t have been a quantum of energy.” Well, as a physicist Miles should have heard somewhere about parametric down-conversion, the process by which one photon can be split into two photons (by passing through a nonlinear crystal such as barium borate), each at half the frequency of the original. In fact, that’s one way that entangled photons are experimentally created. But Miles denies entanglement and he denies that photons can be split, at all. And when you outright deny the outcomes of experiments that have actually been performed and repeated many times, you aren’t a scientist. You are a fraud.

2. I have a question. If Mr Mathis were correct, and academia at large wrong, what is the likelihood that sending a probe to orbit Mars would be successful? Wouldn’t the Voyager space probes been hopelessly misguided? In other words, has there been enough empirical evidence that Newtonian physics, as we know it, has been demonstrated well enough by NASA that a “Mathis correction” to those trajectories would yield Lost in Space Probes?

A good Mathis challenge would be to write a computer simulation of his calculation of a satellite, or probe. That way we could better see what makes his algorithms superior, and classic physics so poor.

Larry

• Mathis would never accept such a simulation; he would claim it’s an inaccurate interpretation of his theory. The only simulation he might accept is one that produced a trajectory so close to the conventionally calculated trajectory, the difference could not be measured. This is because Mathis’ entire approach is a purely metaphysical reframing of conventional physics. He is cornered by the fact that physics works and we can put spacecraft on Mars, so the best he can do is try to offer an alternative explanation for why the numbers work out (pi = 4, a radius is a velocity, etc. etc., but the numbers work out the same in the end, of course). His interpretation is so riddled with errors and logical fallacies, and he cannot produce anything technologically useful, we just wonder: What exactly is the point of all this?

3. I don’t know which is more amusing: Miles or this blog. I started to read a Miles revelation and (I’m not a scientist, but I work in geodesy) I was immediately taken by his charismatic presentation. Much like the Howard Beale character of “Network”. Miles’ evangelical stance put me on guard in the first few paragraphs. So much so that I immediately Googled Mr. Mathis to see a) what planet he was from, or the more likely b) is the Mathis persona a parody. Thanks guys. I will cut and paste his more outlandish pieces (careful not remove it from context) for it’s pure entertainment.
Larry

4. Steve, I hope you enjoyed my latest Mathis-watch entry on Amazon. I pointed out that for the electron’s magnetic moment to be a result of rotational spin, every electron in the universe would have to be spinning at the exact same rate (to say nothing of the impossibility of this rate of spin). It’s a slam-dunk, not that we particularly needed another; but I notice that Mathis hasn’t crapped out any physics essays since. Maybe this extreme and clear problem with his hypothesis has sent him into the wilderness…but I am sure that once he regains his delusional armor, he’ll come back roaring again with more nonsense.

• Michael Norris,

Hey, I see you have been busy; an essay, a new book review, and various comments. And as usual, you do an outstanding job of lampooning the New Leonardo.

Mathis’ new book has been a complete flop. I periodically check the Amazon ranking for his book and it’s swiftly approaching dead last.

Amazingly, Mathis has finally found the perfect application for his madcap theories: “Decoding Occult Symbols“. No joke, Mathis is using his pseudoscience theories to analyze the symbols used by Freemasons. Too funny!

• You are right about Amazon; I could never imagine that a book’s ranking could reach over 3.6 million and counting, but there it is. I suppose it could all be a CIA conspiracy; however, there is no telling why Mathis’ original work of brilliance (the blue one) is currently outpacing the bombshell nuclear expose by some 800,000!

• Amazon “ratings” are the number of items that have sold since the last time that item sold. The higher the rating the more poor the sales. An item that never sold before will rank number one for at least a couple of seconds.

• The number of items sold since the last time that item sold is by definition always zero. Once a new sale is made that becomes the last sale. You misunderstand the Amazon rating system.

• The book’s Amazon ranking has now exceeded 4 million. I’ve never seen anything like it. How, pray tell, does the CIA so effectively kill his book sales if many thousands of professional physicists are so interested in what Miles has to say (as he says)? He should just buy himself one copy to temper the embarrassment.

• Michael, I’m afraid Mathis already has an answer for the problem you point out. From his paper “The Stern-Gerlach Experiment” I quote: “Once we correct the equations, the velocity of the spin is not above c, it is precisely c. So there is no reason to claim that the spin of the electron is “a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon” or that is it some sort of “intrinsic angular momentum.” Those are just two euphemisms for “we don’t know what is happening mechanically, so we just refuse to talk about it anymore.”

• Well, aside from the many SR-related problems that raises (and I realize well that Mathis claims to have disproved SR), how does he account for the identical magnetic moment of every electron in a world of rotational spin?

• I’d say his response would be that every electron is identical and thus will produce the same magnetic moment. In Mathis world electrons (actually all particles) are tiny spherical charge photons that have collected or “stacked” a specific number of spins during their lifetime and as a result will have a specific apparent size. The electron can collect even more spins and become a proton or higher. Of course we know that these spins are impossible. These impossible spins alone are enough to render his theories dead in the water imo.

5. I was very close to reading some of Miles work, I was certainly glad to find this blog it’s saved me a lot of time. so thanks! I much prefer the objective examples to the rest of your comments though Steve, often you come across like a bully with a personal grudge to bear. I don’t see how being cruel adds anything, no matter how wrong or delusional someone is.

• Matt,

Let me set the record straight. I don’t harbor any personal grudge against Miles Mathis; I have never met the man, and probably wouldn’t even recognize him if I passed him on the street (especially since the picture on the jacket cover of his books was taken many years ago; yet another Mathis deception).

I do, however, have the utmost contempt for all the unqualified internet crackpots, endlessly promoting their revolutionary new scientific theories. I have read the majority of what Mathis has written (and other cranks too for that matter), and you know what? It’s all crap; just useless garbage. The theories are never peer-reviewed, comments are never allowed, and experimental proof is never provided; dyed-in-the-wool crackpottery.

Regarding the harsh tone of my criticism; well, it’s only directly at Mathis. And I wouldn’t fret too much over his fragile and delicate feelings; Mathis has plenty of hard bark covering his enormous sized ego. And besides, he loves the attention; even if it’s all negative, which it invariably is.

I started this Blog because other forums would routinely censor my comments; that is, words like “crackpot” and “crank” were expressly forbidden; too inflammatory, I was told. Well, you will find an entirely different policy here. Everyone is free to speak their mind, uncensored, using the verbage of their choice. So if you happen to visit this Blog again, you should always expect to find unfiltered, harsh criticism directed at the New Leonardo. In fact, that is this Blogs sole purpose; scathing criticism leveled at a slow-witted ballet dancer.

• I’ll go ahead and say it: because of his douchy attitude and unstoppable belief that he is superior to all the great physicists and mathematicians, and the fact that he doesn’t understand first calculus, and the fact that even according to his own online CV he has never finished anything he started, and because of his apparent fascination with young girls….

The world would be a better place if Miles Mathis were euthanized.

• Pretty weird to put so much of your energy into degrading another person. The name of this blog is a give away. It’s just so strange of you to go out of your way presenting all of this in regards to a person you see as a nobody or a crackpot.
I am definitely a nobody, are you going to launch a blog about me? Is Miles a crackpot? Is a person seeking truth a crackpot?
Truth in science. Is it really so outrageous to consider real science is going on, but is hidden. The science everyone in the mainstream is working from has been taken over to control it.
Things do not add up. Miles sees it.
Usually when you believe someone is a fool. You forget them, you move forward. Are you obsessed with Miles? Probably not, he is your assignment. Did you get a bunch of hi fives around the office when you came up with the title of this blog?

6. There’s nothing like one sentence contradicting the immediate previous sentence. From Mathis’ essay “How Do Photons Travel?”: “We find the wavelength has been stretched out by a factor of about 3.63 x 10^17. Since that is very nearly c^2, we assume that the transform is in fact c^2.”
A few problems here:
1. Taking c as 3.00 x 10^8 m/s (SI system), c^2 would be 9.00 x 10^16 m^2/s^2. This is not “very nearly” 3.63 x 10^17 — it is off by a factor of 4.03, or 806%. That’s quite a margin of error. I guess Mathis assumes no one will bother to try squaring c, even though you can do the numbers in your head well enough to see that he’s full of it.
2. The choice of SI units for c is arbitrary. If you use CGS units instead, the numbers are off by several orders of magnitude. Using miles per hour…you get the idea.
3. Miles is comparing a dimensionless “stretching out factor,” a ratio, to a number with units. I’m afraid squaring c does not make the units go away, so one cannot compare c^2 to any kind of ratio. Mathis’ theory reduces to extremely inaccurate and selective numerology. We’ve seen this deceptive trick, the ignoring of inconvenient unit discrepancies, time and time again from our Leonardo DiCrappio.

• In addition to all the errors you found (his calculation of “1/c” is wrong too), Mathis is claiming that a photon can have “stacked levels of spin”:

“We find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on.”

From what I can tell, according to Mathis a photon can have 9 or more simultaneous spins. It’s not only impossible, it’s insane.

By the way, “Leonardo DiCrappio” is the perfect name for Mathis; I wish I had come up with it.

7. I sent Miles a polite email telling him about the errors you found (including a link to this website). And he sent back a two word response: “Not Interested”. But in his new article, “The Death of Polemics”, Miles makes this comment:

“The few negative emails I get are all of a pattern. Almost none bother to identify an error, much less to make any argument. Although some come from universities or other institutions, these responses are not more likely to have any substance than ones from anonymous trolls. They are just sarcasm and invective and non-clever ad hominem remarks.”

• Mathis has decided that the best response is no response at all. He is fully aware of this Blog, but can’t acknowledge its existence without opening an embarrassing can of worms; so he has chosen to turn a blind eye to it.

But he can’t ignore the customer reviews and comments at Amazon.com; which pose a real threat to his reputation (and his book sales). His diatribes such as “The Death of Polemics”, “My Opposition”, and “The Revolution is Now” are meant as damage control in response to the mountain of criticism that keeps accumulating; criticism that is prominently displayed on the very webpage where he is trying to sell his book.

• Mathis ends his essay “The Revolution Is Now” (2011) by encouraging his supporters in online forums to “Keep it up.” Well, apparently they haven’t. Where are his supporters these days? Why does no one defend him any longer in this forum or on Amazon? The incoherent “D_Archer” on Thunderbolts may be the last one left. Steven O., we miss you!

• Even “Steven O” seems dispirited of late, and has all but thrown in the towel; which means that “D_Archer” has to single-handedly defend Mathis. With an army of supporters, it would be a monumental task; but left to “D_Archer” alone (“he’s got a bow but no arrows”), the outcome looks conspicuously bleak.

8. Here’s another one. I’m finding that Mathis’ original Preface is a goldmine of contradiction for what would subsequently ooze out of his head.

“I am not proposing supra-luminal theories or any other theories that go beyond the math and theory of Einstein.”
– Miles Mathis, “Preface” (http://milesmathis.com/pre.html)

“Charge photons emitted by the electron are going somewhat faster than c. The speed of light may be an average.”
– Miles Mathis, “More Proof of the Reality of the Charge Field” (http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html)

• Hey, you are on a roll. And you’re right; his ‘Preface’ is a rats nest of misconceptions and contradictions.
(See Number 9 above)

• Yes, Mathis is forced to say this in an attempt to save his photon pool ball mechanics. When photons at C collide with photons below C the result will never be 2 photons at C, therefore you propose that some photons travel above C to even that out. Photons in vacuum have never been observed at any speed other than C to my knowledge. His photon theory is pure fantasy.

• To get his “pool ball mechanics” to work, Mathis has to resort to the following: stacked-spins, superluminal motion, gravity is an expansion of matter, a make-believe charge field, and other absurdities. All of which have never been observed or measured by anyone.

Mathis is all too quick to criticize the theoretical physics proposed by others; yet look at the cooked up navel-gazing fantasies he’s proposing.

9. Here’s a good one. Mathis famously believes that the photon is a spherical object with a surface area and a diameter, and that all of particle physics can be explained via his “pool ball mechanics,” where stacking orthogonal photon spins on top of spins leads to the various particles of the Standard Model: “I showed the existence of four spins, of relative size 1,2,4, and 8, each orthogonal to neighboring spins. In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x,y, and z planes.” (From “Unifying the Electron and Proton”)

But in his latest blatherfest, “Gauss’ Law as a Unified Field Equation,” Mathis says: “It is easier for most people to visual [sic] the Sun doing things than to visualize protons doing things. If you take a sphere like the Sun, you will find it spinning in one direction only. It is possible that it is made up of smaller bodies spinning randomly, but as a whole it can have only one spin. Or, its outer surface can have only one spin. The outer surface cannot spin x and -x at the same time. Nor can it spin x and y at the same time.”
:
Which of course is true. Ouch! I guess Miles is hoping his readers have altogether forgotten the ridiculously impossible fundamentals of his particle physics theory. The question is, has he too?

• Good catch! I will add that to the above list of contradictions. (See Number 8 above)

It’s not an easy task to wade through his long-winded articles and spot the contradiction; but you can be certain there are dozens more.

Reference:
Stacked Spins Re-Explained! (Michael Norris) 5/21/2013

10. Hi Steve,

All this page does is prove you purposely misquote Mathis.

Take Case 1: in the first quote Mathis discusses his solution, while in the second case he reviews solutions by a mainstream textbook and Feynman, which off course present the radius as a distance but still put it in the same equation with a velocity vector (which is illegal).

I know you just do not have the capabilities to analyze the difference but less forgiving people might call you a fraud.

• Number 1 is the funniest of the bunch. I still laugh every time I read it. And anything that Mathis has self-declared to be “illegal”, is usually good comedic material too. The man does keep us all in stitches.

• So you think it is fine to add distance and velocity because you could draw them both as a straight line on paper?

• Number 1 in particular, must be a hard pill to swallow. But nonetheless, there it is; read it and laugh.

• ”What is the velocity of the radius? Say we are in a case of circular motion, where r is constant. How does the radius have a velocity? The radius is a simple distance.” — Miles Mathis [Lev Landau Fudges The Orbital Math] 5/6/2013

So is the radius a velocity, or is it a distance? Well, it all depends on which article you read. According to Mathis, it’s both. [Cue up laugh track]

11. I’m quite sure at least a few of those quotes are not actually contradictions if one were to read them each in context.
People bash Miles a lot, but I have only very rarely seen anyone even attempt to disprove him through direct means. He “coincidentally” derives numbers that match mainstream numbers more often than someone buys one of his books, and he seems to deserve some scientific attention at least in some cases. He’s not going to be right all the time, but his charge field theory may very well be the future of physics…

• “I’m quite sure at least a few of those quotes are not actually contradictions if one were to read them each in context.” — Tom

If you are “quite sure”, then please specify which quote, if any, has been taken out of context?

Also, rather than attempting to change the subject to the “charge field” (a topic that hasn’t even been discussed at this blog), why not comment on the papers that actually show and prove that Mathis is wrong: Centripetal acceleration, Newton’s lemma, and Differential calculus?

The paper on centripetal acceleration is by far the simplest mathematically (requiring only an understanding of the pythagorean theorem). At the very least, read that paper before commenting; it provides irrefutable proof that Mathis is wrong. If you are looking for proof by “direct means”, you can find it there.

Your comment above consists of only vague generalities; please be more specific.

• The posters on this forum are far brighter than I – I am but a lowly computer programmer I know nothing about physics, but I do know that Mathis rarely gets a fair trial when it comes to his theories. I would really like to see a professional “working session” if you will between Mathis and those like you (maybe a those like you who, but who are a bit less standoffish) to really hash out his ideas and why they are so wrong. When current theorists talk about “Dark Matter”, and “Borrowing from the vaccuum”, to us layman that sounds a bit far fetched. It’s refreshing to hear Mathis talk in terms of “pool ball mechanics” as he calls it. As a layman, I prefer to believe that the latter is where the future lies. It’s hard to deny that much of present day physics is about head-in-the-clouds ideas that cannot be proven, and Mathis takes a shot at something different – for which he is persecuted.

Did you purposely leave his Charge Field ideas out because they are not subject to the contradiction problems you have posted here? I’m just wondering if you maybe agree with his ideas on charge, or any of his other ideas. It seems that this page is not intended to only point out his contradictions, but to label him as an overall crank. If he were in fact right about his charge ideas, and wrong about his argument against Newton’s Lemmae, I would say that would still make his contributions important to consider. Put another way…You say the paper’s you have linked to prove that Mathis is wrong… Do they prove he is wrong about everything he has written about? Maybe he is wrong in those papers (though I wouldn’t dare to try to prove it one way or the other… You guys seem pretty vicious and I’m certainly not as smart as all of you), but Mathis has created hundreds of papers so pointing out 7 examples to deface an entire man’s work seems a bit weak… And a bit petty.

• I appreciate your feedback. This is a new blog, and I have only just started. The material presented is just a small sample of the countless errors and mistakes Mathis has made. Additional errors (and there are many) will be forthcoming; this is a work in progress, not the finished product.

Furthermore, the list of contradictions is not a complete list; again, it is a work in progress. What is currently shown is merely the tip of the iceberg; the greater part has yet to be revealed. Stay tuned, I have barely scratched the surface.

Mathis claims to have uncovered “the greatest standing errors in physics and mathematics”. The purpose of this blog is to show that Mathis has uncovered absolutely nothing; zilch. His entire collection of articles (one and all) are worthless, unusable, error-ridden garbage.

And regarding his imaginary and fictitious “charge field”. Hell no, I do not subscribe to that; or any of his other far-fetched, lamebrain theories. The infantile scribblings that Mathis calls his books, belong in the children’s section alongside the nursery rhymes and fairy tales; or better yet, tossed in a dumpster.

• I appreciate the candid response. I really am in no position to claim he is right or wrong, but his ideas are interesting to me, and he does make excellent points about how current physics seems to be chasing proof of theories in the wrong direction… For example, Higgs must exist because we came up with some math that requires it to exist, so we will spend countless dollars searching for it… Fair enough, but at some point if they don’t find it (and I’m not sure if they have or have not, but it doesn’t seem like they’re too sure) shouldn’t they be forced to admit they were wrong?

I’m not sure that anyone could convince me, with my current knowledge level, that the Charge Field of Mathis is any less sensible than, say, Dark Matter. Dark Matter to me has always sounded like science fiction, although perhaps the Charge Field is no better…

I look forward to future articles – for me this is all interesting reading that’s way above my head anyway.

One thing I don’t really understand is why people seem to be PERSONALLY offended with Mathis’ writings. Your blog seems to make an effort at taking the subjective view, but then again you have replied to me with language such as “his far-fetched, lamebrain theories”, or “His entire collection of articles (one and all) are worthless, unusable, error-ridden garbage” which suggest some irritation… Are you irritated because other people might believe what Miles’ is pitching? Why does that irritate you and your readers so much? Clearly Miles is not being funded with money that you and your readers don’t think he should get… He doesn’t get written in major publications… He has very little backing from other scientists… And apparently he has very few followers and, seeing as I might be considered one of them, some of his followers aren’t even scientists. With all that in mind, why would anyone who believes he is wrong spend any energy being irritated with him?

Is it typical for the science community to personally insult other people? In my world this is not the normal way that people work together and advance understanding.

• If the material presented at this blog has failed to persuade you, then it is doubtful there is anything further I can add to shake your faith. If you are dead set determined to believe (even when shown evidence to the contrary), then my advice to you is to pony up big; the web kitty is always on the lookout for a soft touch, and a new best friend.

“A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place.”

PS: When will Mathis be “forced to admit”, as you put it, that he was flat out wrong about pi=4?

• The difference is the math supported the existence of the Higgs boson, and an experiment could be devised to see if it actually exists, or to fail to show that it actually exists.

So far, no experiment can be devised to prove the existence of strings, even though there are several mathematical models which would allow or require their existence.

Mathis’s problem is that his math is invariably wrong (remember he never even finished calculus in school — you can read about it in his online CV), but he hasn’t suggested even one experiment to test his ideas. Because he’s talking out his ass.

• Tom,

Miles is not a physicist. Anyone who has taken an introductory calculus based physics course can tell you that Miles is wrong about nearly everything. His training (if he’s had any at all) is strictly at the high school level of competency. Is it really that surprising that genuine physicists laugh at his overly simplistic solutions?

What’s hard to explain, is why you would defend him?

• The only attention that Miles “deserves” is the attention he’s currently getting… everyone’s laughing at him.

• Tom: You say a lot with your quote, “It’s refreshing to hear Mathis talk in terms of pool ball mechanics as he calls it. As a layman, I prefer to believe that the latter is where the future lies.” This is why Miles Mathis has followers — some people just prefer to believe that things are simpler than they almost certainly are. I mean, I prefer to believe that I was created by a magic man in the sky and that I’ll live forever with my loved ones in the clouds, but I don’t, because in my opinion, that’s almost certainly false.

Sadly, the world is not as we would prefer it to be. It is what it is. Mathis’ belief that particles are like pool balls, pi = 4, and the derivative is an average…it’s all so wrong and baseless and defended terribly badly, with everything argued from a position of ignorance, nothing he says can be taken seriously. This is a guy who believes that nobody was shot at Sandy Hook, FFS; his misguidedness extends way beyond physics and math.

If someone told you that 2+2=5, and 5+5=12, would you take him seriously when he tells you what 12+12 equals? It’s kind of like that.

• Tom is too far gone to reach; you won’t persuade him. Perhaps he will regain his senses after Mathis pick’s his pocket.

• It would be helpful if you mentioned ONE time when he was right.

12. Miles Mathis is a crackpot when it comes to physics. I was looking up alternative explanations for Virial to better grasp that concept, and stumbled on his horrendous write-up. He completely ignored the vector nature of position, velocity, and acceleration. I’ve never heard of a 1-dimensional rotating circle, so it is obvious a vector is assumed.

He spends some time attempting to build up a strawman against the use of dr/dt = v. Clearly, circular motion has a tangential velocity which is nonzero, but that is not the use of v, he claims. Then, hoping you have forgotten his actual argument and instead are just relying on emotion, he arrives at his central argument: that dr/dt = 0 since the radius of a circle is constant. From this, he argues the total velocity must be 0. This contradicts his side argument that he started with, claiming there must be a tangential component to velocity for circular motion, but he’s hoped you forgot his actual argument and instead are relying on emotion.

As most people with even a freshman understanding of calculus will tell you, dx / dt is not 0 for circular motion, and neither is dy / dt (the x and y components of r). So, he ignores the vector nature in both of his arguments, and even contradicts his first argument with his second.

I couldn’t take it anymore, this guy is a loon.

• ”As most people with even a freshman understanding of calculus will tell you, dx / dt is not 0 for circular motion, and neither is dy / dt (the x and y components of r).”

Yeah, it’s a mistake that Mathis makes repeatedly; he only takes the vectors magnitude into consideration, and completely ignores any change in direction. But then, Mathis doesn’t have a freshman’s understanding of calculus. He doesn’t even have a 6th grade understanding of geometry (pi=4). Without doubt, he’s a loon. But he’s also a crackpot, a conspiracy theorist, a blowhard, and a misinformed buffoon. He’s hopeless, clueless, and judging from his meager book sales (approximately 10 per year), penniless. The man has become a near perfect example of a blithering idiot.

• “The man has become a near perfect example of a blithering idiot.”

Certainly. A look at some of his art and sculpture forces such an observation.

I don’t know what I believe, but I know what I do not want to believe. The diatribes of a man who writes abundantly with ad hominems which of course any rational person understands adds nothing of substance and often belies incompetence.

• He can always fall back on his obsession with overly young girls.

13. Miles Mathis is so over. His “The Un-Unified Field” book hasn’t been selling much. In fact, according to the rankings projections for paper book and kindle sales, Mathis has sold fewer than ten copies per year.
Internet comment on Mathis has nearly stopped and instead of correcting his errors he is hiding from the consequences like a spoilt child. He came onto Thunderbolts forum last year, started a subdued, spaced-out interview and quit right in the middle of it, leaving his few remaining fanboys to discuss the questions they had for him amongst themselves. Nice guy. Very responsible.
Mathis is reaping his comeuppance for all those hundreds of pages of bitter attacks on physicists in his writings.

• Hey, I’ve read a few of your Mathis book reviews, and they are always funny. You paint a picture of Mathis as a deranged hermit living in a shack; great imagery.

If his first book is selling less than 10 copies a year, then the second book (which is never mentioned by anyone; ever) couldn’t have sold more than a few copies in total. And if the trend holds, book three is certain to be a sales disaster. Hell, I may breakdown and buy a copy myself to show my co-workers; just to pass around for belly laughs.

• But because intervals never reach zero, he is guaranteed to sell one copy.

14. “I do not endorse his methods or conclusions. I still have issues with pretty much every article in the book.”
— Dr. Tahir Yaqoob, NASA astrophysicist giving his expert opinion of Mathis’ first book: The Un-Unified Field (September 3, 2012)

• I don’t endorse his use of oxygen, but there you are.

15. Didn’t know Miles was still around. He was roughed up so bad – thought he must have thrown in the towel. His technical skills are weak, but you have to admire his perseverance.

16. Number 2 directly contradicts the pi=4 theory. Oh well, that theory was so far-fetched that no one really took it seriously anyway.

• Yeah, the most shocking has to be Number 2. Mathis has written 5 articles about Pi in which he claims that gravity will cause a “down and back” motion; it’s a ridiculous claim, and apparently even Mathis is reluctant to believe it himself. Here is a recent quote from Dr. Yaqoob addressing that very topic:

“Essentially, Miles implicitly assumes that in arbitrarily small time intervals motion occurs in two perpendicular directions *in sequence*. Nothing moves like that: in arbitrarily small time intervals curved motion is along the curve (i.e., the motion cannot be broken down into two perpendicular motions *in sequence*).”
– Dr. Tahir Yaqoob, NASA Astrophysicist (September 3, 2012)

17. Miles can’t remember what he wrote from one day to the next. Maybe he’s hopped up on drugs. He doesn’t seem to care either. Sent him an email and he said he wasn’t even interested… typical artist/druggie response.

18. This is brutal… it is painful to read this stuff. How embarrassing for Miles Mathis. He isn’t just being proven wrong… he’s being ridiculed and humiliated as well. I’m beginning to feel sorry for the guy. Sure, he brought this on himself, but still…

• As you say, Mathis brought this on himself. All the gradiose claims that he had disproved every scientist and mathematician since Euclid, guaranteed it would come to this. It’s unfortunate that reading this blog makes you feel uneasy; I could pull my punches and treat him with kid gloves, so to speak. But that’s just not going to happen; not at this blog anyway.

• It’s not even his whatever the opposite of forte is.