Abstract: Mathis proves that even high school math (The Pythagorean Theorem), is far beyond his reach.
This paper will analyze the following article and examine the authors claim that the centripetal acceleration is equal to half the radius (a = r/2):
In addition, this paper will also bring to light, for the first time, the heretofore overlooked assertion that the circumference of a circle is equal to 4r:
“The equation a = r/2 gives us a distance of acceleration over 1/8th of the orbit, so the total distance of acceleration over the entire orbit is 4r.” — Miles Mathis
We’ll examine acceleration in a moment, but first let’s discuss the circumference. Those who have followed the pi=4 controversy have witnessed Mathis fiercely defend his pet theory (simply stated as the circumference of a circle equals 8r). With that in mind, take a look at this perplexing quote from his article:
“Since the Moon is orbiting at 384,400 km, the total distance of acceleration over the orbit is 4 times that…” — Miles Mathis
Four times the radius? In case you think this is merely a simple mistake or typo, well that’s just not the case. Mathis does indeed require the circumference to be 4r (see analysis below), otherwise his acceleration equation is wrong. But he also requires the circumference to be 8r, otherwise the pi=4 theory is wrong. Oh, and let us not forget, there is also a static value (2πr) for the circumference too. So the circumference must take on three different values to support his half-wit theories.
As it turns out, this is not a new or recent claim; its actually been there all along. Mathis makes this same assertion in his infamous article “The Extinction of Pi“; that’s right, he claims the circumference is 4r in that article too. In fact, in that single article alone he claims the circumference is 4r, 8r, and 2πr; all in the same paper no less.
Now let’s examine the preposterous claim that a = r/2. According to Mathis, our current equation for centripetal acceleration is wrong. The equation commonly used today is this one: But Mathis claims this equation is off by half; that is, the equation should be:
In his article, Mathis argues that if v = r, the acceleration will reduce to r/2; he even provides a geometrical proof for this hogwash. And it is this geometrical proof that will be examined in this paper. In a future paper we will look at his idiotic claim that (yes, that’s wrong too). But for now, let’s start by knocking down this dopey and lamebrain assertion that a = r/2. Here is a quote from Mathis as he makes a clumsy and misguided attempt to prove, using a circle and a triangle, that a = r/2:
“With all this under our belts, we are now in a position to see that we may assign the acceleration ‘a’ to the line segment BC. Furthermore, if and AB = r, then r = v, and a = r/2. Consulting the diagram, that is also 2BC = CO. What this means is that we have a new way to find a centripetal acceleration, currently called gravity. The equation a = r/2 gives us a distance of acceleration over 1/8th of the orbit, so the total distance of acceleration over the entire orbit is 4r.” — Miles Mathis (See Figure 1)
So that’s the analysis as presented by Mathis. There’s just one colossal problem though, Mathis is flat-out wrong. We can apply the pythagorean theorem to the above triangle to check the accuracy of his analysis, thus proving he’s wrong. According to Mathis, a = r/2. So let’s crunch the numbers and see what we get:
As you can clearly see, the centripetal acceleration does not equal r/2. Even when using Mathis’ own diagram and his foolhardy assertions,
In closing, this paper has shown that Mathis’ theories require a total of three distinct values for the circumference of a circle (4r, 8r, and 2πr). Further, it was also shown that his geometrical analysis for the centripetal acceleration is plagued with errors and “slippery math”.
Note: This paper was last revised on 04/23/2013