Mathisian Physics and LENR: A Preliminary and Tentative Guide (Josh Guetzkow)

The following document has been submitted by Josh Guetzkow

Mathisian Physics and LENR: A Preliminary and Tentative Guide
by Josh Guetzkow
[email protected]

Introduction

Dear reader, please be advised that if you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that the Copenhagen interpretation is simply wrong and that the physics that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, etc.) is completely off track, if not disastrously wrong, then there really is no point in reading any further. If you are willing to reconsider and possibly even abandon much of what you thought you knew about how the physical universe works, then please read on.

What will the advent of cold fusion mean for establishment physicists? Will they be able to bend over backwards with ad hoc band-aids to patch up the same inconsistent and incomprehensible heuristic theories that keep telling us cold fusion is “impossible?” Or will it mean that the whole house of cards that is modern physics will come crashing down? In that case, we will need a new paradigm and new theories to rebuild it from the ground up. As it happens, someone has already rebuilt physics from the ground up. His name is Miles Mathis, an independent, self-taught polymath. I believe his revolutionary theories hold the key to a comprehensive explanation of all LENR processes, and I am writing this to explain why.

Miles is unique in that he started from scratch and questioned everything from first principles, going back to Euclid. He has dug into the equations and original writings of Newton, Farraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc., emerging with improvements and deep new insights. He has found fundamental errors in all of their work and corrected it (or tossed it into the trash heap when necessary). He cuts through the bluster and obfuscation of modern physics with surgical precision to deliver a truly mechanical theory of physics. Reading him demolish obtuse and abstract mumbo-jumbo while simultaneously solving some of the major outstanding mysteries of physics in the span of a few short pages is absolutely thrilling. His writing style is lucid, straightforward and accessible.

He has applied his theory to a wide range of phenomena, including solving the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck’s constant and a bunch of others), why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2 , why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a nucleon, where magnetic charge comes from and how it actually works, and on and on. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century physics theories) in one fell swoop. I have christened his theoretical perspective, ‘Mathisian physics,’ because it is every bit as revolutionary and comprehensive as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. Here is his website, where you can find all of his papers, which are short and written in an accessible writing style: http://milesmathis.com/

The full document is below:

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mathisian-Physics-and-LENR-A-Preliminary-Guide-for-ECW-FINAL-1.pdf

  • Mark Underwood

    Somehow I missed his disclaimer at the start of the long version – that Pi = 4 had to do with kinematic, not static, situations.

    But note that in the short version, which is the condensation of his argument, he makes no mention of kinematics. His argument is strictly from a static geometry argument (which is flawed).

    And the title doesn’t help. The extinction of Pi? Yet apparently(?) he doesn’t really mean it, because he says elsewhere that Pi = 3.14… still applies to static situations? Again, very inconsistent and confusing.

    Regarding your equations, you seem to be attempting implicit differentiation. See

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGUxpfp3sw

    for how to do this with a circle.

    But to calculate arc length you have to do something different.
    You may find this helpful:

    https://www.khanacademy.org/math/integral-calculus/solid_revolution_topic/arc-length/v/arc-length-formula

    Good luck.

  • Mark Underwood

    No, he believes pi is 4, independent of time or motion. Look at his ‘proof’.

    A cycloid is very different than a circle.

    Miles is a living demonstration that even bright people can believe and justify the dumbest of ideas if they are motivated enough.

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Drat, I’ve been discovered. We’re one and the same. Which is why the picture on his website look so similar to the pictures of me if you google my name…

    Well honestly at first blush the Rodin solutions sounds intriguing, but then it started to go off the deep end when describing his “The Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar Electrical Venturi Space Time Implosion Field Generator Coil”:

    “Marko claimed to be able to use his numbers to harness the power of spin, liberating a heretofore unobserved, untapped ‘zero-point’ energy, to create a vertical lift wingless flying machine with the ability to travel anywhere in the universe. This energy has been known by many names in science (tachyons, monopoles, theta particles, dark energy) but this was the first time the anyone had claimed a mathematical model that could pinpoint a ‘when and where’ location in space that would allow it to be harnessed. In other words, we now had the blueprint for constructing a flying saucer. Marko called his machine, “The Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar Electrical Venturi Space Time Implosion Field Generator Coil.”

    “How amazed was I then to find that, nearly twenty years later in 2006 when I first encountered Marko’s work, almost nothing had been done to see this developed into a usable technology other than the primitive development of Marko’s initial bifiliar Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar Coil (aka the Rodin Coil)….”

    > Yes, how amazing indeed! But wait, there’s more!

    “For the next few years I labored diligently applying Marko’s own methods to his work until one night, to my own jaw dropping astonishment, I … discovered something completely new, the perfection of perfection and the key to creating three-dimensional lattice structure circuitry that (when properly engineered) has the ability to be superconductive at room temperature and can tap and harness this elusive ‘dark energy.’”

    > Yes, of course it does! Tell us more.

    “I call my discovery the ABHA Torus….The ABHA Torus as I have discovered it is the true and perfect Torus and it has the ability to reveal in 3-D space any and all mathematical/geometric relationships possible allowing it to essentially accomplish any desired functional application in the world of technology.”

    > Sounds like a nifty invention. I’d sure like to have one of those.

    “This is why I believe that the ABHA Torus as I have calculated is the most powerful mathematical tool in existence because it presents proof that numbers are not just flat imaginary things. To the contrary, numbers are stationary vector interstices that are real and exhibiting at all times spatial, temporal, and volumetric qualities. Being stationary means that they are fixed constants. In the ABHA Torus the numbers never move but the functions move through the numbers modeling vibration and the underlying fractal circuitry that natures uses to harness living energy.”

    > Wow, I had no idea that numbers are stationary vector interstices trough which fractal energy pulses and vibrates.

    Please. Say what you will about Miles’s work, but he doesn’t throw around this meaningless sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. His theories involve forces we can feel, sense and measure. You might disagree with his conclusions, but you don’t need to get high to understand them.

  • orsobubu

    I cannot dicuss on physics, but after reading this article:

    http://www.space.com/32295-super-heavy-dark-matter-particle-proposed.html

    it is easy to compare those uncatchable WIMPS or ultra-massive particles or cellular mini-black holes to
    the “heavy ghosts” ironically described by M Mathis here:

    http://milesmathis.com/mond.html

    Since these cosmologists declare themselves that those particles must be found “outside of the Standard Model”, or in “something significantly different” matter, I cannot sincerely conclude that their theories are more grounded nor reliable nor elegant than Mathis’ fantastic new foundation of the unified field and photon particle. I remember that – inside Rossi’s blog – also Vladimir Guglinski (with his theory on non-luminiferous-aether and physical photon composed by particle and antiparticle of the aether) often criticized the classic quantum mechanics principles in the light of new contradictorial sperimental evidences about photons:

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7407/abs/ncomms7407.html

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Before dismissing Miles as a crackpot, you should realize that the intro to Miles’s first book was written by Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, an astrophysicist at NASA and Johns Hopkins University and the Space Telescope Science Institute, who specializes in front-end X-ray research. A graduate of Oxford University and University of Leicester, he has published over two hundred papers in the top peer-reviewed journals. Apparently he does not think Miles is a crackpot. In fact, he was the one who encouraged Miles to publish a book in the first place. In the intro, Dr. Yaqoob writes:

    “Physics is now in crisis for a multitude of reasons… [and] in desperate need of new and fresh ideas, across the board. You will find plenty of these in Miles Mathis’ book…. Miles is the first person to propose and begin to investigate the idea that Newton’s fundamental gravitational equation already has electromagnetism embedded within it, and that what is needed is decomposition, not unification. Such a possibility has profound implications. To quote Michael Faraday, one of the greatest experimentalists in the history of physics, “If you would cause your view. . . to be acknowledged by scientific men, you would do a great service to science. If you would even get them to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to your conclusions it would help to clear the future progress. I believe some hesitate because they do not like their thoughts disturbed.” I invite you to have your “thoughts disturbed” by Miles’ book, if you dare.”

    On the back cover he writes: “I am absolutely flabbergasted – my gut reaction is that the idea that G is a scaling constant between two fields in Newton’s equation is an absolutely brilliant insight.”

    Also, here are two supportive e-mails I have received from ECW readers who for whatever reason prefer not to post a comment here:

    E-mail 1:

    “After reading your post on ECW and following the link to the Miles Mathis website, I have spent several hours every evening reading his papers. This guy is amazing! I believe Miles is one of those special people that come around every 100 years or so and re-educates the world. Thank you for your post!”

    E-mail 2:

    “Thank You, Thank You !!!
    Have known and read Miles Mathis for many years now and love his work, but it was so hard to distill his many writing down to the essence and an overview.

    You have done a marvelous job of explaining the foundations of his point of view. Would love to be part of a group of like minded individuals who want to share, elaborate, promote, communicate, develop, and explore the possibilities of this belief structure. To be part of this much needed revolution in how we view physical reality !!!

    Thanks Again For Your Deep Appreciation And Awareness Of The Significance Of His Work !!!”

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Ah yes, interesting. Which part is nonsense? There’s plenty of math there to go with the verbosity, if you care to take a look.

  • Aaron Rodriquez

    No Josh, the work of Mathis is not deep. His delusions are deep. His writing is shallow and completely devoid of scientific content.

    Your delusions are deep too. But you did convince me you are not a troll. You have a perfect knowledge of Miles Mathis and use the same writing style and same quotes as Mathis to argue against detractors. You have the same propensity to write endlessly and make bold leaps of logic based on semantics.

  • Josh Guetzkow

    To preface my remarks, I just want it to be perfectly clear to anyone who makes the mistake of reading your post without first reading the paper I submitted: Miles’s work concerning the value of Pi is not in any way shape or form relevant to applying his theories to LENR. In fact, in one of the very first papers I cited, he uses the commonly accepted value of Pi when he gives the formula for the volume of a sphere. He would also agree with you that Pi=3.14 if you wrap a piece of string around a beer mug. You either did not understand his argument (which is understandable, because even though it’s simple, it’s very deep), or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

    I should also note that your criticism is devoid of substance. You distort his argument about Pi by oversimplifying it and then argue “This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of calculus and geometry.” But you haven’t told us why his argument lacks understanding. I would simply argue that you lack an understanding of his argument. As I’ll show below, his work on Pi is consistent with work done by famed mathematician David Hilbert, described by Wikipedia as “one of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries.” So I actually think that Miles that’s a very deep and perspicacious understanding of calculus and geometry (and many other things), which is why he has been able to go back and revise and improve our understanding of both.

    Now, as for accusing me of being a troll — that’s rich. Sounds to me rather like the pot calling the kettle black. I invite anyone to paste my name into the Google custom search box at the top of the page. You will find a long history of active participation on this site–going back at least to the release of the ITPR in 2014–with what I consider to be constructive and supportive comments. A general google search will turn up plenty of information about me (I’m not the guy who lives in Wyoming, BTW). I used to go by ‘Josh G’ here, but changed it to my full name when I submitted this post. It certainly wasn’t necessary–most people post here under pseudonyms. I did it because I 100% stand behind what I’ve written, warts and all. (And I know there are warts because my thinking on the matter has already evolved and I see errors.) If I’m totally wrong about Miles, so be it. But I am totally convinced that he is on to something big and revolutionary.

    Searching your name, on the other hand, doesn’t turn up anything except your comments here. Curiously, a regular google search doesn’t turn up anything as well. Since I’ve never seen anyone spell Rodriguez with a ‘q’ I’m going to assume you are using a pseudonym. Which is fine, of course. This is the internet. But it hardly lends you any credibility when you point fingers at other people and start accusing them of being trolls.

    Now as for my claim about David Hilbert. Here is a quote from http://milesmathis.com/pi2.htm:

    “after an email from a reader concerning the Taxicab geometry, it dawned on me that Hilbert’s metric is basically equivalent to my “metric” in this paper. In Hilbert’s metric, π also equals 4! And it equals 4 for the same basic reason π equals 4 in this paper: my “limit” is approached in the same way his is. See below, where I show the approach to the limit using circle geometry. Well, Hilbert uses the same sort of analysis. Only difference is, I dig a bit deeper into the kinematics, showing the real cause of the problem. At Wikipedia, they say the difference in metrics is caused by single-axis motion:

    “‘This is essentially a consequence of being forced to adhere to single-axis movement: when following the Manhattan metric, one cannot move diagonally (in more than one axis simultaneously).’

    “But that isn’t the cause. The cause is the motion itself. The motion brings the time variable into play, which adds another degree of freedom to the equations. You may now consider the fact that contemporary physicists often use the Manhattan distance or metric when they get in a jam, especially at the quantum level. The Manhattan metric is the same as Taxicab geometry. And you can now understand why using this metric helps them: as I show in this paper, standard geometry fails because it fails to include the time variable explicitly, which fouls up the math and then the physics. In kinematic situations like the orbit, the correct math and physics includes the analysis I provide in this paper.”

    Later he adds: “Another reader has now helped me add to this proof, since she has reminded me that the arc of a cycloid is also 8r. That is, in the cycloid, π is replaced by 4, just as in the Manhattan metric. I don’t know why I didn’t think to include this before, since it is so obvious. We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 27% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an x-axis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a non-rolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 27%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 27%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any real-world circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.”

    … Good god, I can’t believe I wasted even 5 seconds replying to such an obvious troll.

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Yes, that’s it’s Orsobubu. He’s not saying that Pi is not a useful constant in some situations. But in others it is not. It’s such a deep point that it really is hard for many people to grasp it.

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Jed, welcome to ECW! I notice this is your first time posting. There are many other first time posters on this thread who, like you, appear to have come out of the woodwork to denounce Miles’s work. Unlike them, you are the first to attempt a substantive critique, and I applaud you for that. Unfortunately, you have taken his statements out of context and ignored half of his argument in that paper. No wonder it looks like illogical crackpottery! Once again, I encourage people to read it and judge it on their own — it is only a few pages and very straightforward — in fact, brilliant in its simplicity. (Though apparently not simple enough for you, Jed. Or maybe just too deep.)

    I will begin my response by quoting from Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, an astrophysicist at NASA and Johns Hopkins University, who encouraged Miles to publish his work as a book and wrote the preface: “as far as I know, Miles is the first person to propose and begin to investigate the idea that Newton’s fundamental gravitational equation already has electromagnetism embedded within it, and that what is needed is decomposition, not unification. Such a possibility has profound implications.” On the back cover he writes: “I am absolutely flabbergasted – my gut reaction is that the idea that G is a scaling constant between two fields in Newton’s equation is an absolutely brilliant insight.”

    (I encourage people to read the full preface, it’s very short: http://milesmathis.com/tahir.html)

    So apparently an accomplished astrophysicist at NASA and JHU disagrees with your assessment that Miles’s work on this topic is “rubbish.” I think that puts me and Miles in good company. I don’t know what your qualifications are, Jed, but perhaps consider writing a strongly worded letter to NASA telling them to stop hiring scientists who are so easily hoodwinked by ‘crackpottery.’

    I also appreciate your attempt to try to save people the time and trouble by cautioning them against reading my post or Miles’s work because “it’s rubbish.” You know, it’s interesting, Miles thinks that a lot of current science is rubbish, but he never tells people *not* to read it. His attitude is “read it and judge for yourselves.” I find it interesting that Miles’s critics are always telling people they shouldn’t read his work. One almost wonders if they are worried we might actually read and judge it for ourselves…

    Now for a substantive response: your “picking apart” of Miles’s argument was a complete distortion because not only did it take quotations out of context, it also left out half the argument. He argues (and shows very clearly how) Newton’s equation describing gravity is a “unified field theory in disguise.” This means that whereas Newton thought the equation described only a single force, gravity, it actually describes 2 forces, gravity and charge (or electro-magnetism). Newton’s equation works well enough in many situations. As you say, we have used this understanding of gravity in many situations. And yet, we have fundamental inconsistencies and many, many unanswered questions. To quote Dr. Yaqoob again:

    “In my own sub-field, astrophysicists have signed up wholesale to the belief that we only understand 96% of the mass-energy of the Universe. The consequent, stupendously large, one hundred and twenty orders of magnitude difference in the predicted and “observed” vacuum energy has been heralded by respected scientists as the most spectacular failure in the history of physics. Yet I have witnessed these very same scientists of repute laugh it off in conferences as some kind of whimsical rivalry between particle physicists and astrophysicists.”

    Don’t you find it the least bit interesting that Miles, after unwinding Newton’s equation, has been able to identify that missing 96% mass energy (aka dark matter) as the charge field (those tiny b-photons I discuss in the paper)? And he shows us the very elegant and straightforward calculations behind that derivation. In other words, his explanation of dark matter is logically and mathematically consistent with his work on Newton’s gravity equation that you are criticizing. That seems like an awfully unlikely coincidence for crackpottery. I guess he just got lucky. Given all the other scientific mysteries he has solved in a manner that is logically and mathematically consistent with the rest of his theories, he might very well be the luckiest crackpot who ever lived. One can imagine that Copernicus was viewed by most as a crackpot in his day. Actually he was viewed as an apostate; I guess today’s crackpot is yesterday’s heretic.

    Here is your first criticism of his work: “This is the main argument he uses to “correct” Newton’s laws of gravity. If I give Miles a cup of water, a cup of motor oil, and a cup of Coke, how is he going to measure the density of each with a yardstick? He clearly doesn’t have a clue. Density is a derived quantity – mass per unit volume.”

    First of all, that is actually his main argument; it is a gloss and a brief summary from much longer papers on this topic. You can read for example this paper for a more thorough exegesis, where he also brings in relativistic effects to tweak the equations in that shorter paper: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html.

    Obviously he is not proposing to measure density with an actual yardstick. You are taking him far too literally, and your example of water, oil and Coke is off target but clever misdirection. Look it’s really quite simple, even Wikipedia’s entry on Mass gets it: “mass can be generalized as the amount of matter in an object.” If you put more matter (say, in the form of neutrons and protons) in the same space/object (i.e., volume), the density of matter will go up, and hence its mass. If the amount of matter is fixed (the total sum of protons and neutrons), then the amount of space it occupies will determine its density. It just doesn’t seem very complicated. Honestly, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. This all seems so clear and straightforward. Maybe I am missing something. Can anybody help me out here?

    The second problem you had was with this statement: “The biggest pill to swallow is the necessary implication that gravity is now dependent only on radius. If gravity is a function of volume, and no longer of density, then gravity is not a function of mass.”

    But you left out the next sentence, which is key: “We have separated the variables and given density to the E/M field, so gravity is no longer a function of density.”

    So he is not denying that the density of matter matters; he simply argues that it matters for reasons that are different than what we thought. It refers to the density of the charge field, composed of what he calls b-photons. In his theory matter emits charge, so the more dense your matter is, the more dense the charge field it emits, and hence the more force it emits. The force we experience as ‘gravity’ is actually a balance between the force of charge emitted from the matter of the planet (and the more dense the planet, the more charge will be emitted) and the force of gravity as a function of the size of the planet. Now, if gravity is not caused by (the warping of space-time due to the) density of matter, then what is it due to? Here I will simply refer you to his set of papers on his theory of gravity (http://milesmathis.com/third.html) and his most recent paper where he proposes a different mechanism, although with the same resulting force (http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf). It turns many conventions of physics upside-down and inside-out. Quite literally, actually.

    I want to add another point about the paper you have critiqued. In it, he uses the formula for the radius of the sphere (to explain the inverse square law quite brilliantly), which he gives as: S = 4πr2. Here he uses Pi as a constant. I mention this because people keep saying he thinks Pi=4. Well no, that’s not actually his argument, and here is an example of where he uses the value for Pi that we are all familiar with.

    Finally, as for your statement about the recent LIGO experiment, here is a very astute critique by Stephen Crothers, in which “various arguments are presented according to which the basic theoretical assumptions, and the consequential claims of detecting gravitational waves, are proven false. The apparent detection by the LIGO-Virgo Collaborations is not related to gravitational waves or to the collision and merger of black holes.” http://milesmathis.com/ligocroth.pdf

  • Obvious

    I get what he is saying, but what he hasn’t figured out is that Euclid et al defined the terms for math. If Mathis wants to make a new definition, that is fine. But then he needs new words for “point”‘ “circumference”, “line”, Pi, etc. He can’t just replace the terms with his own version, and then call them incorrectly used prior to his re-definition and expect everyone to follow along.

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Yes, I agree that he needs to use new terms. It gives people ammunition against him where they can say ‘he thinks Pi=4’ without actually reading or analyzing his arguments. As for the ‘squaring the circle’ problem, I think it’s interesting that in one of his paper’s on Pi, he shows that his conclusions appear to be supported by the work of David Hilbert, who according to Wikipedia is “recognized as one of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries.”

      This is from http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html, where he notes that:

      “after an email from a reader concerning the Taxicab geometry, it dawned on me that Hilbert’s metric is basically equivalent to my “metric” in this paper. In Hilbert’s metric, π also equals 4! And it equals 4 for the same basic reason π equals 4 in this paper: my “limit” is approached in the same way his is. See below, where I show the approach to the limit using circle geometry. Well, Hilbert uses the same sort of analysis. Only difference is, I dig a bit deeper into the kinematics, showing the real cause of the problem. At Wikipedia, they say the difference in metrics is caused by single-axis motion:

      “‘This is essentially a consequence of being forced to adhere to single-axis movement: when following the Manhattan metric, one cannot move diagonally (in more than one axis simultaneously).’

      “But that isn’t the cause. The cause is the motion itself. The motion brings the time variable into play, which adds another degree of freedom to the equations. You may now consider the fact that contemporary physicists often use the Manhattan distance or metric when they get in a jam, especially at the quantum level. The Manhattan metric is the same as Taxicab geometry. And you can now understand why using this metric helps them: as I show in this paper, standard geometry fails because it fails to include the time variable explicitly, which fouls up the math and then the physics. In kinematic situations like the orbit, the correct math and physics includes the analysis I provide in this paper.”

      Later he adds: “Another reader has now helped me add to this proof, since she has reminded me that the arc of a cycloid is also 8r. That is, in the cycloid, π is replaced by 4, just as in the Manhattan metric. I don’t know why I didn’t think to include this before, since it is so obvious. We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 27% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an x-axis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a non-rolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 27%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 27%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any real-world circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.”

      The problem with the diagram you posted below is that it is showing us a static circle in a 2-d space.

      • Obvious

        How about a circle drawn from one location, but with two traces, each traveling, simultaneously, the opposite direction towards each other? That would cancel “rotation”, or give a circle that is now half again as big around as it should be, depending on the viewpoint.

  • orsobubu

    Jed, I’m a numerical illiterate, so I should shut up myself, but I think our mind and logic will never grasp the ultimate reality. Surely there is somewhere some tragic mistake. So I absolutely welcome anyone who take a revolutionary step in the direction of radical doubt. I remember an italian self-taught maverick, Carlo Ingami, in the sixties and seventies, who was hired by NASA because had elaborated an autonomous calculus system totally without differential/integral calculus, and way more precise. He could give with the help of a slide rule the exact trajectories and mechanics of rockets and celestial bodies more quickly than computers.

  • Obvious

    LOL

    • Mark Underwood

      Exactly. In fact Miles’ technique would have him conclude that *any* closed shape inside the square that touches each edge once will have the same perimeter as the square that encloses it.

      • Obvious

        Alternately the perimeter is infinitely long, since it requires the addition of an infinite number of smaller pieces.

        • Mark Underwood

          Good point. What you say about an infinite perimeter would be true with a fractal form like a Koch snowflake, where the perimeter formula is proportional to (4/3)^n where n is the number of iterations. So in that case the perimeter would increase without bound. However with Mile’s technique the perimeter does not change with each iteration. It remains proportional to 1^n which is always 1. So much for approximating the curve length more and more with each iteration!

          • Obvious

            Reminds me of someone saying that Great Britain was by far the largest country in the world, as long as it’s perimeter is measured in mm and all the others’ in metres.

      • http://blogg.vk.se/riskmanagement Erik

        What he is sayin is that a curve is not the same as a straight line, since the curve has to be in 2 dimensions, and a straight line is just 1 dimension. Moving in a curve takes something more. Its like driving in a straight line vs driving the same distance in a circle – you will have less gas left even tho the distance traveled is the same

        • Mark Underwood

          Yes, he is big on that point. So he insists on approximating a section of a two dimensional curve with two orthogonal lines which together are in two dimensions. But this approach is a mistake. As I implied above, his technique does not discriminate between a line that is *almost* straight and a line that is very curved.

          So to Miles, any curve passing through the points (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) would have a length of abs(x1-x2) + abs(y1-y2). That is clearly ridiculous.

          Yes driving a distance along a curve would take more gas than driving the same distance along a straight line. But that is because of accelerations and increased friction on a curved path, not because of length anomalies. Nothing new there.

  • Obvious

    This seems to be the ultimate extension of the inability to consider abstraction that Robataille has (in comparison) a little trouble with.

    • Axil Axil

      It seems that you have a negative opinion of Robataille, I you would be so kind please, disabuse me of my admiration of Robataille’s theories.

      • Obvious

        “Without a proper proof of Kirchhoff’s Law, Planck’s
        claim for universality loses the role it plays in science. This has significant
        consequences in both physics and astronomy [8, 17, 24]. The constants h and k
        do not have fundamental meaning. Along with “Planck length”, “Planck time”,
        “Planck mass”, and “Planck temperature”, they are to be relegated to the role
        of ordinary and arbitrary constants. Their value has been defined by our own
        selection of scales, not by nature itself.”

        – Robatialle & Crothers in “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited: A
        Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max
        Planck’s Claim of Universality.

        ……………………….

        “…with the help of fundamental constants we have the possibility
        of establishing units of length, time, mass, and temperature, which necessarily
        retain their significance for all cultures, even unearthly and nonhuman ones”.

        – Max Planck, Annalen der Physik, 1900

        ……………………….

        “A revision of our system of units, the SI, is currently
        discussed and may be implemented as early as 2018. The new SI is a logical
        extension of an argument made in 1983 when the meter was redefined to be based
        on the exact value of the speed of light. In the new SI all units will be
        derived from seven fundamental reference constants, thus replacing the seven
        base units of the current system. For example, the unit of mass, the kilogram,
        is currently defined by an artifact called the International Prototype of the
        Kilogram (IPK). In the future we will be able to realize the unit of mass, not
        just at the kilogram level, from a fixed value of the Planck constant, which
        has units of kg m^2/s. One condition for redefinition is agreement between
        different measurements of the Planck constant. Currently two measurement strategies
        lead to values with relative uncertainties less than 100 parts per billion
        (ppb): (1) Avogadro’s number can be determined by estimating the number of
        atoms in a well characterized crystal. From Avogadro’s number h can be
        calculated using the Rydberg constant, which is known with much smaller
        uncertainty (2) A watt balance can be used to measure mechanical power in units
        of electrical power. Electrical power can be measured as the product of the
        Planck constant and two frequencies by utilizing the Josephson effect and the
        Quantum Hall effect. NIST has carried out measurements of h with watt balances
        for over 20 years. In the past 18 months a new team has performed a largely
        independent determination of h. I will describe this measurement and
        measurements from other laboratories.”

        – Lecture: Measurement of the Planck Constant and the Revision of the SI, Dr. Stephan Schlamminger (NIST)

        [Emphasis mine]

    • Josh Guetzkow

      No, actually the problem is that when physicists have been at a loss to explain the world through physical mechanisms (i.e., mechanically), they have resorted to abstractions and phantoms. In other words, scientific fairy tales:

      From http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html:

      “For more than two centuries now, since the time of Franklin, charge has defined the electrical force, and for just as long it has come in two forms: positive and negative. We now give the positive charge to a particle: the proton or nucleus; and we give the negative charge to the electron. But beyond that, we haven’t made much progress since Franklin. QED is an E/M theory, it is true, and QED has discovered many things. But QED has not been able to put a mechanical foundation under the positive and negative signs. We still draw protons with little +’s on them and electron’s with little -’s, as if that actually explains anything.

      “The reason for this lack of mechanical progress is that QED has never been interested in mechanics. It gave up on mechanics 80 years ago. It is interested in probabilities. This is shown by the ludicrous state of the concept of charge. To explain the force between the electron and proton, the standard model now makes use of the “messenger photon,” a so-called virtual particle that is made doubly virtual by always being “summed over” in a Feynmanian sense. This allows the standard model to have a force with no energy transfer. Since the mediating particles are virtual, with no mass or mass equivalence, the energy and forces are also virtual. The only thing that is not virtual is the acceleration, which we need to keep for our equations.

      “The reason the standard model so flagrantly avoids a real field here is to avoid assigning that field mass. Physicists must be aware that you can’t have forces without masses or energies, or the equivalent, but they also know that giving the charge field mass or energy of its own, beyond some virtual fudging, would doom the entire house of cards that is QED and QCD. If you give the charge field mass or energy, then quanta must be radiating energy. If they radiate it, they lose it. QED and QCD can’t explain this loss of energy, and don’t want to explain this loss of energy, so they ignore it. It would require a re-do of decades of theory and equations, and nobody wants that. So, in their minds, it is preferable to be caught red-handed proposing forces and accelerations without masses or energies. They have such high opinions of their own abilities to convince, and low opinions of their audiences, that they really believe they can say these things out loud, with no curtains or magic wands, and not even have to break stride.

      “Any honest person, supposing one still exists in physics, would see this for the great feat of magic it is. By using virtual particles, the standard model achieves a force and a motion with no energy transfer. It achieves a kinematics with no mechanics. It achieves an answer with no explanation, a series of airy words with no physical content. The messenger photon appears out of nothing (achieved by some wish of the nucleus) moves in some ghostly fashion out to the electron, whispers something to it through the void, and then conveniently disappears. With such a transaction, we don’t have to worry about conservation of energy or mechanics or force by contact or any of the old bugbears of physics. In this story, charge is nothing more than a black flag waved by a ghost.

      “What sort of physicists could be satisfied by such a story, much less proud of it? How can a theory (QED) which has made so little progress on the central question make any claim to success, much less completeness? The standard brag now is that quantum physics is so successful there is nothing left to do. Everyone has to go into string theory now in order to stave off boredom, we are told.”

      And from http://milesmathis.com/charge.html:

      “Let us look freshly at the electrical field, as if we are encountering it for the first time—as if we are aliens just arriving upon earth, uploading books from the Library of Congress and studying them for signs of intelligence. One of the first books we open [ed: Giancoli’s General Physics] tells us this,

      “‘The conceptual difficulties [of action at a distance] can be overcome with the idea of the field, developed by the British scientist Michael Faraday…. It must be emphasized, however, that a field is not a kind of matter. It is, rather, a concept*—and a very useful one.’

      “Let us also look at the footnote referred to here:

      “‘*Whether the electric field is “real” and really exists, is a philosophical, even metaphysical, question. In physics it is a very useful idea, in fact a great invention of the human mind.’

      “As honest aliens, we must see that this footnote is absolutely false. The question of how the electrical field works is not a metaphysical one, it is a mechanical one. What Mr. Faraday has done is create a heuristic device that also works as a mental misdirection. Look at what the book says,

      “‘The electric field at the location of the second charge is considered to interact directly with this charge to produce the force.’

      “So the field was created in order to allow them to say that. Mr. Faraday, desiring to clear up action at a distance, drew a line with a pencil from one charge to the other, called that a field line, gave it no physical reality and no mechanical definition, and claimed that the pencil line interacted directly with the second charge. That is supposed to be a great invention of the human mind. As aliens, we must wonder what would be considered a dishonest creation of a human mind.
      “The book buries this bit of dishonesty with its own, calling mechanics “metaphysics.” This is to warn off anyone from asking the questions we are asking here. Humans do not like to be called names, and these physicists are warning readers that if they ask any questions about the reality of the field, they will be called mean and scary names. Physicists do not like to be called philosophers or metaphysicians, and just the threat of it is enough to move them on. This despite the fact that the question involved is clearly and unambiguously one of mechanics. If transmitting a force from one object to another is not mechanics, nothing is.”

      • Obvious

        Are you proving my point on purpose? Mathis seems to require a purely mechanical proof (although he wildly speculates after he thinks he has one).

        Faraday did the experiments, and described what he saw as best as possible. Maxwell put the equations to the numbers from Faraday’s compilations and general descriptions of trends.

        Josh said:
        “So the field was created in order to allow them to say that. Mr.
        Faraday, desiring to clear up action at a distance, drew a line with a
        pencil from one charge to the other, called that a field line, gave it
        no physical reality and no mechanical definition, and claimed that the
        pencil line interacted directly with the second charge. That is supposed
        to be a great invention of the human mind. As aliens, we must wonder
        what would be considered a dishonest creation of a human mind.”

        in reply:
        And with a few more creations of the mind, the speed of light was calculated from the rate of change in the electromagnetic field, leading to E=mc^2 from Maxwell’s equations based on Faraday’s observations.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          No, I’m not proving your point. I’m arguing that what you’re calling “abstraction” is a problematic way of reasoning about physics. To insist on non-mechanical abstraction in physics is problematic, and to insist that mechanics is a sign of being unable to think abstractly is a canard. Force, mass, acceleration, those are all abstractions from the movements and things we see around us. But they are also mechanical. If you think it’s good to posit the existence of something as fairytale-esque as messenger photons to explain charge just because it’s “abstract,” then I think there’s something wrong with that. And my point was that even Einstein had an objection to the kinds of non-mechanical abstractions you insist are somehow “better” than mechanical abstractions.

          • Obvious

            Abstraction is the way of dealing with things that are orders of magnitude beyond our personal ability to interact with the discrete or large scale processes of the universe. Most of the mechanistic parts of the universe are beyond the scale of our understanding due to size or number of pieces. That’s OK. That’s life.
            Abstraction allows leaps of intuition to be tested, instead of spending eternity counting atoms or photons (etc.) to see if the Lego bricks of the universe add up, while these parts are busy moving on with their lives.
            Abstraction isn’t reality, and should not be confused with reality, but it gets the job done.

            • Josh Guetzkow

              That’s hogwash and anyway nobody is counting atoms, photons or lego bricks, least of all Mathis. And, as it turns out, they aren’t beyond our ability to understand. You’re right that the type of abstraction you have blind faith in has gotten the job done so far, but there are many problems and unsolved mysteries.As Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, the astrophysicist at NASA at Johns Hopkins University writes in the forward to Miles’s first book:

              “Physics is now in crisis for a multitude of reasons. To start with, it is well known that the math blows up whenever quantum mechanics meets gravity. The failure to unify the two major maths of the 20th century has caused untold problems, and despite what we are sometimes told, the solution has not been found….

              “In my own sub-field, astrophysicists have signed up wholesale to the belief that we only understand 96% of the mass-energy of the Universe. The consequent, stupendously large, one hundred and twenty orders of magnitude difference in the predicted and “observed” vacuum energy has been heralded by respected scientists as the most spectacular failure in the history of physics. Yet I have witnessed these very same scientists of repute laugh it off in conferences as some kind of whimsical rivalry between particle physicists and astrophysicists.”

              And you would solve these problems by ascending to ever and every higher levels of abstraction. Many will follow you there. I won’t be among them.

              • Obvious

                The abstractions are increasingly refined, because they can be tested. If Mathis is not counting pieces, he is using abstraction. Who has seen the electron or photon? Who has seen acceleration? (Not an object accelerating, but acceleration itself). Math IS abstraction.
                The problem is that math that is bunk produces junk.
                Mathis generates bath math from the start, making a disaster that snowballs forward into nonsense, making things worse, not better.

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Great, now that you’ve conceded my point about abstraction, all you have to do is show me why his math is bunk. Or do you think I should just take your word for it?

                • Obvious

                  Pi, acceleration, mass, velocity, distance, calculus, where would you prefer to start?

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Start with one of the papers I cited in the paper I posted.

                • Obvious

                  If I skip the reference to Goethe in the introductions, your first reference is to all of his papers.

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  I didn’t say pick the first one, captain obvious, I said pick one of them. Also, the link you’re referring to his to his website. I said one of his *papers* I linked to. You can start with the unified field paper if you like.

                • Obvious

                  “Let’s look at Newton’s equation first.

                  F = GMm/r^2

                  We have had this lovely unified field equation since 1687.
                  But how can we get two fields when we only have mass involved? Well, we
                  remember that Newton invented the modern idea of mass with this equation.

                  That is to say, he pretty much invented that variable on his own. He let that
                  variable stand for what we now call mass, but it turns out he compressed the
                  equation a bit too much. He wanted the simplest equation possible, but in this
                  form it is so simple it hides the mechanics of the field. It would have been
                  better if Newton had written the equation like this:

                  F= G(DV)(dv)/r^2

                  He should have written each mass as a density and a volume.
                  Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a
                  mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you
                  only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be
                  measured only with a yardstick. You will say that if density and volume can be
                  measured with a yardstick, so can mass, since mass is defined by density and
                  volume. True. But mass is a step more abstract, since it requires both
                  measurements. Mass requires density and volume. But density and volume do not require mass.”

                  http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

                  In other words, Mathis has replaced mass in the equation with density x volume, (OK) and has decided that the density can be measured with a yardstick.

                  How do you suppose that yardstick for density works? How is density a fundamental characteristic? We can determine mass without knowing the volume or density. We cannot determine density without knowing mass and volume.

                  A given mass (say 1 kg of water) can occupy 1L in liquid form, a bit more as ice, and over 1000 times the volume as steam, but the mass is the same. So how is mass an an abstraction?

                  Anyways, Mathis explains:
                  “Now we only need to assign density mechanically. I have given it to E/M, but what part of the E/M field does it apply to? Well, it must apply to the emission. Newton’s equation is not telling us the density of the bodies in the field, it is telling us the density of the emitted field. Of course one is a function of the other. If you have a denser moon, it will emit a denser E/M field. But, as a matter of mechanics, the variable D applies to the density of the emitted field. It is the density of photons emitted by the matter creating the unified field.”

                  Now that is abstraction of the highest order.

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  So at the beginning you complained about his incapacity for abstraction, and now you’re complaining that he is being too abstract? What are you like the Goldilocks of abstraction?

                  I have already answered this below in a comment to another reader. Obviously he is not proposing to measure density with an actual yardstick. You are taking him far too literally. Look it’s really quite simple, even Wikipedia’s entry on Mass gets it: “mass can be generalized as the amount of matter in an object.” If you put more matter (say, in the form of neutrons and protons) in the same space/object (i.e., volume), the density of matter will go up, and hence (what we consider to be) its mass. If the amount of matter is fixed (the total sum of protons and neutrons), then the amount of space it occupies will determine its density. If the volume is fixed and the number of particles in that space goes up, then the density goes up too. It just doesn’t seem very complicated.

                • Obvious

                  Mathis does not like abstraction unless it suits him. He claims to want a mechanistic solution.
                  If the “same space” was filled with electrons, would it have the same mass as a same space of protons? What if it was filled with moon dust?
                  Anyways, the volume (same space) is divorced from the density by Mathis.
                  Then he says that density is caused by photons with no explanation.
                  This is important, because his theory is based on these points.

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Mathis has no problem with abstraction. His problem is with non-mechanical physics explanations passed off as explanations instead of being recognized as the heuristics they are.

                  The paper one I linked to is just a gloss of his theories. He has redefined what mass is, and you are trying to trip him up on the old definition. If you want to criticize his theories from a place of actual understanding, you first have to read his fuller papers on the (“un-“) unified field. Here are the two major ones that feed into the shorter one I linked to:

                  http://milesmathis.com/uft.html

                  http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

                  I’ve had a lot of fun running around with you in circles, but now I think it’s time for both of us to move on. Cheers.

                • Obvious

                  Cheers

  • Steve Savage

    Josh

    Thank you for posting this, I did not know about Miles. I have always been bothered about the inconsistencies in much of modern physics. Miles seems to make a lot of sense, I find his explanations deep, clear and compelling. I think readers who dismiss him to easily and without approaching it with an open mind and the willingness to do a bit of work will e doing themselves a disservice.

    It appears that Miles is a Polymath and a bit of a rebel (albeit a mild one). This endears me to him, as I find it hard to believe that a sane person, upon some understanding about how the world actually works, could not possibly be a bit rebellious.

    http://www.mileswmathis.com/bio.html

    I urge readers to take a look, maybe read his full bio first, so you understand how he came to be, then his work, at the links Josh has posted. Lastly, his supporters / detractors from a scientific point of view. We all have our points of eccentricity, I believe in this case they have little or nothing to do with his work and can be safely ignored or perhaps even questioned with an open and skeptical mind.

    Regarding the conspiracy theories, well, I just have no explanation for some of them, and on a couple others I remain agnostic. Seems a shame in some ways that someone who can display such brilliance, could let these seemingly crazy theories (conspiracy) taint his reputation. If we judge by his science and background alone, as we should, we may be pleasantly surprised that indeed Miles Mathis is the real deal. I do also think that he will add something, perhaps quite substantial, to our emerging understanding of LENR. I can’t wait for his paper.
    BTW … I am completely shocked by the opinions and attitudes expressed by some on this topic … I expected more openness. Even if Mathis is wrong, which I doubt, he is a rare talent, and deserves more respect and deep reading before pronouncing such strident judgement. His immediate detractors would be better served to base their criticism on his work and his ideas, not his eccentricities.

  • Frechette

    Ah yes Lenin the Communist who put all the USSR government organs in place to make Stalin’s (Uncle Joe) murderous Terror regime possible. 100 million liquidated world wide in the most brutal manner under the banner of the Hammer and Sickle according to “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois et al. On a personal level that includes members of my wife’s family.

    As a famous US Senator once said; “One Communist in the State Department is one Communist too many.” How right he was.

    • georgehants

      Frechette, may I ask, are you taking about communism as defined in any dictionary, or the hijacking of communism by ruthless dictators?

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Orsobubu, very perceptive insights. Are you familiar with John Searle’s work on consciousness? You should read his book, The Mystery of Consciousness. He also has an interesting materialist theory about the emergence of consciousness.

    No, I am not working together with Mathis on the issue of LENR. He prefers to work alone, and anyway I am not at his caliber. I wrote this document independently, summarizing his work to the best of my current ability and understanding. I then outlined some ideas as to how I felt that the theory could be applied to LENR. And I have yet to hear anybody offer any kind of critique, constructive or otherwise, regarding the substance of his arguments or mine. Just a lot of people blowing smoke.

    Say, I wonder if you would suggest to Rossi on his JoNP to read either my essay, or to look into Miles’s work? It seems he has a fondness for you and might listen. I know he likes to study physics on an ongoing basis.

    • orsobubu

      I will look for the book, thank you Josh. Surely I will tell him about this article. A nice coincidence is that Rossi’s philosphy main teacher in his university years was philosopher and mathematician Ludovico Geymonat, the most important, world class italian epistemologist, who, together with Feyerabend, destroyed Karl Popper falsification principle in science. He was clearly a dialectical materialist.

  • georgehants

    Thanks Josh, good open, honest science, free for all to read and comment, negative or positive.
    As always only time will tell, not opinions, but simply being closed-minded can only make one look a fool.

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, George. I’ll share with you an e-mail I received shortly after the post went live: “Thank You, Thank You!!!

      “Have known and read Miles Mathis for many years now and love his work, but it was so hard to distill his many writing down to the Essence and an Overview.

      “You have done a marvelous job of explaining the foundations of his point of view and am extremely excited because it resonates so deeply.

      “Would love to be part of a group of like minded individuals who want to share, elaborate, promote, communicate, develop, and explore the possibilities of this belief structure. To be part of this much needed revolution in how we view physical reality !!!

      “Thanks Again For Your Deep Appreciation And Awareness Of The Significance Of His Work !!!”

      • georgehants

        Josh, Wonderful,
        Best

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Great, why don’t you tell us what you think his perspective has to offer.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is nice to point your attention on this new guy, but asking everybody to read the lengthy story in which he proves that a lot of theories are wrong isn’t done in the right way. What you should do is pointing us on the consequences: How will matter look like when he is right? Where does it differ with its interactions between atoms? What are the celestial consequences. Give examples, make us curious. Only then you can make us read this and perhaps retrieve the acknowledgment you are asking for.

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Gerard, I’m sorry if asking you to read a 15 page paper written in 14-point font is too much to ask. But you should try your best to muddle through, because it responds to many of your questions. It describes, in rough terms, this new theory of matter and the construction of subatomic particles and atomic nuclei. Anybody reading it who has some familiarity with accepted theories of the interactions between atoms will be able to very clearly see many points of difference.

      As for the celestial consequences, I thought that telling you that his theory solves the mystery of dark matter kind of counts as a celestial consequence, since, you know, astronomers can’t get their equations to work without positing its existence (and as I say in the paper, dark matter simply is the charge field).

      And as for making you curious, well gee, I thought that by telling you that his theory solves (with simple mathematical equations) the mysteries of “superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, and the Casimir effect … and explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck’s constant and a bunch of others), why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2 , why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a nucleon, where magnetic charge comes from and how it actually works” would be enough to make anyone who has even the slightest curiosity about anything having to do with science just a little bit curious. Not enough? His theories also explain why gravity exists and why the golden ratio has the value it does. Curious yet, Gerard? No? Not enough razzle-dazzle for you? I don’t know what else I can say. If Miles is a crank, he’s a crank of unequaled caliber and worth reading on that basis alone.

      I did not take the time to summarize all those aspect of his work. I wanted to focus on the bits that I think are most directly relevant to LENR. But all of his work explaining all of this is available for free on line. Over 6,000 pages. Unless you just can’t be bothered. I mean, I guess if you were handed an original copy of Newton’s Principia hot off the presses in 1687, you would just go, “Who has time for that? And why is the title in Latin? Sounds like a snoozefest. Let’s go see King Lear over at the Globe — I hear there’s a surprise twist at the end.”

      On a final note, I want to make something perfectly clear: I am not seeking any personal acknowledgement. And I fully expect that when Miles publishes his paper on LENR soon, we will see just how primitive and perhaps misguided my speculations are. What I want is to for people to recognize how important this is for understanding and harnessing LENR. Like the good folks at MFMP, I want to push this technology forward for the good of the planet, and I feel certain that this is the key to moving forward, not by haphazard baby steps, but by leaps and bounds. And if you can’t be bothered, then I guess you’re going to get left behind.

      • Zephir

        /* But all of his work explaining all of this is available for free on line. Over 6,000 pages */

        I don’t see any theory of cold fusion / LENR there, some testable proposal how to improve the COP/ yield the less. With respect to dedication of this server it would be waste of time to read it.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          You are entitled to your opinion. And if you had read the first 3 pages of the paper I submitted, you would have seen that he will soon be publishing a paper on LENR.

          • Zephir

            Yes, the mainstream physics community publishes piles of articles about various subjects, but it doesn’t bring us any closer to their understanding.

            You actually repeat the same paradigm, which Mathis criticizes in his essays.

            • Josh Guetzkow

              Since you can’t be bothered to read a single page of his work, or even the article I submitted, how can you judge what kind of paradigm his work fits into?

              • Zephir

                From where you got such an impression? Just because I’ve read the article submitted, I can tell safely, it doesn’t bring any testable prediction or any clue for increasing of COP.

      • Zephir

        /* he can actually explain why the sun and moon have approximately the same diameter as seen from the Earth */

        It’s a matter of simple trigonometry. The distance of Moon from Earth increases steadily, so that every extrapolation of this coincidence is just temporal from this perspective. Note that no other moon follows the same rule at another planets – so it’s really just a coincidence.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          “The distance of Moon from Earth increases steadily, so that every extrapolation of this coincidence is just temporal from this perspective.”

          Maybe you think that makes sense, but it doesn’t. Also, I never said he said it was the same on other planets.

      • Roland

        Dear Josh,

        Please understand that I’m in no doubt about your sincerity and that you may be correct that somewhere in all Miles’ work there is some hidden gem, however right on the surface of his thoughts lie a number of highly suspect assertions that make me question the degree to which he shares a conceptual framework of contemporary history with a significant number of people who have a very loose association with demonstrable facts.

        You are correct in asserting that some very able intellects in specific realms of thought can be remarkably naive their understanding of contemporary affairs and other people. For example some might say that it took an egregiously long time for Albert Einstein to recognize the existence of evil and to account for that unfortunate attribute in others in his political and social calculations.

        Miles Mathias bears all the earmarks of a crank, this makes it extremely difficult for me, and I suspect many others here, to take his work seriously. I’m generally prepared to dig in and make a sincere effort to understand concepts that have wide ranging implications for my understanding of the cosmos and I certainly entertain and explore a number of ideas and interests that fall well outside the mainstream paradigms.

        When it comes to choosing where to focus my efforts I’m repelled by opinions and assertions that are obvious nonsense. For example just a couple of weeks ago I actually encountered a person who is convinced that the earth is flat and he was desperate to explain the ‘evidence’ for this to me. This person is a talented photographer and in other regards a very decent and harmless man. He is, however, intellectually insane as he’s been up high enough in an airplane to personally witness the curvature of the earth.

        There are a very large number of people who ‘believe’ the earth is a few thousand years old; I consider them to be intellectually insane as well and anything else that they might opine about to be automatically suspect until proven otherwise.

        I don’t ‘believe’ in LENR, I accept that the body of experimentation and data produced over the last 25 years demonstrates a fundamental validity of the tested hypothesis that LENR is a genuine phenomena of significant import for the future of our species.

        Randall Mills has a theory of everything that has generated verified cosmological predictions, testable hypothesis and a compelling energy producing technology.

        Would you please present an aspect of Miles’ thought that can be stated as a testable hypothesis or prediction without requiring me to dig through 6,000 pages to find it because, quite frankly, he’s written enough stupid opinions on events that I understand reasonably well that I’ll never make that effort myself.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          That’s a long comment for being so devoid of substance. Lots of words, but still not a single substantive critique of Miles’s work. It seems there is an inverse proportion between the two. You appear to be using a lot of words to cover up the fact that you have nothing to say.

          You say you won’t read 6,000 pages, but I never asked anybody to read 6,000 pages. I asked them to read 14 and plus a smidge. But you can’t even be bothered to do that. Which is fine, because it clearly wouldn’t do any good. Thanks goodness people were more open-minded back in Newton’s day and willing to overlook his eccentricities, nay, his madness. And thank goodness the bulk of the ECW readership is a lot more open-minded than you.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks, yes I missed the link to your document and followed the link to the Mathias site.
        I just wonder if he first developed the idea how matter would look like and then started to think about the correctness of the Standard Model or the other way around. His ideas are intriguing and I look forward in how he explains LENR in his theories.
        BTW how would entanglement between particles work in his theories?

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Gerard, sorry for my tone. My submission has really brought out the trolls. Just look at all the people here who have never posted at ECW, and then all of a sudden, within hours of the posting, swoosh. Its enough to almost make you want to take a second look at these theories. I know you’re not new here, but even then…

          Anyway, Miles has a brilliant paper on entanglement. This is another one of those papers where he again shows that the emperor has no clothes, and then provides a mechanical solution to the issue: http://milesmathis.com/entang.html

  • pg

    -3!?

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Exactly.

  • Lux Terrea

    Can we just get the goddamn report out on the one year test already? Sheesh…

  • Josh Guetzkow

    I think it’s very interesting and very telling that none of the people who have posted with negative comments about Miles or tried to discredit him have offered any substantive argument against his physics theories, which is what we’re here to assess and discuss. His work stands on its own. I have confidence that the ECW community is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to make a fair and open-minded assessment of it on substantive grounds alone, and I think the conversation should really be focused on that.

    Note that in my paper I wrote: “Of course Miles is not without his detractors, but I have yet to see any of them actually argue why he is wrong; they just engage in ad-hominem attacks.” And that’s all we’ve really seen here so far. This is really the weakest form of argumentation, though unfortunately it can be effective. *Every time* I have tried to post about his work in other forums or have seen his work posted, it seems to almost immediately draw people out of the woodwork to come and make the kinds of claims that have so far been made, often by people who have never posted in those forums before. Let us not be distracted or derailed.

    I think that somebody calling Miles a crackpot on a forum devoted to cold fusion is rich in irony. Couldn’t that claim be leveled against any of us for believing in such an impossible fairy tale as cold fusion? Imagine you have a mechanic. He is the best mechanic the world has ever seen. He fixes cars far better and faster than any other mechanic in the world, blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back. Everyone in the surrounding area has been bringing their cars to him for years, as have you.

    One day you bring your car in, and somebody comes into the (packed) waiting room and says: “Don’t get your car fixed from this guy! He’s a crackpot! He believes in cold fusion! Probably the Easter Bunny, too! What a nut!” Would you leave the shop? No, of course not! And not because you believe in cold fusion, too. It’s because any ‘eccentric’ beliefs he may have do not affect his knowledge and ability to fix cars. He may even be schizophrenic. It doesn’t matter. It says nothing whatsoever about his ability to fix cars. Now, if someone comes in and starts telling you that his understanding of car mechanics is mistaken and that he has been using cheap parts from China that will eventually fall apart, that’s another matter. Then you might reconsider. If you were told that he believed something that I found morally repugnant, you might take your business elsewhere, but that doesn’t make him any less of a mechanic.

    So please, if we can, let’s try to keep the discussion substantive, focused on his physics work. If anyone want to criticize Miles, let’s have it be related to the substance of his argument. The ideas expressed in his physics work, with all of its equations, etc., stand on their own and can be assessed independently, and I trust the ECW readership to be savvy enough to critically examine the substance of his work. That’s what we’re here for. And that’s what matters for cold fusion and the future of the planet.

    Does Miles have some rather eccentric ideas? Yes. But we also know that geniuses are often eccentric. It doesn’t make them less genius. Perhaps quite the opposite.

    For those of you who wish to let yourselves be distracted by this, I will finish here by linking to Miles’s own response to his critics, as well as some interesting positive input he has had ‘from the mainstream.’ I encourage you to read them.

    http://milesmathis.com/david.html

    http://milesmathis.com/crank2.pdf

    http://milesmathis.com/main.pdf

    http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf

    • Zephir

      /* I think that somebody calling Miles a crackpot on a forum devoted to cold fusion is rich in irony */

      I wouldn’t call him crackpot because of lack of expertise – but I don’t see any theory of cold fusion / LENR there, some testable proposal how to improve the COP/ yield the less. With respect to
      dedication of this server it would be a waste of time to read it.

      • Josh Guetzkow

        But not such a waste of time that you bothered to take the time to post a comment (twice) stating that it would be a waste of time to read it. Gotchya, Zephir. We’ve got your number. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

  • Curbina

    It is unfortunate that a person that has good ideas can be discredited only because he has other ideas that seem completely at odds with what is considered to be the official truth. I had no idea about the existence of Mathis until a few minutes ago, and I see that already the discussion centered in everything but his physic ideas.

  • Dusty

    Readers might want google some of Miles Mathis theories before even considering something built off of them. Complete crackpot, not science or even close to it.

    • Zephir

      You may think of physics like about skeletal construction, which gets various shapes from various angles. So far we considered only two main angles (i.e. these ones which provide most of math) – but there are another angles, which could enable us to understand things better. What I’m missing in Mathis’s perspective are the testable predictions: it’s interpretative teaching – not extrapolative one. Without predictions no theory can be tested.

      https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

      • Axil Axil

        Certain types of string theory do predict things.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Here is Miles’s critique of string theory: http://milesmathis.com/string.html

          • Pekka Janhunen

            “Den Originalen

            Ein Quidam sagt: Ich bin von keiner Schule;
            Kein Meister lebt, mit dem ich buhle;
            Auch bin ich weit davon entfernt,
            dass ich von Toten ‘was gelernt.

            Das heisst, wenn ich ihn recht verstand:
            Ich bin ein Narr auf eigne Hand.”

            J.W.v. Goethe

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Translation attempt:

              “To the originals

              Someone said: No school made me an impression;
              No living man teached me his lesson;
              Neither did I ever get
              a thing of value from the dead.

              It means, if I right understood him:
              I am a fool of my own making.”

              “String theory” (or actually a number of metatheories of extended objects) is an attempt to fix the infinity and gravity non-inclusion problems of point-particle quantum field theory. The attempt has thus far failed in the sense that no concrete theory was constructed. But it has succeeded in the sense that lots of mathematical results concerning theories of extended objects have been produced, some of which may be applicable also to solid state physics. Also the original motivation for string theory hasn’t meanwhile disappeared: the infinities and gravity incompatibility are still there in point-particle theories. It’s an old dilemma: point-particle quantum field theory (the standard model) is in very good agreement with very many experiments, but it’s mathematically inconsistent and ugly and does not include gravity in a natural way. String theory appears to solve those problems at least superficially, but it has turned out that new problems emerge then, plus the mathematics becomes almost too complicated to handle. Plus no connection with experiment has thus far been possible.

              It’s anyone’s guess if string theory is the right avenue or not. For those who believe in it, it is the right avenue, until otherwise proven. Those who don’t believe in it, they prefer to fight against other types of problems encountered on other theoretical avenues. When not in crisis, theoretical physics progresses rapidly, when not progressing rapidly, it is in crisis, like now.

              • Josh Guetzkow

                Nice, Pekka. You might appreciate Miles’s critique of string theory: http://milesmathis.com/string.html

              • Zephir

                /* The attempt has thus far failed in the sense that no concrete theory was constructed. */

                I’m afraid, the same can be said about Mathis ideas. They just represent the dual view to problem, which remains as fragmented as his own subject of critique.

        • Zephir

          Yes, certain types, which cannot be predicted from introductory postulates. BTW So far all attempts to validate string theory failed, so that these types can be already considered disproved.

          http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3338

          http://io9.gizmodo.com/5714210/string-theory-fails-first-major-experimental-test

          Here I’m explaining, what actually matters in string theory, but it cannot change the fact, that the string theory is currently considered falsified by criterions of mainstream scientists itself.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/3y52kd/is_string_theory_not_a_science/

      • Josh Guetzkow

        “It’s an interpretative teaching – not extrapolative one.”

        I completely disagree with that statement. The fact that he has used it to *explain*, rather than simply *describe* (i.e., interpret) some of the fundamental aspects and mysteries of science shows how powerful it is. In this paper, he discusses an exchange he had with a scientist working in industry on NMR, where he was able to suggest something that was testable and proved to be correct: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf

        In the paper I wrote, I already showed how even a rudimentary grasp of his theory could already start generating testable hypotheses (of course more precision and elaboration will be necessary). Current science is much more heuristic or interpretive than his theory.

        • Zephir

          /* Current science is much more heuristic or interpretive than his theory */

          But how we can judge it? Maybe Mathis theory is as heuristic at the logical level, as the mainstream physics is at the formal level. The formal level can be reproduced exactly, if nothing else.

          Could Mr. Mathis bring the list of introductory postulates and testable predictions of his theory together with the way, in which they can be derived from these postulates in logical way? This is the only way, in which scientific theories can be reproduced.

          You may consider theories as a recipe for thinking – until it cannot be reproduced, it remains useless as a tool for another people.

          • Josh Guetzkow

            So you want him to do all your thinking for you, is basically what you’re saying. Did anyone demand that of Einstein? No, he offered some amazing theoretical breakthroughs and people thought about them and went about thinking what their implications were and figured out how to test them. Nobody demanded of Einstein what you’re demanding of Miles before they agreed to read his work. It’s preposterous.

            If you actually take the time to read some of his work, you’ll see that he makes a lot of deductions and then shows you how existing experiments support those deductions. In other words, he says “well I think x, y and z are true. And if those are true, then this other thing, Q, must also be true. Oh, and look, it is!”

            For example, in the paper I linked to on quantum chromodynamics (http://milesmathis.com/quark.html), he shows that according to his theory of spin states, the mass of a Proton should be about 1821 times the mass of an electron. And guess what? It is. In other words whereas existing theory could only tell you what the mass differential is, his theory can tell you *why* it is that way. And he does that again and again and again, shedding brilliant new light onto so many things that we already knew, more or less, but could not explain. Those seem like plenty good implications to me.

            • Zephir

              /* Did anyone demand that of Einstein? */

              Nope, because Einstein already provided it. His theories always consisted of list of postulates and the reproducible chain of logic leading to testable predictions.

              But how the Mathis mental processes could be reproduced? What is a postulate and what predictions in his essays?

              • Josh Guetzkow

                I already addressed this in my earlier reply. I don’t think you’re making as much sense you think you are.

              • Josh Guetzkow

                Really though? I don’t see Einstein offering any testable predictions in his paper on special relativity. May I missed it? https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

                • Zephir

                  Yes, Einstein just predicted the time dilatation and relativistic contraction with this article.

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Sure, but how do you go about testing time dilation? Einstein doesn’t say. He doesn’t even offer any help in that regard. If that’s your definition of a testable prediction then Miles offers tons, though not (yet) about LENR. But clearly you hold him to a different standard.

                • Zephir

                  The problem is, your article doesn’t propose any testable prediction – not to say about the way, in which it could be tested. Here you can find link to sixty six theories of cold fusion. Why do you think, the Mathis theory is any better?

                  http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LENR-and-Cold-Fusion-Theory-Index.shtml

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Yes, I do.

                • Dave Lawton

                  You mean FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction.You should also read PHYSICS. WITHOUT EINSTEIN. BY. HAROLD ASPDEN .He also was one of the first to obtain a Cold Fusion patent.

            • Zephir

              /* he shows that according to his theory of spin states, the mass of a Proton should be about 1821 times the mass of an electron */

              This number cannot be even found at the page you linked. Where we can find this derivation exactly? Regarding mass of particles, we already have better and much more explicit theories for it – no hand waving.

              http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0151v1.pdf

      • Fastbuck

        “What I’m missing in Mathis’s perspective the most are the testable predictions: it’s an interpretative teaching – not extrapolative one. Without predictions no theory can be tested.”

        In this paper Mathis provides an explanation for the double slit experiment and proposes an experiment that can prove if his solution is correct.

        http://milesmathis.com/double.html

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Pretty cool, right?

          • Fastbuck

            Yes. I want to see this double slit experiment performed. Mathis has some interesting ideas about the nature of mater.

        • Zephir

          Which solution? I can see no math at this page.

          /* The real atoms in the wall create the interference pattern, with simple spherical emission. */

          Which frequency this emission has?

          • Fastbuck

            Mathis is proposing setting up a classic double slit experiment that uses a mirror with double slits. If a stream of photons does not pass through the slits, I would not expect to see an interference pattern similar to the pattern created when the photons pass through the slit(s).

            • Zephir

              Why the photons shouldn’t pass through slits, even if they would be formed with mirror? If the photons wouldn’t pass through the slit, they indeed cannot form any interference, but this is trivial insight, consistent with existing physics.

              IMO it’s all schizophrenic bullshit free of any logic – just covered with pile of familiar words, which fools the laymen.

              • Josh Guetzkow

                Fastbuck left out a few key details. The wall from which the protons are ejected would have a sensor, and the wall with the slits would have a mirror, so photons that missed the slits would bounce back and hit the wall from which they were emitted. Based on his explanation, these reflected photons would also exhibit an interference pattern, which the standard understanding of why it happens neither predicts nor can it explain. Or you could, you know, read the paper before dismissing it as schizophrenic bullshit.

  • Skip

    Just found out about him yesterday, interesting. Checking him out will take some time…

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Read the document linked to in my post. It offers a partial summary and also links to his relevant papers along the way. But yes, it will take some time.

  • Josh Guetzkow

    Just want to say that I made a mistake regarding my theory of why H- plays a role in jump starting the ecat. What I said would apply to H+. Anyway Miles write to me that he is almost done writing a paper on LENR. He works fast! So we won’t have long to wait.

  • gdaigle

    Does he really believe that Stephen Hawking died in 1985 and has been played by an impostor since then?

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Does it matter?

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Why?

      • Roland

        Let me get this straight; you are proposing that Miles, whom you aver is the smartest human ever, can advance something this stupid without it reflecting at all on his main thesis.

        I’ll leave to much better qualified posters to evaluate his physics theories while pointing out that the man may be of such questionable mental soundness that wading through his body of work in search of a more profound understanding of the universe is likely to prove an exercise in futility.

        Have you ever met a really, really smart schizophrenic who claimed to know everything about everything and could go on forever about how everyone else but him/her has got everything horribly wrong?

        Time will tell; perhaps the President really is an evil shape shifting reptilian alien bent on humanity’s destruction…

        Perhaps I’m being abysmally unfair…

        • Roland

          Further to this:

          http://mileswmathis.com/link.html

          Welcome to conspiracy central…

        • Josh Guetzkow

          I’m sorry, but I just have to laugh at your attempt to discredit Miles without offering a single substantive argument about why his physics theories are wrong. Good luck with that with this crowd. We like to think for ourselves.

          And yes, please do leave it to much better qualified posters to evaluate his physics theories. They’re not insane rantings. They are very clear, logical arguments backed up with very simple, transparent equations. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that, just as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can understand the basic physics formula developed by Isaac Newton. Ah, and speaking of Newton, did you know that:

          “Newton suffered from huge ups and downs in his moods, indicating bipolar disorder, combined with psychotic tendencies. His inability to connect with people could place him on the autism spectrum. He also had a tendency to write letters filled with mad delusions, which some medical historians feel strongly indicates schizophrenia.”

          http://mentalfloss.com/article/12500/11-historical-geniuses-and-their-possible-mental-disorders

  • Zephir
    • Josh Guetzkow

      A true Renaissance man

      • etburg

        Go to his site. Peruse a few of his essays. He says that Sandy Hook and the Boston marathon were hoaxes and that 911 was an inside job. He thinks that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. I came across this in the first few minutes. Based that much, I don’t think he lives in a fact based universe. The paintings are nice. I’ll give him that.

        • Owen Geiger

          Yeah, everybody knows Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed from office fires. High rise structures burn down all the time, right?

          http://www.ae911truth.org/

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Yet his physics theories are entirely fact-based. And you have failed to offer a single substantive critique. Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but trying to discredit someone for having outlandish beliefs on a forum devoted to cold fusion isn’t going to get you very far.

          • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

            Outlandish? I’m not quite so sure of that. Another area where looking at the evidence and keeping an open mind seems prudent.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          Perhaps it would be wise to actually examine the evidence for and against those and similar assertions before dismissing them. You might begin with the collapse of WTC7 or follow a few searches on the topic of ‘crisis actors’.

    • Owen Geiger

      Woaa. This guy is really talented. Let’s slow down and see what he has to say.

      • Axil Axil

        Pi = 4?

        • Curbina

          But only in kinematic situations.

          • Zephir
            • Josh Guetzkow

              Read his papers on Pi to find out for yourself:

              Here is the long version:
              http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
              http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

              Here is the short version:
              http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html

              • JiW

                From his short version on Pi:
                “By substitution, this means that
                arcAC = AB …”

                Hmmm… math can be confusing, so let’s do an experiment:

                1: print the diagram
                2: cut a piece of thread to the printed length of AB
                3: place the piece of thread on the printed arcAC
                4: observation: arcAC << AB

                Conclusion: the result of his calculation contradicts observable reality.

                • Mark Underwood

                  Of course you raise a good point. In an attempt to counter this, Miles says in the long version:

                  “To state it yet another way: we assume that we can straighten out a curve like a piece of string, measure it as a straight line, and then compare that new length to any line we like. Physically, this turns out to be a false assumption. The only place we can do that is in abstract geometry, where time does not exist, and where lines and curves can be “given”, rather than drawn or created in any physical sense. ”

                  If it turned out that different types of strings yielded different results, I could see his point. But different types of strings yield essentially the same result, which happily is also the same result that mathematics achieves. But Miles is apparently so impressed with his own attempted proof that he dismisses both the physical result and the traditional math that fully supports it. Which is all the more strange given that he is about real mechanical physics and measurement!

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Mark, you seem like a knowledgeable and open-minded guy. I have a few questions for you if you don’t mind:

                  In one of his papers on Pi, Miles notes that in the taxicab geometry, the circumference of a circle is 8r. Is it possible that Miles hit on a similar result but coming at it from a different angle? In other words, is it possible that the taxicab geometry can be used to describe Miles’s method and conclusions, or the situations wherein Miles says we should treat the circumference as 8r? Miles has an explanation for why his method and the taxicab geometry come to the same conclusions. I think he talks about it in his second paper on Pi (pi2.html). I’m curious to hear your thoughts on that.

                  A second, do you agree with me that his work on Pi is quite irrelevant to applying his theories to LENR?

                  Thanks!

                • Mark Underwood

                  Josh yes it is clear to me how the so-called taxicab geometry and Mile’s method would yield the same result. The horizontal and vertical elements all add to the same distance.

                  But as I’ve shared elsewhere on this thread: Mile’s method has no regard for the specific nature of the closed curve inside the box. He would have to conclude that any closed curve inside the box which touched each of the four sides exactly once would have a circumference of 4d.

                  Let me tell you a story. While not that bright I’ve always been curious about math, to the extent that since early high school I would play with math as a hobby at home. I still remember in grade 9, after learning algebra, I went home and determined for myself the length of the circumference of a circle of radius one. No one asked me to do this, nor did I have any idea of how it had been done in the past. Let’s just say my formula for Pi involved an arbitrarily large power of 2 multiplied by an arbitrarily small number involving the number 2 and an arbitrarily long iteration of imbedded square roots. The small number represented the length of the increasingly smaller hypotenuses. And it came out to 3.1415…

                  Of note, it was an elementary observation that as one zoomed into the curve of the circle, the curve more and more approached looking like a straight line. Also, the little hypotenuses were more and more resembling the same near-straight line.

                  But with Mile’s method, if one were to zoom in, the zig zags of his orthogonal vectors remain as apparent as ever; they are forever distinguishable from the actual near-straight curve of the circle.

                  So Mile’s method fails upon a closer inspection, literally.

                  Regarding your second question, that his work on Pi has little to do with his ideas in physics: thankfully it seems this is so. But I must say, after reading his Pi papers it now makes me wary of his reasoning processes in general. Frankly I found all this rather disheartening because I was expecting great things, because he clearly has a formidable memory and knowledge base and I happen to like his mechanistic approach.

                  I even donated a few bucks via Paypal for all the effort he has put into his physics.

                  The question to me is, given he is very capable at being critical of the ideas of others, is he capable of being self critical and self correcting?

                • Josh Guetzkow

                  Mark, as a follow-up to my question about the taxicab geometry, Miles expands on it in his paper on the Manhattan metric (http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf). Curious to get your thoughts on his arguments in that paper:

                  Again, the proof that the tangent and chord don’t approach equality is in my paper titled A Disproof of Newton’s Fundamental Lemmae. You have to go there to get the proof, since I can’t include everything I know in every paper I write. Given that proof, we find that the circle is NOT composed at the limit of chords or hypotenuses, as in Archimedes, Newton, or anyone after. Given motion and the time variable, the circle is composed at the limit of the orthogonal vectors. In other words, it is composed of the two shorter sides of the right triangle, not the long side. Which means that real objects in orbit travel a path that is represented not by the limit of the Euclidean metric, but by the limit of the Manhattan metric. And this means that in the kinematic circle, π=4 and C = 8r.

                  What this means is that Hilbert’s metric was never just a trick to get an answer when Euclidean geometry was failing to do so. As it turns out, the Manhattan metric is actually the correct metric in all
                  orbital math, which makes it the correct math in both celestial mechanics and quantum mechanics.

                  What is now called the Euclidean metric is in fact FALSE in most real kinematic situations, since the foundational math beneath it is compromised in many places. It is fudged. It is wrong. When it gets the right answer, it does so only by multiple offsetting pushes. I show that not only in my paper on Newton’s lemmae, but in my papers on a=v2/r, my papers on the calculus, my paper on v = v0 + at, my paper on the Virial, and many others.

                  This also means that Hilbert could have discovered all this from his side if he had simply continued his analysis a bit further. Currently, the fact that π=4 and C = 8r in Manhattan geometry is seen as some sort of novelty, and no one has thought to take it as physically true and see where it leads them. It would lead them right to me.”

              • Mark Underwood

                Well, I liked his attempt to explain the double slit experiment, enough to read more of his physics. I think he may have an uncanny physical intuition.

                But after reading his short essay called the “Extinction of Pi”, I see a very basic mathematical error. Take a look at the top diagram, notably the right angled triangle ADC, where D is the right angle and circle arc runs from A to C. Note this: using his logic and methodology , *any* curve (not just a circular arc) from A to C will have a length of AD + DC. “Any” curve would include a straight line itself. So by his logic the straight line distance from A to C will have a length of AD + DC. But of course the real straight line distance is sqrt(AD^2 + DC^2), showing his logic to be (bizarrely) flawed.

                Imo Miles would do well to refrain from rewriting math and stick to rewriting physics.

            • Curbina not logged in

              Well Zephyr, it has a lot of implications, one of his articles refers precisely about how aerospatial agencies learnt it the hard way. Is obviously speculative, but his speculation about is very easy To follow.

        • Owen Geiger

          I was talking about his art work. Take a look.

        • Josh Guetzkow

          Axil, honestly I’m disappointed in you. His argument about Pi is based on incredibly deep insights that have basically been overlooked for nearly two thousand years. I first learned of Miles’s work on another forum, and somebody made a similar comment as you. It sounded so off-the-wall that I almost didn’t give it a second look. Almost. But I did. And I’m grateful that I did. When I read his papers on pi it was crystal clear to me what his argument was and what he meant. Curbina got it, too. But here you come either misunderstanding or misrepresenting his argument.

          I always had a high estimation of your intelligence, and I thought his work would appeal to you precisely because it is so revolutionary. But it is also very grounded and material, and you seem to have a taste for more esoteric theories and arguments and prefer the abstract playthings of mainstream theoretical physics — in which case I can see why his work would not be to your liking.

          I recall some time ago you had a theory about LENR that involved the creation of a Bose-Einstein condensate inside the E-cat, with Hydrogen protons becoming virtual (as in, not really existing) and tunneling or ‘traveling’ outside of 3-D space through the zero-point field and re-materializing inside the nickel lattice, or something like that. In other words, you were suggesting that it was possible to cause real objects to disappear into nothing over here and then conjure them again out of thin air over there. Honestly, it sounds like sorcery. Or a magic trick. I’m sorry if that offends you, but that’s how I see it.

          In contrast, Miles’s theory involves material objects in our 3-D universe. There are no virtual particles, there is no zero-point field, no multi-dimensional field of vibrating strings — nothing beyond the world we can directly observe. In other words, he’s got nothing up his sleeve. I admit that I don’t like having to abandon the cool-sounding sci-fi concepts of theoretical physics — they’re fun to think about. But they’re wrong, and we need to look the truth squarely in the face if we want to progress as a society.

          I have also observed that your theories of LENR, while entertaining to consider, are not very consistent. You seem to offer us a new theory almost weekly. Ah, let’s see, what’s the flavor of the week this time? Virtual particles snapping in and out of existence? Rydberg matter nanocomposite thermo-generative quasicrystals? Magnetic monopole vortices in a super heated positronic Bose-Einstein condensate? And why do you keep abandoning one theory and moving to the next? You never tell us. You also never shown us any math or equations to support your flights of fancy, however compelling they may sound and however confident you are about them. I have never seen how your theories lead us anywhere productive. All I see you consistently doing is telling people like the heroic Bob Greenyear that he must be on the wrong track, because it’s not what he thinks, it’s this other thing (insert flavor of the week).

          Miles, in contrast, offers a very clear and consistent theory. He has updated and revised his conclusions on occasion, yes, but always gives a clear and cogent reason why. (The biggest revision has been to his explanation for why the force of gravity exists.) And on top of that (or rather, supporting it from underneath), he offers us formula in very simple, transparent, straightforward, high-school level algebra that illustrate unambiguously exactly what he is doing and why. And his theories will lead us to a productive, useful and all-encompassing theory of LENR that will enable us to finally harness it at will. And who knows what else. If we have to update our understanding of pi, then so be it.

      • Josh Guetzkow

        Yes, please do.

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Here is Miles’s paper ‘rehabilitating’ Goethe’s color theory. It’s brilliant: http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html