Two steps back, one leap forward by Steven Oostdijk

Since you chose to call me a loudmouth rather than answer my simple question, I'll try again.

I challenge you or Mathis to come up with ONE experiment that meets all four of the following conditions:

1. It has not been performed before.

2. It can be performed in the real world.

3. Current physics predicts one outcome.

4. Mathis physics predicts another outcome.

That isn't too much to ask, is it?

Please, enlighten me why such an experiment is apparently not possible. Is it because all new experiments would produce results that agree with both standard physics and Mathis physics? Or is there some other reason, which neither you nor Mathis will tell me? I'd really like to know.

If you are so fond of "current physics", you better start reading the selection of articles I gave you and answer the question why "current physics" is not able to provide the answers that Miles provides. The article about the Saturn precession anomaly listed earlier would be an excellent example of a verifiable real world outcome that you ask for, but apparently you have'nt bothered to read it. You seem to be very unfamiliar with Miles work. Probably it would be wise to at least study the list of his claimed discoveries, which I also posted earlier.

What Miles Mathis has attempted to do is redo the existing math over several subjects that is more direct, simple and elegant. This is an artistic achievement. He restates certain results that should be verifiable as he claims that the established results are false. If his restatements are closer to the observed results, then his math is superior to the established math and should supplant it.

Would anyone be interested in some further discussion on Miles Mathis's theories? Specifically concerning the photon and electron stacked spins.

Yes. Major league baseball pitchers would love to learn how to throw a ball with "stacked spins," including the "end-over-end" spins that are apparently possible in Mathis' imagination.

Karl thanks for responding. I would have gotten back to you sooner but I've been out of town. From reading the prior entries on this forum it seems you are the one that made the baseball analogy to the stacked spin theory mentioned in Mathis's paper: "ELEVEN BIG QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR THE STANDARD MODEL". In his paper "SUPERPOSITION" I watched the animation of how a wave motion could be produced for a traveling electron and it made sense. The only thing that bothered me about the animation was how the electron (represented as a little spinning sphere inside of what resembles a transparent hollow globe) was able to stay in this tight little circle while traveling forward, since the globe was just defining an area and not a physically real containment. Why didn't the electron just fly off on some tangent? How is it able to travel forward within the tight little confines of that circle? If it was hit at a point on the external shell and started flipping end to end (I'm not convinced this is possible) why doesn't it just fly off on some tangent? Don't gyroscopes resist this type of behavior? Isn't a particle spinning axially essentially a gyroscope? On Youtube I've watched video of a Skylab astronaut and others in space doing presentations with spinning gyros and they resisted any kind of flipping. In fact they noted how the gyro tumbled before they spun it up and how it didn't after spin up. It resisted tumbling (flipping / spinning, whichever you prefer). Once a spinning gyro is positioned in a particular position it maintains that position. I'm not an expert on gyroscopes and from the net searches I've done couldn't find a great deal of info on them. I couldn't get any hits on the "rules of gyroscopic exclusion" except where mentioned in Mathis's papers. For that matter I don't know what Mathis's level of expertise is either. I seem to recall him making the comment that he'd like to perform some experiments with them. Such a comment doesn't bolster my confidence in the stacked spin theory to say the least.

Mathis responded to your baseball analogy by saying that the spins were constantly maintained by the emitted charge field. In your defense it wasn't really evident to me either from that paper alone that that was what enabled the electron to stack spins. There was no mention of the emitted charge field in that particular paper. Reading the right papers beforehand may give one enough pre-requisite knowledge to infer that the electron was emitting a charge field but the "SUPERPOSITION" paper as written doesn't make note of it. I think it should have been mentioned to make things as clear as possible. The answer of the emitted charge field being the cause did seem quite plausible at first without thinking too deeply about it but I still had doubts. I can't get past stacking the first spin. I also notice that he doesn't put an animation up modeling a higher spin. He may be trying to keep things simple but some additional animations would go a long way in making sure the movements of the particle with different spins were understood. I can imagine a spin stacking in the direction of travel which is depicted in the animation, but I can't see an even larger spin 90 degrees opposite to the last one being created and still (if I'm not terribly misunderstanding what he was saying) the particle keeps traveling in the same direction it originally was. Even if I accept that the electron's first spin (not axial) is even possible, if another particle clipped it in a 90 degree opposite direction wouldn't the electron be knocked in that direction of travel? Why would it maintain the current direction of travel and switch to a larger spin 90 degrees opposite? Does the electron cycle through all these spins? Just how does it do that? When the top spin is reached it just dive bombs back down to the smallest spin and repeats this sequence all over again? Or does it reach the highest spin and steps back down to the next lower spin and cycles through the sequence that way? One of those versions is what I'm gathering he's saying. I'm sorry but all this just seems too incredible for me. My gut is telling me this is not physically possible. Karl or anyone, are my concerns justified or is my understanding of the theory as twisted as Mathis's spins? I do have other concerns but will stop here for the time being.

cdb, my initial response was meant to be flippant. Even if it were physically possible for a particle to have multiple stacked spins, that wouldn't explain the quantized nature of real measurements of particle spin. If a particle's spin is measured along one axis, you get a quantized value. If another particle (even its entangled twin) is then measured along an axis that is 45 degrees off from the first axis, you get an identically quantized value, not a partial or mixed value. What is partial or mixed is the probability of finding a particular spin direction, not the magnitude of the spin. Spin measurements are always quantized in this way, no matter what arbitrary axis or rotation you choose. Why is this? Because the particle isn't actually spinning. That is why we call the property "intrinsic spin." And it is quite easy to show that if an electron could actually, mechanically spin thusly, the velocity at its equator would exceed the speed of light.

Mathis's whole bag is that particles must be like little ball bearings with distinct insides and outsides, and which must behave mechanically just like regular ball bearings; his whole theoretical workup is a complicated attempt to square this belief with the findings of real-world experiments. That is what's behind the stacked spins (which of course makes little sense to anyone who actually tries to imagine such motion, as you've noticed). If only he'd do one or two experiments himself, and get some anomalous findings, maybe he'd attract some attention for his ideas. But for some reason (ahem) he isn't interested in doing so.

Karl, yes I knew you were being flippant. I just took it as an invite to some further discussion on Mathis's theories. This spin business is very confusing indeed. I think a lot of confusion is generated by his terming the end over end movements of a particle a "spin" when they are actually closer to a tumbling, flipping or looping motion. When one speaks of spin the first thing that pops into my mind is classical axial spin. Anyway, my understanding of his theory is that an electron itself is merely the illusion of a particle that size. It's really comprised of a base photon which is cycling sequentially through many other spins (stacked spins as it were) at blinding speed. Each loop has a larger radius and the largest loop is what determines the "apparent" particle size with the inner smaller loops being burried. Basically all this is occurring so fast it gives the "appearance" of a larger particle. A particle of this "apparent" size can even have an an axial spin. I believe this final axial spin would be the spin we're dealing with in experiments like Stern-Gerlach. Also there's another strange aspect to the theory. When that initial base photon has "stacked" enough spins and has reached the "apparent" size just prior to becoming an electron, it takes on the ability to act like a scoop and sucks up a cargo of charge photons and then starts spewing/flinging them out when it does reach the size that defines it as an electron. So basically in my understanding we are mimicking a larger particle that is spinning and emitting (also even recycling) collected charge photons. From this point the electron can stack even more spins and morph into various other particles on its way to becoming a proton, anti-proton or neutron. That base photon is one super-particle if it can manage all of that. I just can't fathom it. I like a lot of Miles's ideas but I don't agree with all his theories. A lot of his papers I've yet to read as there are many. His ideas on the charge field being a real physical field that mediates all particle interaction were sounding pretty good but when he started theorizing about the actual compositon of the particles (a particle starting out as a base charge photon and stacking spins to morph into all others) is when he lost me. I just can't visualize it. I think he's reaching too far to simplify.

As confusing as some of Mathis's ideas are, to be fair, some of the currently accepted theories of Quantum Mechanics are just as confusing in my opinion. Like the term "intrinsic spin". Spin was originally conceived as the rotation of a particle around some axis and then ends up being this abstract property that a particle intrinsically possesses. Mathis has an interesting paper on his site titled "The Stern-Gerlach Experiment". He makes a pretty good case and states the experiment was and still is badly misinterpreted. It speaks to your concerns on the quantized nature of real measurements of particle spin and the electron spin exceeding the speed of light.

As far as Mathis performing some experiments, well, he's said that he'd love to do some but I suppose the best that could be hoped for would be to interest a practicing scientist in his ideas. I imagine putting together even a modest experiment would be prohibitably expensive for your average citizen. I certainly wish he could have done some with gyro's for evidence of a particle's spin stacking ability. I would have wanted some type of positive proof that a particle could rotate (spin/flip/loop) about a point on the external shell in the manner he's proposing before I would even venture such a proposition. Shouldn't this be demonstratable to some extent in the macro world? Seems like he said as much himself. But again, putting such an experiment together is more easier said than done. He needs to expound more on the sequencing of the spin loops. If he would just put up an animation modeling a particle movement with 2 spins it would go a long way in helping one visualize what he's trying to say. Currently on his "Superposition" page the animation only models the first spin (the simplest). I ran across an individual on another scientific forum (The Thuderbolts Forum) that had written his own program for modeling many of Mathis's stacked spins. He has screenshots of them peppered throughout his posts. Problem is I have my doubts as to if he really understands what's going on enough to model the spins. I seem to recall this individual proposing to contact Mathis and make him aware of his models but don't know how that panned out. There's no mention of them on Mathis's site. Looks like he would do his own animation of a particle with 2 spins. He obviously knows people who are capable of building animations since it was someone else who authored the first one. Why not go 1 further? I would think he would want to make this clear as possible. This troubles me. Proponents of the theory seem to easily accept the stacked spin theory without question. Didn't any of them doubt the feasibility of a particle being able to move like that? More later.

cdb -- I'll keep this short. Miles Mathis means well, and I absolutely agree with him that science should be more open-minded and should forever question its foundations. That's why I love FQXi. But what he's doing is not science. Nobody of any significance self-publishes dozens of "papers" on their own website in which they cite only their own earlier papers, frequently calling on the foolishness of Nobel Prize winners and other noted researchers, openly mocking those who challenge them (as he did with me), and showing little or no humility. Never collaborating, but always self-congratulating. Real scientists, even real amateur scientists, don't do this. His ideas should be considered in the appropriate light. KC

To follow up, check out Mathis's new rant (it is most certainly not a "paper") on Erik Verlinde's theory of thermodynamic gravity, covered elsewhere on FQXi. Rather than addressing the original papers and their calculations, he attacks the New York Times' attempt to explain the theory to lay people. His way to refute the theory is to mock the NYT's analogy of curly hair statistically having more ways to be curly than to be straight. Why? Because when your audience consists largely of non-trained non-physicists, it's easier to make newspaper-article analogies about hairstyles sound silly than it is to explain entropy and the holographic principle and guide your audience through the appropriate calculations.

Miles Mathis should at least *try* to sound like a proper scientist or even science writer. Maybe then someone might take him seriously.

Hi cdb & Karl,

To assist your imagination check one of the multi-precessing gyroscope video's, like this one:

Three dimensional precessing gyroscope

Now replace the man with the photon and the frames with the trajectory of the photon, that is Miles' imagination.

"His way to refute the theory is to mock the NYT's analogy of curly hair statistically having more ways to be curly than to be straight. Why? Because when your audience consists largely of non-trained non-physicists, it's easier to make newspaper-article analogies about hairstyles sound silly than it is to explain entropy and the holographic principle and guide your audience through the appropriate calculations."

Karl, I must disagree with you there. The NYT's claim is completely ludicrous and unscientific. When you drop an object, does it go down because it's more likely to, or because there's a perfectly rational mechanical reason for it?

I can see why a lot of people have beef with Miles. They don't want scientific knowledge to be easily expressed in logical, layman's terms. It's political. Surely you must see that. (By the way, I'm not saying he's always right)

Karl, you seem to be the only one here that is not either one of Mathis's alter egos, or just plain uninformed, so I thought I'd help you out. First of all, if nobody else can see it, mathis is oosterdijk. I spent a couple minutes looking of some of his 'research' and saw where we acknowledges having many aliases. Their respective writing styles and vocabularies are identical. It seems mathis makes of aliases and runs around posting things on the internet that congratulate himself or claim to back him up in the hope of gaining some perverted sense of peer review.

Above it is mentioned that via mathis's methods one can predict the age of the proton to app. 15 billion years and then goes on to say that this agrees vell with current accepted age of the universe. How can comparing to the current accepted age of the universe be a useful yardstick to measure accuracy when the author himself claims to have discredited the maths and physics that were used to calculate the current accepted age? I believe the oosterdijk also claims that GPS does not take into account a relativistic correction, well he needs to do some reading because the GPS system DOES make make such a correction.

I'm with you, I second the challenge to create just one experiment where the result agrees with anything mathis came up with and does not agree with the current standard model. That was a major requirement before relativity was accepted, anyone recall measuring the 'bend' of starlight during an eclipse?

Has anyone ever seen his pi=4 nonsense? At one point he goes on to talk about how elliptic geometry (elliptic curves?) are based upon the ellipse, elliptic curves are actually a type of cubic equation and not a conic quadratic. His 'paper' where he finds fault with the differentiation of the natural logarithm, and then goes on to 'fix' the problem using some perverted form of difference equation, should be enough to discredit him to anyone that has ever taken even an introductory calculus course.

I put forth that from here on out nobody reply to, argue with, or otherwise indulge the megalomania of oosterdijk/mathis. The more time we waste with this guy the bigger the soapbox we are building him him to preach his nonsense from. The more forums this guy has the argue for his 'research' the greater the possibility that a young impressionable mind might become perverted by it and actually believe it, and that would be a regrettable. If even one mind is turned away from the real scientific method and instead accepts the mathis method of research and paper writing (non experimenting, self congratulatory, only self referencing, drivel spewing) that would be an actual loss to humanity!

D

I forgot to mention, has anyone ever notice that his 'math papers' are very lite on the 'math'? They are just paragraph after paragraph, monotonous page after monotonous page, of handwaving and verbal diahrea. For someone that claims to understand QED it's strange that the most 'math' he ever does is manipulate a linear equation, square a few things here and there, and once in a while completely bastardize the notion of a limit. In his paper on the natural logarithm he claims a limit cannot be taken as a variable approches zero because the number 1 is the smallest 'unit' of measurement and zero is a meaningless concept. Then on his 'pi is 4: short version' he is clearly trying to take a limit as a length goes to zero (and still fucks it up). The best part of the pi rant is that he correctly identifies the right way to do it, but then argues against it on favPour of his nonsense.

D, practitioner of the Sherlock Holmes method, defender of the scientific method, and self-appointed head of the Mathis Lynch mob sneered: "Karl, you seem to be the only one here that is not either one of Mathis's alter egos, or just plain uninformed, so I thought I'd help you out." So, you begin with an insult to everyone that made a comment. This statement tells me all I need to know about you. You're a real class act. If I wasn't sure about the correctness of Mathis theory before I certainly am now and I have you to thank for it. Arthur Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. I see now we're at stage 2 with you leading the charge. Oppose away, your big-mouthed bullying will do no good.

Well, I am not trained in math or physics. Actually I can do art. I read new non fiction so that puts me way down on the totem pole, nowhere near capable of understanding much less insulting my betters. But, why have we so little to show for over half a century of 'understanding' physics? And didn't Einstein use the well-known fact of Mercury's failure to comply with existing physics to validate his 'mass bending light' theory of relativity?

Hilarious takedown of one of the Internet's greatest self-creations. He is a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder combined with paranoia. "Delusional" doesn't even quite capture this guy, once you read his articles on how the World Trade Center was never hit by planes on 9/11, the Moon landing was a hoax, Osama Bin Laden is alive, and (his most recent article to date) Barack Obama was born in Kenya. It's all on his website.

Interesting this essay. My english was very bad.Now it is not perfect but I evolve in this language.

Returning about this essay. The spin is essential !My model of spherization by quantum spheres , cosmological spheres inside an universal 3d sphere show us what is the rotation and its proportions with the mass. If you take my equations, mcosV and E=m(c³o³s³), you can see the propotions with the mass and the spinal rotations and orbital rotations.The most important is to understand that the mass and the light are the same in a pure BEC of the mind. The entanglement for the uniqueness is finite and precise.The volumes and the rotations take all their meaning.More a sphere turns , less is its mass logically speaking, that is why we can extrapolate and conclude that the universal sphere does not turn, so its mass is maximum. Now you can extrapolate with the fields of E and the other sense of rotation differenciating the mass and the light. The logic is respected when we consider that the libnearity is differenciated of the mass and its gravitational stability. If the volumes of the serie are not respected with its pure number, so we cannot quantize correctly this mass and the mass of the universal sphere, furthermore this universal sphere increases in mass so in E. Logically speaking, we have a finite number of photons inside the universal sphere. Now of course we can consider also that above this wall, this limit , we have an infinite light. The finite groups become an universal key for a real understanding of the evolution of this universal sphere.

If the volumes and the serie of uniquenss are well extrapolated, we can simulate all predictions!

This serie is the same relativistically speaking in the two scales, quantical or cosmological. Now of course, the groups are probably adapted to galaxies and their specificities but the serie is the same when we extrapolate by the mind. The rotations and the proportions with mass more the volumes.....imply a lot of things and dynamics.

Regards.

Who knows what turned Mathis into the deluded blowhard and clown that he is today? Maybe his mother never potty trained him, and he is still wearing a diaper full of crap. And just like his diaper, his theories are also heaped full of crap. Having undergone the unpleasant task of wading through the longwinded and pompous musings that litter and pollute the Mathis website, I can offer this assessment: Mathis is a fraud and his theories are absurd and ridiculous. Case in point: pi equals 4.