Karl thank you for your take on Mathis. It's good to here other's point of view and your opinions are noted. Yes, I seen the latest "paper" from Mathis's site. All the papers on his site are not strictly concerned with theory, some are only commentaries and can at times be quite critical. I speculate the reason he's so quick to condemn the new gravity theory is due to confidence in his own theory. He's spelled out his theory in detail. I really can't see him spelling out what's involved in another theory when he's promoting his own. I don't think he's aiming to be a "proper" scientist or science writer. He is what he is. As he said in his writings: "This is as much as to admit that I know that my book must seem an anomaly as well as an anachronism. Both its form and its content must seem strange to a modern reader".

11 days later
2 months later

"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)

17 days later

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.

a month later

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.

    2 months later

    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?

    a year later

    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.

    20 days later

    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.

    You only assume the possibility that truth passes through three stages. The other possibility is of three stages that falsehood passes through. First, it is ridiculed by the wise, swallowed by the gullible. Second, it is violently opposed by the wise, energetically swallowed by the gullible. Third, it is accepted as being self evidently false.

    Are we going to go change the textbooks, now that Mathis says they are wrong, and change pi into 4? I think not . Mathis is a crank. His theories, when not thoroughly of no real consequence, are wrong and his method of delivering them, on a cheesy 1990's wall-to-wall font website complete with insults about everyone from the President to NASA to CERN to professors to working scientists, is offensive. Mathis is going down and he has no one to blame but himself.

    Why don't you and Mathis seek funds to conduct experiments. If Mathis can vanity publish two books he certainly had the money at one time. If all Mathis is going to do from now until he dies is write more papers he'll remain an obscure internet science amateur. Becoming more of a recluse than he already is will not be useful, unless he is now mentally unable to work with others. Maybe that's why he is holed up in a small New Mexico town known for its art when he's no longer producing any. Not looking good for Mathis, not good at all.

    5 months later

    Boys, boys, this is to judge hypothesis, not the people who created them. You can´t disprove just saying "it was created by a schizophrenic", you can disprove it finding an experimental contradiction. Since I couldn´t find by myself or in this thread that uncontrovertible counter-evidence I still give it the benefit of the doubt... Why nobody has proposed an experiment capable of falsifying straight away that crazy unified theory (on the other hand, no crazier than the most popular approach to quantum gravity (unification?) which, for instance, negates point particles and necessitates a new geometry yet not formulated)?