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