Welcome!

Welcome all to Sagacity’s Sentinel!

On this blog we will examine the works and ideas of Miles Mathis. Miles is an amateur mathematician and theoretical physicist residing in Austin, Texas.

In his studies of the greats of history in the area of physics he discovered simple mathematical errors, (and errors of application), that have compounded themselves upon Physics at a fundamental level. Beginning with the foundations of Euclid’s geometry, (and its application to real physical situations), to Newton’s Calculus straight though to Standard Theory — Miles discovers a plethora of mistakes and misapplications. By recognizing and correcting these problems Mathis is attempting to put Physics back in line with the physical.

With the recent release of Miles’ book it seems the critics have come out of the woodwork. This, as it goes, was to be expected and I encouraged it. Critical analysis of  any theory makes for better science and is in the spirit of the scientific method. The goal in science as well as in life should be an assessment of truth to the best of our available information. I believe this is what Mathis’ tries to do in his papers. Is Miles always right? I certainly hope not. That would impose a level of infallibility that I think Miles would find  very hard to live up to. I think the question is — is Mr. Mathis honestly seeking the truth? In studying his work I believe he is.

While saying this I would like to point out that not all would agree with me. Some have suggested that Miles’ anti-establishment tone detracts from his work– saying it is distasteful hubris. Yet, as Mathis points out in one of his recent papers,

“I may or may not be a crackpot, but you will not be able to decide that question based on my confidence or the fact that I think I know something. If I am factually wrong about everything, I am a crackpot, no matter how confident I am or am not. If I am factually right about some important things, I am not a crackpot, no matter how little you like my style. To put it another way, the truth is not up for a vote. It is not a personality contest. The majority has nothing to say about it, since the majority knows nothing about the question at hand.”

Since Miles has addressed the relevance of this issue to him and his work I will let his explanation stand in isolation.

Therefore, there is only one rule in posting on this forum. The use of derogatory language like “crank” and “crackpot” will not be tolerated. The use of this type of word in any comment should be considered automatically unapproved for posting.

With that I would like to welcome truth seekers, (proponent and critic alike), to comment on the, “questions at hand.”

 

 

Advertisements

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by artoffacts100 on December 19, 2010 - 11:47 AM

    I agree sleestack. “Crank” and “crackpot” gets fired out at lightspeed the moment one’s “thoughts are disturbed” if I may borrow a little from Mathis’ book. There’s no call for it. Sleestack you seem to have studied quite a bit of Mathis’ work and have a good understanding of it. I know I have some “questions at hand” concerning Miles’ work. My misgivings started with a statement in his “Superpostion” paper. Here is a quote from the paper where the characteristics of a gyroscope are being discussed: “A gyroscope will not spin in two ways about its center. But if we put the gyroscope in a spherical container, then we can rotate the gyroscope around a point on the surface of the sphere. We can do this even if the gyroscope is firmly attached to the container”. That last sentence is the one that bothers me: “We can do this even if the gyroscope is firmly attached to the container”. If you take a simple gyroscope like a common Tedco Toy Gyro and “firmly attach it” to the spherical container, it’s not going anyhwhere. You’ve basically turned 2 movable objects into one object. I can only conclude that Mathis was not just describing a simple gyro but a “gimbaled” gyro. That is the only way you could rotate the gyro around a point on the surface of the spherical container after “firmly attaching” it. A simple gyro like a spinning top, ball, or particle is not gimbaled.

    Mathis has said himself: “A torque applied to the axis of rotation is deflected, so that circular motion is not allowed about the y-axis” and “A gyroscope resists a 90 degree force, but only because we have fixed the center of the gyroscope relative to the force”. Mathis has said that each stacking spin must be orthogonal to the previous one. So if the gyro (a spinning particle) resists a 90 degree force how are you ever going to stack spins that have to be 90 degrees opposite of one another? A spinning gyro does not like to move. How is it possible to ever set it tumbling any direction when it resists the change?

    As an example to aid the imagination Mathis says: “you can see that we can easily imagine the Earth hurtling end over end throughout space, since this end over end motion would not affect its axis spin at all”. Yes you can hold a globe spinning on a rod passed through it’s center (the spin axis) and then you could hold the rod by each end and flip the globe end over end as it spins on it’s axis. But can you do that past a certain axial spin speed? I don’t think so. The faster the globe spins the more stable it is. This brings up another point. A spinning sphere can bulge at the equator. In other works Mathis even comments on the spinning proton flattening out into a disc due to this. So really wouldn’t the spin theory need to apply to a spinning disc instead of a spherical particle?

    These are some things that are troubling me with the spin theory. I have other concerns as well. Hopefully someone can confirm these are legitimate concerns or can straighten my thinking out on this. I’m not an opponent of Mathis’ theories but a fan. His theories have such a ring of truth to them but I have to raise an objection when I think an error has been made. I realize the misunderstanding may be mine.

    • #2 by Sleestack VII on April 14, 2011 - 4:13 PM

      @artoffacts100

      I’m sorry about the long delay in commenting back to you on this issue. I hope you are still following this thread. Of course I will not pretend to speak for Mr. Mathis in regard to your question. For his clarification you would have to email him of course. But I believe I have an understanding of what he is saying about the particle/gyro motion.

      Let me start with your second question first. I think this is your primary question about spin theory.
      you said,
      Mathis has said himself: “A torque applied to the axis of rotation is deflected, so that circular motion is not allowed about the y-axis” and “A gyroscope resists a 90 degree force, but only because we have fixed the center of the gyroscope relative to the force”. Mathis has said that each stacking spin must be orthogonal to the previous one. So if the gyro (a spinning particle) resists a 90 degree force how are you ever going to stack spins that have to be 90 degrees opposite of one another? A spinning gyro does not like to move. How is it possible to ever set it tumbling any direction when it resists the change?”

      You are correct that any particle with spin in a gyroscopic fashion would resist and deflect any motion that would not be allowed due to gyroscopic rules. But one must assume that, given enough time, every possible vector that another particle could approach the main particle in question would eventually happen.

      Due to the numbers of particles involved it would not take that long for a particle to be in the proper position. At every approach and collision of another particle it would either be in the correct position to begin to spin the particle in this stacked way or it would be deflected due to gyroscopic rules.

      As I visualize this, a deflection would cause both particles to move away from each other depending on each particle’s velocity and spin direction. On the other hand, when the particle is in the proper position to add to the second particle’s energy by this collision it could only do so by this 2R/4R/8R/etc. gyroscopic spin rule that Mathis cites.

      Now as we go up the stacking from photon to electron to baryon the energy needed to create each spin “shell” would increase due to the increased mass of the particle. Also a further complication to visualizing all this would be as you start stacking these “shells” they “funnel” the charge field in different ways according to Mathis. Some emit the charge field, like the proton and some don’t emit, like the neutron.

      This then brings in the mass of that emission of charge around the proton in a disk as you suggested.
      I don’t think that Mathis means that the proton itself was squashed like a disk. He says that the charge field it emits allows you to treat the proton as a disk for all intents and purposes as it relates to the repulsion of other baryonic particles in an element made up of multiple protons, neutrons and electrons.
      He also says that this spin alignment happens under the special conditions of a star’s interior like in the Sun. So, as it goes, the way in which the particles are confined (freedom and range of movement) in this type of environment is of issue I think. This environment would most likely be a plasma of some sort and therefore would not act like an ideal gas or even a real gas as such. The very “weird” behaviors of plasmas are something that I wish Mathis would look in to and begin to apply his theories to. Since the universe is 99.9% plasma I think this could be a fruitful area for him to explore.

      As far as your first question about attaching the gyroscope to the container and its ability to turn. if I am visualizing what Mathis is saying correctly, then once you’ve attached your gyroscope to the inside of the container it would be the container that would be doing most of the motion. The gyroscope would really be spinning on its axis and the container would do the revolving around this spinning central mass if properly proportioned in a 2R or a multiple of 2R relationship.

      If you are still not sure what I am getting at please ask some follow up questions and I would be happy to answer to the best of my ability. Of course you could always go straight to Mr. Mathis with your questions. I have corresponded with him once and he seems like an amiable person. I am sure he could answer much better than I could, given that its his paper we are discussing. If you do write to him and he provides a better answer please share it with me here.

  2. #3 by artoffacts100 on April 23, 2011 - 5:09 PM

    @ SleestackVII
    I occasionally check this blog and was surprised to see you responded. Thought you had abandoned the blog, glad I was wrong. Your responses have helped my understanding tremendously. I follow you on the gyro attached to the container issue, makes sense. Your comment on spin alignments happening under “special conditions” also served as an important reminder on how important environment is. That was actually a question I had planned to bring up: “What type of environments are we talking about when spins are formed?” An environment such as a star’s interior is a far cry from particles zipping along in space and ricocheting off one another every now and then. Environment, yes, very important.

    I understand all your comments on the spin theory, totally follow. You mentioned the disc-like characteristics of the proton in elements and I understand those characteristics as you described too. When I said previously: “A spinning sphere can bulge at the equator. In other works Mathis even comments on the spinning proton flattening out into a disc due to this. So really wouldn’t the spin theory need to apply to a spinning disc instead of a spherical particle?” You answered: “I don’t think that Mathis means that the proton itself was squashed like a disk.” I was actually referring to a disc-like photon charge emission from an electron. But as far as the proton, I didn’t mean to imply that it was “squashed” like a disc, but a disc will be formed due to the spin motion causing a flattening of the poles and a bulging of the equator where most of the flung off charge will be directed. Wouldn’t an electron spinning axially behave just like a proton, just on a smaller scale? It seems that the spinning particle should be more of an oblate spheroid that’s stacking these spins vice a spherical particle. Isn’t the radii stacking scheme (1R, 2R, 4R, etc) in Mathis’ theory based on the radii of spherical particles? Perhaps high enough axial spin speeds are not reached to cause this to happen? I probably need to review some of his papers.

    You said “Now as we go up the stacking from photon to electron to baryon”. I’d like to talk about that for a moment. From the electron up, the spin stacking theory seems feasible due to the ejected charge photons “maintaining” those spins. I have difficulty understanding what “maintains” the spins of photons. I don’t recall a propulsion method described for photons. Hits from other particles might impart an axial spin to a photon, but you’re not going to be stacking any spins without a means to maintain them. These little spheres can’t maintain stacked spins all by themselves. I have checked all of Mathis’ papers that I know of that might discuss a means of propulsion for the photon and can’t find an answer. What have I missed?

    Even if I accept that the photon can spin as Miles describes, how are “additional” axial spins created? In his paper: “How do Photons Travel” he says “we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of the spin under it.” How can the particle have any other axial spin than the one the base particle originally had? There are only 3 spatial directions: x,y,z. When did “A” (for axial) become an orthogonal
    direction plane? Once the particle takes that step from a Z level to the next highest level does the particle just “congeal” into a bigger sphere with axial spin and then the stacking scheme continues?

    Here’s another area I have difficulty with: Miles talks of spins being “lost”, “stripped”, or being “buried”. This leads me to believe that particles cycle through spins. If they’re not cycling then how can a particle lose an outer spin know to fall to a specific lower level? Say an electron winds its way up from the X1 spin to the Z1 spin. What happens at this point? Does the particle step back down in reverse order toward the lowest level then repeat, creating a kind of extremely fast pulsing or throbbing effect? I have already constructed one crude model to help my understanding of the spins but I think I may need to construct a better one and study it more closely.

    IMO the spin theory is the foundation of Mathis’ theories. At least Miles puts a foundational mechanical explanation under his theories, which I can’t say for most theorists proposing non-mainstream ideas. That’s the thing that appeals to me most about his theories. If the foundation isn’t solid the whole house of cards will fall. I don’t think the spin theory is on firm footing, as you can see from my questions. Until someone can convince me otherwise I don’t think the spin theory is on firm ground. Sleestack you had mentioned possibly contacting Mathis. I have corresponded with Mathis before concerning ordering his book but nothing technical was discussed. I’m not opposed to contacting him, I just like to understand his theories as best I can on my own and through iscussion with others first before I bug him with questions. I know it would make his job easier. Thanks for starting this blog and providing an avenue for such discussion.

  3. #4 by artoffacts100 on May 28, 2011 - 6:20 PM

    Sleestack, I hoped you would have commented on my prior post by now but evidently you don’t spend much time with this blog. Your killing me! I would have loved to have heard your (or anyone else’s) take on my questions. So, eager for answers I took my questions to Mathis himself. For anyone interested in Miles’ work, below are his answers to my questions. These won’t necessarily all be verbatim except what I put in quotations.

    Concerning the spinning particle being an oblate spheroid:
    Miles said: “I have said that they may ACT as circles rather than spheres in some diagrams, but I haven’t stated that they are actually deformed.” Here he is referring to the diagramed circles for example from his paper: “How to build a Nucleus without a Strong Force”. What he means is the centrifugal effect alone on the ejected charge field is enough to make the spinning particle take on the overall shape of a circle or disc. It get’s directed toward the equator causing a flattening at the poles and extension at the equator. Even if it were the case that the spinning particle’s surface did in fact deform, he agrees that would be a further complication, but doesn’t see that it dooms the theory as is. I agree with him here, and I never meant to imply that it would, but it would be a further complication as he says. Certainly far from insurmountable.

    Concerning the stacking process from the photon to electron to baryon:

    It’s my belief that it’s physically impossible for a photon to have a stacked spin if it doesn’t have a means to maintain that spin. If the photon can’t stack spins, then no other particles can exist. Per his theory all particles originate as a photon. Mathis disagrees, he states: “ I don’t see that the charge photon has to emit to maintain spin. Just as something with linear velocity maintains that velocity, something with spin does, too. It spins until something stops it spinning.” He is not talking about axial spin, he’s talking the stacked XYZ spins. I asked him why he believed this to be true and to share any evidence for his belief with me, but he did not address this question directly. My belief is based on LACK of evidence. If the photon is a spherical particle able to maintain a stacked spin without a propulsive means then it seems to me we would have seen evidence of it in the real world by now even if only by accident. I am aware that lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily disprove the theory. That photon is no different than a baseball. It’s worse off than the baseball, at least a ball travels through a resistive medium of air allowing it to form a curve but not a stacked spin. The photon is so small it’s in the void with nothing but empty space to travel through. It can’t even generate a curve. It has forward velocity and axial spin, nothing more. Even if the charge photon is traveling in a field of other charge photons, I can visualize it possibly curving like the baseball but not stacking XYZ spins. IMO this is a very serious conceptual flaw and it dooms the theory that all particles originate as a photon. I even proposed that the charge photon could also be emitting, but here you have to ask, does that emission also have emission of its own? It would be like a strange never-ending fractal behavior. A “Fractal Photon”, spheres emitting spheres, emitting spheres, etc. Just a thought.

    Concerning the stacking of additional “Axial” (ie: A1, A2, A3, etc) spins in the photon stacking process:

    I seem to be pretty much on the same page with him there, provided as I said that the photon can actually stack spins. Mathis: “I think once a particle has the initial four, it hits another stable level and could be said to “congeal” into another particle. I don’t know that congeal is the right word, but we won’t quibble. At that point it is able to take new collisions and respond axially, perhaps because the inner four create a balance. I don’t know, but again, it doesn’t seem like a deal-ender to me.” I am still thinking about this concept and it still bothers me.

    Concerning spins being lost, buried, or stripped and the cycling of spins:

    Mathis said: “Your question about going from one level to the other is good. It is something to look at. I don’t think it is unanswerable, but it is something I don’t address.” I hope he expounds more on this in the future. Either the particle pairs an axial spin with one of the XYZ spins at a time or it cycles through all the spins it has ever stacked. I think it would have to cycle through the spins, otherwise if it paired an axial spin with only one of the ever increasing XYZ spins and that spin was “stripped”, then the particle would immediately be reduced down to the naked particle with axial spin only.

    Per Miles, he doesn’t claim to have a final theory or all the answers, he is just looking for a better theory. He gets overwhelmed with questions to answer and knows he has more papers to write. It’s a work in progress and he may be able to provide more answers in the future. He seeks mechanical answers. Mathis: “My theory is mostly operational. I solve problems. I don’t do theory just to do theory. So there are a lot of questions that haven’t really come up for me. I don’t dismiss them, I just try to take them as they come. I don’t talk about the first few seconds of the big bang, for instance, because I don’t see any good data one way or the other, in order to deduce anything. It is pretty much the same for your questions.” I can see his point there. We probably will never have means to gather reliable enough data to say what happened for sure in the first few seconds of the big bang, but I don’t know if my questions are in that un-provable category. I think experiments could perhaps be devised with macro sized spheres emitting “something” (water, air, etc) for propulsion in order to test a spin stacking capability. No experiments of this type have been done to my knowledge. Miles’ theories are feasible if the photon is capable of stacking spins but that’s a pretty big “if” at this point. Is Miles a scientific pied piper leading us with a mesmerizing tune we all love to hear just for his personal musing or is he sincere in his search for truth? I too personally believe he is sincere. He’s been at it for a very long time and he may or may not be correct on all his postulations but I believe he is sincere about his theoretical work. I don’t mean to come off as an opponent, I merely point out what I see as weaknesses and hope to aid in further clarifying the theories now or in the future. I leave the door cracked open and will continue to examine his work. His work covers many disciplines in physics, I can give the man time to develop his theories with so much on his plate. For one man that has no funding for his research and has many other interests in addition to having to make a living, I think he has produced an incredible body of work. I tip my hat to him.

  4. #5 by Eric Whitesell on November 19, 2012 - 12:00 PM

    Taking the equation for orbital acceleration from Mathis’ paper A CORRECTION TO THE EQUATION a = v2/r

    vorb = √[2r√ vo2 + r2) – 2r2]

    Let vo = r to find the magnitude of the orbital velocity, i.e., acceleration, at 1/8 of the circumference. I expect to get the value C/8 = 1/8 x 8r = r to be consistent with Mathis’ papers on the value of pi = 4 for motion.

    C/8 = √[2r√ (r2 + r2) – 2r2]

    = √[2r√ (2r2) – 2r2]

    = √[2r2√ 2 – 2r2]

    = r √[2√ 2 – 2] ≠ r

    Why is the value for orbital acceleration at vo = r not equal to r if motion-pi = 4?

  5. #6 by Eric Whitesell on November 19, 2012 - 10:48 PM

    Reply from MM:
    “Because you are still confusing orbital and tangential velocity. I never let v0 equal r in any of my papers. I let vt equal r in some of them.”

    Reply from EW:
    If you look at your drawing introduced as “the important drawing is this one” in “The Extinction of Pi” you will see the tangential velocity opposite one 45 deg angle and the radius opposite the other 45 degree angle in the right triangle. Q.E.D.

    P.S. The vo in your formula is obviously v zero, the tangential velocity, not vorb, which is the unknown variable. The tangential velocity, vo (vzero) is “the only true velocity in the equation”.

  6. #7 by C. Takacs on December 12, 2012 - 1:29 AM

    I would not like to say Mathis is right about everything he has postulated, as I as of yet do not have the knowledge and skill to challange many of his arguments. I would like to say that Mathis brings an incredibly refreshing vigor and grounding to the concept of physical physics which I had given up any hope to pursue many years ago after hearing one to many “shut up and calculate, you just plug the variables into the equations like I told you”, “there is nothing ‘there’ for you to understand, it’s just a cloud of probability”, or various statements about how the universe is irrational and can not be understood, nor should it be attempted, and how the universe is nothing but abstract probability mysteriously collapsing into an illusion of time and reality.

    I will put my bias upfront, I believe for science and physics to even be possible, the universe must be assumed to be intelligible, else what’s the point of poking around and trying to understand anything? Mathis has time after time looked at things the mainstream treats as already understood, old hat, boring, or simply no longer in vogue, and revealed that very little of what is claimed to be known can hold up under logical examination. I have now asked about a dozen mathematicans and physicists simple questions about physical and mathematical phenomena, and discovered most have no desire to actually understand what is going on underneath the math, why it works or doesn’t, often grow hostile at new ideas and refuse to consider them, and have very little curiosity about the mechanical underpinnings of how time, light, heat, atoms, gravity, the charge field, motion, and matter function, they just know they were taught certain answers and methods which they follow..almost acknowledging something that makes them afraid to openly consider or question anything in their own field of expertise. A physics teacher that one of my math teachers approached about Mathis’ paper on time became furious and incensed when he discovered the author of the paper. He would not explain why Mathis was wrong, or make any actual argument or correction to how he felt Mathis was incorrect, except to state “I will not discuss anything he has to say, I would be glad to talk to your student only about real physics”, followed by some very haughty comments aimed at my teachers position to remind her he had a Phd in physics. I was experiencing a zealot of blind dogma right before my very eyes, and I could see how my math teacher had been belittled for even asking a question. After this unsettling experience I swore that anyone who knows so much that they can’t be bothered to explain their reasoning, is someone who can teach me nothing, and is worthy of my contempt.

    I admit that Mathis may not be right about all of his ideas (I wasn’t too crazy about his expansionary gravity concept model due to physical proportial spacing, but I don’t think he was either) , but even if he isn’t, who do you think will discover the truth… someone who repeats a theoretical mantra they were taught that they can never question, or someone who takes things apart, puts them back together again and tries to find out how they work? Please read Mathis’ papers on atomic structure, the cd disk-like diagramming takes some getting used to, but once you see what he’s up to, it’s actually quite beautiful, I’d love to see an animated computer model of his atomic carousels spinning as they channel the b-photons of his charge field . To my understanding, he’s the first person in decades to seriously propose such a serious reworking of atomic structure that can actually answer questions about known atomic behavior mechanically without hiding behind extremely oudated models or illogical abstract math.

  7. #8 by Eric Whitesell on December 17, 2012 - 10:28 AM

    Mathis has yet to answer to the obvious contradiction in his papers on pi and the correction to centripetal acceleration based on his corrected value of pi. Nothing as complicated as atomic structure there.

    EJW

    • #9 by Steve David Urich on January 28, 2013 - 7:57 PM

      Eric Whitesell,

      I have been looking at that very issue myself. The pi=4 theory is incompatible with Mathis’ equations for centripetal acceleration. Worse still, his geometrical analysis for the acceleration is inaccurate.

      Here is a link to my paper that details some of the errors found:

      Centripetal Acceleration

  8. #10 by OvernightReputation.com on May 3, 2013 - 12:14 AM

    Hi there every one, here every one is sharing these kinds of know-how, thus
    it’s pleasant to read this web site, and I used to go to see this web site daily.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: