Delusion Science? (Or Fresh Meat Among a Pack of Wolves?)

The ramblings of an unsound mind....not worth the time...imo

'Solar Mill' is a more familiar name to most. The physics of what's going on are a lot more complex than the usual school explanation. More info here.

Well now. Just reading the preface it is probably unfair to criticize to a great extent this writing but I already suspect that the author does not truly understand the Physics that he's supposedly criticizing as wrong. First of all claiming that a well established Physics principle has mathematical errors in its proof is immediately folly. The mathematics does not prove Physics. Mathematics is an analysis tool. What proves any Physics principle is the subsequent experiments and sucessful applications of the Physics principles.

I do not know if anyone here will bother to read any of the chapters of this manifesto. I have not. I suspect that the author misunderstands the mathematics presented in some text book and is just demonstrating that misunderstanding. For an example allow me to demonstrate an easy misunderstanding of the math. I learned in Junior High School algebra that:

ab=c → a=c/b with the only caveat that b≠0. However if we change into matrix algebra with A, B and C as each a matrix, then AB=C and one cannot say that A=C/B for C/B has no meaning in matrix algebra. One cannot even say AB=C so A=B^-1C for B^-1C≠CB^-1. Matrix mathematics can be communicative but it rarely is communicative. As a matter of fact the only scenario that you can find A is AB=C → ABB^-1= AI = A=CB^-1. However now the caveat is detB=|B|≠0 and that B is a square matrix. B does not have to be the empty matrix (Ø) for |B|=0.

Thank you, RF.

Again, I understand that time is, probably the most valuable commodity in our lives. So I realize very few, if any, will devote much time to scrutinizing this. Maybe I can save us all that time. I just did some further surfing, which I didn't have time to do before I posted the thread. (Lesson learned, to wait before starting one -- except in this case it might not be a total waste, as, apparently, someone has taken some time to critique this.) I had to chuckle a bit, since the critic used the same word -- grandiose -- to describe the claims, as I did. And, the "Preface" is well-written (sounding thoughtful and learned), even if he is a "terrific crank." That, too, is some kind of back-handed complement.

Here's, at least, is a first link from "a" critic. The comments at the link are worth the visit.

Time, indeed, When does this fellow find time to sleep?

The link takes us to 250 chapters of dialog. I only read Chapter 195, Why So Angry? The name just sort of appealed to me, so I started there. This, quite honestly, rings like the writing style of a CR4 member.

Who is (if anybody) is Melisa Smith? Is Miles Mathis his orthonym? If yes, it is not the CR4 member I was thinking of.

Yes. When you consider the time spent writing, I have to believe he is sincere. I also don't think he is trying to make a lot of money selling his ideas in book form. From that perspective, it might be a bit disrespectful to characterize him and his ideas as crackpottery or insanity, except that, as one poster commenting on the critique, near the end, states, he "... criticize(s) other artists with a bitterness which hints at something deeply resentful in his nature." So he may be getting what he has given. I don't know enough to have an opinion.

Assuming the critque is representative of Mathis' ideas, it seems like the logical flaw is to point out (pun happened by itself) that a physical point and a mathematical point can't be the same, yet then use math to deal with these physically real points conceptually. A flaw in the mind, perhaps.

There may be more and different issues here than meets the eye. It also wouldn't be the first time someone was "on to something" who was also considered "insane." "Starry, starry night..."

I just took a look at "Why So Angry?" It seems to be an admission to the observation/comment I found and referred to above. Interesting that you would pick that one to sample.

I'm being picky...shouldn't that be commutative (not communucative).

Commutative incorporates a meaning of with (com) change (mutative).

Still, your argment stands

Yes, I was trying to demonstrate the commutation principle is not true with a matrix. I was disturbed at the time I wrote that and had yet to identify what was bothering me.

And I believe you have accurately exorcised your malady.

The last time I gave much attention to something similar to this was when I found a book entitled, "A New Kind of Science," in a used book store. I subsequently looked for it on Amazon to read any reviews. About 1/4 of the reviews are 5-star, with more than that being 1-star. Interestingly, they both are IT people -- at least that's what I glean.

One other thing that can be researched is the existence and credentials of the commenter on the back cover of the books: Dr. T. Yaqooh. The attribution describes him as "NASA Astrophysicist." Maybe also sharing in profits of sales of the books. I do find a T. Yaqooh as one of the authors in one of the "References" in this NASA report.

I do wonder sometimes, if something revolutionary, does cross certain people's minds and they then flub the attempt to try to put a mental concept/image into words -- or, even, equations. Similar to Ptolemy's overly-complex model of planetary motion. I think it is harder to mess up mathematical expression, as that is precise.

I sent the first link and the follow-up critical link to a colleague here, who just walked up to my desk and said he thought the critic wasn't all that good, either. So, now what? Will my curiosity drive me to reading through all of this? Maybe. But it will have to wait until I take care of some personal matters first. Then, we'll see. Besides, I posted the link in the first place because I considered myself not as equipped as others here to dismantle the arguments. It was supposed to be entertaining. The critic says it was giving him a headache to read it.

I assume enough people have read Mr. Mathis' ideas, that if they contained any seeds of revolution, somebody would have generated more noise about it somewhere, rather than criticizing it.

A clone of Z man perhaps?

Well, I made it through a couple of chapters and found it to be interesting but somewhat rambling. I ramble a lot, so I guess that appeals to me in a Mel Gibson Conspriacy Theory kind of way. I like the Brave New World segment...its logic appeals to me.

We at least get to vote for the crackpot-in-chief...scientists and learned people are foisted upon us.

Yes, I think there is an appeal just from the "storyline." Whether it passes the truth test, is almost secondary. There is a "what if" air... maybe he used to work for HP.

... your other comment reminds of the Hippocratic oath... "Foist do no harm."

Wow, the book from your preface link sounds like a real interesting book. I must go read it now!

The more I read your comments, well, yes, that theory is propably BS, but when it comes to his argument about arteriosclerosis of the "established truth" fans he does have a point. They are no more objective than a football team fans. Not a word about the arguments, but of course they are wrong, because statistics say so. (LOL) S.M.

Miles Mathis has a well-deserved reputation as a science crank, just see his site and read his take on why stars twinkle ( the light from stars reaches our eyes in pulses;there are gaps of darkness between the flashes of light, like a film movie projector flickering.Honest!), but he is just as great a crank in his self-appointed role as art critic of the internet and artist. His bitter jealousy of artists more accomplished than himself spills out in attacks on their subject matter, color choices, technique and even the models who posed for the paintings. Even when he praises an artist's work he mixes negatives into his commentary. He once wrote exactly eighty-five words of appreciation for a painting and immediately followed it with forty-five words berating the artist's style of signature. He is resented by many artists because he tries to sell his own paintings while criticizing the work of other artists in the same general market.

His conflict of interest in being both artist and art critic, and his writings on science, laced as they are with arrogant dismissals of genuine scientists who have actually been trained in the field, make Mathis an unsympathetic figure. He will not submit his papers for peer review because he claims the process of peer review is corrupt. But by plastering them all over the web he has opened himself up to being debunked by real scientists anyway on numerous websites, thereby exposing his errors and lack of understanding due to his abbreviated education in math and science. He is caught in a trap of his own making. As an artist he suffers from the same deficiencies in artistic terms- he is self-taught. He cannot draw or paint beyond a basic journeyman level and seems too arrogant to even see the deficiencies. Unless he admits he doesn't really know painting technique and gets some advanced training from a master artist he'll never move to a higher degree. Sadly, it is unlikely he will do so.

Nice nut shell you offer there, very diplomatic

I wonder how he communicates in a group of his peers, in person. Should be an interesting case study. Doesn't sound like a guy I would work for or with.

Welcome to CR4. How did you find us?

Hi Stephen, welcome to CR4.

Having had a few days to read some of his writings, I did find some interesting, and some quite bizarre. At least he quoted Einstein correctly, which some others have not. I hadn't heard of him before. I do think people can learn from guys like this as long as they don't take their word for everything, and do their own research in cases where their conclusions look suspicious.

-S

Miles Mathis (also known as crack-pipe Mathis) claims to have found major errors in the theories of Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Euclid, Bohr, Laplace, Feynman, Lagrange, Lorentz, and others.

Mathis is best known for his theory that pi equals 4. Just do a google search for "Miles Mathis Crackpot", that will tell you everything you need to know about this loony individual and his ridiculous theories.