Aside

Miles Mathis recently published articles from his website in a book titled ‘The Un-unified Field: And Other Problems’. We would like to direct your attention to a review by R. Dowdall on Amazon.co.uk, or rather her reply to a comment by Steven Oostdijk (scroll down on the review page). Her reply echoes our own sentiments about Mathis’ work and we’re glad R. Dowdall took the time to write it.

(You may read Miles’ counter-critique here)

(Edit: I incorrectly assumed R. Dowdall was male. Sorry for that!)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Aside

  1. SmarterBrainDude says:

    hey dudes
    leave teh poor fella alone!
    He is just a crazy dude and so are you for telling how crazy he is on an crazy website with the only purpose letting other internet dudes read how wrong his stuff is. you should make a blog over physic stuff thats true .. dude

  2. Dan says:

    hey guys,

    I applaud your efforts to debunk this Mathis bunk. I’ve met a first year undergrad that I was tutoring in calculus, he asked me why we are learning this stuff when there is Mathis who clearly shows the error in much of current mathematics and physics. I eventually convinced him that Mathis was wrong… so very wrong. I then helped with some of his more technical arguments when he was asked to write a paper on an internet crank, and rigorously discredit one of his papers.

    I Have come to realize that there are people out there, not just other cranks, but even mathematics students that are being taken in by at least some of this stuff. So, I would like to join your effort to discredit his nonsense. I am a far better educated in maths than physics, so his math “papers” would be better suited for me.

    If you are interested in posting them here I would be happy to write up a few pieces. I would like to begin with his short piece on Pi=4 and his ramblings on Godels Incompleteness Theorem. I choose Pi=4 (the short version) because at first glance his idea of approximating an arc of the circle with ever smaller horizontal and vertical line segments will seem intuitive to people who have not seen much calculus, and maybe even those who have. I would continue with Godel because incompleteness is something that many undergrads have heard of, but don’t appreciate the subtleties of, and thus might get taken in by his hand waving.

    Let me know,

    Dan

  3. D says:

    I tried emailing you a few days ago. Not sure if perhaps you have a spam filter to block gmail accounts or just havn’t checked it. Either way what format should I send my document to you in? I included a small graphic I felt was required to respond to Mathis’ claims. Can graphics be displayed or is it text only?

    D

  4. D says:

    I’ve emailed you my respose to pi=4 and derivative of x^n.

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