About

We are two graduate students (theoretical physics) who wish to point out the obvious flaws in Miles Mathis’ arguments. An increasing number of people asked about the validity of his papers in various blogs/forums therefore we saw a need for this blog.

If you have wondered about the title of our blog you might want to take a look at Mathis der Maler.

13 Responses to About

  1. Jake says:

    Hopefully your site will help people avoid wasting their time reading Mathis’ crackpottery.

    • Cee says:

      Thanks for the encouragement. We hope so too!

      • Carl says:

        Hi.
        Are all of you still involved in intelligently finding weaknesses and flaws,
        errors in anything published by Miles Mathis? I’m gullible on occasion,
        I find in hindsight. Looking for an experienced eye here, but keeping the man himself, and any idea he produces, separate, and no campaign, no witch hunt.
        Thanks.

  2. Dan says:

    So I’m a math student and take serious issue with MMs nonsense. If you are ok with it I wouldn’t mind discrediting a MM ‘paper’ or two if you would include it on your page. Physics is not my area of study, pure math is, so I am better suited to to attack the mathematical nonsense he puts out there (pi=4). Let me know.

  3. Pingback: 2010 in review | Ex Falso …

  4. subhash rao says:

    Quite interesting and needed watchblog!
    Why don’t you debunk Mathis debunking of the elliptical orbit of celestial bodies?
    You know,
    http://milesmathis.com/cm.html
    and
    http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html

    As you can see, he is claiming that Newton´s theory doesn´t explain Kepler’s Laws, and I am finding many people talking about it! Specially, here in India!
    I hope you can explain it clearly, I am afraid this particular idea is doing harm among unlearned people.

    Best,

    Subhash

    • crashloop says:

      Thanks for your encouraging comment. As soon as my university work leaves me time I will look into it.

  5. Jonathan Raybon says:

    I am nto sure whether or not you are still actively monitoring and making additions to this blog, but in the off chance that you are, I would like to suggest something. People have a tendency to look through the various topics written by Mathis and pick the ones that they feel comfortable dealing with. I would suggest, for others benefit and because it would be something I would be greatly interested in) writing, or having someone write for you (whatever your preference), a paper, blog, etc… (whatever) to address the claims he makes concerning Calculus. While this is difficult, because he cleverly tries to make claims based on the type of mathematics which helped Calculus become a reality. It would be neccesary to evaluate both the Original Calculus by showing the derivation of the most simple rules, and compare them to how mathis is deriving his formulas. Only when the two come together, the various definitions are proved, and appropriate jargon fully explained, can the two really be compared and a viable analysis made that others who cannot do the mathematics will be able to follow.. The truth would rise out of such a paper, and many people I am sure would be greatly interested. Because he bases nearly everything on his site on the things he supposidely helped resolve in Calculus then observations concerning the rest are irrelevant if the foundation is shown to be false.

    • Cee says:

      Dear Jonathan,
      Thank you for your comment. We’re still here.

      What makes Mathis’ longer articles so hard to analyse – and his article on calculus is one of the longest articles he has written so far – is that they are, quite frankly, a mess. While Mathis claims that he derives everything using only ‘simple math’, he certainly doesn’t adhere to that philosophy when it comes to writing endless paragraphs about why this or that in mathematics is a ‘fudge’.
      I feel that he holds many misconceptions about how mathematics works but, to be honest, find it hard to pinpoint exactly what they are in some of his rants. Quite like you observed, we have so far focused on his shorter articles where equations or claims can more easily seen to be erroneous. But the fact that these are rare among his writings is one of the reasons there haven’t been any posts on this blog lately.

      Do you think it would make sense for us to write up an article about how the derivative is defined in mathematics? That would certainly more easy for us than digging through 28 pages of Mathis’ confusion but we’re not sure such an article would really help a layperson. What do you think?

      Cheers,
      Cee

      • Jonathan Raybon says:

        I agree he tend to write about alot of things except what he trying to prove. I have found a website which shows a more concise approach to one of his foundation attacks. The link shows how he came to conclude that Newton was incorrect in his acceleration formula, something which you have already talked some about. The main things I point out are to do with the methods he uses in imparting this information. First he cites the locations of the sectoins and lemma wrong, possibly just an amateur mistake, hard to believe though since we expect in his wrintings that he pays such close attention to detail. I make this claim because I have a digital copy of an 1846 print held at UC Berkely. Furthermore he tries to add validity to his argument by stating the corollary word for word (even if cited incorrectly). He then (as you are aware) changes the language to read in way that common people might understand. First, if mathematics was written in such a way people would be able to understand it much easier, it simply is not possible. Second, he does not specifically define and address each adn every word in Newtons corollay. You cannot redefine of change words with something you have yet to define. That would be like saying Newton called it gravity, but he intended to say thermodynamics, really? Anyway, when i say I think some approach to his papers on Calculus woudl be beneficial i mean only the very few, and I mean very few, things he is trying to base everything on.

        A much easier task would be to take the Principia if you like, and since he does not use any sort of Calculus to define or derive anything, as Mathis does (more problems), you could approach his points on acceleration and debunk them. It is hard to read, i am sure you are aware, but the basics which he is using to come to his conclusions is where the truth lies.

        He does try to write an enormous amount just to say two things, and he did the same thing with Calculus. A very simple approach to undermine the first thing he proposes, which shouold be the first thing he continues to build upon, would make the entire article and subsequent articles false.

        It is very easy to find things otherwise in his articles, especially since he tries to use the Principia alot. You will notice that he mentions 1 corollary listed under sectoin 2 proposition 4. I am not sure if he thinks non one can access this information or not but he left out the other 8 following that 1, and then he goes on to mention how he will not use versed sines, but Newton did (he acknowledges this), but he does not adjust therest of the thinking to accomodate this change, and I dare say that would be very difficult due to the manner in which Newton writes by accumulation.

        Anyway ust a thought. Here is the link.

        http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis4.htm

  6. Michael Manthey says:

    Re Brehmsstrahlung:
    I represent QM using Clifford algebras – Cl(n,0) over Zed3={0,1,-1} – wherein an electron in unitary form is ab+ac (which squares to +1), and it’s projector is -1+ab+ac (which squares to itself). [Other a,b,c sign-variants also valid.] A photon is represented by a+b+c, and squares to zero (mod 3, yo), as it should. Now note that -1+ab+ac = a(-a+b+c). That is, electron and photon are two sides of the same coin, just a rotation away.

  7. ASinger says:

    Miles Mathis, multidisciplinary crank, also fancies himself an artist, an art critic, a pianist and a singer and he doesn’t do any better in those endeavors than he does in math and physics. He is a gross underachiever as an artist yet writes long, bitter attacks on others far more accomplished who, unlike himself, are able to infuse their paintings with a sense of life. Check out his ten-part studio tour on YouTube, where he is seen, in his dimly lit hovel, caressing women’s lace clothing, shoes, etc, surrounded by incredible disorder and clutter and all the paintings he is unable to sell and you’ll get a chilling glimpse of how pretentious, isolated and creepy this guy is. He also has videos of himself singing and playing the piano.

  8. Steve Urich says:

    What is the procedure for submitting a refutation to one of Mathis’ articles? In particular, I would like to offer a reply to “A Disproof of Newton’s Fundamental Lemmae”. In this acticle, Mathis claims that the first eight Lemma of the Principia are wrong. This can easily be disproved; just a cursory examination of the Lemma demonstrate that Mathis is completely wrong.

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