Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Hi Mauro,

I'm glad your follow-up on Miles Mathis was not lost because of the
recent Italian Brouhaha.

Your initial introduction to Mathis to the Vort Collective got my
attention. I started reading his papers. The article that has
interested me the most was the one in regards to: "Explaining the
Ellipse".

http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html

I have two stories to share in regards to my own close encounter with
Mr. Mathis.

STORY ONE: My adventures with the ellipse

I was fascinated by Miles' explanation that a mysterious repulsive
"E/M field" is the reason why orbiting satellites obeying an
elliptical path are thrown away from the primary gravitational body
during their closest approach. I believe Miles claims his mysterious
E/M field is the principal reason why most satellites don't crash into
the attractive body. Based on my own computer simulations of
elliptical orbits using Celestial Mechanical rules it became pretty
obvious to me that, yes indeed, the equivalent of a "repulsive force"
does seem to manifest briefly as a satellite swings past the
attractive body during its closest approach. However, I don't see the
need to introduce an additional force, Miles' mysterious "E/M force"
to explain the phenomenon. From a computer simulation POV, the simple
rules of accumulated velocity combined with the inverse squared force
of attraction mimics the orbital behavior nicely - in strict Newtonian
terms. (I also realize Mathis is not actually disagreeing with the
traditional algorithmic mechanics used to predict elliptical CM
behavior. Nevertheless, he claims it's incorrect.) What may not be
obvious to many is the fact that manifested centripetal forces DO seem
to generate the equivalent of a temporary negative gravity field
during the satellite's closest approach. This tends to happen only
briefly, during the satellite's closest approach. Whether this
mysterious negative force (the "E/M" field) follows fourth power
rules, as Miles claims I do not yet know for sure. I am however
looking into the matter. Ironically, during the rest of the elliptical
path, the exact opposite is true, centripetally speaking. The
centripetal forces are LESS than the prevailing attractive forces.
Because centripetal forces tend to be LESS the rest of the time, it
eventually causes the satellite to curve back and once again approach
the attractive body. A perfect circle is the only case where a
satellite's negative/repulsive centripetal forces exactly matches the
inverse squared positive/attractive forces. I'm currently trying to
generate some interesting graphics to show this phenomenon, visually.
It's a challenge and a fun exercise to do... and it keeps me off the
streets at night.  ;-)


STORY TWO:  "Advice" Spurned

Changing gears, I have an antidotal story to tell: My final
communications with Miles Mathis did not go very well. In fact it was
disastrous. When I first contacted Miles, he initially asked me for
suggestions on how he might go about selling his very accomplished
paintings since he realized I was an artist too. Initially, I didn't
have much advice to share with Miles. A month or two later however, I
asked one of my unorthodox "counselors" about Miles Mathis. (This
"counselor" would be what most of us would call a channeler, in New
Agey terms. Actually, I like the term: Witch doctor better!) This
witch doctor had some interesting things to say about Mr. Mathis. The
gist of our conversation was the expressed opinion that Mathis is
indeed mathematically perceptive about a lot of concepts. However, the
doctor also added that Miles has gotten a lot of his analysis wrong.
The witch doctor also stated that his rebellious nature, plus
constantly broadcasting an attitude that he has got all the math
figured out, is not doing him any favors. Meanwhile, as far as selling
his accomplished art, which the doctor agreed was very good, they
strongly suggested he try selling through eBay (the European sector)
instead of approaching traditional art galleries in person. The witch
doctor also suggested he avoid trying to sell his art in the United
States since his classical painterly approach would not be appreciated
here. The witch doctor suggested he focus on eBay efforts in certain
European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, and
Germany.

For some reason, I decided to share with Miles almost verbatim
significant portions of that transcript I received from this witch
doctor. I made it very clear to Miles that he was under absolutely no
obligation whatsoever to accept the information given from this
"counselor" as being accurate or not. I simply relayed it to him in
the hope that some of information might possibly give him additional
(and hopefully useful) insights into his current situation.

Alas, this did not go over well with Miles. It did not bother me in
the least that Miles' thought the contents of the transcript was
bogus. That was a perfectly natural and logical response to arrive at
considering the unorthodo

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:11:04 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> A demolishing criticism
>> 
>> of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
>>  (among many other things, Miles shows
>> that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) "proof", which
>> basically boils down to this
>> )
>
>Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of
>what arc-length /doesn't/ mean, as well as being an example of an
>unexpected encounter with a fractal.
>
>Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy
>grinning head, otherwise unrelated):
>
>http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg
>
>It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't
>work...
>
Look at the energy required to force open the valve on the "air" side as a ball
enters the water (at depth against the water pressure).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Harry Veeder]

The philosophical foundations of geometry interests me.
Thanks for this link.

Harry


>
>From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 11:11:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis
>
>
>
>On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: 
>A demolishingcriticism of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi 
>being 4 (among many other things, Miles shows that Pi equals four, with an 
>elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically boils down to this)
>>
Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of what 
arc-length doesn't mean, as well as being an example of an unexpected encounter 
with a fractal.

Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy grinning 
head, otherwise unrelated):

http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg

It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't work...

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> A demolishing criticism
> 
> of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
>  (among many other things, Miles shows
> that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) "proof", which
> basically boils down to this
> )

Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of
what arc-length /doesn't/ mean, as well as being an example of an
unexpected encounter with a fractal.

Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy
grinning head, otherwise unrelated):

http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg

It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't
work...

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

On 14 Jan 2011, at 10:04, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> A demolishing criticism of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi 
> being 4 (among many other things, Miles shows that Pi equals four, with an 
> elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically boils down to this)

That was a fun read. Thanks :)
Joe

[Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Mauro Lacy]

A demolishing criticism

of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
 (among many other things, Miles shows
that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically
boils down to this
)

I was fooled by a number of factors: his appearance of grandiosity, his
vast work, originality of thought in many cases, and also the relative
internal consistency of many of his ideas. But most of them do not stand
closer scrutiny, and that was evident relatively soon. Anyway, it was
fun while it lasted, and I learnt some things(seriously) and got some
useful ideas. I also got a rugged skin.

Mathis is not run of the mill. Far from that. I contacted him pointing
errors in his arguments, and he refused to acknowledge any, or to
correct or expurge anything published on his web site. Although he
acknowledged to me that he's aware that he probably has done many
mistakes, he kindly said that he nevertheless believes everything
published on his web site at the moment stand as correct(!), and as so,
does not need any amend.
At this point, I'm sure he's aware of his many errors, but I suppose he
enjoys making fools of some of us. He's certainly making a fool of
himself. A big one, that's for sure.

Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[Mauro Lacy]

Hi Miles,
A number of discussions and comments regarding your work have been
posted in the mailing list vortex-l, unconventional physics
. See by example this thread
, and
also the ones called "Mercury's perihelion
precession"(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg40083.html)
and "Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral"
(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg40233.html).

Maybe you'd want to join the list, to comment directly on your work and
the issues raised.

Regards,
Mauro Lacy

On 10/14/2010 06:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Thu, 14 Oct 2010
> 10:10:10 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>   
>> FYI,
>>
>> A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning
>> the fact that I just finished reading his paper on "The Electron
>> Orbit."
>>
>> See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html
>> 
> Unfortunately this is wrong. He talks about electrons appearing to "swim
> upstream" because they are smaller and lighter than protons, however positrons
> and electrons also attract one another, and they have equivalent mass.
>
> Also, he fails to ask the question: "What would happen if the electron did hit
> the proton?".
>
> The answer of course is that it would be deflected, and keep right on going. 
> The
> only other options are that it sticks to the proton (impossible because of
> conservation of energy and momentum), or that it combine with the proton to 
> form
> a neutron, also impossible because the two of them combined don't have enough
> relativistic mass to form a neutron.
>
> So his entire spiel is irrelevant.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>
>   

RE: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Robin:

 

>> BTW, I would urge you to contact him with your critique. He has an

>> email address. I'd love to know what he might respond with. He once

>> responded to one of my queries.

 

> [snip]

> Why not invite him to join vortex?

 

I do not wish to overstay my "correspondence" with Miles.

 

Truth of the matter is that in one of my exchanges with Mr. Mathis I fear he
may have become annoyed with the content of the "answer" I supplied him
with. Therefore, I don't wish to aggravate the situation any further. Let me
clarify. He actually asked for my advice on a particular matter.
Unfortunately, he may not have liked the "answer" I supplied him with, even
though I do not regret the content of my "suggestions". I did tell him up
front that he was free to discard my suggestions.

 

Part of our conversation revolved around the fact that Mr. Mathis actually
asked me for tips on selling art. He is, BTW, a superb artist. He noticed
that my own web site (just like his) contains a lot of personal art work.
Miles told me that for years he had been able to support his ascetic
life-style AND fund his mathematical research by selling his art through
various outlets. You can see links to some of the gallery outlets he sells
through at his website. 

 

Let me repeat this: To my utter astonishment Miles has been able to support
what he has told me is an ascetic standard of living through sales of his
art. On top of that, and to my total amazement, he uses the income generated
from the sales of his art to support his mathematical research. IOW, Mr.
Mathis is using his artistic talent to help support what I suspect is the
REAL muse in his life: the pursuit of MATHEMATICS. What an incredibly unique
twist on human nature This is an incredible accomplishment and I commend
his efforts. I am in absolute awe, particularly since I was never able to
make a go of being an "artist" myself. I discovered that being a computer
programmer turned out to be a lot less work for me! In turn, I was then left
with sufficient free-time to pursue my personal art as I saw fit. However,
in Miles' situation, the economy has now soured to such an extent that even
his superb artistic talent is not enough to continue the funding his
mathematical research.

 

I suggested to Miles that he might want to consider looking into temporary
work in various fields, temp work that would not tax his creative abilities.
(That's what I ended up doing. It worked for me.) He is obviously
multi-talented and could probably pick and choose through a number of
technically proficient fields. Perhaps he could even be a temp teacher. I
suggested that as the economy starts to improve again he could then
hopefully return once again supporting his mathematical research through his
artist endeavors.

 

Miles never replied. I have no way of knowing if Mr. Mathis is simply too
busy, which could indeed be the case. Or...he may have decided that I'm an
opinionated blowhard who might be unconsciously jealous of his talent.
Perhaps he perceives me as someone who plotted to pull him down a peg or two
with my "get real, and go get a real job" advise. I have no way of knowing
in a vacuum of no responses. I simply have the feeling that Miles prefers no
further communication with me -insofar as soliciting any further "advice"
from me. All I can say is that he DID ask for my advice, so I don't regret
offering up insights into what worked for me.

 

Under the circumstances I would prefer someone ELSE from the Vort Collective
"advise" Miles on the premise that he might enjoy joining this eclectic
group. He needs his research read so that he can get adequate feedback. I
gather he is getting some feedback. I just don't know how much and of what
quality.

 

Regards

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks 

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Fri, 15 Oct 2010
10:08:26 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>BTW, I would urge you to contact him with your critique. He has an
>email address. I'd love to know what he might respond with. He once
>responded to one of my queries.
[snip]
Why not invite him to join vortex?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Robin:

...

>>A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning
>>the fact that I just finished reading his paper on "The Electron
>>Orbit."
>>
>>See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html
>
> Unfortunately this is wrong. He talks about electrons appearing to "swim
> upstream" because they are smaller and lighter than protons, however positrons
> and electrons also attract one another, and they have equivalent mass.
>
> Also, he fails to ask the question: "What would happen if the electron did hit
> the proton?".
>
> The answer of course is that it would be deflected, and keep right on going. 
> The
> only other options are that it sticks to the proton (impossible because of
> conservation of energy and momentum), or that it combine with the proton to 
> form
> a neutron, also impossible because the two of them combined don't have enough
> relativistic mass to form a neutron.
>
> So his entire spiel is irrelevant.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>

You bring up several valid points. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely
convinced Mathis'  Electron Orbit "spiel" is totally irrelevant.

For example, how could the laws of quantum mechanics permit the actual
physical "contact" of electron / proton 'particles' in the first place
- so what are we actually quibbling about here. What can be considered
"solid" at that highly granulated sub-microscopic level? Experimental
data has revealed long ago that a transformation, a transmutation, or
a conversion of matter/energy would occur before individual particles
(i.e. electron & a proton) ever got close enough to "kiss" each other,
as if we could even conceive of subatomic particles as touching one
other like billiard balls. IOW, quantum particles don't "physically"
stick together.

At present I tend to treat much of Mile's arguments as theoretical
(alternative) exercises in approaching the fundamental building blocks
of nature - from a different POV. I find it refreshing to give myself
temporary permission to look at an old problem from a fresh new
perspective. Are his eccentric perceptions correct? Who knows.
Obviously, nobody, even geniuses can bat 300. I certainly don't expect
Mathis to have a better batting average in decoding Nature's secrets
than all the other highly eccentric geniuses whom have preceded him.

BTW, I would urge you to contact him with your critique. He has an
email address. I'd love to know what he might respond with. He once
responded to one of my queries.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Thu, 14 Oct 2010
10:10:10 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>FYI,
>
>A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning
>the fact that I just finished reading his paper on "The Electron
>Orbit."
>
>See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html

Unfortunately this is wrong. He talks about electrons appearing to "swim
upstream" because they are smaller and lighter than protons, however positrons
and electrons also attract one another, and they have equivalent mass.

Also, he fails to ask the question: "What would happen if the electron did hit
the proton?".

The answer of course is that it would be deflected, and keep right on going. The
only other options are that it sticks to the proton (impossible because of
conservation of energy and momentum), or that it combine with the proton to form
a neutron, also impossible because the two of them combined don't have enough
relativistic mass to form a neutron.

So his entire spiel is irrelevant.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

[Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on "The Electron Orbit"

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

FYI,

A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning
the fact that I just finished reading his paper on "The Electron
Orbit."

See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html

In this paper Miles has presented interesting concepts pertaining to
what he believes is actually repulsive behavior that manifests BETWEEN
THE PROTON AND ELECTRON. However, due to sizes, ratios, and distances
involved the interactive "dance" occasionally manifest as attractive
behavior, i.e. the electron orbit. His take on the matter does seem to
make some sense, even though I'm sure I'm simplifying the matter. Kind
of mind bending in a way. One thing for sure, Mathis' perception on
the electron orbit seems to hearken back to a more traditional
mechanistic way of running the universe. (BTW, Mathis' writing
occasionally displays a dry sense of humor which can help the reader
through the droll times. I've enjoyed his wit.) I've attempt to alert
Miles to Dr. Mills' web site, suggesting the possibility that he might
find it interesting comparing notes between his version of the
"Electron Orbit" and Mills' "Orbit Sphere." Perhaps Miles could also
appreciate the fact that Mills' like himself, has been marginalized,
relegated to the outside, an outcast of the physics society.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks