Miles Mathis and the death of mainstream science

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Anti-stupidity, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Hello again, anti-stupidity here, and I've found something that may be more worth than the last post I did. I was once googling, time is motion, and came up with page from this site. It is huge and possibly way beyond what I know, then again I don't know physics beyond middle school, but want to know if it is credible. Some of what it goes over is simple and straight forward while some the rest is against most of main stream science. It gives a differential view of what mainstream science is saying, i be it, a bit mean spirited.

    Call me a paper boy, but i've got some interesting news, want a read.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://milesmathis.com/index.html
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Why don't you quote something specific so we can discuss before we reject it.
    You won't get fooled by mainstream so the question presents as to why you are so easily taken in by non mainstream.
    But post something more than a link for discussion I find it tiresome visiting sites and feeling foolish that I have bothered.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    I have a saying "follow the money".
    It answers many questions and if you apply it to Mr. Mathis you may work out that he is selling a book.
    Presumably there is more money to be made selling non text books to folk ignorant of science than to sell a real text book on real science.
    Don't be fooled, don't buy his book don't waste time on folk who criticize yet offer no alternative to the current model.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    It is crap. It took about 5 minutes to find glaring errors.
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    I bet it would have taken even less time if you did not have to search past the book add.
    Alex
     
    origin likes this.
  9. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,189
    I categorised it as Jibber Jabbar written down.

    Reference to below does he have a twin brother?

    Jibber Jabber is a Canadian children's television series about twin brothers, Jibber and Jabber, who like to imagine things.

    Twinless Humpty (I did think one time Poe might be my twin sister)
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Now that would have to the best name for a law firm ever.
    Alex
     
  11. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,189
    Wasn't there a movie where the judge kept saying to one of the lawyers he was speaking Jibber Jabbar?
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Well over hear the use of Jibber Jabbar to describe someone running off at the mouth is very common.
    You will often here someone say "enough of the jibber jabbar talk English" or "I asked and all I got was jibber jabbar" or "I don't understand it's just jibber jabber".
    I would not be surprised if its origin was from our Aboriginal people.
    I have herd them use it frequently.
    Alex
     
  13. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,189

    jibber-jabber

    A word made up by Mr. T.
    Talking or speaking nonsense.

    Shut up all the jibber-jabber, fool.

    But another source gives it

    1. n. Incoherent or unintelligable speech; has it's origins from the word gibberish
    2. adj. Word used to describe incoherent speech
    3. v. To speak inchoherently

    Bob: Did you understand what that theory meant?
    Dave: No, I dont understand quantum mechanics, so it all sounded like jibber-jabber to me.

    and

    Origin

    English

    gibber
    jabber

    jibber-jabber

    early 19th century: related to gibber1, jabber.

    Over here! Australia? Where the bloody hell do you think I am?

    Cheers

    Dumpty laughing
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    I don't know.
    But thinking more I can recall early on Jabber jabber being used rather than jibber jabber.
    "She just went on jabber jabber"
    And sometimes..
    "She just went on jabber jabber jabber"
    And some have been heard speaking jibberish.
    Alex
     
  15. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    I started to read through it and so far so good. Chapter 1, I agree with, as i'm in the time is an illusion camp or it is just movement so I agree with what he said. Partly, until he decided to take a dick shot at my most favorite equation ever, the Minkowski metric. Onto to chapter 2 about the apparent wrongness of angular momentum and angular velocity equations, http://milesmathis.com/angle.html. Please join me.

    Any high school physics book will have a section on angular motion, and it will contain the equations I will correct here. So there is nothing esoteric or mysterious about this problem. It has been sitting right out in the open for centuries.

    Good so far.

    To begin with, we are given an angular velocity ω, which is a velocity expressed in radians by the equation
    ω = 2π/t
    Then, we want an equation to go from linear velocity v to angular velocity ω. Since v = 2πr/t, the equation must be
    v = rω

    Seems very simple, but it is wrong. In the equation v = 2πr/t, the velocity is not a linear velocity. Linear velocity is linear, by the equation x/t. It is a straight-line vector. But 2πr/t curves; it is not linear. The value 2πr is the circumference of the circle, which is a curve. You cannot have a curve over a time, and then claim that the velocity is linear. The value 2πr/t is an orbital velocity, not a linear velocity.


    This correct?
     
  16. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,189
    Then we take a Cowpat, which has been traveling at an unknown speed, towards a spinning vortex, and convert it into lead before it hits the blades.

    Lead, which as we all know stops Superman's X-ray vision, is only two micro Pico's short of gold.

    From there it is but a small step to produce gold, fame and fortune, Nobel prizes and Miss Universe as a wife.

    Humpty Dumpty dreaming as usual and
    Poe the romantic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
  17. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Please, be more specific.
     
  18. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Or demeaning.
     
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    I thought Miles was onto something once. No more, sadly. Some of his better ideas are actually recycled.

    There exists actual science and supporting math that is even more radical than Miles has said in on some topics and in some respects.
     
  20. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Is any of it worth saving or paying merit too, danshawen.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    L

    Actually there are so many issues around mainstream cosmology, that every second guy is an expert. There is no doubt that mainstream cosmology would get an overhaul, but this guy Mathis is miles away from making any change.
     
  22. Anti-stupidity Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Only one of his ideas gave me pause. The idea was that a ratio defining the nature of time must contain the fastest velocity in the universe, and that ratio cannot be the ratio of the speed of light to unity. Velocity comparison in a proportional relationship that includes time itself will fail for the same reason division by zero or multiplication by infinity does. This makes relativity consistent but incomplete.

    Our measure of time is always based on a velocity and a proportional relationship. As long as this is the case, our understanding of time itself is incomplete.

    Quantum spin / entanglement is faster.
     

Share This Page