It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
originally posted by: ConnectDots
"Not full post by: ConnectDots. Edited due to length"
One of his readers, a Dutch engineer, has posted a YouTube video of an experiment based on one of Mathis's papers.
The Dutch engineer is Steven Oostdijk.
Mathis has written three books, which sell on Amazon. Here is Steven's review for The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems:
Have you ever wondered why contemporary physics seems to be such an impenetrable abstract jungle?
(Is it because i am not a monkey? Humans although good cannot compete against monkeys when it comes to jungles)
Have you ever wondered why the math department has overtaken the physics department?
(Math is easier than physics? More job openings?)
Have you ever wondered how physicists have the audicity to claim they are able to calculate the conditions of the universe 14 Billion years ago, while at the same time they cannot even explain why we have two tides a day, (Fishy farts!) why the moon and sun have the same optical size (One is bigger and further away one is smaller and closer?). or why the planets are tilted? (Like everything Miles Mathis has discovered?) Or cannot even mechanically explain a simple property like "mass"? (My old time mechanical scale says the mass of the apple i am about to enjoy is heavy)
But were you afraid to ask for fear of being branded "mathematically illiterate"?
(Nope!!!!)
Help is on its way...(I hear theme music). Miles Mathis has published his first book and hopefully many will follow. It will take more than one book (Sigh) to clean up centuries of mathematics and physics theory mess-ups swept under the carpet. This one however provides a fine start. (And hopefully a ending)
To wrap it up: IMHO the most lucid (Somebody pleeeeeease tell this man the definition of lucid. But i will give him credit for curiosity and trying). scientific mind I've ever seen, now in paperback. A modern day polymath on its way to history as a new Leonardo. (DiCaprio?)
Of course, trolls on Amazon accuse Steven of being Miles. That is predictable. (Next from Miles how to win at the Roulette wheel in any casino!!! Using a secret formula found in a floating cave. Obviously it was wrong but Miles worked feverishly and found the true equation)
I must say, I'm entertained by people's responses.
originally posted by: Box of Rain
Here's Pi when motion is involved:
...aaaaaannnnd it's still not 4.
originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ConnectDots
Motion relative to the Earth i assume?
Because we all know the Earth IS in motion, at roughly 65,000 mph...which would mean Pi is always 4, since we and the planet we reside upon, is always in motion...not to mention the motion of the Solar system around the Galactic centre, or the Galaxy moving through the Universe....
originally posted by: ConnectDots
As previously stated, he started by reading Newton's Principia and other original writings and analyzing them himself step by step and writing papers as he went along.
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Bedlam
But he would be right if it was sprayed with Unicorn urine...did I say that right Bedlam?
November 8, 2016:
I have had one of my online buddies create a gif for me that matches part of the video they are suppressing. I have never imported a gif into a paper before, so hopefully this will work, including the motion. . . . If that doesn't move for you, you can go to his video at Vimeo.
milesmathis.com...
First posted December 11, 2012
I recently posted an update to my controversial π=4 paper, showing that my analysis is basically equivalent to the Manhattan metric of Hilbert. Somehow it took me four years to figure that out. Actually, I didn't know until a few days ago that π=4 in the Manhattan metric. I knew the Manhattan metric only as a grid metric, and had never seen it applied to a circle. I had to be sent to the Wikipedia page on the Manhattan metric, where it says that π=4. Only then was I able to make the connection. . . .
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: Agnost
Hi Connect/Mary,
if you look at the video that is referenced in the paper (pi = what), you will see that for a circle with diameter 4 (every side of the 'unit' squares being 1) he concludes that pi is 4 (the straight lines).
Now what would happen if you take a circle with another diameter? Let's say 1: then pi = 1? And for diameter 6, pi = 6?
best regards
. . . This means that the historical and current interpretation cannot be correct. The hypotenuses do not converge to the curve or the arc. No, as I show above, it is the tangent that converges upon the arc, but the convergence happens only when the tangent equals the radius. This convergence can happen only at 1/8th of the circle, and it happens just as I show in these papers. It happens because the arc is never a continuous curve, even at the limit. The arc is defined as a curve composed of linear or straight vectors, therefore it can never be continuous, if we mean by continuous that the time or length traveled goes to zero. Logically, the time or length cannot go to zero, since there is no time or length at zero. All numbers in math and physics imply a differential, and since this is so, the curve cannot be thought of as continuous in this way. The curve must be thought of as composed of linear vectors, even at the limit. And since this must be true, it must also be true that the path I have drawn above must converge upon the arc, for precisely the reasons I have stated. The path does converge upon the arc, in the sense that the path gets nearer the arc. No one can deny that, at least. But since the arc is not continuous even at the limit, the path truly does converge upon the arc, as we draw more steps. Since the distance doesn't change no matter how many steps we draw, the tangent must converge upon the arc. Or, at 1/8 of the circle, the tangent simply IS the arc.
milesmathis.com...