Do his theories hold any weight?
I just discovered this guy and he seems like a massive schizophrenic.

https://milesmathis.com/

>>16698278 (OP)
I believe niggers eat poop

>>16698281

>>16698278 (OP)
>pi is 4,
>prove me wrong
>no not like that

But I still think his theory about hawking being played by and actor since the 80s makes the most sense

lol

>>16698278 (OP)
a bit hit or miss, but there's a bunch of ideas that mae a lot of sense.
he made a full detailed prediction of solar cycle 25 based on his charge field theory. shows a prominent double peak, so the data coming in over the next 2-3 years will be strong evidence for or hard refutal to his work.
https://milesmathis.com/dip.pdf

>>16698278 (OP)
Lot of genius, mostly hard to refute.
But you need a few years to grasp that huge site. His papers that most events are fake needs time to read too.

>>16698291
>>pi is 4,
Hope at least you read that paper, but if, you clearly have no grasp what it means.

>>16698436
>he made a full detailed prediction of solar cycle 25
It's the 25th observed, there were millions before. But his model looks legit.

>wander in
>start reading
>...
This is whiffing hard. Good outlook, empty words.

>>16698523
>This is whiffing hard. Good outlook, empty words.
Here is an intro to his science site:
https://milesmathis.com/science.pdf
Doesn't help very much, he is out of the realm and that intro is not comprehensible if you avoid his highly complicated papers. But even he were wrong on 80% in his papers, there were enough left to revolutionize theoretical physics.

>>16698503
Well, of cause n 25 since start of observations. Point is that he derived a very detailed prediction from his physics model that will either completely discredit him within a few years or put a lot of weight behind his theory.
I'm a biologist, so wtf do I know about if he's correct or not, but his explanations do make a lot more sense than what physicists have been up to the last century. Reality will be the judge, like it should be.

>>16698650
> Point is that he derived a very detailed prediction from his physics model that will either completely discredit him within a few years or put a lot of weight behind his theory.
Poeple had simulated his model up to 1900 or so. It did not fit all the time (around 2/3 but it resynced). That's way more ever other person or institute ever achieved. Current state: his model is way advanced but did not cover everything. Btw. he isn't paid for it, he lives from donations and art selling.

>>16698503
>Hope at least you read that paper, but if, you clearly have no grasp what it means.
I read it years ago, but feel free to remind me

>>16698652
Yeah I know, he could be farming clicks/ads in some way, make conferences and sell overpriced tickets or other such things, but he just keeps uploading papers to his website and has a paypal link on a kitty pic

>>16698654
>I read it years ago, but feel free to remind me
It's not about trigonometric, it's an description of Newtonian orbits and a correction of some math mistakes Newton made.

>>16698648
Restating:
Questioning the basics is good.
Waffling on, even saying the same thing three times in a row, is not.
It reads as personal cliff notes with added fluff.

>>16698663
Would recommend the content, not the style.

>>16698278 (OP)
Could /pol/ and /x/ fags please stop making threads here every time they find some new schizo on google or youtube to gush over?

>>16698278 (OP)
Refer to Ron Unz's opinion. I used to read some of it but it really got too much when he tried to disprove Newton (on whether ratios of sin, tan and I think versed sine approach 1 as their arguments approach 0) and just got it ridiculously wrong, and then stated that the reason nobody else knows this, despite Newtonian mechanics being used to e.g. launch rockets is because engineers all over the world are adding fudge factors of root 2 or a half and so on without ever knocking it back up the chain to physicists that their predictions don't work.

>>16698278 (OP)
For those that give his work credence, which papers would you recommend reading.
At least from what I've read so far, it seems like his work is radically hit or
miss.

>>16698690
Miles did a well written answer and in addition one comment of Ron Unz's article. In fact Ron did not gave answered to that, imo for very good reasons. Same as you Miles corrected some math errors in Newton formulas, so i recommend to read the original not the Ron's ridiculous article.

>>16698710
Just go through the frontpage and click on stuff thats interesting to you. Reading the first few dozen helps to get a broad understanding of his ideas. Other than that, the astrophysics, quantum physics and chemistry ones are interesting.
Also, did you know that Lennon faked his death and now lives in leafland, works as a Lennon impersonator and made a low budget movie about how Lennon didn't die and went to leafland?

lmao, looks like trying to post that link got me banned
>You have been banned from all boards for the following reason:
Error: Your post contained banned text.

milesmathis dot com slash lennon dot pdf

>>16698845
>Same as you Miles corrected some math errors in Newton formulas, so i recommend to read the original
I did read the original. The reason it was so offensive is that I had this realisation myself while reading, and his (Mathis') mistakes are so obvious one could actually construct a device on Earth's surface to prove him wrong, made out of sticks. Only later did I discover Unz had his opinions.

In any case I've seen his response and it doesn't matter. Unz's article also isn't some kind of super-rational killshot he just explains he thinks Mathis is a fraud, which he is. There's nothing Mathis can respond to that with which to debunk it or something.

>did not gave answered
hmmm... now why would an ESL be shilling Mathis on sci

>>16699115
>his (Mathis') mistakes are so obvious o
Show it, prove you are not the fraud you accuse others of. Me would be happy i do not care who is wright or wrong.. But every time i read kind of that and asking for details the big mouth pulls in the tail or blocked me.

>>16699115
>Unz's article also isn't some kind of super-rational killshot he just explains he thinks Mathis is a fraud,
This ridiculous pamphlet only proves that Ron Unz is a complete idiot. Nobody with the slightest clue would have write that if he has the slightest grasp of the theme.

>>16699115
>hmmm... now why would an ESL be shilling Mathis on sci
Me would not discuss with Miles. He is that kind of over confined person that isn't cool about his works and tends to be angry when criticized. But he has a lot of very useful papers (up to art critic, the view of an portrait artist, the ability to explain complicated math, an independent mind etc) Quite the contrary to this Tibetan prayer mill that banned me for an link to one of his articles.

>>16699239
Go read his page on celestial mechanics. He says that sine, tangent, and IIRC versed sine (it doesn't matter what the name was I remember calculating it out and you will be able to also) actually approach a ratios to each other not of 1, which is what Newton said. However, you can actually construct these lines on the Earth's surface, and over maybe a few metres you have an angle you can consider quite close to infinitesimal, given how large the Earth is. Then you can check that all three are the same, plus or minus a milimetre or so between them. You don't have to construct it because you can just draw it out and calculate a few things instead but I just thought it was the funniest way to show it.

>This ridiculous pamphlet only proves that Ron Unz is a complete idiot. Nobody with the slightest clue would have write that if he has the slightest grasp of the theme.
You just said to me that I need to back up my accusations and you were complaining about personal attacks earlier in the thread and now you do the same to Unz. Shame.

I don't actually agree with Unz' idea that Mathis is secretly a dozen guys but I do find it greatly more plausible than any of Mathis' original proposals. Interestingly Mathis also has a habit of being quite rude to people, see his email exchange with a few professors over special relativity for an example. But I'm sure you think he was provoked by the professor not replying after Mathis had wasted hours of his time.

Anyway now I have answered your question can you show me an example of these engineering fudge factors used in rocketry and satellites that Mathis insinuates exist (also on the celestial mechanics page)? Would be very interesting.

>>16699402
He has written quite a lot of celestial, please give me the link to the one you talk about,

>>16699402
>about personal attacks earlier in the thread and now you do the same to Unz. Shame.
unz himself wrote that he did not read the papers he was writing about, So idiot is very polite for that clueless denunciation or whatever your wording about this ass**** behaviour would be.

>>16699402
>Mathis also has a habit of being quite rude to people
He is not a person i want to mail with either. But my interest is in his papers.

>>16699479
milesmathis dot com slash avr.html, near the bottom
>You can now see that this solution stands as a refutation of Newton's Lemma VII. Newton states that at the limit, the arc, the tangent and the chord are all equal. I have just shown that at the limit the arc and the chord approach equality, but the tangent remains greater than both [...]

I must have read this off of a link from the celestial mechanics page (the one that's just cm.html)

>>16699553
>milesmathis dot com slash avr.html, near the bottom
Thanks, have saved and will check that out. Due to vacation i think this thread is archived before i can answer.