## Miles Mathis unit calculus

### Miles Mathis unit calculus

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

do we have any comments on this

some of his comments seem to be similiar to some of RS

he's entertaining anyway

do we have any comments on this

some of his comments seem to be similiar to some of RS

he's entertaining anyway

### Brilliant

Mathis has got some really brilliant observations, from what I've read so far. (May take a while... 1200 pages!) I particularly find his redefinition of tangential velocity to be most appealing... I can use his equations to correct some long-standing problems I've had doing a computer model of RS2, as the transformations from yang (linear) to yin (angular) never worked right--for exactly the reasons he discusses. I could never figure out why... and he hit that nail right on the head.

Thanks for the link!

Thanks for the link!

Every dogma has its day...

### Time and Calculus

I've read over a few of Mathis' papers. I do enjoy the way he thinks... by that, I mean he actually

And you are right--there are a lot of conceptual parallels between Mathis' and Larson's work, particularly concerning the concept of

From what I was able to grasp, Mathis considers "time" (

I read his paper on "Infinity Calculus" last night--most interesting. I was just discussing a similar concept with Gopi a couple days ago, concerning

Most of his papers concern SR and QED, so I'm a bit lost there. But, I can easily see how to adapt his system of Calculus to RS2, so I'm going to give it a shot to see what that turns up--when time is considered as a 3D inverse of space, in the context of his conclusions.

**, and does not just regurgitate the accepted science line, much like Larson.***thinks*And you are right--there are a lot of conceptual parallels between Mathis' and Larson's work, particularly concerning the concept of

*change*(motion) being the basis of all measure, and the*point*(what Larson calls an "absolute location" to avoid giving dimensions to a dimensionless point). There are some radical differences on the concept of*time*, however, which is to be expected. To the best of my knowledge, Larson's 3D time (Cosmic sector) was only ever considered by Hermeticists, never physicists--they prefer antimatter (but consider it to be oppositely-charged space, not coordinate time).From what I was able to grasp, Mathis considers "time" (

*clock time*, as used in RS/RS2), as another spatial vector, so he retains a vector as δx/δt (both components vectors). In the RS, time is just "inverse space", so it has all the same properties of space. Larson always held that the vectorial nature of time could*not*be vectorial in space--it had to appear as a net displacement, a scalar (crossing the unit boundary--the inverse--would remove coordinate information). It may be that temporal vectors CAN transpose to spatial vectors; it is something to consider. (Since we know lines of force come from time, not space, a study of electric and magnetic fields should reveal the nature of the vectorial transposition, if any).I read his paper on "Infinity Calculus" last night--most interesting. I was just discussing a similar concept with Gopi a couple days ago, concerning

*infinitesimals*(from a paper Gopi wrote on the topic). I'm not a physicist nor mathematician; I build things, and in construction, you realize that there is a BIG difference between blueprints and reality. Mathis points this out in his paper on Calculus, though calling it "diagrammed" versus "physical." In construction, you have to deal with tolerances--you can only approximate measurements, down to a specific precision, determined by the tools involved. Mathis took a similar approach with Calculus, stating that you cannot go to zero or infinity (what would be the "perfect" measurement), because nature doesn't do that--it also has tolerances, what Larson calls "discrete units" or the quantum of QED. His paper goes through a historical perspective on where Calculus came from, and where people have misinterpreted the mathematical conclusions concerning the differential. His "unity" approach to the differential fits in very nicely with the Reciprocal System and its "unit datum."Most of his papers concern SR and QED, so I'm a bit lost there. But, I can easily see how to adapt his system of Calculus to RS2, so I'm going to give it a shot to see what that turns up--when time is considered as a 3D inverse of space, in the context of his conclusions.

Every dogma has its day...

### one of the things i like

one of the things i like about mathis and RS theory is the willingness to think outside the standard science box.

I am still working on understanding RS but i like how you go about it.

my personal feeling is that we may never get it right but we should work toward finding things that work.

i want a flying car like in the Jetson's before i die.

standard science seems intent on proving itself correct, even if it is useless.

I am still working on understanding RS but i like how you go about it.

my personal feeling is that we may never get it right but we should work toward finding things that work.

i want a flying car like in the Jetson's before i die.

standard science seems intent on proving itself correct, even if it is useless.

### Outside the box

I'm with you on that. That is why RS2 is separate from Larson's research--a place where we could experiment and theorize, with no bounds, just to see where we could go with it based on the universe of motion concept. (There has been a tendency to treat Larson as a god, and his theory as absolute truth.) Personally, I think it is a waste of time bashing other people's work--I'd rather find what insights can be gained from it.my personal feeling is that we may never get it right but we should work toward finding things that work.

I'm going to start a separate topic on Mathis' ideas, as they deserve discussion. I am also going to update my documentation to use a lot of his terms, as he has far better command of mathematical language than I do!

Personally, I always wanted one of those Bell rocket belts, like they used on the oldi want a flying car like in the Jetson's before i die.

*Lost in Space*series. The Jetson's care would be a bit more practical to actually build, as the shape would make for a good resonant chamber, though a diamagnetic propulsion system would be easier than an antigravity one.

Every dogma has its day...

### Mathis

You are correct. This Cat is brilliant, and stealthy, so read with great care and discernment. I also am bedazzled by his thinking but I might just point out a couple of things. From my understanding, Larson felt the SR was correct in its math , yet off in its conceptions.. Mathis is just the opposite. He corrects Einstein's math but is in agreement with the general concept of relativity. I have always had a fundamental problem with relativity for the simple reason that motion must be relative to only something that does not move. Einstein cheats by allowing one of the motion to be stationary , take your pick. Then he takes the liberty of what amounts to declaring light to be God. Remember that his theology he shared with Spinoza, a Pantheist. This he does by postulating the speed of light to be constant! This takes the kind of proof that has thus far been underwhelming. He then goes on crown light with the ability to create a reference for its own motion. This he also does repeatedly every time his equations show dt/dt. This is self referential and is pure nonsense. How can time change with repect to time? I believe the theory crumbles right there. Genius does not mean perfect and although Mathis seems to in that category, as was Einstein, let us beware of those times when the Emperor strips and walks stealthily among the crowd. Regards

, Louis

, Louis

### SR, RS and Mathis systems

Larson said that a lot of the same mathematics can be derived from RS postulates, given the same interpretations. Overall, he believed that both physics and astronomy were vastly overcomplicated with "epicycles" (referring to the Greek theory of planetary orbits), and the math as much more complex than required for a simple relation of space to time. He demonstrated this by reducing all the units (defined by the names of deceased physicists) into "natural units" that only required labels of space and time.Larson felt the SR was correct in its math , yet off in its conceptions.

I would agree that Mathis believes SR to be correct and the math faulty, but since the theory was built from the math, even his revised math will eventually cause conceptual problems with the theory.

That is why I believe that combining Larson's structure and Mathis' mathematics would produce an interesting result, as they both share the common idea of scalar speed (ratio of space to time) with a unity datum.

Every dogma has its day...

### I agree. Please see my idea

I agree with most of that but Im still iffy on the unity datum. Please see my idea under vibration and rotation for the model of a photon and see what you think. I am of the belief that if we take our cues from the close observation of nature we are more likely to be on firmer ground. Thst is why I ponder the motion of the ideal pendulum. I think that if one could understand that motion that all motion could be thusly explicable. I agree with Larson that the universe is all motion and so why think that some motions are special, understand one and you can extrapolate to all others.

### hi Bruce

hi Bruce

I posted this thread on another site, so you may get some new readers

i hope that was all right*

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/rea ... 15&t=53415

* "it is often easier to ask forgiveness than ask for permission" Grace Hopper

I posted this thread on another site, so you may get some new readers

i hope that was all right*

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/rea ... 15&t=53415

* "it is often easier to ask forgiveness than ask for permission" Grace Hopper

### Re: Miles Mathis unit calculus

So if anyone's interested, I decided to go through Miles's papers line by line to see if his conclusions have any merit regarding changes to SR, QM, etc.. So I decided to start from the beginning with his "corection" to Newton's derivation of angular momentum. http://milesmathis.com/avr.html

Turns out I found a flaw in his proof so I went no further reviewing his papers because alot of his future papers are based on his rederived result (which is that the famous a = v^2/r turns into a = v^2/(2r) ) .

From the paper: "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. Newton applied his limit to the wrong angle. He applied it to the angle θ in my illustration above, taking that angle to zero. I have shown that the limit must apply first to the angle at B. That angle hits the limit at 90o before θ hits zero. Therefore, θ never goes to zero, and the tangent never equals the arc or the chord. This is why the acceleration never goes to zero (and neither does the versine, for those keeping score). If θ went to zero we could not calculate an acceleration."

The issue is that he claims the angle at B reaches 90 degrees before θ hits 0 at the limit as delta t approaches 0. This is incorrect because you can see from simple trigonometry that the angle at B is exactly equal to 90 + θ. So the angle at B will reach 90 degrees at the same time θ reaches 0.

One thing I did find out that is interesting about this issue is that at the limit as the angle m approaches 0, the difference between the length of the tangent and the length of the arc approaches 8 times the difference between the length of the arc and the length of the chord. Here the chord represents the actual path traveled by the particle, the arc represents the circle in which it appears to travel, and the tangent represents its velocity vector. Now, because this difference approaches 0 as m approaches 0, it doesn't change Newton's result, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless that we get this factor of 8 when taking the limit.

Turns out I found a flaw in his proof so I went no further reviewing his papers because alot of his future papers are based on his rederived result (which is that the famous a = v^2/r turns into a = v^2/(2r) ) .

From the paper: "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. Newton applied his limit to the wrong angle. He applied it to the angle θ in my illustration above, taking that angle to zero. I have shown that the limit must apply first to the angle at B. That angle hits the limit at 90o before θ hits zero. Therefore, θ never goes to zero, and the tangent never equals the arc or the chord. This is why the acceleration never goes to zero (and neither does the versine, for those keeping score). If θ went to zero we could not calculate an acceleration."

The issue is that he claims the angle at B reaches 90 degrees before θ hits 0 at the limit as delta t approaches 0. This is incorrect because you can see from simple trigonometry that the angle at B is exactly equal to 90 + θ. So the angle at B will reach 90 degrees at the same time θ reaches 0.

One thing I did find out that is interesting about this issue is that at the limit as the angle m approaches 0, the difference between the length of the tangent and the length of the arc approaches 8 times the difference between the length of the arc and the length of the chord. Here the chord represents the actual path traveled by the particle, the arc represents the circle in which it appears to travel, and the tangent represents its velocity vector. Now, because this difference approaches 0 as m approaches 0, it doesn't change Newton's result, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless that we get this factor of 8 when taking the limit.