Miles Mathis & Incorrect Kinetic Energy?

Alright, first off I just want to make it absolutely clear I am not trying to force these things on you, I'm personally just curious after coming across his site & I don't think it's fair to say he's full of *@i# without a critical assessment.

One of the most interesting thing about his claims is that he claims to get correct answers in QED without having to resort to Renormalisation 'tricks'. Obviously I do not understand QED yet but I do know that renormalisation is a trick with no mathematical justification even though it works. It bothered Dirac & Feynman, as the wiki page on it claims.

I think it's fair to at least keep an open mind to someone when they claim the following;

1) I show that you can’t assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined.

2) In my Unified Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these two fields. In another related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.

3) Superposition is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons, by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I can produce all known particles and effects.

4) I correct all the numbers involved in the perihelion precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.

5) Calculus is redefined on the finite differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary.

6) I show that many of Newton’s important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field. This also applies to Kepler’s ellipse. And it explains the mechanics of tides.

7) I also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.

8) I solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation. I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in accelerator.

9) I show the error in the interferometer and light clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle and falls to the same argument.

10) Minkowski's four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is also false.

10a) I prove that General Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can’t be joined to QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages.

However, last night I came across something interesting, this paper talks about a famous algebraic error some critics of Relativity had made years ago & lists miles mathis paper as one of the modern day variants of this error.

I've also come across this paper in which his work was critiqued by a committee from the American Journal of Physics & the few replys. I think this would be a good read for someone objectively interested in his claims, it kind of goes back and forth but I just gave up reading it.

Anyway, about the K.E. paper,

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever.

As far as I understand that part of his paper;

But can we derive the kinetic energy equation without a force?
...

Some quarters try to dodge this problem as Wikipedia does when it says, “Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes.” But this is absurd. The equation is developed from the acceleration, as I just showed. The work-energy theorem requires a change in velocity, which is an acceleration. You cannot get work without a force and you cannot get a force without an acceleration. But the current kinetic energy equation has no change in velocity. A particle has kinetic energy with a constant velocity. If the kinetic energy equation is developed from an acceleration, it means the energy depends on the acceleration. The particle should have kinetic energy only while it is being accelerated.

he claims that because;

v² = v_0² + 2ad
v² - v_0² = (2Fd)/m
½mv² - ½mv_0² = Fd

uses acceleration in it's derivation it means it's wrong somehow, but I honestly can't decipher the reason why from his language.

My guess is that he is picturing a situation like the following;

an asteroid is moving with constant velocity at time A,
at time B the asteroid is still moving at constant velocity;
½mv_B² - ½mv_A² = 0 = K.E. equation is wrong because a particle moving
with constant velocity already has K.E. I think he is forgetting the initial moment that got the rocket into it's current trajectory, i.e. a force was
required to send it in it's current trajectory. I may be misunderstanding him though

I don't know what he means by the current K.E. eq having no change in velocity :eek:, I was under the impression it did

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

Noting at the bottom of the page:
Well that's 40 points already.

Probably, I think it's fair to read the root of his argument before blatantly labelling him though, he claims to get answers. I think the most objective way to see if he's correct is studying his method of bypassing Renormalisation in QED to see if he gets the same results.

Yeah John Baez' list has been reverbarating in my head, I have read some of his site & his anti-quackery lol (plus he has a great pdf on Lagrangian mechanics!).

From browsing the guys site I came across him say,

It may also be of interest to many that my method allows me to show, in the simplest possible manner, why umbral calculus has always worked. Much formal work has been done on the umbral calculus since 1970; but, although the various equations and techniques of the umbral calculus have been connected and extended, they have never yet been fully grounded. My re-invention and re-interpretation of the Calculus of Finite Differences allows me to show—by lifting a single curtain—why subscripts act exactly like exponents in many situations.
http://milesmathis.com/are.html

so I'm thinking maybe he is using umbral calculus to interpret some physics & it's getting results. Steve Roman has a book out on Umbral Calculus & from browsing online I've read that it's useful in quantum mechanics. Maybe it can be applied to normal physics problems. I really don't know & am just curious, hence the post.

To me the most interesting thing is that he's said he gets correct results in QED & is able to bypass renormalization.
What is quackish about that if he is getting the
right numbers (assuming he is) ?

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Actually I did go to the trouble of reading it

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that, I was just looking to hear more specific errors in his work & I got the impression you all already thought he was quackish from your own reading & were finished with this thread before it started :P

"If the kinetic energy equation is developed from an acceleration, it means the energy depends on the acceleration. The particle should have kinetic energy only while it is being accelerated."

but your right, as is my book, [latex] K.E. = \frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 \ - \ [/latex][latex]\frac{1}{2}mv_1^2 \ = \ F \cdot d [/latex] and he is trying to take the fact that acceleration is simply involved in the algebra and then tell us everything is wrong.

I believe this is similar to what he did in the paper on Relativity I linked to but I think he did it with a partial differential operator that time

The more I think about it, the more I realise there's no way somebody could make that mistake & how deluded it is. Notice how he goes on to use E=mc² to then validate how everything is wrong without actually addressing motion according to his formulation.

Also, what is the deal with this:

Let me put it another way. If vf = vi ,
then the postulate equation becomes 2ad = vf2 - vi2 = 0
2Fd/m = 0
E = Fd = 0


You cannot postulate an acceleration in order to develop an equation, and then dump the acceleration. The equations that come after the first equation depend on the first equation. You cannot have different assumptions in the postulate equation and the derived equations. You cannot have variable motion in the first equation, and then derive constant motion from it! We see once again how our textbooks are riddled with gloriously negligent math.

I may be wrong but this is the definition of Work (i.e. change in knetic energy) yet he calls it energy & the fact that there is no acceleration means that the whole equation was meant to equal zero from the get go anyway, he's algebraically perplexed.
The fact that he labels it as E is untrue because there are other forces to consider.

Would I be correct in my analysis, I bet I've missed or confused something?