return to homepage
return to updates

My Opposition

by Miles Mathis

He will forge the sword—I see it plain—Boldly weld it anew.

The Wanderer was right. Where shall I hide my luckless head?

—Wagner, Siegfried

First published August 18, 2010

This post will be an ongoing reply to selected critiques of my new book, The Un-unified Field. The first negative review of the book has just been posted at Amazon UK, so I take this as the beginning of my science counter-critiques. I have been looking forward to this moment, as many can imagine. I am already well-known—some might say notorious—for my counter-critiques on my art site. For almost a decade I have been making the current art critics look very bad. Using Whistler as my model, I have responded directly to the various writings of the status quo, taking on all the big names, including Greenberg, Saltz, Schjeldahl, Hughes, Danto, Carey, and Hickey. But until now my science site has been a different sort of beast. I have attacked physics and physicists, not science critics. I have written and published science papers, not polemics. Yes, my science papers contain a bit of polemics, but I could never have included them in a folder titled “counter-criticism.” I have not only been criticizing science, I have been doing science. I have not just analyzed, I have corrected and predicted. Now, however, I able to use my polemical skills, sharpened by a decade of art fights, in the field of physics. If these science critics had bothered to read any of my art or science papers, beyond “a passing glance here and there,” they might not have stuck their necks out. But they have stuck their necks out and will continue to, of course, and this will provide me (and perhaps you) with decades of new fun.

Those who know me know that I love to fight. I was born in the mold of Nietzsche, and I am always on the look-out for new enemies. When I find them, I sharpen my knives with a grin. It is my honest hope that my book will set a record for the worst reviews at Amazon, both in number and heat, since that will give me two things I most want. One, it will give me a never-ending row of necks to cleave. Two, it will be one more broad indication that I am on the right road. As James Mason said in
Heaven Can Wait, “The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong.” If I wanted good reviews at Amazon, I would have written a different sort of book altogether, wouldn't I? I have already chopped these people and their wobbly heroes up in a thousand ways, so I can't be surprised when some of them complain. I could only wish that some of them would complain with more content, so that I had some real hill to climb. As the master Whistler put it, “I could cut my own throat better.”

As the first example of a review that is hardly crushing, we find this:


Please don't be tempted to buy this. Reading bits of the html version on the author's website shows it is nothing more than a collection of misunderstandings about mathematics and physics. From not knowing about natural units in the author's "proof" that asymptotic freedom is wrong, to elementary mistakes about the geometry of a circle.

As usual for someone fitting the crackpot stereotype, the author writes as if he knows better than actual physicists and often refers to his theory which simplifies most of physics without the need for all this unnecessary maths.

If he is going to follow true crackpot tradition then there will probably be a reply to this comment saying that I am part of the establishment and that I just have all the same misconceptions that he is talking about in the book etc, etc.

In typing this review I have given this book infinitely more attention than it deserves. I hope this means that no-one else has to.

R. Dowdall

First of all, if we click on R. Dowdall, we find this is his only review at Amazon. That is the sign of a troll. We also have no indication this is his real name. Amazon tells us “real name” in that case, and we don't have that here. Unlike me, Mr. Pseudo-Dowdall didn't even have the guts to post an opinion under his own name. But let's look at the content of this so-called review. In a word, it has none. It is not a review, it is just the opportunity for a nameless troll to say the word “crackpot” multiple times. He says I have misunderstandings, but does not say what they are. He says I don't know about natural units or the geometry of a circle, but doesn't tell me what I am missing.

I will point out that this ghost of a person chooses my paper on asymptotic freedom to lead with, which is very suggestive. It is suggestive because that is one of my most damaging papers, both in terms of math and polemic. I go line by line through their math and show what a terrible fudge it is. I even go line by line through Gross' Nobel paper math, showing his awful cheat there. I then suggest that several Prizes need to be returned to Stockholm. When you compare the content of that paper to the content of this review, you find a gigantic mismatch. The powers that be really need to send in a bigger lion. As it is, this is just sad. “Please don't buy this book”? Do you ever see me using such infantile methods? “Please don't read the books or papers I am criticizing.” Can you imagine me saying something like that? No, I recommend you read and study their papers and books, so that you can understand what a terrible hash it all is. That is why I quote extensively from their books, as well as from places like Wikipedia. You need to know what they are saying.

Dowdall didn't accidently click on my paper on asymptotic freedom first, in his skimming of “bits”. That paper is mentioned here because it drew the most blood from the biggest veins. The owners of those veins are trying to draw some blood from me here, but they need to hire a better swordsman.

Dowdall's second paragraph is even weaker than his first, if that is possible. I am a crackpot because I think I know better. But everyone who has ever published a sentence thinks he knows better than those he is answering. All of our current theory has come from people who thought they knew better, and did know better, so Dowdall is just practicing his hyper-egalitarian whining. According to this argument, anyone with a new idea can be pre-defined as wrong. Anyone who ever thought he knew better, including Jesus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, must have been a crackpot. If “actual physicists” were or are infallible, then physics would have ended millennia ago.

In his third paragraph, Dowdall tries to deflect his opponent before that opponent arrives, which is a sign of weakness itself. I ask for bigger lions, but Dowdall is scared of the mouse before it peeps. Unfortunately, he didn't properly predict the form of my attack, since, as you can see, I am not attacking him as establishment. I am attacking him as a weak and dishonest debater, one without the proper reach. He is fighting outside his weight class.

I can tell you how this is going to go, in the long run. Dowdall's handlers are used to dealing with opposition as they dealt with Velikovsky: slander and hide and rely on Velikovsky not to chew their arms off completely. Unfortunately, that won't work for them this time, since their arms are already gone, as are their legs. They have already been mauled to within an inch of their lives, and any subsequent yaps can be interpreted as bluffs, as with the Black Knight in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. My papers have been written and they cannot be un-written, so that all this debating is just a meaningless denouement. I don't need to say anything outside the papers, and I only continue to toy with them for fun. I debate them as a pleasant pastime, a pastime somewhat akin to killing cockroaches or mosquitoes. It is not my lot to shoo flies, except insofar as I enjoy shooing flies.

We see the weakness of my opposition once again in their efforts to hack me. They can't answer my papers, and they look like fools on the physics forums, so their last resort is to try to silence me with computer tricks. We have seen this both on my art site and my science site. Both have been hacked recently, and we must suppose that the hackers are related to those losing the argument. I would suggest to them that if they are correct or superior in any conceivable way, they should be able to show that by writing it down. Neither science nor art is a hacking contest.

From my experience on my art site, I know what the initial response to this post will be. A foul will be called on me for playing too rough. My opposition can dish it out but they can't take it. They have been slandering their opponents for decades, existing almost entirely on
ad hominem remarks, but when I turn around and take them by the throat, suddenly they want rules enforced. They have been bullying the physics world for a entire century, but when when some lone man with a sling and a rock turns around and whacks them in the forehead, they call him the bully. All I can say is this, Find a Goliath, if you can still locate one. I have larger rocks I need to test.

In a newer and longer review, a slightly larger kitten in the form of Michael Norris appears. He leads off by calling my book a vanity publication, but a print-on-demand book introduced by a NASA astrophysicist is not a vanity publication. A vanity publication is something like a book of poems that no one wants to read but the author and his mother. If my book were really a vanity publication, Norris would have no need to attack it. It is precisely because prominent people are reading it that he feels threatened by it. My online papers have gotten over ten million hits in the past couple of years, so it is doubtful me and Mom are the only ones reading them. And vanity had nothing to do with the publication of the book. I got an email from NASA, and an astrophysicist who has published dozens of papers in the top journals recommended I put my online papers into book form. He said if I did, he would write the introduction. Yes, that is right. He approached me, not the reverse.

It is sad that new ideas are suppressed to the extent that people like me have to self-publish, but there it is. Physics is controlled, like everything else. And I have confirmation of that from within. Physicists have told me they are scared to contradict the dogma promoted from above, since everyones careers depend on bowing to the status quo. Norris' comments are just another example of this control: he appears to think I don't have the right to say what I think. Is that not a form of control? Of course it is. They can't stop me through the normal career channels, since I am not a career physicist, so they do what they can. They attempt to shame me into silence by calling me mean and scary names. They attempt to turn the public against me by playing the humble card. I am not humble enough to be a physicist, apparently. You really have to laugh. The humble Michael Norris, full of opinion, finds me lacking in humility. But of course all this is just a diversion. Science has nothing to do with humility, and Norris would be better off showing precisely where I am wrong. That appears to be beyond him.

He also finds it shocking that I would dare to contradict prominent physicists. But the fact that none of these prominent physicists are humble doesn't seem to bother him. He is amused by the
hubris of Hawking and Weinberg and Feynman and Witten, one supposes, and only takes umbrage when non-sanctioned or non-sanctified people have confidence or think they are right. He doesn't bother to get jealous of his immodest teachers, and parade his sad jealousy in the open, since they may give him a promotion; but since I won't, he has no use for me. He sneers that I don't mention peer-reviewed scientists in support of my theories, but that is false. I mention peer-reviewed data all the time, and show how it confirms my theories and disproves the standard model, as he is probably aware (and would be more aware if he read a bit more closely and extensively). What he means is that I myself have not been blessed by the gatekeepers, and must therefore be a barbarian. But that of course is circular. It is to say that if they are successful in keeping me out of their journals, they must be right and I must be wrong. Job protection then poses as a scientific criterion.

Beyond that, I can mention a peer-reviewed scientist right now in support of the thesis of this paper. Ivar Gieaver, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, recently said, "We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important."*

The protectors of the
status quo like Norris have always used the same tactics to suppress new ideas. Einstein's 1905 paper was criticized because it didn't have a long list of references and footnotes. What this sort of critique means is, "Hey, you didn't include us! You didn't reference all your colleagues and 'peers'! You didn't kiss enough ass or work with a big enough committee, therefore we are going to ignore you." Norris then scoffs that I am the last person on earth to believe that particles literally spin. I may be the among the last who believes in mechanics, but I was not the first. Newton and Maxwell believed in spin, and most of the prominent physicists of the 20th century have seriously considered the idea, including Feynman. While Norris is spitting and scratching, he neglects to say how he and his mainstream heroes have explained quantum interactions. The answer: they haven't. They gave up on mechanics almost a hundred years ago and now deflect you immediately into free-floating math. But perhaps most pathetically, Norris jibes, "He might as well show us how quarks have real color." That proves he has done nothing but skim with a green stripe, since I do exactly that. I show the mechanical cause of color, something the standard model doesn't do and couldn't do if it wanted to. It can't precisely because it won't look at real motions of real particles. Norris thinks it is clever to ridicule a physicist for trying to be physical, which is the ultimate foot-shooting. A physics that would ridicule mechanics is already defunct.

As Norris sniffed about my book promotion mentioning Leonardo, he will no doubt sniff at my using a picture of David above. While his anointed mainstream heroes can use any amount of publicity they like, we in the margins are expected to scrape and doff our hats, wiping our feet at the door. We are expected to apply for permits from them to think or to hold our heads up. They are praised for charisma, even when they obviously lack it, while we are crucified for any amount of charm or eclat. The very form of their critiques proves this. My greatest sin in their eyes is not playing by their rules and not requiring their imprimaturs. I am an unsanctioned body. I tell them to stuff their permits and their rules. This burns them up even more than my ripping up of their famous equations. As small people, they can live without their equations, but they cannot live without their rules and permits.

Of course I am confident, gentlemen. Arguing with people like you would tend to make one confident. The more time I spend in your fields, the more I understand how little seed you have planted, and how little seed you are capable of planting. Once upon a time I had thought it might be difficult to climb the fence or to push my plow. At the least I had thought the cattle dogs might bite me. But I find they are toothless. There are no viable beings in the low and rotting rows of corn but a few tattered scarecrows, with painted-on frowns. I find that physics, like art and most other fields, is a cardboard vista fronted by loud music. It is the jingle-jangle of an old circus barker calling us to three empty rings. It is a very noisy merry-go-round, with thousands of spinning mirrors but not a horse left on it. Your practiced patter does not divert me, gentlemen, by any meaning of the word. Check the pulse of your lions, gentlemen, for I fear they are dead.

Addendum: August 2011. My latest fun was had at the expense of James Frazier, apparently from some pathetic debunking site. In an email, he called me a crackpot and a moron, before telling me that he read my papers to his students, and that the "brightest ones" practiced finding my "mistakes and obfustications." I asked him if his brightest students could spot the problem with "obfustications," perhaps by noticing the wavy red lines underneath it? He said I shouldn't trust spell check so much, since the fools who invented it didn't even take into account plurals of words. I asked him, "Are you implying that the correct plural of obfuscation really IS obfustications?" The conversation degenerated from there, as you can imagine, but I already knew enough about James Frazier to go on. He was nice enough to prove to me, within the first three sentences, that he was the sort that 1) lives in his own head completely, 2) cannot admit an error. I suggest he send emails to Spell Check and the Oxford English Dictionary, debunking their use of correct spelling. These rogue entities shouldn't be allowed to make him look bad, after all. This is very much to the point, since it is precisely what goes on in physics and most other "disciplines" now. These people have made an ocean's full of errors, many of them glaring like "obfustications," with the wavy red lines screaming underneath, and they don't have the decency to admit it. Just as the inventors of spell check are "fools," I am a "moron." He ended by suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to pollute the internet. Yes, I thought, How else can science and civilization progress, except by policing the internet and forcing everyone to agree with the current standard model of everything? I thanked him for his staunch support of academic freedom, free inquiry, and free speech, and for his thoroughly charming personality, and encouraged him to write again whenever he had any other spelling questions.

UPDATE April 28, 2013: I recently got an email from, and like the others he had nothing substantive to say. I assume this email is coming from the physics department, and you would think they would be capable of arguing facts. Instead I got more ad homs. Here is all he had to say:

Have you ever taken a course in Physics or Mathematics? Man, you have an ego. Try writing your drivel without using the pronoun "I".

I I I I I responded,

Have you ever taken a course in argumentation? You are already losing this one, and you aren't even aware of it.

Surprisingly, Coleman wrote back, but he was already out of arrows after that first email. He only said, "Yes, I have. Your none response is taken to mean that you don't have any course work in Physics or Mathematics." I replied,

Glad to know those at UCDavis are reading my papers. You might want to read a little closer though, since you don't seem to be getting it. Thanks for writing and let me know when you start to understand physics. If you took your eyes off your diploma every once in a while, it might help. By the way, the proper English is "lack of a response." "None response" just proves to me I am dealing with a failed product of our educational system, which obviously reaches all the way up to the university level. Good luck with your continued coursework. PS Keep writing if you want to keep losing this exchange. It is up to you. I am always amazed when people like you are deluded enough to email me with your little slurs. You don't seem to realize when you're in over your head. You were in over your head the moment you clicked on my website.

I thought it was over with that, since I didn't hear from JCColeman for a couple of days. But finally I got a last sad email, where he suggested some coursework for me, things like "shutupandcalculate101" and so on. He said once I had taken his courses, "Then you can ethically claim to have an opinion." So disagreeing with the mainstream is now an "ethical" issue. I need to first be indoctrinated by their coursework before I can disagree with the indoctrination. I can't just read their texts, I have to pass their classes. And could I pass their classes without agreeing with them? Catch-22, you see. Only those who fully agree with the indoctrination get the certificate at the end. And if you don't have the certificate, you can't "ethically" have an opinion. Convenient, right? This is not an airy point, since we can apply it to my friend Stephen Crothers, who was denied his PhD because he began to question the math. They don't allow that, you see. This gives them the ability to dismiss Stephen just as they dismiss me, without ever addressing the content of his arguments. He doesn't have a PhD, therefore he cannot ethically have an opinion. This is the way it goes now. And of course in the rare case that someone with a PhD in physics disagrees with the mainstream, they dismiss him as well without addressing his analyses, because he went to the wrong university or lives in the wrong country or was refused by peer review.

But it gets even worse. For JCColeman ended with, "Finally, no need to reply to this because I'm adding you to my spam list and won't be given the opportunity to read your reply." The brave JCColeman writes me, and then
blocks me from replying. I had to laugh. In the 15 years I have been writing, I have never once gotten a substantive negative email from the universities. I have gotten some positive ones, but never a negative one that had any content. They are like these I got from California. For some reason, these people think they can cow me with a few weak ad homs, but they always end up getting their lungs handed to them. It just proves they aren't reading my papers, since if they were, they would know not to come to the fight unarmed. I prefer to discuss actual physics, but if they want to trade invective, they should at least show up with something cutting. My knives are sharp, and they aren't going to beat me with a wet fish.

I do want to point out one more time how threatened these people seem to be by "my ego". That irks them even more than my ripping up of their equations. I have now pointed out reams and reams of pushes and fudges in their equations, going line by line through their proofs to do it. Do they ever have anything to say about that? It seems they would wish to point out my specific error in the line by line analysis. Nope. Instead, they attack my ego, as if that has anything to do with it. What they seem to mean is that they can't comprehend how anyone can dare to disagree with their masters. Anyone who doesn't immediately bow down before the anointed equations must be crazy. Can't I smell the incense, can't I hear the chanting? Can't I detect the scent of holiness coming from the robes of those seated in the high chairs? I I I I I guess not.

UPDATE August 2, 2013:

I recently heard from a reader Doug De Vries, who, according to my websearch, is a top commenter at and who has some affiliation with Trinity Christian University. Apparently he read my paper called “Eleven Questions” and—feeling almost insupportably qualified to answer them—fired up his keyboard once again. This is the email he sent to me:

1) In the case of a gravitational resonance, as in the resonance with Jupiter and Saturn, what causes the bodies to begin moving apart after the closest pass in the resonance? Gravity is stronger at closer distances, so what makes the resonance “turn”?"

Momentum. Jupiter and Saturn are moving in their orbits around the sun, and while their gravity attracts each other, that doesn't mean that the force of gravity is impossible to overcome. They are moving in their orbits at speeds that far overcome their gravitational attraction to each other.

“2) Roche limits are an outcome of gravity, so why don't the inner moons of Jupiter and Saturn obey gravitational laws? They not only go below the Roche limit, and avoid break-up despite having low densities, they also survive large impacts (as we see from large cratering). Finally, they accrete. How can bodies that should be dissolving accrete? "

Roche limits are not an absolute limit around a planet. It is a different limit for each moon, according to each moon's density. Additionally, gravity isn't the only force involved in a moon breaking apart. Some moons can orbit within their Roche limits because they are held together by forces other than gravitation. Jupiter's moon Metis and Saturn's moon Pan are examples of natural satellites that survive despite being within their Roche limits—they hold together largely because of their tensile strength. That is, moons like Metis have material bonds are stronger than the tidal forces of gravity. This is primarily due to their small size, the tidal forces acting on them are not strong enough to tear them apart. It's kind of like tearing a phone book in half. all those papers can't be torn at the same time. That doesn't mean you are incapable of tearing paper. Just not lots of paper stacked densely together.

“3) If e=mc
2, and if the photon has energy, how can it be massless? How can an equation with the speed of light in it not apply to light? Sure, we can say that the photon has no rest mass, since it is never at rest, but how can we say it doesn't have moving mass?"

It does. There is no experimental evidence to show that photons have mass, so photons have no resting mass, but they do have relativistic mass due to their speed and energy.

"4) If gravity is now defined by curvature rather than by a centripetal force, what impels an object placed at rest in a field to begin moving? "

This question is not phrased correctly, and demonstrates an incorrect understanding of gravity. Gravity never was a centripetal force. Newton described it as one, but that's not really correct. Gravity is the curvature of space-time by mass. An object placed at rest within a gravitational field moves due to the force of gravity. An object at rest remains at rest until a force acts on it, and gravity is a force.

"As you see, I have already "blown the roof off" GR and Newton so many times the molecules won't even cohere into shingles anymore. An honest person would just admit that and ask what's to be done. Instead, the mainstream simply refuses the see the holes I have pointed out. They pretend that I have not asked them a thousand important questions, and they begin scanning my papers for weak points. That is also a clear sign: a real scientist would scan any paper for its strong points, since those are the most useful to science. Instead, mainstream scientists scan any new ideas, especially those from outsiders, for their weakest points, ignoring the strong points on purpose. This immediately proves that the reading is hostile, and therefore unscientific."

The problem here is you clearly don't understand what you're attempting to refute. You must first show that you understand the accepted theories before you can refute them. As an example, Einstein established the particle nature of light in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. Prior to that, light had been considered to be a wave only. in the paper, he first described the current accepted wave theory and why it was so successful for so many years, at the same time as pointing out its deficiencies. only then did he present his ideas and showed how they both fit the data from the past and also corrected the previously established deficiencies. If you can do that, I assure you that your work will be better accepted.

That is the email in full, with no editing. This was my initial answer to him:

Only needed to read the first answer to see where this email was going. It matched the depth of all the others. Apply your answer to the C-orbit asteroids and see how well it works. You are just repeating the soundbite mainstream answers you have been indoctrinated with, while skimming my papers with the assumption I am wrong. You haven't absorbed any of my arguments or math, and I suspect you only read that one paper, thinking you could answer my 11 questions. You haven't.

Giving me such pathetic answers and then thinking that qualifies you to tell me I don't understand these problems just proves one of my main theses: mainstream physicists and those who follow them have lost the ability to look critically at their own dogma. They no longer think, they just memorize what they are told and dismiss anything that threatens that.

You realize that by sending me this crap, you run the risk I will publish it on my site. Do you really want to match the answers here to the content on my site? Think about it. Reread your email for content. I didn't find any. Upon seeing your answers, my readers will immediately understand that you didn't even read my papers, since you just repeat sentences at Wikipedia that I have already ridiculed, showing they contradict themselves. And your final paragraph proves that as well, since it simply isn't applicable. How could I go line by line through old theories and papers, correcting specific mathematical errors, if I were ignorant of standing theories? The old papers ARE the standing theories, so by addressing them directly I am doing exactly what you say. The only way you wouldn't know that is if you hadn't read my papers.

Fortunately, he took the bait, replying in this way:

Wow, that was an unprofessional email. I can see why others don't want to work with you.

I would be happy if you posted my email on your website, at least then you'd have some correct physics facts on it.

You do realize that scientific hypotheses are falsifiable, right? Experiments are deliberately structured so that the idea they are testing can be proven wrong. That's the exact opposite of dogma. It's one of the hallmarks of rigorous science. You seem not to care about doing the rigor work that science requires. Science does not ridicule that which is found to be incorrect, it demonstrates why it is incorrect. If you've got something groundbreaking, you have to be able to show how the old methods worked, and why the new idea better fits the evidence.

Basically, you're doing science wrong. Your hallmarks are all of conspiracy theory and perceived oppression. It's just not the way that good science is done.

Keep trying, though, and remember, it doesn't hurt to be polite.

I replied,

You can dish it out but can't take it, as usual.
You weren't polite. And now you are going to get your ass thoroughly handed to you on my site, where I am going to publish your comments. I don't suspect you are smart enough to be embarrassed, but we will be embarrassed for you, in your name.

So you, my readers, are blessed by the “correct physics” of top commenter Doug De Vries, as above. He is happy for you to see it, and doesn't threaten a lawsuit for defamation. He is content to defame
himself, gloriously unaware of how he must look to anyone who has read my papers (or who can read at all).

It's always a one-way street with these mainstream people. If they write and tell you “you don't understand what you are trying to refute,”
they are being polite. But if you don't accept their polite dismissal, there is something wrong with you. You are anti-social. They are used to browbeating young students or other roly-poly mainstream people, who are too squishy to tell them to stuff their polite advice. So they can't understand when someone like me rips into them. I guess it honestly surprises them.

Notice that he can't think of anything substantial to say the second time. He has copied everything he can remember from Wikipedia in the first email, and is out of ideas. Company-Man De Vries says that mainstream science is “rigorous”, but for some reason he can only manage one or two-sentence answers to 4 of 11 questions—and finds himself heroic for that. I have published over 3,000 pages of rigorous analysis of historical physics and math, often going line-by-line through famous texts, versus De Vries' one or two-sentence answers to four questions, but I “can't manage the rigor work (
sic erat scriptum) that science requires.”

Then he stoops to claiming that “others don't want to work with me,” though of course he has no
evidence for that. He goes on to remind us sanctimoniously that science rests on evidence, but he just started his second email by ignoring all evidence that was against him. If he had read past my one paper, he would know that a lot of scientists do want to work with me, are working with me, are paying me, are asking me to do conferences, are asking me to consult, and are reading my papers much more closely and extensively than he is. He should know that, since how else did he find me? If I were just a marginalized crank, as he implies, why would the universities be reading me and commenting on me? If I have no reach, why would the great Doug De Vries feel compelled to answer my eleven questions? I am getting tens of millions of hits a year, which is why Doug De Vries is attacking me. And if he had bothered to read any of my polemics, he would have known not to stick his neck out. But rather than read my physical papers, so he will know what to respond to, or read my polemical papers, so he will know who he is picking a fight with, he blithely wades into water too deep for him, while putting rocks in his own shoes and pants pockets. He is so clueless that when I warn him of the undertow, he simply dives in all the faster, getting his head under the surf as soon as he can.

It is clear that no one is afraid to work
with me. No one need fear except those who attack me with no weapons, as De Vries is doing here. If you expect to come on my site without reading my papers and tell me I am not doing science, am not rigorous, and don't understand what I am refuting, you should expect a response in kind. That has nothing to do with politeness. The rules of discourse do not require anyone to smile at emails like that of De Vries. If you wish to talk rules, the rules of both debate and combat recommend you not draw first blood from someone you cannot defeat, either with facts or by any other means. Since De Vries had no command of facts and little command of language, he should have stayed in bed.

I would also like to comment on the “conspiracy and perceived oppression” slur. This is one of the favorite gambits of the mainstream: oppress the opposition and then accuse that opposition of being paranoid for thinking they are being oppressed. All mechanical solutions have been suppressed or forbidden since the Copenhagen interpretation, all non-standard model solutions have been suppressed or censored since the second World War, and all serious questions about quantum mechanics have been suppressed for decades. There is plenty of evidence of that, but rather than look at that evidence, these mainstream gatekeepers and top commenters flood the internet with implications that people like me simply made it up. According to their flimsy propaganda, science is
not controlled, is completely open and free and democratic, no professors have ever been pressured to agree with current theory, and no funding is tied to predetermined outcomes. Unfortunately, everyone on the inside and outside knows that isn't true. Even bozos like De Vries can't believe it is true, he is just paid to spread the propaganda and doesn't have to believe it. As in politics, he is only reading from a script, and we can tell that from the form of his answers. He hits all the familiar fallback positions: “If you get in over your head regarding facts, drop them and start talking about conspiracy and perceived oppression. That makes the other guy look like a crank. Play the humble card and the polite card. That makes the other guy look egotistical. Talk about the hallmarks of rigorous science. Wrap yourself in the flag if you can find any way to do it.” De Vries hits all of these except the flag, and given time, he would have done that, too.

We can't know for sure who sent De Vries into the arena, or if he slouched in on his own steam, but given the university and affiliations, it is possible he is on assignment. Most of those who have actually read my papers must be begging off from fights like this, but De Vries, having the misplaced confidence of those who simply aren't aware of what is going on around them, was willing to put on the helmet and pick up the rusty sword. As we have seen, he tripped on the Colosseum curb coming in, and hasn't found his feet yet. But we predict it won't matter. De Vries has no doubt been existing face-down in the dust all his life, and he will simply smile and chew and order another carton of donuts.

Although I only enjoy adding to this paper about every six months, my readers come in contact with these forum rats on a daily basis. They come up against the hoards of these poor sad little guys who have nothing better to do than comment on things they haven't read. The world has always been full up with these self-appointed guardians of the
status quo, these homunculi who have never seen a rule they didn't immediately fall in love with, these tiny personalities whose greatest joy is mocking any innovation they cannot comprehend, any genius they do not have, and any artifact they could not have created. So as a nod to my readers who insist on replying to these guys, I recommend you demand content. Since these guys are incapable of any content, that should end it. But if my readers also wish to have some fun, I will share with them a short list that will make the homunculi squirm in their cubicles:

Blue-pill Pusher, Authority Lover, Sandwich-Board Guy for the Man, Company Man, Bandwagon Washer, Hawking's Water Boy, Yes-Man to the Stars, Question-Avoider, Standard-Model Suck-up, Brave-but-Anonymous, Debunker-of-the-Truth, Wiki-worshipper, Virtual Physicist, Ghost-Physicist, Pseudo-Potential Physicist, Weak-Slur Guy, (on T-shirt) Weak Slur CA, Equation-Finesser, Feynman-Groupie, Physicist-Manqué, Love-Occam's-Razor-but-Forgot-to-apply-it-to-my-Physics Guy, Rules-Free Physics, Postulate-Flipper, Theory-from-the-Vacuum, Dark-Matter-between-the-Ears, Higgs' Cabana Boy, Chief Dogma-Who-Me?, Soma-Junkie, Question-Those-Who-Question-Authority Guy, Science-as-Accepting-Everything-You-are-Taught Guy, SM-Pimp (standard model), New-Ideas-are-Impolite Guy, Open-Science-is-Dangerous Guy, Closed-Door Physics, Faux-Physics, Futurist Physics, Dada Physics, Physics-Cultist, Religi-Physics, Physigogue, Zero-data Physics, Data-hole Dweller, Wiki-dweller, All-my-Ideas-were-implanted-by-the-Mainsream Guy, I-Feel-so-Strong-when-I'm-doing-what-I'm-told Guy, Brave-in-a-Crowd Boy, I'm-a-Forum-Censor-and-Proud Guy, Mechanics-is-too-hard-so-I-will-claim-it-is-too-easy Guy, Nature-is-irrational-not-me Guy, My-Other-Car-is-a-Bandwagon Guy, Show your Individuality: make all your beliefs standard-model!, Unsure of yourself?--make all your physics consensus physics, Physics-by-Committee, Bureau-Physics, Ministry of Physics, Physi-Speak, Multi-Author Guy, Et Al., Strength-in-Numbers Boy, Want to know my opinion?--ask the guy next to me!, I voted Tyranny-of-the-Majority!, I don't know what to think until
Scientific American tells me!, Thinking what my peers think makes me feel warm and fuzzy, Physics: patent pending, Do you have a permit for that equation?, Why? Because Feynman said so that's Why!, Shut-up-and-calculate-or-miscalculate-whatever, Happiness is a warm puppy that decohered from the vacuum with a twin puppy.

Update, May 1, 2014. Today I tripped across a page at the Thunderbolts forums where a few sad trolls, most of them nameless, try to slander me with lies and broad dismissals. The attacks are so weak I wouldn't bother to mention them, but that their very weakness makes them worth a laugh or two. As usual, unable to address anything I actually say in any of my 4,000 pages of writing, they just post a few airy accusations and move on. Gottlieb680 and Bill Miller do most of the talking, although they they never manage to say anything to the point. We will look at several of the comments they likely find most cutting, to see how I once again got by unscathed. One of the slurs that is repeated more than once is that I am a "ballet dancer turned physicist." These guys really have to dig, don't they? I guess I should be flattered that they have researched me so fully, but I haven't danced with the ballet since college. Thirty years ago now. And I never got paid for it. If they wish to misdirect, they should at least stick with the "artist turned physicist" pseudo-slur, which is at least true. I have been making a living as an artist since I was 25. But if my physics is so wrong, as they claim, shouldn't they be able to defeat me by showing where it is wrong? What does my taking a few ballet classes in college have to do with anything? I guess they mean to imply I am gay, but surely their research extended to my paintings, which are of nude women, not men. Being gay isn't a slur anyway, but even if it were, it doesn't apply. These guys can't even land a good punch. I hurt them and their heroes over and over, and they can't find a way to lay a glove on me.

Next, one of them—I can't remember who—says I accused Lee Smolin of being on cocaine during his TED lecture. That's just a straight-up lie. Here is what I said: Smolin's lecture "was the sort of informal nothing you can come up with off the top of your head, especially if you have had a couple of snorts." Most people who have done much reading know that "having a snort" means having a drink of liquor. I was accusing Smolin of putting back a glass and just winging it, since his lecture sounded like an impromptu bit of nothing, achieved on the confidence of Jack. I stand by that. If you want to prove me wrong, it would require showing me the content of Smolin's lecture. It can't be done.

But the greater point here is that these guys continue to dredge up minor stuff like this. Why would any serious critic address this aside about Smolin rather than the big stuff I have done, like rewriting the Lagrangian or the Schrodinger equation? These planted critics of mine always manage to divert you into the ballet or into a misreading of "snort" rather than talk about how I caught Bohr or Landau in an obvious fudge.

Next, Gottlieb says, "Mathis is now paying for years of abuse he's heaped upon the scientific community." Am I? Paying for it how? By the millions of hits I get every year? By the books I am selling? By the consulting fees I am getting? I am actually making more from my physics than I am from my art now, so I would be interested to know how Gottlieb knows I am "paying for my sins to the mainstream". As usual, these critics just make up whatever they like, with no proof. Same way they and their masters have been doing physics for about a century.

I encourage you to pause and think about that last quote from Gottlieb. It is the most important line in this entire series of posts. Everything else he says is just frosting for that. He wants everyone who reads his posts to believe that if you go against the mainstream, you are going to pay for it. In his mind, I am dangerous not only because I disagree with all the mainstream propaganda, but also because I show it is possible to disagree with no downside. Not only have I suffered nothing for it, I have actually benefitted greatly. Even if I weren't making any money, I would still benefit greatly, simply from discovering the truth. There was never any chance I would "pay for it", since I had nothing to lose. The worst that could have happened is that I made no progress in physics on my own terms and went back to art. That hasn't happened, and I have made progress in both art and physics, both personally and publically. You are also free to make progress on your own terms, without getting prior permission from the mainstream. Remember that.

Next, one of these bozos actually stoops to accusing me of somehow cheating by putting the subject matter of my papers in the titles! According to him, if the subject matter of your paper is, say, the Copenhagen Intepretation, it is cheating to put the words "Copenhagen Interpretation" in your title. He says this is why I get listed so highly on a Google Search. He might wish to study how Google rankings are created. They are created on popularity. I "clog up" up the rankings because more people are reading me. Of course that burns him up. But the reason more people are reading me is that I tell the truth, and they are desperate for the truth. They get none of it from the mainstream. Again, it is absolutely incredible that my critics have this on their list of first things to talk about in a debate. Of all the content in my papers, they lead with absurd shit like this. This should be indication to you that they are paid agents, arriving on these forums specifically to waste everyone's time and spread disinfo.

Next, they accuse me of not doing enough math. Bill Miller implies I can't do integrals or partial derivatives. He says my math shows I can't comprehend anything past high school algebra. He might want to explain then how I am able to pull apart the Lagrangian, the Schrodinger equation, the Bohr equations, the Landau equations, the tensor calculus, non-Euclidean geometry, complex numbers, and the calculus itself, going line by line through historical proofs to do it. Amazing, isn't it, that I can correct all these famous maths line-by-line without knowing what they are?

Beyond that, Miller says the integral never appears in my papers. Then he admits, "I haven't read most of Mathis' articles." It would be pretty hard for him to count up the number of papers I do use the integral in, wouldn't it? Like this one, and this one, and this one. In that last one, I actually show how the current integration is failing in a specific problem. I obviously couldn't do that if I didn't understand very well how both differentiation and integration were working. I even use the integral in my notorious paper on
pi, showing that the problem with the current proofs is that they fail to use the integral correctly. If they used the correct integration of motions in the circle, they would get the number 4, as in the cycloid equations, not pi. But of course these guys never address that. Better to keep your eyes on how I danced with the ballet one summer when I was 20.

Anyone who has actually read my papers knows that I don't use compressed math in my own solutions for a reason: I am doing foundational theory in most of them and want my math to be as transparent as possible. I want all variables kept separate and labeled mechanically, and I want all mathematical manipulations to be mechanically transparent as well. Things like partial derivatives fail in that regard, as do most differential equations. It is the same reason Einstein didn't use those sorts of equations or operators in his original papers: 1) they weren't necessary, 2) they were opaque to the mechanics. The old guys understood that compressed math was a nuisance in fundamental theory. The math Bill Miller is talking about wasn't created for that, and isn't appropriate for it. Even Newton understood that, and he invented a lot of that math. Go read the Principia and tell me how many integrals you find. Tell me how many equations you find. I guess my papers are in Bill Miller's trashcan right next to the Principia.

Modern theorists actually use compressed math to avoid critique, as I have proved over and over. They hide in these partial derivatives and gauge fields and misdefined Lagrangians because it is harder to spot errors and fudges in those equations. What is an obvious fudge in algebra may not be detectable once loaded down with Modern operators. I have been able to spot their errors regardless, which should indicate to anyone awake that I am able to decode their math. If I really couldn't read their maths, then I couldn't possibly pull them apart.

My paper on Pi gets mentioned many times, but again, nothing of substance is said. In lieu of an argument, some person with no last name "lists my errors":

1) Pi is not a unitless constant, its an acceleration.
2) Pi has two values: 3.14 and 4 (static and kinematic, respectively).
3) The radius is a velocity.
4) The circumference is not a length, it has units of (m^2/s^3).
5) Newton monitored the wrong angle in Lemma 6 of the Principia.
6) A circle is composed of only straight lines, no curves; a stair step.
7) Time is “embedded in the curve” and adds to its length.
8) The “short version proof” does not contain any motion or a time variable.
9) The tangent is never taken to a limit, as claimed.
10) The chord is converted into its x and y components, which are then summed together creating a new, longer length.
11) The tangent is substituted into the proof illegally.
12) NASA is hiding information relating to pi (Conspiracy theory!).

But making a list is not an argument. These guys think that because they have said a lot of things here and elsewhere, they have "destroyed" me. Like their mainstream masters, they think all they have to do is talk insensibly for a while and then claim a debunking. No, they actually have to show how I am wrong, and I haven't seen anyone do that. This is just a list of things "David" disagrees with or doesn't comprehend, which is no argument against them. No serious critic would include this silly "conspiracy theory" attempt at a slur, for example. No serious critic would mention my short version while ignoring what I say in the long version. No serious critic would just say, "the radius is a velocity", trying to let that stand as an argument. My response would have to be, "Yes, so? Are you saying you don't understand how the radius might become a velocity, given a time of drawing it?" Basically all these guys are just shouting, "Hah-hah, he thinks pi is 4!" That is their entire argument. It is strictly equivalent to shouting, "Hah, hah, he thinks the Earth goes around the Sun. That stupid Copernicus!" I think it is pretty clear why I am not too interested in debating these boys. I have better things to do, like real physics and art.

But most amusing is the claim that I am hiding. Hiding from the forum rats? Hardly. I come out every few months and thrash them, as here. And here. But anyway, avoiding pests is not the same as hiding from them. Every great soul who goes into the dark forest puts on some sort of bug repellant, but that does not mean he is "hiding" from bugs. Surely, no one is hiding from controversy less than I am. Surely, no one is hiding from a fight less than I am. While mostly ignoring these nameless trolls, I have taken the fight directly at all the big guys, living and dead. I have attacked all the biggest names by name, so how exactly am I in hiding? Someone in hiding wouldn't put 4,000 pages of revolutionary physics and incendiary polemics up on the public internet, would he?

In answer, they claim I am in hiding because I don't allow comments on my site or have my own forum. Are you kidding me? Why would I invite these government agents and other tiny minds to come over and spread disinformation? Do you think any sane person wants to read pages of blubbering from nameless trolls? Would it benefit anyone if I allowed these guys to present all these non-arguments on my own site? If any of my critics ever got around to addressing what I have actually written, I might be open to a discussion. But in the decade I have been searching for intelligent commentary, I have yet to find it. It has been exactly the sort of misdirection we see here at the Thunderbolts forums, where the argument is always misdirection away from substantive issues and real science and into whether or not I danced with the ballet 30 years ago, or whether or not putting your subject in your title is cheating, or whether or not my ego is too big. Bill Miller even admits he is mad because I didn't kiss his ass thoroughly enough in some email. This is the sort of people these guys are. Small, small, and small.

And, finally, we have to laugh at the claim I am avoiding peer review. In the beginning, I sent off dozens of papers to the journals. They chose not to publish them. So I published them myself, to let my peers decide for themselves. My peers are reviewing me as we speak. It is not that "I am avoiding peer review" that burns these petty physics cops, it is that I am refusing to be silenced. Peer review was the gate they set up, and I crashed the gate. I failed to bow to their opinions, and continue to fail to bow. So they went to gambit number two: trying to shame me. That hasn't worked either, since once you have gotten beyond their opinions, you are also beyond their shame. So they graduated to gambit three: trying to waste my time with snarky faux-debates. That hasn't worked either, because I have shown I can debate a whole room of them while eating cookies and watching re-runs of Cheers. In other words, I can whip out one of these bombs before breakfast, then write a revolutionary paper in the afternoon, and paint something in the evening. All they can do is try to stop me and fail.

[P.S. Thanks to Hertz, Robert McBride, Lloyd Kinder, and all the others who defended my ideas in this battle from two years ago. I am always pleasantly surprised to find total strangers defending me like close friends wherever these issues get aired, and equally pleasantly surprised to find how well they do it. It is not because they needed me adding anything that I have written what I have above, but only because it was a fun way to kill an hour. But I do think I mentioned one or two things they didn't.]

To read more of these fun exchanges, you can link to the paper where I reprint a dialogue from a Physics Forum, where I took on multiple trolls at once, making them all look so bad they had to quit, forbid any more discussion, and delete the page.


If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.