Miles Mathis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
A misplaced Californian surfer who happens to look exactly like Miles Mathis (circa 1990, colorized)
Style over substance
Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
Some dare call it
Icon conspiracy.svg
What THEY don't want
you to know!
Sheeple wakers
It has never been understood how a gas maintains its energy, despite a collosal [sic] number of collisions.
—Miles Mathis, who has never heard of conservation of energy[1]

Miles Mathis (born 1964) is an American artist, poet, writer, pseudoscientist and conspiracy theorist.

Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that it be a "kinematic situation";[2] however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.

In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist.

Scientific thoughts[edit]

The pi=4 theory[edit]

Quantitatively, this may be THE biggest error in all of math and physics, since every single physical equation with π in it must now be thrown out and redone.
—Miles Mathis[3]

For those who want to go straight to the pure mathematics of the theory (without all the tedious verbiage), read "The extinction of pi short version",[4] which contains his comical attempt at a formal mathematical proof.

Listed below are the Mathis papers that describe his zany wronger than wrong unorthodox pi=4 theory:

A well-written critique of the pi=4 theory has been written by computer scientist Mark Chu-Carroll.[5]

Derivative falsehood[edit]

Mathis claims that the derivatives used in calculus of many elemental functions (log(x), ln(x), etc.) have been calculated wrong,[6][7] and therefore any math or physical experiment that relies on them must also be wrong. His evidence for this claim is nothing more than a reference to his own articles where he redefines the derivative;[8] basically turning it into a rough approximation (an average value).

Unified field theory[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Theory of everything
This paper is not a historical overview of failed Unified Field Theories. Nor is it a philosophical treatise on the idea of the Unified Field. Nor is it an esoteric model based on extravagant and untestable hypotheses. Nor is it the revelation of some new math, so difficult it requires large computers just to store the equations.
—Miles Mathis, The Unified Field Theory[9]
This means that if the Earth were denser, you would weigh less, not more. You weigh less on the Moon not because it is less dense, or because it has less mass, but because its foundational E/M field is stronger. And its foundational E/M field is stronger because the Moon’s radius is smaller than the Earth’s. Although the Moon’s body is less dense, as a whole, its E/M field is more dense, on the surface. And this is simply because it has so much less surface area than the Earth (13 times less). You can’t just look at mass or density, you have to look at field lines; and the density of those field lines at the surface determines the strength of the foundational E/M field.
—Miles Mathis, What is G?

Mathis is perhaps most notable for his screed on the Unified Field Theory, which purports to derive a unified field equation, "the solution of a very long mystery."[9] He provides no sources for this theory except for his own. His theory is essentially an esoteric model based on extravagant and untestable hypotheses.

This means that the dark matter math is also a type of modified Newtonian dynamics. It is modified in that it takes the definitions and turns them upside down. We could call it a FFAND: a falsified and fudged Newtonian dynamics.
—Miles Mathis, deeply diving into alternative scientific theory that no one is capable of understanding except for Miles Mathis[10]

The majority of his papers are an exercise in trying to justify a haphazard Unified Field, in which anything goes, including a mathematical proof of pi equaling 4.[2][11] He states that he can say and do anything he wants because he has to answer to nobody.[note 1]

Mathis has penned a couple of books that collect various random screeds from his web site together and attempts to pass them off as legitimate science.[1][12]

Conspiracy theories[edit]

Mathis subscribes to quite a number of conspiracy theories, usually by the effect of "X person faked their death", "Y murder was a hoax" or "Z is an intelligence asset". Given that belief in conspiracy theories is often motivated by a sense of "special-ness", and Mathis claims to have overturned almost all mathematics and science, this isn't surprising.

Mathis regularly adds dozens of other equally absurd conspiracies.[21]

Anti-Mathis scientist conspiracy[edit]

To quote from Mathis' page "debunking" conventional interpretations of the Cavendish experimentWikipedia:[22]

You cannot find anything against Cavendish on the internet. I discovered the existence of one critique by S.J. Barnett, from 1902, but the abstract had recently been deleted by Harvard. Apparently too many people were beginning to look at it, and they had to take it down.

The only abstract I could find was this one, by P.V. Czipott in STI, from 1983:

A superconducting gravimeter was used in a laboratory physics problem for the first time in the inverse square law of gravitation. The gravimeter test mass was used to measure the force exerted by a 325 kg source mass as a function of the separation between the masses. The results of the experiment are interpreted in terms of two models of non-Newtonian gravity, and compared to limits established by previous experiments. A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models…

That sounds kind of dangerous to me, and I predict this abstract will soon be deleted as well.

The rest of the post asserts that science paywalls — rather than being relatively innocent capitalism-fueled endeavors — are set up to hide information.


Mathis exhibits blatant anti-semitism in his writings. He has claimed without proof that many non-Jewish individuals are actually Jewish, including Jack NicklausWikipedia,[23] C.S. Lewis,[24] Donald Trump,[25] Elon Musk,[26] Adolf Hitler,[27] Napoleon Bonaparte,[28] and Pierre-Simon de Laplace.[28]

Response to RationalWiki[edit]

Mathis got mad at this page. Here are some quotes:[29]

RationalWiki (which is known by most people outside their offices as RatWik or RatDik[note 2]) now has a page on me, which is nice. I appreciate the promotion. They could just not mention me at all, which, considering what they say about me, would be the "rational" thing to do. If they are right and I am just a deluded crank, why have Google redirect all searches on Miles Mathis to their page? Why the obvious and pathetic smear campaign? Do you really need to smear deluded cranks? No, logically and rationally, you can ignore deluded cranks, because they are no threat to any real science. Therefore, logically and rationally, the fact that they feel it necessary to slander me with this prominent transparent project is another sign they are threatened.

I am kicking their sorry asses and the asses of their masters all over the field on a daily basis. But rather than respond in a scientific manner by addressing what I actually say, they hire a bunch of nameless pussies hiding behind fake sites to build little "snarky" pages with zero content. I encourage you to read their anonymous response to me, and compare it in content to my papers.

They actually attack Newton on a page about me! Amazing. It's an ego-trip alright, but one they just launched me on themselves. I can just see those who hired them finally getting around to reading this: "What? You compared him to Newton? You boneheads! Why not put him on the same pedestal with Leonardo and Einstein while you are at it! We hire you to slander this guy on a half-page and you can't even get that right!"

I am probably already getting more hits than all of RatDiki, and this will just add to the gap. I certainly have more content. If Google didn't pad the numbers of these Intel-front websites like RatDiki by many orders of magnitude and suppress mine, we could discover that truth, but as it is we probably never will.

While they are waving their rubber swords in the air, glorying in the movements of their own girly arms, I am lopping their genitals off—and they are already too emasculated to notice. If they had a lick of sense, they would have consulted my previous disembowelings of their confreres—who are now walking around dickless in Langley or Harvard or Berkeley or somewhere—and begged off. But as proof they can't read, they keep lining up for more.

That's right, RatDiks, while you are and your pals are writing from sub-basement 12 at Langley—sucking on fumes from the boiler room—my writing committee is nested in the spire of the Burj Khalifa, getting messages through the windows from eagles flying in from Etna and Everest. So you may as well tap out.

He — or someone who writes a lot like him — really doesn't like this page.[30][31][32]


  1. In this case, Miles needs to answer to nobody because nobody will pay attention.
  2. Side note: Nobody uses "RatDik". Miles chose to say this literally only because it's a childish joke.

External links[edit]


  1. 1.0 1.1 Miles Mathis, The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems. AuthorHouse, 2010. ISBN 1452005133
  2. 2.0 2.1 The Extinction of π. "I show that in all kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations. I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. I will also remind you this is not just a theory: it has been indicated by many mainstream experiments, including rocketry tests and quantum experiments"
  5. "Grandiose Crackpottery Proves Pi=4"
  9. 9.0 9.1 The Unified Field Theory.
  10. How my Unified Field solves the Galactic Rotation Problem and how the dark matter math is fudged.
  12. Miles Mathis, The Incorporation of Light., 2011. ISBN 1105226840
  13. The Boston Marathon or the Case of the Four Fences. "The good thing about these recent events is that they are so poorly faked that a lot of people are catching on. If they can keep us talking about three fake people who were fake-killed in Boston or the 27 people who were fake-killed in Sandy Hook, they can keep our eyes off the real tragedies."
  14. The Alleged Sandy Hook Tragedy. "It is difficult to say what really happened at Sandy Hook, but as with other scripted tragedies, it is becoming easier and easier to say what didn't happen. The story you are being sold in the mainstream media didn't happen."
  15. 911 Truth and Obama's Birth. "I think pretty much everyone knows that 911 was an inside job. We know that cellphone calls from the planes were faked. We know that video of the planes going into the towers was faked. We know that the 19 hijackers were either made up or were under the protection of the US government. We know that there is no evidence they were on the planes, and that there is much evidence that many of them were not on the planes… The Certificate of Live Birth will turn out to be Obama's Watergate. Why? Because it is a fake. But it is not just a fake, it is a fake so fake that it will be guaranteed to be found out. Absolutely no one will be fooled. Every last person in the world is figuring out that this is a ham-handed fake (starting with those who know how to use Photoshop)."
  16. The Wiki-Mandarins. "Most people don’t seem to know how to find alternative information, so they end up at the big misinformation sites—sites underwritten or owned by big corporations or the government. Many of these sites read as if they have recently been cleaned by the CIA or the FBI or both. In fact, they have. I seriously think that Wikipedia may have been infiltrated by the CIA."
  28. 28.0 28.1