skip to Main Content

Miles Mathis – Time

I had never heard of Miles Mathis before one of my readers mentioned him in response to my post about Quantum Space Theory. The commenter finds his work similar to mine, so I looked him up this morning to learn more, and from the little I’ve read, I must say I agree. Miles Mathis comes across as a formal version of myself.

I’ve only started reading his book, but I can already recommend it. I trust that he will take his readers in a similar direction as I do in my books, and if he doesn’t, I’m sure he’ll make excellent arguments for himself, well worth reading even if I end up disagreeing with him.

It may seem strange to recommend a book that I haven’t read to the end, but I do this for a reason. The overlaps between my work and his thoughts are so many that I’d like to comment on his book as I work my way through it. Hence, I start with this review of his first pages.

The preface sets his work in the historic context of our day. It’s written in fine prose, with a touch of humor. Mathis explains his position. He’s neither for or against anyone or anything. He wants merely to point out the errors that have taken hold of modern physics. He attacks the obscurity of it, and the deceptive ways false conclusions are cloaked in fancy mathematics. His approach will be simple, he promises. He will point out errors with basic algebra, and he will propose alternative solutions and interpretations.

The first chapter of his book is about time, which he defines as relative speed, exactly the way I define it in my work. He makes an excellent argument for his position which dovetails perfectly with my observations. Additionally, he argues against the concept of space-time. He points out that what is by necessity a feature of three dimensional space cannot at the same time be a dimension of its own. Time is not a spatial dimension. It’s a relative measure of speed.

Photon traversing an electron
Photon traversing an electron

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. If all you crazy blokes (hah) were not onto something, why the remarkable parallel evolution, so to speak? Granted you all attack the same holes in the official argument, but coming to similar conclusions by directly contradicting from different angles, smells like science to me.
    Not being formally trained, my own thoughts tend to reductio ad absurdum, I see the faults, but have little to fight with, other than humour of sorts.
    Which brings me to, where time is a function of speed acquired by living in a gravity well.

    1. It’s very encouraging to come across other people’s work that dovetails well with my thoughts on the same subject. Never mind that Mathis beat me to it by 15 years, the fact that we come to similar conclusions makes the case all the stronger.

      But I very much doubt that Mathis comes to the exact same conclusion as I do, and that’s a good thing. It leaves room for further speculations.

      Had I read Mathis before I started writing down my thoughts, I might have moderated my thoughts to fit better with his work, so it’s a good thing to be partially ignorant of things when setting out with a theory.

      Everyone has their own style and angle to things, and that’s something we should encourage. We don’t all have to be experts in advanced mathematics in order to figure things out. There’s all sorts of angles, including humor and ridicule.

      There’s also no shame in being wrong. A constant fretting about being right is limiting. It’s better to be wrong with something original than to be right and completely mediocre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.