It is now obvious to me that you never actually READ Mathis. All you do is saying "Mathis is a fraud" because you repeat like a parrot what you have read on the web site you gave. Science is NOT just "to make something to work", it is trying to UNDERSTAND the underlying mecanisms. You confuse engineering (or heuristics) for science. A monkey can cross a river by throwing a tree trunk across the river, and it works, but that doesnt make the monkey a scientist.
I'm not criticizing you as a person, but the idea presented by you, that Newton was wrong, is itself wrong. Newton didn't cheat at all, and claiming that he did makes all identity Christians look like absolute fools in the eyes of those who would otherwise be won over.
Yahshua certainly looked like an absolute fool in the eyes of many persons, but He didn't care about that, did he? Why should we? I don't personnally care at all. The truth is the truth, lies are lies, period.
Just some examples on the site you mention :
(There, force is mediated through local fields (e.g. the electromagnetic field), which explains the mysterious action at a distance that troubled Newton.)
Oh yeah? You have a "field" and mysteriously, that explains action at a distance? How please? HOW? Where is the mecanism?
On a philosophical side note, science has many heuristics, which “explain” how electrons emit real photons in the bremsstrahlung process (for example a cloud of virtual photons surrounding the electron).
Virtual photons? What's that? If I have a virtual Rolls Royce, I'm rich?
They only thing science can do is make predictions and verify their consistency with experiments.
That is certainly the reason why each time they try to make a "prediction", they are flabbergasted by the unexpected results? And I wonder how you make "experiments" with things located at millions or billions of light-years, or at millions or billions of years in the past?
It is true that scientists tend to have a lot of faith in their models, especially if they are established beyond reasonable doubt like general relativity and the standard model.
Yes, like evolution, I know the tune... A lot of faith... like the Catholic Church.
This brings us to the most problematic point in Mathis’ theory: He claims that the electron turns into a photon.
Now that's a lie! Mathis does NOT say that! Mathis says that the electron, like other particles, is in fact photons spinning on different axes, like gyroscopes.
His method however, only enables him to make vague descriptions of what might be the case, but fails to produce predictions comparable to experiments.
It is exactly the opposite! Mathis makes predictions that the so-called "science" can't make and won't make, because the "scientists" dont't care about these problems anymore. And he doesn't need giant and impressive mathematical equations full of mystical B.S. to do that.
Ok, I'll stop here. These guys don't know what they are talking about. It's just gobbledygook to impress the gullible.