I've got a 100+ page paper I'm finishing up that is my magnum opus, then another 3/4 finished paper to update and then I'll be back to writing the book. So probably still a year out if my damned health will stop falling apart.
@@SteamPunkPhysics Thanks for the reply.🙂 I am really looking forward to reading both papers and the book. May you be in good health. And please continue making these excellent videos about superfluid aether theory !!!
@@tygriffen2878 You can find the early first draft of one of them over on philpapers under "Shiva Meucci" and I think it might be on academia as well. I left it unfinished probably from one of my many health failures but decided to make it available before finishing. You can find a lot of random stuff at linktr.ee/ShivaMeucci My published papers are listed on my linktree as well I'm pretty sure.
First of all love it big thanks. Every detail and text is amazing please keep up the good work. Would you care to share the tools you used to create the video?
Pictory, photoshop, and claude helped a little with arranging the script from my notes, but at this point anyone not using AI is practically like not using a search engine...
Travel on a supersonic plane, and when it decides to go faster than sound, say something to the buddy next to you. Ta-daaa! Sound traveling faster than the speed of sound! :^)
@@NotOrdinaryInGames You understand that is because of carrying along the air I assume. So if we could carry Aether along inside say a torus like a quasar...
I've been trying to think of scenarios that could hypothetically detect absolute motion in order to possibly enable a test of SR's claims. Are you familiar with the clock as odometer analogy to measure movement through spacetime? I wondered if you could use that "odometer" to settle who's moving if you've got two starships in relative motion drifting towards each other. Now its my understanding that relativity makes no distinction between which starship is moving and that each can safely regard itself at rest and say its the other moving towards it, Okay so now imagine each starship syncs their clocks with each other the moment they pass, then a few minutes later or upon reaching some agreed upon distance between themselves, each launches out a probe synced with the starship clock of the ship from which the probes originate. The probes are programmed to travel in an arc so that they leave their starship of origin and dock with the other starship. Now because of how the clocks were synced and the delay in launching the probes, unless both starships happened to be going the same absolute speed, the paths through spacetime for each probe would be different. The arced path is identical, but due to the delayed launch there's a linear component that should be detected by the clock if the starship it originated from was moving. If the above is accurate the probes would not have the same reading on their clocks and we could tell which starship was moving, or exactly how much each was moving relative to the other, right? Their total distance through "spacetime" should differ. Given your understanding of both SR and the ether interpretation, would they not predict different outcomes of such an experiment? In SR we would expect them to be symmetrical because each frame shifts the sum total of difference in motion onto the other ship, whereas with an ether there is an objective statement that can be made about which probe had more motion through the ether, no? If this checks out it should be conceivable to approximate the thought experiment at less than relativistic speeds with atomic clocks I would think.
There are a already a huge number of effects that falsify constancy. einstein rejected constancy. The problem isn't proof and it isn't even Einstein's opinion by 1915. it's a century of religious behavior and irrational thinking that pays no attention to the evidence. They are defending their group's beliefs which don't fit the leader's beliefs. this happens in every religion. But yeah the idea of using time as an odometer comes only from relative simultaneity which, if they calculate it properly should reveal the problem but they'll always fiddle with the numbers till it comes out right. they always end up temporarily switching over to the relativistic aether interpretation and never realizing they are doing so. That's what they do for the twins paradox. they pick a preferred frame to solve the issue with never picking a preferred frame. You can't stop religious magical thinkers from going in loops and justifying their beliefs. It's a religion, not a science and no amount of evidence will change their mind. There's already mountains and oceans of obvious evidence and clear experimetns that falsify their dumb magical thinking. Einstein himself is against their dumb magical thinking and made that incredibly clear many many times. The problem is hive thinkers dominate the world. Trying to convince them is like trying to stop a stampede you are in the middle of. Perhaps not totally impossible but damn tricky. Taken me 20 years just to get a little progress.
There is an absolute reference frame. It is called the Big Bang. The way to determine if one is at rest in Space is to measure the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. If the CMB has the same frequency from all directions, it means one is at rest, and one's clock is ticking as quickly as possible (minus gravitational effects). If the CMB is blue shifted in any direction, then one's clock is ticking more slowly. The higher the velocity relative to the Big Bang, and, therefore, the higher the blue shift, the slower one's clock ticks. The clock in the spaceship with the higher velocity (all gravitational effects being equal) will ALWAYS tick more slowly than the clock in the slower spaceship. The problem of getting the two clocks back together for comparison is one that Einstein and so many others have tried to address (albeit very confusingly for the most part).
@@SteamPunkPhysics I understand the social issues, I was attempting to come up with something experimentalists might be able to work with, something that's harder to interpret away. Its difficult because I'm definitely out of my element, but what I thought I've done is close any loophole to declare an asymmetry and therefore justify smuggling in a preferred frame. According to them it should always be impossible to ascertain a difference in motion in a scenario like I articulated, however in my proposal one of the probes cannot avoid accumulating more motion through "spacetime"/ether, and because the means by which these probes deliver their clock readings, the exchange of information is symmetrical, as opposed to if one of the ships simply turned around and introduced an asymmetry. I don't know, based on my limited understanding this seems like a different kind of experiment because it attacks relative motion directly, but I also know SR has a lot of built-in absurdity that can make it difficult to pin down, I'm just not aware of how they'd get out of this particular situation because they have to assume from the get go that the setup is actually symmetrical because of their adherence to relative motion, yet the experiment should detect the underlying asymmetry I'm assuming we both would agree must be present.
@@delvish9622 Yeah I understand and appreciate the attempt but after 20 years of believing people could be made to see the light through evidence I've had to accept that most minds simpl do not work according to logical comparison of evidence but only through the probability weighting that occurs through encountering data modulated by the source of that data. Their brains quite literally do not work the way one would think. Convincing is not something that occurs in their brain through evidence and logic. It occurs through probability weighting alone. Showing new evidence will have no effect on the majority and that's a very hard pill to swallow. There are literally thousands of possible experiments that could will and already do falsify their absurd beliefs. Their mind does not require a cohesive structure to their overall knowledge. Or rather, it always gains cohesion through a roundabout way of fiddling with falsifying evidence till it fits into their current unaltered worldview. It has no capability whatsoever of altering the structure itself. Only information from the hive communicated along hive channels can have that effect. Institutions, popular opinion, famous entities, etc are the only modulators of that structure.
@@SteamPunkPhysics well maybe there's a way to take advantage of that, because I've noticed that plenty of people are shopping for a new belief system. Look at the outcome of Terrance Howard appearing on podcasts and the cult following it produced. Its probably a long shot but maybe trying to get in contact with Rogan, or perhaps even Eric Weinstein who's a bit easier to contact (he will often respond to dms on X) would open the door to create a corrective experience. Using the system of conditioned religious behavior to insert not just a corrective narrative regarding the physics, but also the phenomenon of belief itself.
Well Einstein was a genius because SRT wasn't wrong, per se. It's a mathematical convenience. Lots of modern scientific tools aren't thought of as anything other than abstractions. Nobody thinks phonons (not photons) are actually real yet they are extremely useful for engineering. It's like with programming. There are lots of imperfect libraries programmers have used to create magnificent software suites. The problem was the society that didn't listen to his insistence that there must be an aether. The error lies with all the people who pushed him to honor his elder Minkowski and use spacetime. The error lies with the stampede pushing a given victim along. The stupidity of crowds. He made it easier to advance and gave a wider group of people access. It's not his fault everyone lost track of understanding when he himself didn't fully understand all the nuance at first. Again, the problem is that people stopped listening to Einstein and started putting words in his mouth. He was right about QM being incomplete also. God doesn't play dice and spooky action at a distance is magical nonsense. There are now good logical systems to replace stochastic treatments, but people deal with topical illusions easier than difficult underlying complex mechanics.
@@SteamPunkPhysics The SRT "simplification" leads actually to ignoring the more complex reality. And for it being "not wrong" I could just mention the linear Sagnac type of experiments...
@@drgyt2469 I have a goal. That goal is to cause a paradigm shift. Einstein is deeply ingrained in people's psyche from childhood. "Einstein" in most people's heads is practically a conceptual basis more than a person. So yes, it certainly did lead to a terrifically bad place for science, but it took millions of people doing the wrong thing to get us here. Placing the blame on Einstein is a little silly to start but also counterproductive to the goal of a paradigm shift when considering the way in which people engage with the name and concept of Einstein. I'm just taking the most expedient path to my goal.
@@SteamPunkPhysics In order to start a paradigm shift it is necessary first to expose the flaws of the SRT. I think that the mathematicians who had no sense of physics played a more important negative role than Einstein.
@@drgyt2469 I've spent 20 years exposing flaws and all it does is make people rebel, stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA-LA-LAAA Crockpot, Pseudoscience, Heresy LALAAA" The problems with SRT are solely and only tied to space-time conjoinment and the framelessness of "constancy." Time dilation and length contraction are real and therefore relativity is 100% correct but you can NEVER get that accross to them because they will not listen long enough to learn anything new. They - literally - are cognitively incapable of listening. I mean this completely literally. You have to understand that those who are not prone to insanity are tethered to reality by the connection between truth and social proof being unbreakable in their mind. It's how their brain protects itself and remains "sane." Those who can explore outside "sanity" (AKA groupthink) already know something's wrong and so there's no point preaching to the choir. Trust me. This approach is incisive, direct, and can spread into the minds of the believers in a way that will slowly rot away faulty beliefs while giving stability to cling to. 20 years working every day. Tens of Thousands of articles and conversations accross the internet with scientists, laymen, students and everything in between. A four year degree in neuroscience and deep dive into philosophy. All for one purpose. The Neoclassical revolution. I need more people on board with me seeing that I am planning a way forward through a complex landscape I've mapped out very carefully. I'm not doing this willy-nilly even if it looks like that from the outside. You bring a giant down with a thousand cuts. You plan attacks from every side converging over time to all strike at once. Please read this article and I think you'll understand why I do things in a way that seems scattered: qr.ae/pGxQRH
Why did I watch 2 minutes of this hoping it would back up it's audacious claims. How does shite like this appear in my feed that is mainly actual, real science?
Wow, a whole entire 2 full minutes?? What an incredible ability to focus! You're definitely the science minded type of person I was hoping to appeal to!
@@SteamPunkPhysics I've watched enough bunkum to identify it pretty quickly. Ai voice ✅ claims that fly in the face of common wisdom ✅ using semantics as the basis of an argument ✅ - three strikes, you're out.
@@Tehjubjub Can't concentrate for longer than 2 minutes ✅ Doesn't understand necessities of clickbait ✅ Makes claims about things they haven't heard ✅ These are the kinds of people I want watching my channel. It's so important to me to have a good opinion from people like this. Their opinion is so valuable!
Excellent evidence-based critique. You should really be making your own videos with such informative opinions! I'm sure your ability to explain will really enlighten people...
Great video !!! Glad to see your back :-) When is your book coming out?
I've got a 100+ page paper I'm finishing up that is my magnum opus, then another 3/4 finished paper to update and then I'll be back to writing the book. So probably still a year out if my damned health will stop falling apart.
@@SteamPunkPhysics Thanks for the reply.🙂 I am really looking forward to reading both papers and the book. May you be in good health. And please continue making these excellent videos about superfluid aether theory !!!
@@tygriffen2878 You can find the early first draft of one of them over on philpapers under "Shiva Meucci" and I think it might be on academia as well. I left it unfinished probably from one of my many health failures but decided to make it available before finishing. You can find a lot of random stuff at linktr.ee/ShivaMeucci
My published papers are listed on my linktree as well I'm pretty sure.
First of all love it big thanks. Every detail and text is amazing please keep up the good work.
Would you care to share the tools you used to create the video?
Pictory, photoshop, and claude helped a little with arranging the script from my notes, but at this point anyone not using AI is practically like not using a search engine...
Thankyou for the heads up on the"trick".
Love your voice too,very authoritative.
He used a computer voice here. Computer voices are very authoritative these days ;)
@@NotOrdinaryInGames I liked it anyway,although It is concerning how it could be used to convince us of some piece of propaganda or other.
@@Ian.Gostling Easy! Don't listen to the voice, but what the voice is saying.
@@NotOrdinaryInGames Yes that's alright for me but was thinking of the unthinking masses!
Travel on a supersonic plane, and when it decides to go faster than sound, say something to the buddy next to you. Ta-daaa! Sound traveling faster than the speed of sound!
:^)
@@NotOrdinaryInGames You understand that is because of carrying along the air I assume. So if we could carry Aether along inside say a torus like a quasar...
@@SteamPunkPhysics Pocket aether.
Yes. Relativity is an illusion and Einstein was an idiot!
I've been trying to think of scenarios that could hypothetically detect absolute motion in order to possibly enable a test of SR's claims.
Are you familiar with the clock as odometer analogy to measure movement through spacetime? I wondered if you could use that "odometer" to settle who's moving if you've got two starships in relative motion drifting towards each other. Now its my understanding that relativity makes no distinction between which starship is moving and that each can safely regard itself at rest and say its the other moving towards it, Okay so now imagine each starship syncs their clocks with each other the moment they pass, then a few minutes later or upon reaching some agreed upon distance between themselves, each launches out a probe synced with the starship clock of the ship from which the probes originate. The probes are programmed to travel in an arc so that they leave their starship of origin and dock with the other starship. Now because of how the clocks were synced and the delay in launching the probes, unless both starships happened to be going the same absolute speed, the paths through spacetime for each probe would be different. The arced path is identical, but due to the delayed launch there's a linear component that should be detected by the clock if the starship it originated from was moving. If the above is accurate the probes would not have the same reading on their clocks and we could tell which starship was moving, or exactly how much each was moving relative to the other, right? Their total distance through "spacetime" should differ.
Given your understanding of both SR and the ether interpretation, would they not predict different outcomes of such an experiment? In SR we would expect them to be symmetrical because each frame shifts the sum total of difference in motion onto the other ship, whereas with an ether there is an objective statement that can be made about which probe had more motion through the ether, no?
If this checks out it should be conceivable to approximate the thought experiment at less than relativistic speeds with atomic clocks I would think.
There are a already a huge number of effects that falsify constancy. einstein rejected constancy. The problem isn't proof and it isn't even Einstein's opinion by 1915. it's a century of religious behavior and irrational thinking that pays no attention to the evidence.
They are defending their group's beliefs which don't fit the leader's beliefs. this happens in every religion.
But yeah the idea of using time as an odometer comes only from relative simultaneity which, if they calculate it properly should reveal the problem but they'll always fiddle with the numbers till it comes out right. they always end up temporarily switching over to the relativistic aether interpretation and never realizing they are doing so.
That's what they do for the twins paradox. they pick a preferred frame to solve the issue with never picking a preferred frame.
You can't stop religious magical thinkers from going in loops and justifying their beliefs. It's a religion, not a science and no amount of evidence will change their mind. There's already mountains and oceans of obvious evidence and clear experimetns that falsify their dumb magical thinking.
Einstein himself is against their dumb magical thinking and made that incredibly clear many many times.
The problem is hive thinkers dominate the world. Trying to convince them is like trying to stop a stampede you are in the middle of. Perhaps not totally impossible but damn tricky.
Taken me 20 years just to get a little progress.
There is an absolute reference frame. It is called the Big Bang. The way to determine if one is at rest in Space is to measure the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. If the CMB has the same frequency from all directions, it means one is at rest, and one's clock is ticking as quickly as possible (minus gravitational effects). If the CMB is blue shifted in any direction, then one's clock is ticking more slowly. The higher the velocity relative to the Big Bang, and, therefore, the higher the blue shift, the slower one's clock ticks. The clock in the spaceship with the higher velocity (all gravitational effects being equal) will ALWAYS tick more slowly than the clock in the slower spaceship. The problem of getting the two clocks back together for comparison is one that Einstein and so many others have tried to address (albeit very confusingly for the most part).
@@SteamPunkPhysics I understand the social issues, I was attempting to come up with something experimentalists might be able to work with, something that's harder to interpret away. Its difficult because I'm definitely out of my element, but what I thought I've done is close any loophole to declare an asymmetry and therefore justify smuggling in a preferred frame. According to them it should always be impossible to ascertain a difference in motion in a scenario like I articulated, however in my proposal one of the probes cannot avoid accumulating more motion through "spacetime"/ether, and because the means by which these probes deliver their clock readings, the exchange of information is symmetrical, as opposed to if one of the ships simply turned around and introduced an asymmetry.
I don't know, based on my limited understanding this seems like a different kind of experiment because it attacks relative motion directly, but I also know SR has a lot of built-in absurdity that can make it difficult to pin down, I'm just not aware of how they'd get out of this particular situation because they have to assume from the get go that the setup is actually symmetrical because of their adherence to relative motion, yet the experiment should detect the underlying asymmetry I'm assuming we both would agree must be present.
@@delvish9622 Yeah I understand and appreciate the attempt but after 20 years of believing people could be made to see the light through evidence I've had to accept that most minds simpl do not work according to logical comparison of evidence but only through the probability weighting that occurs through encountering data modulated by the source of that data.
Their brains quite literally do not work the way one would think. Convincing is not something that occurs in their brain through evidence and logic. It occurs through probability weighting alone.
Showing new evidence will have no effect on the majority and that's a very hard pill to swallow.
There are literally thousands of possible experiments that could will and already do falsify their absurd beliefs. Their mind does not require a cohesive structure to their overall knowledge. Or rather, it always gains cohesion through a roundabout way of fiddling with falsifying evidence till it fits into their current unaltered worldview.
It has no capability whatsoever of altering the structure itself. Only information from the hive communicated along hive channels can have that effect. Institutions, popular opinion, famous entities, etc are the only modulators of that structure.
@@SteamPunkPhysics well maybe there's a way to take advantage of that, because I've noticed that plenty of people are shopping for a new belief system. Look at the outcome of Terrance Howard appearing on podcasts and the cult following it produced. Its probably a long shot but maybe trying to get in contact with Rogan, or perhaps even Eric Weinstein who's a bit easier to contact (he will often respond to dms on X) would open the door to create a corrective experience. Using the system of conditioned religious behavior to insert not just a corrective narrative regarding the physics, but also the phenomenon of belief itself.
Equations aren't science. It's a delusion.
So in your view Einstein was a genius in spite of the SRT being wrong! 😀
Well Einstein was a genius because SRT wasn't wrong, per se. It's a mathematical convenience. Lots of modern scientific tools aren't thought of as anything other than abstractions. Nobody thinks phonons (not photons) are actually real yet they are extremely useful for engineering.
It's like with programming. There are lots of imperfect libraries programmers have used to create magnificent software suites.
The problem was the society that didn't listen to his insistence that there must be an aether. The error lies with all the people who pushed him to honor his elder Minkowski and use spacetime.
The error lies with the stampede pushing a given victim along. The stupidity of crowds.
He made it easier to advance and gave a wider group of people access. It's not his fault everyone lost track of understanding when he himself didn't fully understand all the nuance at first.
Again, the problem is that people stopped listening to Einstein and started putting words in his mouth. He was right about QM being incomplete also. God doesn't play dice and spooky action at a distance is magical nonsense.
There are now good logical systems to replace stochastic treatments, but people deal with topical illusions easier than difficult underlying complex mechanics.
@@SteamPunkPhysics The SRT "simplification" leads actually to ignoring the more complex reality. And for it being "not wrong" I could just mention the linear Sagnac type of experiments...
@@drgyt2469 I have a goal. That goal is to cause a paradigm shift. Einstein is deeply ingrained in people's psyche from childhood. "Einstein" in most people's heads is practically a conceptual basis more than a person.
So yes, it certainly did lead to a terrifically bad place for science, but it took millions of people doing the wrong thing to get us here. Placing the blame on Einstein is a little silly to start but also counterproductive to the goal of a paradigm shift when considering the way in which people engage with the name and concept of Einstein.
I'm just taking the most expedient path to my goal.
@@SteamPunkPhysics In order to start a paradigm shift it is necessary first to expose the flaws of the SRT. I think that the mathematicians who had no sense of physics played a more important negative role than Einstein.
@@drgyt2469 I've spent 20 years exposing flaws and all it does is make people rebel, stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA-LA-LAAA Crockpot, Pseudoscience, Heresy LALAAA"
The problems with SRT are solely and only tied to space-time conjoinment and the framelessness of "constancy." Time dilation and length contraction are real and therefore relativity is 100% correct but you can NEVER get that accross to them because they will not listen long enough to learn anything new.
They - literally - are cognitively incapable of listening. I mean this completely literally. You have to understand that those who are not prone to insanity are tethered to reality by the connection between truth and social proof being unbreakable in their mind. It's how their brain protects itself and remains "sane."
Those who can explore outside "sanity" (AKA groupthink) already know something's wrong and so there's no point preaching to the choir.
Trust me. This approach is incisive, direct, and can spread into the minds of the believers in a way that will slowly rot away faulty beliefs while giving stability to cling to.
20 years working every day. Tens of Thousands of articles and conversations accross the internet with scientists, laymen, students and everything in between. A four year degree in neuroscience and deep dive into philosophy. All for one purpose.
The Neoclassical revolution. I need more people on board with me seeing that I am planning a way forward through a complex landscape I've mapped out very carefully. I'm not doing this willy-nilly even if it looks like that from the outside.
You bring a giant down with a thousand cuts. You plan attacks from every side converging over time to all strike at once.
Please read this article and I think you'll understand why I do things in a way that seems scattered: qr.ae/pGxQRH
Why did I watch 2 minutes of this hoping it would back up it's audacious claims. How does shite like this appear in my feed that is mainly actual, real science?
Wow, a whole entire 2 full minutes?? What an incredible ability to focus! You're definitely the science minded type of person I was hoping to appeal to!
@@SteamPunkPhysics I've watched enough bunkum to identify it pretty quickly. Ai voice ✅ claims that fly in the face of common wisdom ✅ using semantics as the basis of an argument ✅ - three strikes, you're out.
@@Tehjubjub Can't concentrate for longer than 2 minutes ✅
Doesn't understand necessities of clickbait ✅
Makes claims about things they haven't heard ✅
These are the kinds of people I want watching my channel. It's so important to me to have a good opinion from people like this. Their opinion is so valuable!
Crackpottery.
Excellent evidence-based critique. You should really be making your own videos with such informative opinions!
I'm sure your ability to explain will really enlighten people...