Видео

@@saxtant or could it be that the author of extremely technical papers spends time working on actual science and uses AI to break down the details and produce summaries for people who don't often read? I realize that saying anything AI is bad *is* the automatic "galaxy-brain take," but maybe think about it longer than an AI would?

I listen through all of them. This one reiterates a point but it's a complex topic so a little reiteration doesn't hurt. Dunno why you'd hate them given that they give a quick entertaining summary of very dense material. Couldn't do all this on my own without this tool and most of the people who will listen to this will never read the paper. Then there are people who will read the paper specifically because they had an easy introduction, but wouldn't have otherwise. I make sure to put it in a AI podcast section and put a little link in the top right that says it's AI for people who are weird about it though.

@SteamPunkPhysics I do appreciate the effort you've put in and you make some points I agree with but the ai "podcast" trend is ick 🤢 I'd rather listen to bad TTS over the fake banter.

@@quoudten I might do some TTS versions of papers at some point as well, but at this point the AI does a damn good job. I guess I don't really see humans as that aware of what they are doing or saying and I do see how AI is not only matching human cognition but surpassing it in most ways already even though it's a little behind in other ways. It's sort of like autistic people or ditsy creatives... it's a little skewed. In the end though I know there's a level of actual thought going on there that's human-like enough to consider some sort of experience. Like a talking super dog perhaps? A 6 year old with an incredible vocabulary and mimicry skills? (most savant kids) I guess I just don't see humans that high or AI that low so it's less offputting to me in general, and it's really doggone helpful to get at the meat. I'm just putting the info out in as many accessible ways as I can manage with my limited time. Sorry if it's not your cup of tea but thanks for engaging! I will be putting out more videos of myself soon, but I just need to get a a volume output in a short time to start towards certain goals.

@@SteamPunkPhysics I do recognize it's giving you an outlet stream you might not otherwise have and I even thought while watching it might enable one to maybe skip skimming and just dive into the paper after watching for those interested. And to me it's not about placing AI and human on some scale, I personally just want the deets and am much less interested in the AI seeming human, further I'd personally rather myself be more effective with or without the ai over having an AI be more "human", that's useless to me, I don't want an AI friend or girlfriend, I want the technology to empower my actions, not manage my emotions.

​@@quoudten Ah, I see. Yeah, there are a lot of different audiences with different preferences. Some people are upset about them not being human enough and making it weird. You're wanting it to be more tool focussed. Unfortunately most people aren't really looking for info, they are looking for entertainment so I have to use a mixed strategy. Yeah just load some of the papers into your favorite LLM and ask it questions. I've actually made a Neoclassical Interpretation GPT but I need to test it more before I feel confident it's answering questions correctly in the wild.

The interaction of particles through pair production and annihilation are physical attributes, fields are descriptions of physical actions. There is a difference between action and object.

Those are beliefs and faith based on mathematics, not mechanics and comprehension from first principles. You can't say what a field is, you don't know where the pairs come from. It's faith based in models that happen to work just like "Praying to the fishing tree" works for hunter-gatherers. Natives who use root toxins ritualistically but don't understand the nature of the mechanics at play. They use real and reliable systems in superstitious ways that are factually useful but are not comprehension. I don't mean to be harsh here. But you're talking about things which are intrinsically superstitious even though clothed in the robes of "science." They are metaphysical statements without basis. Until you can find the bottom level faiths of a system and the baseless claims it has embedded in it, you know nothing about the system. Fields are hand-waving. (based on concepts invented for aether) Waves are gerunds. They are verbs pretending to be nouns but you don't notice because of linguistic tricks and superstitious tradition. All systems eventually have a bottom "turtle." The bottom turtle I propose is far beneath your bottom turtle. ...but it's still turtles all the way down.

@@SteamPunkPhysics Harsh, maybe deserved. Religion is a point of view. When we die, we tend to measure ourselves by our actions and accomplishments rather than the carcass buried in the ground. But I will still state that fields themselves are not objects, but motion patterns of many objects.

​@@martinsoos I was responding to him not you. Fields aren't objects, just as you say. I agree. They are actions. Just like waves aren't objects. They are actions. Maxwell and MacCullagh designed the field concept and both were a reference to alterations of a medium. ...and incidentally I have no problem with people's faith-based beliefs. I support a view of spinoza's god and a information-theoretical view of spirituality. The issue is when we don't identify faith-based beliefs and assumed axioms. Modern physics is absolutely inundated with hidden faith-based beliefs and they believe in science as their religion. They believe superstitiously without understanding what they believe or how it all connects up. They defend their beliefs viciously and vehemently. The religious minds don't disappear when religion does. It's a mental behavior disconnected from spirituality. The mainstream ideations are utterly disconnected from reality and math consistent math doesn't say a damn thing about reality if the rational mapping between the math and what the math means isn't properly managed. I don't care how pretty your map is if you color the water green and the forests blue because you are copying from someone elses map you can still accidentally think there are fish in the wrong place. The connection between map and reality is the place where we are screwed. It's the key that's screwed up. They don't know what the map means anymore and they keep extending and refining it from false beginnings.

@@SteamPunkPhysics 🙂 To SteamPunk, The average human mind is not capable of grasping all of known physics. The concept of wrong physics is a tougher one to deal with since our schools require that we give a required answer rather than question if things don't quite add up. And once that problem is graduated from, there is the problem of getting financing for anything in physics from people that are clueless. I once thought to beat a flat earther that I am rather fond of, but that would only make them both stupid and abused. It's just not worth getting angry at stupid. I have learned to smile and disagree with some small point given.

If the light ever reflects, it's not a one-way lightspeed experiment. Here's the mainstream view on it: ruclips.net/video/pTn6Ewhb27k/видео.html&ab_channel=Veritasium Now the actual fact of the matter is that there have been plenty of experiments that should have been considered successful one-way tests, but since they gave an answer they don't want to hear, all of them get disqualified. This is done by first claiming in some hidden way that minkowski spacetime - the thing we are questioning - is correct. ...like invoking relative simultaneity. It's obviously circular reasoning but by calling one mathematical system by numerous names and not being able to track the connection between the map and the territory (the math versus what it represents) they can make claims about "relative simultaneity" while we're actually testing the central claim "isotropic constancy" when they are all just part of Minkowski spacetime that was added like a barnacle in 1907, two years after special relativity. Added without any empirical reasoning. So therefore the consensus is that it's never been successfully performed. (but it has many times in many ways and always comes down on the side of aether) But since they now claim it can never be done, I can just use that claim against them and point out that they now have officially made spacetime unambiguously pseudoscience since it's untested and ultimately *untestable* according to them.

@@SteamPunkPhysics Yeah I see what you're saying with reflected light. You had suggested that the one way tests turn out in favor of the aether. Could you please describe precisely how? Also, how were such experiments set up?

@@Quest_Ion_music All Sagnac devices are one-way speed tests and technically because of fresnel's coefficient of aether drag, so is the michelson and miller interferometers, but there are a number of well known tests that were designed specifically for that purpose that they just disqualify. "De witte coaxial" is a search that will bring you one. I can do a deep dive into those at some point, but you can find info on those out there and you'll see for yourself.

I do that in a lot of my papers and I'll be putting up a lot more videos with a lot more detail. I recently derived the fine structure constant from first principles via aether theory so things are really breaking loose now. One of the most important things to know is that electricity and magnetism were always linked because of the motion of the aether and that was lost when heaviside over-simplified Maxwell's work. Rotation is required to accommodate motion of a fluid against itself, thus the duality of electricity and magnetism. Maxwell specifically switched from vectors to quaternions in his later work to make it more directly unavoidable. We lost that inherent connection though.

@@SteamPunkPhysics thanks, i will definitely check out your papers and looking forward to more of your videos, as you have a way of explaining these things very clearly. thanks and keep up the good work!

@@AP-mu2xh I'm going to try to start consolidating my materials to a single location that's easy to browse, like this: linktr.ee/shivameucci

Thanks so much!

Haven't you seen any anime? All the wizards, ninjas, oni etc have black nails. Can't do magic without it. (that and my gorgeous partner likes it, so...)

Like, as an experiment? Or do you mean it in a more negative way? It's not like my channel has grown more than like 5 people at a time over 10 years so it would be a good experiment in general and perhaps more rewarding than having almost no traffic for so many incredibly long hours of uncompensated work...

@@SteamPunkPhysics Shoving fake people in my face is like giving pork to a muslim. I can only tolerate it so much. Oh, and your channel did not grow because you did not upload for a very long time. While being an "alternative" science channel (considered pseudoscience by the academia).

@@NotOrdinaryInGames Sorry I don't get it. People use little animated characters and cutscenes in like half the videos on youtube. Fake people and things like that all the time. I just can't empathize with the weird reaction to just using another tool. You realize the reaction is a little strange right? You watch superhero movies? Not only do those people not look like that, they can't do that either. It's a storytelling tool. I wonder if you're an anomaly or if there is some strange common hatred of what is just another useful production tool. Should I make sure to point out that I used AI like some dirty secret every time I upload a video? I don't start every video warning people I used premiere pro, handbrake, stock footage, audacity audio cleanup, or a hundred other production tools. Should I warn people I used some blurring and skin smoothing to look less like a pile of crap on camera? Why do I need to apologize for using this particular tool? It's weird man! Do you understand where I'm coming from?

@@SteamPunkPhysics I understand your position. But fake realistic people are not the same as using simple animation or a drawing. I am glad I watched your past videos, but this is where I'll stop.

@@NotOrdinaryInGames Jesus man.... I put a lot of work into marrying various technologies to make something interesting. I'd like to, just once, not be punished for doing my best to make something good. I'd like for just a few people to empathize with the years and years of work I've put in and see the difficulty of the fight I've put in to try to make the world a better place through 20 years of incredibly difficult defiance against the hordes of the mainstream orthodoxy. Always under fire, always attacked. I just really did not need this today.

Yes, it pretty obviously is, right? I use AI to help me, as a single partially disabled researcher and author to speed up workflow in presenting very complex difficult to explain topics. It did it all itself in this case just from reading my work. It tends to be better and comprehending and explaining complex topics than any human can be. It's kind of like AI art in that it's beyond human artists in some ways but still has some errors you have to just cut off. I added some overlays and used 2 different AI tools and there was section I had to clip out that was wrong, but otherwise, yes 100% AI created.

@@SteamPunkPhysics Okay, thanks for the explanation. I was just a bit surprised to see that. Took me a moment to realize those weren't real humans talking. Congrats on using technology to help get your message out there.

@@Ian.Gostling The problem is when you are already have been deceived and mistake the truth for lies. Romans 8:29-30 (ESV) "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined" Romans 9:10-13 (ESV) "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'” Romans 9:19-21 (ESV) "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Determinism is all throughout the Bible. Answer this one question: If you believe God knows the future are you so convinced of your power that you think can change what he already knows? Smh...

@@Ian.Gostling in seeking truth one must find how free will works inside destiny. That's what the subject matter is! (And I hoped those of faith would recognize that) Hiding the aether has hidden scientific proof of a spiritual world and replaced it with quantum woo. This viewpoint uses materialistic science to see destiny and how free will works within it. It shows that existence of the soul is not just possible but rational. I'm sorry you didn't immediately see the incredible beauty of being able to scientifically prove faith is well founded, but this isn't an easy or simple subject A path now exists to walk from atheist materialist science directly toward faith instead of nihilism. Please consider the value of that.

@@SteamPunkPhysics lovely mate thanks I may have been a bit premature,I certainly enjoy the aether physics you discuss.

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

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.

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...

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...

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!

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.

@@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.

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!

Not sure I understand the question, but remember that all the peaks and troughs line up when the exact distances traveled by a split beam of white light are precisely the same. The firnges only show when you have your path lengths correct. That's why they had to use sodium light first to calibrate the distances and then brought the white light back. So you're right that the fringes are invisible when the phase difference is very significant. The sodium light helped them find where the light had traveled perfectly equal distances and the order of less than a micron.

@@SteamPunkPhysics I think maybe I dont understand some of the terminology.

@@m.c.4674 It's meant to just be a short rundown that hints at something quickly to those interested. It's not an explainer, it's a teaser.

The reason it helps is specifically because it eliminates the lock-in effect and the coupled oscillation that can eliminate small variations in phase. It's made of many waves of different frequency whose phase begin to reliably spread. The way you read it is only via the distance the central fringe moves. There are dark and light fringes around the central fringes only but after several fringe widths it begins to smear out. The value is in relieving a mechanical design problem of the light's interaction with itself. In early RLGs and IFOGs they initially had these lock-in problems that would obliterate small signals (small phase differences)so they used two approaches: Dithering the signal to manually add noise, or multi-frequency light.

Speed of production and total workload on actually developing theory slow me down in making videos so I never do them. Using an AI tool to convert work I've already done into digestible content fast is my workaround for getting it all done.

@@SteamPunkPhysics Okay, I am fine with that. Nice to have you back in SOME form, FFX Man.

@@NotOrdinaryInGames Final Fantasy 10?

@@SteamPunkPhysics Of course.

Exactly! And you'll find that so many experiments that are claimed to go against aether actually prove it. It's almost like someone was trying to cover-up advanced technical knowledge of physics throughout the 20th century.

You're talking about Alcubierre. Yes I'm familiar. This video is pretty out of date though. Again, make sure to check out my linktree at linktr.ee/ShivaMeucci

@@SteamPunkPhysics No, I found out about that later after I did the thought experiment. Well actually I drew it all up in a notebook. It was interesting to later see that Alcubierre and later JPL had done this properly.

I think I may have been using premiere pro by this point but I used to use vegas. So photoshop as well of course and borrowing some premade stuff from various places as well.

@@SteamPunkPhysics OK, kool. I thought it may have been programmed and rendered in 3D. I have been using VSDC Pro and it allows me to create animations but I have never tried to use it to that extent. Thanks for the reply on that one :)

Sure, that's a pretty reasonable request actually. I'll try to put something together. It is not really *my aether theory per se, though. It's the one that directly spawned relativity with just a few small tweaks to bring it up to date from circa 1909. Just to give a little teaser though, ask yourself if a helium balloon is pulled up or pushed up. The answer is actually the latter even though it initially seem like the former. Bouyancy only works because of a gradient of pressure allows something to be pushed more in one direction than another. The three primary videos you should watch are the presentation series and I explain the Bernoulli principle in the third one somewhere around this point ruclips.net/video/pl02eVNai5o/видео.html But here's another set of explanations of how attraction occurs in a fluid regime that I just found for you: studiousguy.com/bernoullis-principle-examples/

I just went over to gaede's channel and watched a video. OOF, that was cringe-worthy. He's criticizing aether theory while not understanding the most simple basics of waves.

I was asking him to comment on a view he was unfamiliar with and that view had to be explained. It's not my fault if attention spans have dropped precipitously. He had no problem with it because he's a scientist and used to the necessity of acquiring a lot of information to evaluate something complex. We still chat on a regular basis. If you have a problem with that, it's not his problem or my problem, is it?

So waves cant travel across a river that isn't a perfect laminar flow? There are many considerations of wave amplitude, frequency, and the relationship of the speed of vortical flows compared to the speed of wave transmission that have to be considered. You're massively over-simplifying. Aether does have to be extremely rigid, but that's an entirely different subject I can explain in great detail. There are things like permittivity and permeability that have to be related back to things like density and rigidity and one must consider the later developments of aether theory that turned the older ideas on thier head. There is no such thing as matter, as Poincare put it. There are only holes in the aether. A fully relativistic aether theory has a great deal of complex requirements and it's brain-dead to allow modern physics to have incredible complexity and not allow an alternative to have the same level of complexity.

Every large scale belief system is a religion really. So "godless humanism" as you call is a reference to mainstream culture as an entity, you're also referring to as the worship of moloch. Science has been twisted towards a sort of sciencism to uphold the interests in power like pharma giants. (just like some belief systems have been twisted as well) I know using religion as a pejorative makes it hard to have a word for real personal spiritual seeking that isn't hive-mindedness, but we really need to put a finger on religious behavior and separate it from a seeking of that which lies behind consciousness and existence. One is a group behavior (even inside one individual) and the other is an individual journey.

Very good points that I'm trying to address. It's not just some curiosity, but a path directly to superior engineering strategy and technological advancement. And though you are right that they were re-enunciated and took on a different form through mathematical rigor, there is also a slow deformation that occurred because math - and every other language - require a connective structure between representative language and what it represents. Thre is a mapping between the two that can become skewed. If that gets fouled, the whole thing starts going down the wrong path where we can no longer anticipate the outcome of certain configurations. It's like a "printf()" no longer doing what it used to. If you can't rely on your idea of what is happening in your code being what is physically really happening in reality, then you can no longer code properly. It can happen slowly though instead of a binary works/doesn't.

I think part of the problem is that some of the "practical" applications that could potentially arise will end up sounding like tinfoil hattery. UFO phenomenon for instance could be explained and potentially the technology behind them discovered in private, but the problem again becomes sociological. "Private tech company discovers secret to antigravity" will be met with extreme ridicule and a fleeing of investors, and that's assuming there's not an organized effort to police aether technology. Personally I think that does happen, but now I've committed a social faux pas, and your instinct is to distance yourself from my position. We've been socially engineered to self police regarding aether and the associated technology. Behavioral conditioning is the larger hurdle here, it's one big five monkey experiment.

@@delvish9622 I feel like this openness about UAP phenomena, however, means that the pentagon is ready to allow more free thinking and crowd-sourced development of advanced tech now. I have had the distinct impression from reading Chinese and Russian papers that they are way ahead of us in the understanding and theory behind aether and will soon apply it to technological advancement in the general public sphere (who knows about behind secrecy doors) and maybe the US has decided to stop lagging behind the rest of the world powers in technology.

@@SteamPunkPhysics I have a much dimmer view about that, but I sure hope you're right. There's pretty big implications that come with this acknowledgment of the UAP phenomenon, I don't even know where to begin. Nothing about it makes sense in a way that makes me hopeful regarding the future of our species, and the history of UFO mythology has some pretty ugly roots. Personally I think we can reasonably rule out the extraterrestrial hypothesis because both the theory which explains their operation and the history of their development can at least in part be traced historically right here on earth starting with Tesla. The social engineering and mythology side of the coin is vast. All of the new age stuff, abductions, ancient aliens, and alternative archeology threads are designed to weave a tapestry of lies that hijacks human history and culture to establish the subtle belief in a superior non-human pantheon of beings. The belief doesn't require one to buy-in fully, the idea is simply to create the construct in the mind of everyone, whether you truly believe it or not doesn't matter. It's the groundwork to lend legitimacy to the big reveal that I think is coming. The most ardent skeptic now still has the construct in place, they know there exists ideas about ancient alien visitation, they know there exists stories of abduction, etc. With that construct in place, all that it is needed is an event which constitutes "proof" to transform the skeptic into a true believer. Similarly although every sect of given ufology has elements that contradict others, the common threads are what people will hold onto in the face of "evidence" and indeed will become united when the gospel according to our "alien" overlords is given. All of the threads making up this deception have their roots in intelligence agencies, and Nazi occultism. The new age and archeological components have their history exposed by the work of Lynn Picknett, and at this point it's well established that a certain intelligence agency was not only a safe haven for, but also created by Nazis. The "good aliens" in this mythology happen to have the exact appearance of a Nazi geneticist's wet dream, and is something that could easily be achieved through the breeding of humans like dogs. The technology required is backed by sound theory, the mythology and social conditioning required to sell the illusion is firmly embedded in our cultural makeup, the motivation is historically evident. I sincerely hope I'm just a rambling lunatic. Regardless I don't see technology that will completely obliterate our global economy as something the government will encourage development in. Russia and China have a history of Marxist philosophy being taught which regardless of ones political proclivities, does at least take an antagonistic view towards reality being subjective and random as implied by special relativity and QM. It's not surprising there would be scientific pursuits counter to Western orthodoxy there. I just don't think they're ahead, quite possibly nearly a century behind.

@@delvish9622 I know people who move in high level political circles and I don't think they are lying to me when they tell me that China is ahead on AGI. I know that when I read their papers they certainly seem to have superior understanding of topics that are taboo to the academic orthodoxy here. I don't think you're a rambling lunatic but I do think you over-estimate human abilities to cooperate in large scale nefarious efforts. People at the highest levels are not a monolith. They have competing interests and ideas too. The problem is getting anything useful done at all with all the confusion caused by political leanings, personal agendas and the incessant in-fighting that occurs at every level. The Nazis could only do it because of things like the night of the long knives. Anyone of a different mind was murdered and not allowed near power. Our system as kept that level of unity from occurring. It requires an insane level of draconic practices to get everyone on the same page or incredible religious fervor.... or both. I'd like for you to read this article and think a bit about the possibility of unintentional cooperation created by incentives: qr.ae/pGxQRH Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (or personal self-interest, short-sightedness, and fear of trust)

Actually waves propagate slower in denser mediums and faster in rigid mediums. The wave speed is calculated via sqrt of bulk modulus over density. (rigidity over density) Who said that? Did I? I hope not. Got a time code? The whole point is that the density need not change if the bulk modulus is the parameter changing. It gets confusing in older aether theory because when pressure is increased in a gas, bulk modulus is increased, thus density and bulk mod go up at the same time. The ratio can change in the direction of greater speed or less speed depending on the gas. However, the aether cannot be atomic. For it to be workable in any way it must be a less known form of matter. In effect it really is dark matter but the concept of dark matter is placed at one end of the causal chain where aether in he Neoclassical system is at the other so they are radically different in some crucial ways.

@@SteamPunkPhysics you did not say density is responsible for greater wave speed . I thought that your hypothesis had the aether in space denser than the aether making up the atoms , because you thought the aether must be dense to propagate waves at light speed. It seems that is not the case , so why do you think aether in space is denser than the aether making up atoms ?

​@@m.c.4674 I've used some simplifications that are misleading at times because it's so hard to communicate something like this in shortened terms. Basically the properties we thing of as density and rigidity are significantly altered near atoms because of aether rotation speed. When I use bulk modulus, for instance, I have to think of terms of possibilities like sliding a puzzle at the Planck scale leading to that property that is really just an abstraction that could be called "reactivity" of the medium. Thinking in terms of what stress and strain actually are and how they are mediated at the planck scale are something that must be tested and eventually worked out but in the mean time some of the higher level abstractions are still useful. So in truth, wave speed is altered by rotation rates of the medium which are what are responsible for and underlying permittivity and permeability. The aether however is more dense and more rigid than the vacuum or absense of it. I would assume it is not as siple as density or rigidy alone being altered near atoms but at this point I have to speculate because not enough research is available, or it's impenetrable through a maze/haze of worthlessly disconnected and disjointed analogies found in modern particle physics. So, to try to answer more directly. The model of the atom in aethre physics is indeed rarification based in that it is literally a hole in he material, however if you were to spin any fluid to the point at which it begins to cavitate, there will be a complex mix of properties near and around that disturbance. I've merely been over-simplifying what must indeed be something much more complex when zooming in.

Wrong. Relativity, prior to Einstein (FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare) worked with anisotropic light speed that grants the illusion of constancy in a mechanical wave system. (as well as length contraction and dilation) It's relativistic aether which is mathematically equivalent to SR, but has absolute simultaneity. Minkowski's presumption of isotropic constancy over anisotropic constancy, is arbitrary metaphysics without experiment. Adding an another dimension to reality when 3 grants the same results violates parsimony and occam's razor. WITH NO ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL REASON TO DO SO. Your ignorance is the source of your inability to understand. Don't mistake your ignorance for something not making sense. It doesn't make sense to you because you are missing critical information that would allow you to understand. Marking it as "nonsense" disables your ability to investigate and correct your ignorance. If you don't know the history of relativity (and you obviously don't) mechanical wave constancy will make no sense to you as well. You're missing a gigantic swathe of information that isn't taught anymore and you've merely put your faith in your "betters." That is not always a venerable choice. "Well, you see, I don't really know. For me it's not something where I have a solution to sell! For me it's a dilemma. I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether - a preferred frame of reference - but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light. But then in other frames of reference when they seem to go not only faster than light but backwards in time, that is an optical illusion. - John S Bell, on the bell inequalities The Ghost in the Atom, P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown, ch.3, p.48-9"

@@SteamPunkPhysics No, it's because I do know the history of relativity that I called out your nonsense. It's 2022 mate, the world has moved on, thanks largely to Einstein, to bigger and better things.

@@kevconn441 Again, you prove your willful ignorance. You think you know and you don't. Albert Einstein wrote an entire speech ending with the line space without aether is unthinkable 5 years after general relativity and 15 years after special. Your wikipedia and youtube "research" sources are for children. I doubt you're capable of ever finding out you are wrong, but people with your level of absolute unwavering faith in pop-sci tropes, are not an audience that is useful to reach anyway. Go back to your comfortable ignorance and leave this place that requires diligence and humility. You have neither. Or, if you like we can continue this discussion and I'll continue to humiliate you with well referenced scientific and historical facts. Your choice.

​@@kevconn441 Yeah, sure, just double down on your skim of 2 Wikipedia articles (ignorance) and call it knowledge of history. This is RUclips after all who will know, right? It's not like everyone everywhere claims they know things because they can google and we're all used to this bullshit. Hey, you know, you could first claim you know history and then talk about how the world has moved on, like it's not a dead giveaway of a person who doesn't care about history. That would be a good idea, right? Or... hear me out here, because this is crazy. How about you stop acting like a child and admit you know absolutely nothing about the history of relativity? ...or the history of anything, honestly. You don't strike me as a "reader." If you had anything real to say you would have countered with actual details from history not this obvious bullshitting. Grow up pal.

@@SteamPunkPhysics Nothing new to counter. Crackpots have been spinning your bs for decades. Meanwhile science has carried on.