[Shiva]

Hmm, I should quickly clarify that I mean later Kelvin after his 1889 justification of rotational elasticity, not the earlier Kelvin still struggling with the untenable “jelly” of a typical elastic medium.

[Shiva]

Look, I don’t want to have a pissing contest but we can if you want.
You’re the one who started with the passive-aggressive insult “Not jest hand-waving” so now we’re doing this.

If you’re going to make a claim BE SPECIFIC. Isn’t that the problem you’re starting out lampshading? Specificity? So don’t give me just a name. If you know an actual paper I can address, spit it out. Don’t just mention a random name and “rigid” as though the use of the word somewhere by someone invalidates my claim.

THAT is “handwaving.”

“You seem to be following one of Saul Alinsky’s (“rules for Radicals”) methods: first redefine the proposition to something false, then argue against your redefinition.”

That’s called a straw man. Everyone knows that term. Use it. State specifically what I’ve redefined improperly, not that I’ve simply done it somewhere somehow. BE SPECIFIC

“As I see your video, add little.”

This isn’t even a sentence yet the insult is -again- somehow clear through the haze of your poor communication skill. It’s an edutainment video meant for laymen. My papers can be found by googling my name. (Shiva Meucci) I’m the only one in the world, so it’s easy. I have three publications in Cosmos and History. If you want to talk about specifics then criticize those in particular.

Finally, addressing the informal statement made in that edutainment video, -which isn’t even really important or relevant to my overarching understanding of physics- specifically the one paper cited to discredit compton scatter (I think there’s literally only one) is about imaging at close range. The author doesn’t understand optics well enough to grasp the cause of blur. (and apparently neither do you?)

Specifically, light which is coming in at various angles causes blur, however, light from distant stars is ultra-collimated. Any given beam of light which is deviant in angle over light years of travel would miss the earth entirely. Thus any scatter events that would cause blur, would instead create a background of lower frequency light where plasma has caused scatter events that redirected that light, from the location of the scatter event in free space toward our planet. (Much like the CMB) Think about this collimation fact and stellar aberration goes back to being proof for aether like it initially was, but I digress.

Again, let me re-iterate. I don’t particularly care one way or another, but the perfect relationship between distance and redshift is much more naturally explained as compton scatter. For that matter so is the CMB instead of some echo from an event 14 billion years ago having useful information about that event. That and the great gouts of plasma every star throws out that obviously are part of the interstellar medium and should be accounted for over unfathomable trillions of miles of -well established to be non-empty- space.

It’s a hypothesis and “blur” is an ignorant criticism without good grounding in optics. But it’s just a hypothesis I care very little to defend or pursue because there are bigger fish to fry.

So now can we move away from actual handwaving and get to specific criticisms?

First and foremost do you understand and agree that “reason” is a good label for what places human intellect above computers? Do you agree and understand computers are stupid? Do you agree and understand that computers can calculate and regurgitate better than humans? …yet they are dumb. Their intellect is inferior. That type of intellect is inferior.

Do you agree and understand that the map is not the territory and that the connection between the symbolic language (math) and what it symbolizes (physical reality) must be checked? Do you agree and understand that performing this task IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH MATH ITSELF ALONE?

IE: Do you agree and understand that some mentally handicapped people (autistic savants who are less autistic and less savant than some extremes) call critical reasoning “hand-waving” because of the nature of their mental handicap and this is the problem of shut-up-and-calculate? …that it reduces human intellect to calculator intellect and holds the full mental set of abilities of Kim Peek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) above the full mental set of an average intelligence person. IE: that it doesn’t consider disability that comes with ability.

If you do, then we can continue. If you don’t then you’ve identified yourself as one of those people and therefore, not capable of a useful discussion.

These are just important filters for this community of dissenters to understand what is worth discussing and who is capable of understanding discussion. The opposition to science’s progress who uphold orthodoxy is a band of semi-robots who are literally mentally handicapped. It is not the information of the belief but the form and method of belief that is the problem. It is a mentality that stands in the way, not information. It is a mind type that is the problem.

I program robots. I don’t argue with them.

If you’re saying this is straw-manning; it’s not. It’s “changing the subject to give my opponents an upgraded “Turing test” before trying to continue forward into an exercise in futility.

I give this Turing test to anyone who utters the words “hand-waving” because it generally indicates a handicapped intellect which I spent the past decade in neuroscience to identify and avoid.

I will not tolerate insults to superior intellectual pursuits one moment further. That’s what “hand-waving” as a term is. It’s an insult you used to place yourself above me right off the bat. So now I must clarify the facts of what is mentally superior and what is inferior because you decided to use that term to disparage me at the start.

Sorry if that’s too straight forward. Time is short and I no longer use the tactics of the past 100+ years of failure to correct science. I take problems head on now and address them without trappings that have strangled progress.

Regards,

– Shiva

[Shiva]

Hi guys, one of the primary things plaguing the natural philosophy community for the past 200 years is a mistake that Fresnel made and we’ve repeated ever since. It’s the single source of all confounds including what led to the abandonment of aether.

That specific mistake is detailed in my paper https://www.academia.edu/65259673/Introduction_to_the_Neoclassical_Interpretation_Quantum_Steampunk (published in Cosmos and History)

In short, there’s two ways to think of the aether and wave speed. One is through the lens of density and the other through the lens of rigidity.

Fresnel could have chosen to postulate:
A) That matter has more dense aether in and between particles
B) That matter causes aether to be less rigid in proximity to it.

The results of the calculation of wave speed is precisely the same but he chose A. The answer that clears up ten thousand little conceptual problems, however, is B. So the end result is the same but the worldview is inside out of the one most people in natural philosophy adhere to. In this new perspective, our view of reality is inside out such hat the aether is the “solid/real” and that matter is the ephemeral.

The change from 200 years ago leads to a complete reinterpretation of all physics developments and the revolution we have all been waiting for.

I’ve been working primarily in solitude for the past 20 years but I’d like to start bringing others in on my project. Some of you older folks probably remember anti-relativity.com While it’s mostly abandoned, that is my website.

I’m going to start a fresh thread to introduce myself.

[Shiva]

I did a quick review of some of your videos and see that you separate out various aether concepts into lattice theories and aether theories. This is not a categorization I would use whatsoever since both were present in the 19th century and both were called aether.

What is critical is that aether posits something present in vacuum that is a mechanical wave medium and field theories posit waves without medium, the first major magical idea that crept into science.

I can’t find what your father posited as the idea of a particle but I can tell you I’ve been working on rotation based models of gravity for more than a decade and posited a cavitation particle for almost as long.

Here’s one of my first explanations of vortex atoms explained in video form in 2012:

You mention the underwater experiments where spin relates to attraction and repulsion. Here’s me explaining that in 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLikwZRk1Y

Here’s me explaining my concept of the cavitation particle to a group of scientists and DoD contractors at Berkeley in 2016: (though I had developed it years earlier and explained it in a variety of places online)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLikwZRk1Y

I think you’ll also enjoy my war on orthodoxy I’ve been carrying out for ~15-20 years: https://qr.ae/pGEiah

[Shiva]

That’s quite true of any theory and physics theoretical physics in particular. Right now the vacuum energy catastrophe gives difference between theory and experiment that is larger (120th power) in size than the difference between one atom and all atoms in the universe (~80th power IIRC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

So, can you be specific? Aether theory was disrupted in the prime of its development by political nonsense so just saying “aether theory” is a little silly really. (though I use the simplification myself)

…also what is your preferred worldviews? Mainstream or non?

If mainstream, which interpretation of quantum physics? I need to now what level of critical thinking you use and the borders of it. Some people agree perfectly with their most favored group, others believe everything that seems contrarian and cool. By what mechanism do you find truth and in what way do you use social truth and social proof.

[Shiva]

As far as I know, no one has mentioned B in the past 200 years so perhaps you’re thinking of something else? If, however, you believe someone other than me has suggested this then please link me to a paper. Thanks!

Please do not neglect to do this. It’s very important.

Additionally, if you think the phrase “hand waving” is broadly applicable or valid criticism of metamathematics, Please provide a mathematical only representation of what is wrong with this riddle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_riddle

The beginning of this video explains it as the “Theory of the Quantum Dollar:” https://youtu.be/pl02eVNai5o

Use no words, only math to describe what is wrong with the theory, or I will declare it “hand-waving.” Hopefully in the attempt you’ll recognize it is impossible.

Hopefully you are familiar with Goedel incompleteness, Tarski’s indefinability, and how these concepts point out that there is a disconnect between the map and the territory. (between representative language and what it represents) which requires implied reference to an exterior system. (reason)

This is UTTERLY CRITICAL to the advancement of physics because mathematical equivalence is the nature of the problem. Most crucially with respect to Lorentz-Poincare ether being equivalent to special relativity.

Appeals to mathematical superiority alone are relic of a bygone era and those of us who are programmers who have worked on AI (like me) know that a computer can calculate faster and more accurately and regurgitate things better than any human and computers are not smart, they are stupid. Intellect is found in reason, not calculation or memorization.

Unfortunately a generation of people revered autistic savant abilities without recognizing the cognitive deficits autism brings. Modern AI developers are directly aware of the problem. The term “hand waving” denigrates the process of reason that is superior to computer intellect. It’s the ONLY thing that makes a human mind superior to a computer.

I’m not saying that we do not eventually need to prove out concepts through modeling in mathematics and eventually experiment, but there is a cart before the horse is the typical claims of “hand-waving” that reduces human intellect to computer intellect. Math doesn’t falsify. Reason+experiment does.