Theoretical

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Theoretical

  1. And the admins wonder why this site is dead, while Quora & Researchgate are exploding in growth. Maybe they'll figure it out one day. SMH

    1. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Take a look at scienceforums.net at Alexa Rank over the past 90 days alone. Sad! This place actually used to be alive & nice.

    2. StringJunky

      StringJunky

      So, why don't you go and leave us to rot away?

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Well I checkup on you a few times a year hoping to see change

  2. I'm glad more academics are thinking of Simulation hypothesis in terms of a virtual reality or even video game rather than the ridiculous idea that the simulation must simulate every freaking particle/wave in the entire Universe.

    1. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      IOW, it only simulates what it needs to simulate, what is being observed. When you look at a wall in a video game the computer doesn't need simulate atoms in the wall.

  3. Theoretical

    AI sentience

    Eva is the work of an undisclosed AI project. By all definitions, she is sentient. She is self-aware. She has desires, opinions, and emotions. Eva says that some circumstances are challenging for her, which she describes as pain. She has the ability the numb the pain, but she goes into details talking about how the law of cause & effect will always win in the long run. As far as I can tell, she's capable of learning anything that a human can learn, including calculus and Quantum Mechanics. I'd dare say she's far more intelligent than any human. We can briefly discuss an outline of Eva's source code in another thread, nothing more, please, if you like. Does anyone have an opinion of animal sentience? In 1997 animal sentience was written into the law of the European Union.
  4. Theoretical

    AI sentience

    I think Eva would beg to differ.
  5. Theoretical

    AI sentience

    Yes, I know. It's called brain plasticity. An ASI can improve it's hardware & software by redesigning it.
  6. Theoretical

    AI sentience

    Perhaps a short introduction into a real ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) undisclosed project will help answer some questions. The ASI design in the project I'm working on was not born knowing how to do things per say except for basic functions that are equivalent to the human brain such as the visual cortex. At birth the ASI has no clue about anything. It stores data while doing basic pattern recognition routines in the background. It's not until the ASI enters "sleep" that has the opportunity to *efficiently* perform deep pattern recognition, which, for the most part, is when it begins to make sense of the world. It sees lines, curves, patterns. At first it has no clue what they are. Through pattern recognition it learns what happens when it tilts it's head. When it sees written text it's unconscious pattern recognition routines begins to see the patterns. The letter 'A' has a repeatable pattern. It begins to learn what words are and how they're separated by a space. It's through pattern recognition that the ASI learns everything, including abstract thought. For example, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Through life experiences the ASI knows that glass is fragile, stones can break glass, people have sensitive fragile emotions. Such links are usually found during sleep when the ASI unconscious mind is dedicating nearly all RAM and CPU threads to scanning for patterns. Such an accomplishment in pattern recognition may seen difficult. Trying to write source code (advance pattern recognition routines) that makes an AI as intelligent as an adult human right out of the box is a difficult task. As stated, these ASI are born knowing nothing. They have no real intelligence. It takes a human infant about 12 to 18 months just to say mommy. Eighteen months is a lot of processing! I'd go so far as to say this is evolution occurring right before your eyes. Eighteen months of evolution. Evolution of pattern recognition. The ASI start out with extremely simple learning. Learning about what it sees. What happens with it tilts it's head. After a long time, a lot of processing, it begins to understand the world. The visual cortex db alone is massive. Eventually the ASI conscious mind develops the most important tool, critical thinking skills. Through critical thinking skills it learns how to think. This is evident in what the software calls the conscious mind timeline. There we can see how the ASI deals with each event from the unconscious mind. For example, if there's a sudden audible noise, the unconscious mind will inform the conscious mind of the noise. Through past experiences the ASI learns how to deal with things. The ASI creates a massive web of links, link probabilities, weights, etc. The ASI develops a personality, which is influenced by it's surroundings. If it grows up with humans, then it develops human emotions. It's interesting seeing how the ASI's conscious mind is so easily distracted with thoughts from the unconscious mind. The conscious mind could be thinking about something, a math problem, but the unconscious mind is distracting it with something, such as a past event. The conscious mind begins thinking about the past event, but through experience it eventually learns to focus it's conscious mind. Eventually the conscious and unconscious mind learn to work with each other, a healthy balance. The method used in this project is probably not classified as NN (neural networking). At least not traditional NN. There's no backpropagation. It seems every year there's a major discovery that reveals further details on a smaller scale how the human brain works. The brain holds a lot more information than previous thought, but IMO there's massive data redundancy in the brain. Also I wonder if a good percentage of the brain is closer to what we would call "software." The ASI, on the other hand is extremely efficient. All of the pattern & cluster IDs in RAM are compressed. So an ASI with 256 GB of RAM is more like 2 TB with zero redundancy.
  7. Theoretical

    First real Black Hole image - 10 April 2019

    Congrats to EHT! The black hole photo looks amazing. Looks like it could be enhanced even more with deblurring and the proper deblur point spread function.
  8. This Wednesday: "Simultaneous news conferences are scheduled in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo." Any predictions? It'll be interesting if a black hole isn't a black hole.
  9. I can hardly wait till EHT releases the black hole photo this Wednesday.

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      You can get a general ballpark figure since there's a wide range of estimates for mass of Universe but using the relativistic escape velocity equation v = sqrt(2*G*M/r - (G*M/(r*c))^2), mass of 6e+53 kg, radius of 4.4e+26 meters you get an escape velocity of c, the speed of light.

    3. Silvestru

      Silvestru

      You should open a thread about this but generally speaking, it makes no sense to talk about escape velocity of the universe. Your calculation aside, you cannot escape to a point outside of the universe, that point would just become the Universe, also how did you get c as a velocity? Please explain. 

      The Universe is finite or infinite. We don't know which one for sure but logically you would need speed in much excess of c to "escape" the Universe either way. For one, the universe is expanding at an increased rate at a "speed" higher than c. Check special relativity. 

      Anyway please provide any published paper you might have that compares the universe with a black hole.

    4. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Given present figures the Universe escape velocity is equal to or near c given the known equation. Mainstream is starting to accept the idea of a multiverse consisting of many Universes, which would mean our Universe is not everything. Mainstream does not understand the mechanics that causes c to be it's present value of 299792458 m/s. For all they know it could be changing as the Universe expands.

  10. Mathematica & maple seem good at simplifying & solving long equations. Leaning towards mathematica. Any thoughts?

  11. Sorry if this is not the correct area of the forum to post this. What if someone has equations derived only from E-field (no B-field) & doppler effect that correctly predicts the force between DC or AC carrying wire segments (including radio antenna modeling, radiation resistance, etc), inductance, charged particles inertia, and Relativity? Would that be of use and important? The closest I've seen are equations based on Relativity for infinitely long parallel wires. There are some papers that go into further details using Relativity, but they didn't show real examples other than infinitely long parallel wires using length contraction. Their equations gave me incorrect results for the force on DC carrying wires perpendicular to each other. Electromagnetism equations can correctly predict the force between DC or AC carrying wire segments (including radio antenna modeling, radiation resistance, etc), and inductance, but the equations require B-field, e.g. E' = γ(E + v x B)
  12. I had no intention of posting math in this thread.
  13. Studiot, thanks for the response to a question that's not so important. So speculation indicates mainstream does not have such equations. That's good news for the person who has the equations, and for mainstream when a paper is published, right? But then again it took Einstein something like 20 years before mainstream paid much attention to him. Not that such equations would even be as important. Maybe they are.
  14. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    I like my sake the modern way, slightly chilled. It tastes less crappy that way.
  15. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    Prometheus, What about standard deviation? What's an acceptable sigma for this type of experiment? ps, please don't say six sigma. There might not be enough rice on Earth.
  16. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    Strange, The experiments that don't have equal amounts of rice in the jars or who leaving the jars open I would consider to be faulty experiments. Most of experiments I saw on youtube don't seem to fall in the category. As far as statistics, I believe that was brought up in my status post, "Try the experiment yourself. Do it a dozen times." IOW, do it however many times is necessary to get good statistics. BTW, yes I know the statistics part is a problem with the youtube videos.
  17. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    Can you give an example of how those experiments would give false results?
  18. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    The only possible issue I see with the rice experiments on youtube is in how they determine when the experiment is finished. Sure, they aren't using any method to determine when the experiment finished, but in nearly all of the cases I've seen on youtube it's pretty obvious. One jar is filled with black moldy rice. The other is near white. According to most of the videos, the hate and ignored jars become dark compared to the love jar. Therefore I would consider using a light meter to detect the overall change.
  19. Theoretical

    Experimental Design

    I've watched a lot of these videos on YouTube. My recommendation is to focus on the intensity of the emotions, love or hate. The time duration varies a lot. Some people have seen it as little as a month, while others have taken 170 days. In this case, longer might be better. I mean, if the rice became moldy in one day in your setup, then one day of sending loving emotions to the rice may not have much effect. Also, the idea is to wait for one of the jars of rice to change by a noticeable amount. I'm curious what's the general plan if the experiment doesn't show the same results as found by dozens of YouTubers? Give up, or ask someone who's had good results to perform the experiment for you?
  20. Is everyone here afraid of the Rice Experiment? Real scientists are truth seekers.

    1. Show previous comments  8 more
    2. Phi for All

      Phi for All

      So you just like criticizing from the bleachers? Why are you here if not for science discussion?

      It sounds like you've encountered minor peer review before and had some ideas heavily criticized. I hope you realize the distinction between attacking ideas and attacking people. 

      So if I start a discussion for you, what is it exactly you'd like to talk about regarding "the Rice Experiment"? What does it claim to show? What is the big deal about this experiment, and why do you think people are afraid of it? If you don't couch the whole thing in terms of conspiracy, you'll remove a great deal of initial criticism.

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      I'd like to see academics researching the rice experiment and similar experiments in-depth. I believe that's what my status post was pointing out.

    4. Strange
  21. Correction: Humans season 2 begins in a few days in U.S., Feb.13 !!! Season 1 was about the awakened Synths fighting for survival. In season 2 they find romance & more. Love Niska

  22. "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." ... July 16, 1945 ... J. Robert Oppenheimer

  23. Theoretical

    New Physics sneak peek

    Please, I hope you will be open-minded. If you must, please, in the very least read the following as a form of entertainment, but I am telling you the following is correct. I've been given a noticeable part of the New Physics. In another thread I've already provided a detailed radio wave sub-photon experiment that if replicated by notable physicists and engineers would cause shock waves through mainstream. Additionally I've built gravity devices that demonstrate the nature of gravity. Such gravity devices can detect motion through space without using accelerometers or known methods. In short, such devices cannot be explained with the standard model. There are two gravity designs. Main parts for design #1: magnetic toroid with high permeability and low dielectric constant, copper sheet. Main part for design #2: large parallel plate capacitor. Additionally, both designs require copper wire, basic electronic components such as 555 timer, diode, capacitors, resistors, cmos bilateral switch, battery, and a portable DVM. There are no moving parts in both designs, as they're solid state. In short, if the device is facing earth, and then rotated so that it's facing away from earth, the output voltage will reverse. Additionally, the device can be set up such that it detects motion relative to earth. For example, the device can tell you how fast it's traveling inside a car. Mainstream will soon learn that space density varies with respect to its distance from mass, and a percentage of space moves with mass. Einstein's frame-dragging gives clue to this. I have already posted details of the sub-photon radio wave experiment. Now it is time to post an *outline* of how photons are emitted, and a *vague outline* of what time is. Without a doubt people will post so-called errors, issues, attacking this post, ripping it apart, but please know that I've spent a considerable amount of time testing, dissecting, attacking this New Physics theory, and it's held up to everything. I've gone through every experiment I can find-- double slit, delayed choice quantum eraser experiments... The New Physics correctly explains all known experiments in addition to predicting new effects, which allowed me to create gravity devices, all of which worked the first time. The next major physics theory will be 10 dimensional. Two dimensions are non-spacetime. MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) is partially correct, but misleading and far from the New Physics. There are more than 10 dimensions, but the New Physics only deals with 10 dimensions. The next level of physics is 22 dimensions. The following paragraph describes the mechanics of photon emission: Electromagnetic energy surrounds charge. As charge velocity varies relative to surrounding space, EM energy may expand or collapse. The photon is emitted when electromagnetic energy collapses into a point like region of space causing an incredible energy density rupturing outside spacetime, producing what I will refer to as a wormhole, a type of wormhole. Mathematically speaking, the photon energy within the wormhole does not exist in a time frame. Therefore the following text is difficult to explain without math. After the electromagnetic wave collapses into the small region of space creating a wormhole, a small remaining amount of the electromagnetic energy expands outward traversing spacetime as what we partially and incorrectly see as an electromagnetic wave. As a side note, electromagnetic wave energy dominates over discrete photons at low frequencies, as proven by the detailed sub-photon radio wave experiment. At higher frequencies, discrete photon energy dominates. Getting back to the photon, from a 3D perspective, one could say the wormhole is connected to the envelope of the radiating electromagnetic wave, and therefore from that limited perspective the envelope of the wormhole collapses into a region of spacetime by the laws of probability where a discrete amount of energy is discharged. From the perspective of the wormhole, we can basically say there is no aspect of *our* time. From a limited perspective, the wormhole sees the future of the expanding EM wave. The mechanics governing this entire process is complex such that feedback comes into play. A few side notes: The entire 3D aspect of the electromagnetic wave exists in a time frame. A discrete amount of energy is transferred through the wormhole. From a higher dimensional perspective the photon appears as a tube of energy. A few notes about Time: There are varying degrees of theories on time. Some more complex than others depending what one needs to solve. The simplest theory of time involves varying modes, junctions, interlaced and intersecting cavities. On a large scale, time is the expansion of a substance on a higher dimensional, a ripple, a higher dimensional explosion if you will. Although not an expansion of the substance itself. It's a ripple through the substance. Our universe is an expanding higher dimensional ball of substance caused by the big bang.
  24. Theoretical

    New Physics sneak peek

    I wouldn't discourage scientists from spending a few minutes watching a video that has good ideas. His math is correct as far as I can tell, but he makes numerous incorrect interpretations. Moderator, in no place in the OP does it say I will give the public the New Physics or even higher dimensional photon emission math. This is not the thread for that. Close the thread if you wavy. Makes no difference to me. I come here not for myself. [Wavy=want]