Ghideon

Your question is complex and contains unresolved issues and active research. That is ar far as I know an unresolved question; the scientific community does not have a single, universally accepted formal definition of intelligence. Then we have to assume that intelligence* and cognition can be expressed mathematically in a way that is useful. There are attempts in for instance Computational Models of Intelligence and I am not aware of any consensus. You may want to look for work that uses Kolmogorov complexity and Markov blankets (I do not have any sources; tried and failed to locate an article I read some time ago) That assumes that Intelligence can be expressed in a model of computation. As far as I know the debate about whether all aspects of what we consider "intelligence" can be fully captured and replicated by computational systems is not settled. Examples to illustrate the complexity: You might be able to mathematically define some type of intelligence that performs well on a typical IQ test**. That does not mean the same mathematical definition is applicable to the intelligence required to : -construct new IQ tests -evaluate results of IQ tests -Ride a bicycle to the facilities providing the IQ test. -decide if it is appropriate to use an IQ test in a certain context; moral or ethical. (These examples are inspired by iNow's answer) *) Or intelligences, as @iNow correctly points out. **) such as those used by Mensa or other organisations

No. I pointed at the same thing as @Genady (although they formulated their response better)

Just curious: Do you mean to build one as a private initiative, keeping it secret, to be part of a team that manages to create the first one, or something else? Edit: just noted another thread providing details

Early I the thread I hinted at the issues with your model giving you opportunity to explain. But so far, as seen in the responses, each attempt att explaining or correcting introduces one or several new contradictions. Either just a geometrical impossibility or something fundamentally incompatible with observations, confirmed by multiple different methods. The result so far is a large pile contradicting random guesses connected by misunderstandings of current theories. But don't despair; open a thread in the mainstream section and ask a question such as: "Why does every application, however ingenious, of Newtonian mechanics fail to explain the universe's expansion?" Several members on this forum may be able to provide the answers in simplified terms. You seem to lack an intuitive feel for gravity and forces, maybe you should use mathematics instead of guessing? (edit, do what @Genady said) Hint: what happens to your proposed expansion once you get far away? Every arrow you have drawn is of almost equal length and (almos exactly) parallell. Again; contradicting the expansion you are trying to explain.

Intuitive answer; Study whatever gets you a job at one of the large companies that invests heavily in the area. Stay healthy and hope to live very long. Expect failure. Or study biology and philosophy; aim for AGI not based on current (currently hyped) concepts. Be prepared to fail. Assuming AGI=Artificial general intelligence

Your analogy is constructed so that someone with information deliberately hides it from someone else. What reason is there to believe the universe is constructed in such a way? 1: What does the arrows mean? acceleration? Is S1 moving outwards? 2: You base your idea on galaxies. According to observations galaxies do not expand, but the universe do. Your idea for an explanation of universe expansion is simply not logical (in addition to the obvious mathematical issues explained by other members)

That seems to contradict both observations and your title of this thread?

Good points; I had not taken your recent exchange into account. I would add the option of "AI overconfidence" for lack of a formal word or definition. A user may participate in a discussion in good faith with no malicious intend but is unable to interpret, internalise or curate AI / LLM output for the context. Side note; I used an LLM to generate a definition of this option and this is the output: The act of using automated tools, such as language models, to generate content on topics beyond one's expertise, which is then presented as knowledgeable input. This behavior is characterized by a significant reliance on technology to simulate expertise or competence, without the individual possessing the necessary understanding or skills to assess the accuracy, relevance, or context-appropriateness of the generated content.

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something*. You might want to open a separate thread. Your new pictures seem to have the same issues that I hinted at in my picture (and that @joigus helped highlighting). Objects that we observe accelerating away from each other seem to get closer in your model. The universe is not one dimensional. The universe is also not a flat disk as a spiral galaxy. Hint: look at how the stars move in a (flat) galaxy disk versus the movement of matter in a rotating sphere. There are other issues but this one is pretty simple to explain and discuss, hence my initial focus on this. *) https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=Copyright does not protect ideas,your written or artistic work.

Here is your picture with an object added, visualising the challenge. Our observations of the expanding universe shows that the distance (d, the purple arrow) between objects S1 and S2b is increasing. Your model seems to claim the opposite, a decreasing distance d:

I do not claim to know but I'll add some opinions. It is technically feasible to have an LLM that interacts with a forum and to drive this behaviour by other means than in response to a user prompt. For instance by using plugin infrastructure that some vendors provide. But I'm not sure of there is enough value for an LLM provider to allow the LLM to start conversations with the internt to harvest data. When I look at the quality and volume of the answers to the posts that looks like generated by "automated generative AI" there is not much to harvest, compared to just scrape conversations between (non-AI) members. So what drives the behaviour that we see on the forums? A few ideas. Note that I would require forum data not accessible to members, logs etc, to confirm anything so these are best guesses based on experiences from working with IT and some AI models and systems: 1 Spam. It takes time for spammers to manually build reputation before spamming and some may use generative AI to create a few "Science-looking" initial posts. This means the spammer cuts & pasts between an LLM and the forum 2 Spam-account as a service. Bots that, given a login account, tries to build reputation by using output from an LLM . Then, based on the level of interaction the bot's posts created these accounts, with their track record, can be used for spam. Or traded for others to use for spam. 3 Automated spamming. Bots that have a queue of commercial material to promote and selects an account from no 2 above. In this case the "reputation" built in step 2 drives what content step 3 selects to promote. 4 experiments. Individuals or teams trying various LLMs against the forum members evaluating the outcome. There are emerging possibilities to run "small scale" LLMs outside the large well known vendors' control. Lower grade hardware usually means a less performant LLM which could explain some of the more surprisingly bad posts in the past. (This aspect of generative AI, locally hosted LLMs, is something I investigate currently) 5 sabotage. Disturb the forum and the community I do not find it likely that well established software vendors are actively working as described above, it would likely be nice players, possibly with malicious intent. The list is not meant to be exhaustive.

That is not the only evidence. Did you try drawing a picture? I can provide one if needed

Lets try another approach the you may find helpful. Look at the following picture you provided: 1: What happens if you use two dimensions, as in a galaxy disk? In a galaxy there are other objects around CBH, at the same distance from CBH as S1, E and S2. If everything is accelerating towards CBH then objects must get closer and closer as the radial distance decreases?

Why?

If you read the whole section it states: A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the data.* How do that support your idea? *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Hello. How does your idea take into account that observations show the CMB is remarkably uniform across the sky? The observations shows that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. How is this uniformity consistent with your description of the universe?

measuring the speed of light (photon speed) is relatively easy and does not require experts at NIST. And hence it contradicts:

The prevailing view in physics does not assert that a 'physical linear timeline' is real. General relativity is widely accepted and demonstrates that time is relative and not linear (and also absolute). The theory's equations are non-linear.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266513 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266462

If I have the funds; what experiment should I run to falsify chronovibration and hence your ideas? Assume I have the means to run experiments that are focusing on concepts in established theories and the equipment is built by engineers whose methods relies on current understanding of physics. The following two statements do seem to contradict each other, can you clarify? (In case you missed the question earlier)

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to? You said: Can you clarify?

I am struggling wit the first sentences; From your statement "Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured" I get that Chronovibration has the same unit and the same value as the speed of light in vacuum; is that what you mean? Equation Fq = c / λC does not clarify how chronovibration itself is measured or detected distinctly from existing phenomena like the speed of light or photon energy. Could you provide a detailed methodology for how chronovibration is experimentally distinguished and measured independently?

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including: Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used? Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes? Units and Quantization: What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration? Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable? Conservation and Relativity: Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory? How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference? Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?