swansont

But the patterns are tied to physical processes; as MigL noted, it’s rooted in causality. Finding the pattern can possibly lead to seeing what the underlying physical process is. Numerology has no such connection - it’s assigning meaning based on superstition or belief. Horoscopes based on numerical values.

The movie was history-based fiction, not a documentary. There are accounts of the concern that are easily found - basically someone asked if it could trigger a nitrogen fusion chain reaction, and then others did the physics, and answered, “no” Where is the technical analysis? How about posting what CERN actually said, and not giving any credence to the crackpot conspiracy claims? But it is gibberish. It’s lacking in technical rigor, which you basically acknowledge when you remind us that you’re not a physicist.

I disagree about the wide margin part, but that might be a matter of expectations. It certainly seem to me that a lot of the hype is coming from the tech companies that have a stake in the success of AI, so it includes the financial backers and the companies who have incorporated it into their products.

No. I think it’s being forced into a lot of places by management, despite resistance by people compelled to use it. I think the marketing campaign is desperate, as is any campaign that relies on stoking fear (“you’ll be left behind”). As exchemist said, it’s being hyped.

“Requires appropriate usage” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, since there are no protocols to ensure that, and the tech companies are going out of their way to try and push the tech on everyone

Quantum mechanics deals with probabilities; if you were familiar with it, not having 100% certainty would be utterly unsurprising.

I think they are glossing over the nature of the “theories” that are being cited. I can imagine there being some conjecture out there that predict that certain outcomes are possible (though perhaps still unlikely), and these got amplified, but the fact that naturally-occurring events haven’t precipitated these outcomes is ignored.

Explain what you mean by secure.

You forgot the illuminati and the freemasons. But you can't even cite the right conspiracies; the so-called deep state doesn’t control the president, they are the minions that carry out the woke agenda of the democrats.

These two statements have a significant disconnect, which is is at the heart of the problem

All forces are two-way processes. If A is exerting a force on B, B must exert the same force on A, in the opposite direction If your masses are point particles, you will only have a gravitational force acting in one dimension. (if they aren’t, but they are spherically symmetric, it will act the same as if they are point masses)

How do you know there is a mismatch, if you’re asking a question to which you don’t know the answer?

I think it’s a mistake to put the blame on the user, for a product marketed to the masses. It’s like selling cars and letting just anyone drive.

Nobody rules the waves

Moderator NoteAn engineer should know how to do math and use equations This is closed. Don’t bring the topic up again.

You haven’t explained your equations or use them in examples. Why shouldn’t this thread be permanently closed?

ST:TNG Darmok (S5E2)

That’s like going to a foreign country and refusing to speak their language. And “reasoned ontology” does not dictate physics. Science has to be compared to experiment/observation, so it must make testable predictions. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. If it can’t be compared, even in principle, it’s not science.

There is no t<0 physics. “alpha physics” is also, AFAICT, not a thing, but that could be because you’re not using standard terminology (so it is, quite literally, gibberish, though that does not mean it is meaningless) You have to communicate more clearly. Being supporting does not mean being credulous.

Moderator NoteWe keep running into this same issue. You need to cite the source of the claims you post, so that it can be checked for context and credibility

Being met with skepticism is not any indication that your material has validity. “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ―Carl Sagan,

“some of the 12,000 images are nearly identical to each other or even the same file just in a different size. Some aren’t even that impressive; blurry or overexposed. But there are also some unseen gems in there. PetaPixel has picked out some of the best ones.” https://petapixel.com/2026/05/04/nasa-releases-thousands-of-unseen-artemis-ii-photos/

It’s very apparent that what you're discussing is philosophy, so I’m not sure why you expect engagement from physicists

One issue with LLMs, though, is that the training data includes untrustworthy material, and the algorithm can’t filter it out.

What we consider speculation is more than this, which is a fishing expedition, a guess. We expect you to have worked out the connection, rather than muse that there might be one.