4 ms·

> First, let us assume that the speed of light is not infinite, but rather, finite. If this were the case, such finite behaviour within the aether of this reali

> First, let us assume that the speed of light is not infinite, but rather, finite. If this were the case, such finite behaviour within the aether of this reality would speak to that of a fractal-based form of entropy, giving birth to “ripples” of which energy can only move to the next “ripple” by returning back to its zero point - because if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be able to get out of its own “ripple” loop - of which would need to be finite by definition of its structure, parameters, and probability distribution Is it me, or is the quoted text just technobabble? Edit: read the rest... it's "Ancient cities are circuits!!!11" This is essentially nonsense.

keepamovin 3y ago
How do you even find a submissions that's like 11 hours old and 3 points and didn't show up anywhere. It's weird: sort of like I was in a bar and having a conversation, and then 3 hours later as I'm about to leave, waiting outside for my ride, some guy comes out and says: "Hey I overheard what you said in there 3 hours ago." Hahaha. I always wonder where these people come from on to my tiny posts on here. I didn't know I had followers! Haha :) It certainly has the ring of crankery I think, but I don't think it is, necessarily. Think about what some great revolutionary scientists must have sounded like in their day to others, surely there were some who were exploring things from a way that just sounded so wrong...but turned out it wasn't. Or think about Penrose and his microtubules and consciousness explorations. No one would say he's a quack physicist...but talk like this surely sounds that way to some. What I did when I read this was made it pass the ChatGPT sniff test. I'll share it for you here so you can see: https://chat.openai.com/share/ddb22cf9-dc6b-4d10-96b0-e90ca355f350 https://chat.openai.com/share/ddb22cf9-dc6b-4d10-96b0-e90ca3... ChatGPT doesn't dismiss it, and in fact there are things that are certainly connected, although they are not rigorously related in this piece. But why expect that in a popsci blog. Conceivably it's the writing of someone who does know. Or perhaps not. My point is we have to be careful with these kind of labels, especially things like "nonsense". Don't you think that's kind of arrogant? A more accurate label would be "I don't understand this" tho that's often hard to admit, but very useful! Start where you are, n all that! :) <-- this smile is not condescending or mocking but friendly...sorry hard to relate online! It's meant to indicate a friendly tone, not a superior one. It's often my fear that when someone bothers to make a dismissive statement on a post or comment (frequently indicated by phrases like technobabble, nonsense, etc) that they are often looking for a fight or to try to take out their unhappy emotions on someone else unjustifiably. Sorry, if you're looking for a fight on here, you'll have to go try to waste someone else's time tho. But if you want to engage positively and constructively, I'm happy to talk. What'll it be, anon? My fear and instinct is you probably want to go about calling people idiots, but I didn't totally believe that, that's why I replied you! :) Let's see what you choose: neg response or friendly one or something else.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  The trouble I had with it is that it reasons from weak metaphors, and seems to attempt to persuade based on those metaphors. For example, in the passage I quoted the first thing he does is treat the speed of light as hypothetically finite. Everything we know about the universe tells us it is finite, and this was established long ago. So that's already an odd sentence. The next sentence is meaningless, however. Phrases like "aether of this reality" are poetic, referring to a term from Greek mythology where a god blew out his breath to create the universe, not anything to do with science. Then, with zero reasoning, the sentence proceeds to claim that a finite speed of light must (somehow) mean "fractal entropy." Again this is poetic and not scientifically meaningful. Fractal is self-similar patterns at different scales of a system. Entropy is a measure how little we know of the organization of a system. You can torture yourself and call the measures "fractal" but that doesn't lead you anywhere toward understanding anything. The talk of ripples again carries this further using visual metaphors detached from meaning. I think that's why I had such trouble with it. As for how I found it, I sort by new and look for headlines that interest me. Tachyons, in a scientific context, interest me. No I'm not looking for an argument or fight. Discussion is always welcome. I just hold the actual opinion that what I read in the article is insubstantial as science and uncompelling as rhetoric.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Alright, that's interesting. Thank you for your analysis, I can see you value critical inquiry and just have a particular and slightly different bent to me. Good to know. Did you by chance take a look at my conversation with the ChatGPT about this? What did you think of that? :) I just think it might be possible that maybe it saw something in there that you didn't, and when you read it, it might enlighten you toward some value in there? I don't know--I'm just curious, and I don't want to see something that's valuable but looks weird thrown away! Haha! :)
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      > While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take these ideas from the realm of speculation into the realm of accepted physical theory. I agree with the LLM, here, though calling them intriguing seems to me... generous. There are good reasons that the ideas of ether or aether, a static background for the universe, have been dismissed. General Relativity tells us there is no static background, and experiments confirm there is no background bias. That the ancients knew and encoded electric antenna and circuit designs into floor patterns and cities seems more coincidence to me. That there good have been some knowledge on the part of the artist in geometry seems reasonable. That such an artist took joy in expressing an abstract consistency in the geometry he or she found also seems reasonable. That these were expressions of some secret knowledge of advanced physics concepts humanity has lost seems a lot less reasonable.

keepamovin 3y ago

How do you even find a submissions that's like 11 hours old and 3 points and didn't show up anywhere. It's weird: sort of like I was in a bar and having a conversation, and then 3 hours later as I'm about to leave, waiting outside for my ride, some guy comes out and says: "Hey I overheard what you said in there 3 hours ago." Hahaha. I always wonder where these people come from on to my tiny posts on here. I didn't know I had followers! Haha :) It certainly has the ring of crankery I think, but I don't think it is, necessarily. Think about what some great revolutionary scientists must have sounded like in their day to others, surely there were some who were exploring things from a way that just sounded so wrong...but turned out it wasn't. Or think about Penrose and his microtubules and consciousness explorations. No one would say he's a quack physicist...but talk like this surely sounds that way to some. What I did when I read this was made it pass the ChatGPT sniff test. I'll share it for you here so you can see: https://chat.openai.com/share/ddb22cf9-dc6b-4d10-96b0-e90ca355f350 https://chat.openai.com/share/ddb22cf9-dc6b-4d10-96b0-e90ca3... ChatGPT doesn't dismiss it, and in fact there are things that are certainly connected, although they are not rigorously related in this piece. But why expect that in a popsci blog. Conceivably it's the writing of someone who does know. Or perhaps not. My point is we have to be careful with these kind of labels, especially things like "nonsense". Don't you think that's kind of arrogant? A more accurate label would be "I don't understand this" tho that's often hard to admit, but very useful! Start where you are, n all that! :) <-- this smile is not condescending or mocking but friendly...sorry hard to relate online! It's meant to indicate a friendly tone, not a superior one. It's often my fear that when someone bothers to make a dismissive statement on a post or comment (frequently indicated by phrases like technobabble, nonsense, etc) that they are often looking for a fight or to try to take out their unhappy emotions on someone else unjustifiably. Sorry, if you're looking for a fight on here, you'll have to go try to waste someone else's time tho. But if you want to engage positively and constructively, I'm happy to talk. What'll it be, anon? My fear and instinct is you probably want to go about calling people idiots, but I didn't totally believe that, that's why I replied you! :) Let's see what you choose: neg response or friendly one or something else.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
The trouble I had with it is that it reasons from weak metaphors, and seems to attempt to persuade based on those metaphors. For example, in the passage I quoted the first thing he does is treat the speed of light as hypothetically finite. Everything we know about the universe tells us it is finite, and this was established long ago. So that's already an odd sentence. The next sentence is meaningless, however. Phrases like "aether of this reality" are poetic, referring to a term from Greek mythology where a god blew out his breath to create the universe, not anything to do with science. Then, with zero reasoning, the sentence proceeds to claim that a finite speed of light must (somehow) mean "fractal entropy." Again this is poetic and not scientifically meaningful. Fractal is self-similar patterns at different scales of a system. Entropy is a measure how little we know of the organization of a system. You can torture yourself and call the measures "fractal" but that doesn't lead you anywhere toward understanding anything. The talk of ripples again carries this further using visual metaphors detached from meaning. I think that's why I had such trouble with it. As for how I found it, I sort by new and look for headlines that interest me. Tachyons, in a scientific context, interest me. No I'm not looking for an argument or fight. Discussion is always welcome. I just hold the actual opinion that what I read in the article is insubstantial as science and uncompelling as rhetoric.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Alright, that's interesting. Thank you for your analysis, I can see you value critical inquiry and just have a particular and slightly different bent to me. Good to know. Did you by chance take a look at my conversation with the ChatGPT about this? What did you think of that? :) I just think it might be possible that maybe it saw something in there that you didn't, and when you read it, it might enlighten you toward some value in there? I don't know--I'm just curious, and I don't want to see something that's valuable but looks weird thrown away! Haha! :)
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    > While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take these ideas from the realm of speculation into the realm of accepted physical theory. I agree with the LLM, here, though calling them intriguing seems to me... generous. There are good reasons that the ideas of ether or aether, a static background for the universe, have been dismissed. General Relativity tells us there is no static background, and experiments confirm there is no background bias. That the ancients knew and encoded electric antenna and circuit designs into floor patterns and cities seems more coincidence to me. That there good have been some knowledge on the part of the artist in geometry seems reasonable. That such an artist took joy in expressing an abstract consistency in the geometry he or she found also seems reasonable. That these were expressions of some secret knowledge of advanced physics concepts humanity has lost seems a lot less reasonable.