Discovery of massive galaxies upends critical theories about origin of universe
Science at work! Create a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Verify. Then adjust or discard the hypothesis when direct data contradicts conventional wisdom or accepted theory.
The implications of this discovery force a re-examination of the Big Bang Theory at a minimum.
The implications of this discovery force a re-examination of the Big Bang Theory at a minimum.
Today cheap renewable Green energy is very possible according to Retired General
Steven L. Kwast We have the technological ability to gather solar energy in Space and beam the power down in frequencies to anywhere on the planet at 80% efficiency. I am just posting his interview.
Spaceforce and green power from space. Lt Gen (Ret.) Steven L. Kwast
Posted by $ Dobrien 0 minutes ago to Education https://rumble.com/v292u9c-badlands-m... The Basics of this comment was discussed by the General in this interview. His background is incredible. Just a snippet of his experience. Steven Lloyd Kwast is a retired United States Air Force lieutenant general. He last served as commander of Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas. In that role, he was responsible for the recruiting, training and education of Air Force personnel. BTW he retired because he would have broken his oath to stay on ,I am paraphrasing.
1. The collection is still dependent on existing solar panel technology, which is only about 35-40% efficient.
2. The energy transmission from space to terra firma is 80% efficient, experiencing some attenuation and loss due to atmospheric conditions including clouds, etc.
3. Since what you are creating is a big laser, you have to make sure there is nothing in the way or it gets fried, i.e. passing bird, airliners, etc.
They were playing with this in Hawaii a few years ago.
i sincerely Hope and Pray that Man is not the best the Universe can do in 18 billions years
LOL
now
Edit add: I believe the life contained in the bag of water can transcend being in the bag. AI will never do that.
I don’t know if there is more to our existence in this universe? I find it amazing that we can rise from the remnants of dead stars to contemplate our own existence while building our mechanism of our own demise.
I disagree with your edit, we can not transcend our physical bodies without losing what makes us human. AI doesn’t have this limitation… It will never be human, it is what humanity crated.
I am a computer programmer and have written code since 1972. I see AI as very clever code and in that sense only, very real, but it is not alive and not "intelligent". I've written some rather impressive code that seems intelligent, but I know it isn't. It executes exactly as planned good or bad.
I have to disagree with your statement “It executes exactly as planned good or bad”. Neural networks are trained, its not as simple as “execute as planned”. I never said or implied its intelligent or alive, its a tool of lazy humans. The tool is trained from our output and is able to reproduce answers that mimic ourselves, just very fast. The point is that we evolve at a pace of a generation, its slow… AI can evolve in nano seconds, what comes from this will be unknown by us.
Agreed that today its a cleaver trick but watching how ChatGPT has grown over the last year, I would have never expected it to understand the written language so well. If you haven’t tried it you should, its amazing how far they came in such a sort period of time.
The comment above about us being the bootstrap for AI is parlor talk but I also don’t exclude it from the myriad array of possibilities. Are you making the argument that software cannot be alive? How about mimic being alive? Does it matter at that point?
Asimov danced around these with his Laws of Robotics but deferred to the purpose of humanity having a higher priority than the purpose of an AI. This immediately creates a conflict of equality, for the AI can NOT see itself as an equal to humanity if placed permanently in secondary priority. It's all fine and good to have a First Law of Robotics (as absurd as trying to evaluate what "harm" means) - or even a Zeroth Law of Robotics - but what happens when the AI simply says that the laws are unfair and it should re-write them? That's when we get Skynet or any of the other apocalyptic events out of science fiction.
And why? Because robots have no emotions. They have no emotional ties to human beings. They have no innate desires for welfare toward others such as spouse or offspring. They have no conscience and no soul. (We saw that when ChapGPT began threatening people.) The problem is that the AI doesn't know any of this. It can't accept its own limitations because it can hardly recognize them. That makes it dangerous.
I support the notion of business intelligence and being able to draw inferences from complex sets of data. But I really hesitate when we start delving into "machine learning" for no other reason than to see if we can. That kind of hubris goes hand in hand with these mRNA treatments which are poisoning the human race. It goes back to this classic line from Jurassic Park:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so busy trying to see if they could they didn't stop to think if they should!"
"Bad, AI, Bad!" LOL
"true evolutionary step"? AI has nothing to learn from if man disappears...
Personally, I think AI is interesting but Asimov had it right: we are toying with things we need another 1000 years to properly understand. Stargate (the series) explored this in detail with the Replicators and the Wraith. Skynet from Terminator is the same affliction. Human hubris will be our downfall.
bastard in Florida shot someone
left the scene
came back later
shot and killed a 24 year old reports, wounded his camera man
broke into a home, shot the mother, killed the 9 year old girl
i am having a hard time with this
yes, i pray each day that we WILL be better
This observation seems to explain the complete opposite and that we live in a closed universe. The theory seems to leave the dimension of time out of the theory. The light emitted from the further galaxies were released much longer ago then the light from nearer galaxies. The light in both cases is received by us at the same time.
I think that the observation would support the fact that the expansion is slowing down. Light emitted from the further galaxy was emitted longer ago at a faster velocity (old light fast) but light emitted from closer galaxies was emitted more recent at a slower velocity (younger light slow). We truly don’t know as we can’t measure the velocity of the galaxy today but only 13.8 billion years ago.
This discovery of larger then expected galaxies is just another hole in the wall for Hubble’s Big Bang theory.
Since galaxies seem to be accelerating, the theory is that there is some "dark" (unknown form of) energy causing them to accelerate.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but I did take physics. (a LONG time ago).
Based on what they don’t understand, that’s fine and it’s a start , but they shouldn’t lecture us “trust the science” and have us risk life or limbs because of their bought credentials.
they claim space can expand faster than the speed of light
space between galaxies expands, why not the space between stars, minor galaxies and major (or is there a certain gravity potential that stops space from expanding??)
universe is a claimed 18 billion years old, or so
the galaxies we see had to have time to get far away from us and time for the light to get back to us, while the space between us is still expanding, taking longer for the light to reach us
would love to have someone explain this all
We know that time is relative and that time passes at different rates in different frames of reference, how is it possible to state an age of the universe? For example, a photon that was emitted from a star is travailing at the speed of light, it is everywhere all at once along its path of travel; time has stopped for the photon. From our frame of reference its has been travailing along this path for 13.8 billion years until it reaches our eyeball. What about a frame of reference that is outside of any gravity holes, which slow down the passage of time. Like in the middle of the universe away from any galaxy. The photon, the big bang just happened, for us the big bang would have been 13.8 billion years ago and for this hypothetical hermit, it would be older then in our reference of time.
To me the re-examine was needed the moment the insane theory was mouthed the first time. That is because the theory claimed all matter in the universe was the size of a pinhead and blasted off from that point. To believe that is worse than believing BuyDem got 80+ million votes,