SciNoodle

I suspected the answer was elliptical. Anyhow......forget my original orbit concept........................I still want to write something (true) in my book I'm making though.. Is it safe to say that the AIs could efficiently construct megastuctures in space? Cus things stay moving when you push them (low gravity).

If you put it closer to Earth, theirs more gravitational pull, meaning it must be moving faster to orbit.........if you lose speed your orbit will frop but your'll head to the ground since it's no-long 50-50 it'll be ex. 47 for satelite since slowed and 53 for gravity since closer TOO...Your'll need MORE speed than before's orbit once "placed" at the orbit height... You think my idea won't work (not possible)? Off the idea and looking at normal space factories simply constructing in space is all - is it safe to say then (for my AI ideas/project) "AIs will be able to efficiently construct things in space ex. megastructures"?

Let's do a thought experiment here: If we speed-up an atom to 99-percent light-speed, it would at least travel a distance that could fit around Earth 2 times in 1 second, agree? And can we agree that, when we "shoot" the atom out, at the Starting line, and when it reaches the Finish line (after 1 second), that it will have passed trillions of atoms? 400 million hydrogen atoms an fit in an inch, a ruler is like billions. Our atom went far, indeed. And can we agree that atoms have been seen under microscopes where they aren't perfectly aligned with each-other like a atomic-grid? For example, if you make an L made of 3 atoms, and push the top atom over so it's a triangle, that is un-alignment, even over a crack. --- This means our fired atom not only passes trillions of atoms, but also manyyyy many protons. So instead of saying it passes trillions (of atoms), we should say it passes like quintillions. That right there means there is quintillions of instances/moments/computational-ness each second for a computing transistor!

The advantage. - Couldn't the flywheels be really close to Earth enough so that the orbit to stay up in space is a fast one and can go from one side to the other pretty fast? With less energy wasted than if by rocket pulses. **But what about a flywheel that is spinning two loads and releases them BOTH at the same time AND neither in the direction of velocity nor from the back end but rather from the sides? To then orbit to a *second flywheel (the loads travel 50% around the Earth circumference) even as polar so there "is" one waiting there. I see this as being fast transportation (for construction by a advanced artificial intelligence), and with minimal energy loss be "letting go, making sue they orbit to the next flywheel arms, spin, let go again, repeat. You have a constant velocity either transporting matter or attaching into these "battery" flywheels.

But is 10 trillion per second by 1 transistor possible? What about higher?

I'm adding it to a list of all the possible advanced capabilities artificial intelligence will have. Yes you must spin it up, but then once it's spun up, it stays spinning, and then it can be let go, travel in an orbit fast, and re-attach to this 2cd flywheel while another re-attaches to the 2cd flywheel on the other arm and like no energy was lost.

Image Earth, our big ball. One flywheel is on the left (in a geostationary orbit), another flywheel on the right, perfectly symmetrical. The only thing that is asymmetrical is that the left flywheel is spinning fast and has two loads/parcels on 2 arms ready to let go of. At the right timing, they are let go of. I imagine they can be let go in a way that has them travel in orbit to the other awaiting flywheel in a orbit with the same height from Earth. Then they attach to the awaiting flywheel. This would lose minimal energy, while obtaining fast transportation possibly for advanced space construction for artificial intelligence. Is this possible, and if not, why? If it lets go of its parcels, it loses mass, but it also loses some of the forward momentum, which could be evened out (if not already) so the orbit is the same. While the parcels that leave have less mass but also less momentum too.

Is this suggesting a real limit !? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margolus%E2%80%93Levitin_theorem Or do they not even know if that much frequency is even possible to carry out?

Is there any way we at least get a good estimate, of how many (theoretical) on/offs a advanced quantum transistor could do? Make up it didn't have to wait for optical light to enter itself - rather it used quantum entanglement to achieve an "every beat just after the last" ex. you don't have to wait for your tapping finger to go up and then back down. On that idea, how many could we compute with it in 1 second theoretically? Or in other words how many instances occur each second dependless of being an electron/graviton/etc?

Quantised GR is continuous - because each step is the next set of instances for all particles. It's more "there cannot be infinite instances per second". As said that would allow infinite computation (for us) little own universe. "A technological limit doesn't say anything about the nature of reality (whatever "reality" means...)" Yes it does, as said above, that [that] is the reality of our universe.

Because only a certain amount of computation or "state changes" i.e. on/offs per second by a single transistor can be done each second. There's a limit. Also, the reason there's a limit is because a particle can't have infinite instances between point A to B. Can anyone please help me figure out how many instances are in 1 second? It'll help me add to my artificial intelligence project not only how many instances happen each second, but also the amount of possible computation 1 transistor could do.

In the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time) You can click on the word "Planck Time" in the top row, and it says that 1 Planck time is the the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 step forward. What I want to know though, is, is this a "made up" time like ex. there is a centrillion centrillion "mini" seconds per second, or is this really suggesting that a photon travels 100 tredicillion steps each second? Because I want to know how many real seconds or "moments" are in 1 second. 100 tredicillion?