Ghideon

Analog computers are as far as I know obsolete in the digital age. But there are ongoing research in neuromorphic engineering that may be of interest. Example from a recent paper: source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794842/

@Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description. In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up!

Today I learned that the high voltage lab on my old campus have been decommissioned and the building is used for indoor climbing. The lab was used when developing high voltage parts of Sweden's electrical grid and for instance short circuit tests were performed. The building is covered completely in copper not disturb surrounding activities. (Copper plates are also covering the ground under the building) (Image link: Wikipedia commons) Side note: I got curious about large copper plates, high voltage, faraday cages and the old lab due to some activities in another thread. (Non serious) side notes in relation to that other thread: Yes, the copper measures more than 16x16 m. No, black holes or worm holes were never created here

Isn't it the other way around? Objects that are dropped from a height moves towards the ground in free fall. Objects prevented from falling are accelerating. Some thought experiments as a starting point for discussion: If you stand on a scale on the earth it shows your weight. If you stand on a scale in an accelerating spaceship, far from any source of gravity, the scale will show your weight if the acceleration of the spaceship is (approx) 9,8m/s2 If you try using a scale while falling towards the ground the scale shows zero. If you try using a scale in a spaceship far from any source of gravity the scale shows zero.

Title says "What is the Casimir effect used for ?". Possible answer: repulsive Casimir forces may have applications in nano-devices: (Bold by me. Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07994.pdf) Paper on repulsive Casimir forces: https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6415

You are correct, this does not look like science fiction, just fiction. I guess you are not serious about your ideas but anyway lets give a computer what you have: result print(1/2) 0.5 No aether, case closed.

I'm interested* in running a computer simulation of your experiment, can you provide the mathematics that allows for a simulation to be made? (The softwares I have available is based on established physics and does not work for science fiction stuff.) Which seems to imply that if you can draw it you may still not understand it.... *) Well, Not very interested actually, just for the sake of discussing

That is confusing. What would an observer located at the "X" draw? An edge that goes right through our position?

What is the vertical grey curve that goes through "X"?

Is absolute space in your idea the same as a preferred frame or privileged frame? Or something else? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time)

Google may help: When searching for "Douglas Engelbart" "1110010110110101001" the first link* shows the steps required: 2 steps of converting text<>hex Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicleap/comments/4ig4a3/what_the_binary_actually_means_from_the_tedx_talk Side note: Douglas Engelbart was an engineer and inventor and an early computer and Internet pioneer. Founding the field of human–computer interaction resulted in creation of the computer mouse, and the development of hypertext, networked computers, and precursors to graphical user interfaces. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart *) I have not performed or verified the solution I linked to.

The discussion includes too many aspects, I would need several pages to adress this. Maybe if you narrow down the topic to some specific issue? There may be interesting connections to ongoing development and research for instance in software architecture. And if you prefer to discuss the "big picture" then you could remove the details that are unnecessary. Example: If your question is how to support all citizens, regardless of their technical abilities and level of access to digital tools, then details about scanners and paper piles may be left out.

Good addition, that seems true. (Side note: If you were incorrect I think it would cause problems in quantum encryption and I've never seen such problems mentioned. but I would need to do some reading to confirm that)

And, as far as I know, if Bob would postpone his measurement and still try to figure out the result he can only do so by getting the information from Alice. And signals between them are limited by the speed of light, so no faster than light exchange is possible. +1 @joigus.

The physics taught at M.Sc. level, at least where I live, should make it trivial to see that the idea is incorrect. Maybe that explains the lack if interest? Short answer: No I think the presentation also failed both of my suggestions:

Thanks, I might take a look at it! That sounds reasonable, but I need to read more about flowgraph to have a valid opinion*. Recent GPU's have specific features applicable to for instance artificial neural networks, my guess is that OP is suggesting/looking for an architecture that is more generalised. Let's hope they return with some comments and details. *) I've seen reports about using GPU's for graph databases, if that (at least partially) addresses your question. The programming model of GPU allows for some interesting modifications of typical algorithms used in programming a CPU, but that would be a separate thread I think.

This forum is an excellent place for discussions but fails on some of your requirements; you need to have some support or evidence when introducing new ideas that has no connection to established theories or models. If you drop the word "wildly" and focus on formulating thought experiments in a coherent way you may have fruitful discussions with experts here on scienceforums, no need to move on. Anyway, my experience tells me wild* discussions means people who know a topic (physics for instance) quickly loose interest; their knowledge and valuable input is often neglected and they chose to spend their efforts on other things. Your requirements are somewhat mutually exclusive on the forums I'm familiar with. *) WAG, unsupported claims, obviously invalid ideas etc...

I’m curious; what are the advantages? How do the proposed architecture differ from known methods for mitigating the Von Neumann performance bottleneck*? *) if this is what OP wishes to discuss, more details may be required. I have not opened the link.

My only question is why you mix questions with completely invalid claims? Such as this one: It limits the possibility of a fruitful discussion when (possibly interesting) questions are diluted with stuff that lacks evidence and has no connection to mainstream theories.

Yes, if you provide a more detailed description of your idea. But some quick notations: The free electron model predict for instance DC electrical conductivity σ for Ohm's law and the model includes time. Your statement above is not compatible with how conductivity in metals works.

The description is vague but debunking the idea seems rather trivial? For instance Fermi gas and free electron model makes predictions about macroscopic objects. How does for instance electric conductivity work in your model?

Can you show us your analysis of the three-body problem* ? Please explain how your analysis, based on two bodies(?), differs from mainstream science observations and models. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem (edit: or check @joigus N-body problem example below)

There seems to be a fundamental logical flaw with the idea? If "AI"* could do what you seems to believe, then it would never be used to address the problems you describe. The "AI" would instead be used on root causes, to prevent the climate related problems you describe. *) I use "AI" instead of AI. OP seems to use the term for something else than Artificial Intelligence (AI) used in computer science.

No. You have presented a scenario where “AI”* is not applicable. *) currently available technologies & computer science, not something from science fiction

(Emphasis mine) As far as I know, in cosmology Inflation is not the same as Expansion. So You are discussing two different aspects of cosmology, introduced at different times? Expansion; Hubble 1930's Steady State, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle publication: 1948 Inflation; Alan Guth in 1979