Ghideon

Here is your picture with an object added, visualising the challenge. Our observations of the expanding universe shows that the distance (d, the purple arrow) between objects S1 and S2b is increasing. Your model seems to claim the opposite, a decreasing distance d:

I do not claim to know but I'll add some opinions. It is technically feasible to have an LLM that interacts with a forum and to drive this behaviour by other means than in response to a user prompt. For instance by using plugin infrastructure that some vendors provide. But I'm not sure of there is enough value for an LLM provider to allow the LLM to start conversations with the internt to harvest data. When I look at the quality and volume of the answers to the posts that looks like generated by "automated generative AI" there is not much to harvest, compared to just scrape conversations between (non-AI) members. So what drives the behaviour that we see on the forums? A few ideas. Note that I would require forum data not accessible to members, logs etc, to confirm anything so these are best guesses based on experiences from working with IT and some AI models and systems: 1 Spam. It takes time for spammers to manually build reputation before spamming and some may use generative AI to create a few "Science-looking" initial posts. This means the spammer cuts & pasts between an LLM and the forum 2 Spam-account as a service. Bots that, given a login account, tries to build reputation by using output from an LLM . Then, based on the level of interaction the bot's posts created these accounts, with their track record, can be used for spam. Or traded for others to use for spam. 3 Automated spamming. Bots that have a queue of commercial material to promote and selects an account from no 2 above. In this case the "reputation" built in step 2 drives what content step 3 selects to promote. 4 experiments. Individuals or teams trying various LLMs against the forum members evaluating the outcome. There are emerging possibilities to run "small scale" LLMs outside the large well known vendors' control. Lower grade hardware usually means a less performant LLM which could explain some of the more surprisingly bad posts in the past. (This aspect of generative AI, locally hosted LLMs, is something I investigate currently) 5 sabotage. Disturb the forum and the community I do not find it likely that well established software vendors are actively working as described above, it would likely be nice players, possibly with malicious intent. The list is not meant to be exhaustive.

That is not the only evidence. Did you try drawing a picture? I can provide one if needed

Lets try another approach the you may find helpful. Look at the following picture you provided: 1: What happens if you use two dimensions, as in a galaxy disk? In a galaxy there are other objects around CBH, at the same distance from CBH as S1, E and S2. If everything is accelerating towards CBH then objects must get closer and closer as the radial distance decreases?

Why?

If you read the whole section it states: A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the data.* How do that support your idea? *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Hello. How does your idea take into account that observations show the CMB is remarkably uniform across the sky? The observations shows that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. How is this uniformity consistent with your description of the universe?

measuring the speed of light (photon speed) is relatively easy and does not require experts at NIST. And hence it contradicts:

The prevailing view in physics does not assert that a 'physical linear timeline' is real. General relativity is widely accepted and demonstrates that time is relative and not linear (and also absolute). The theory's equations are non-linear.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266513 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266462

If I have the funds; what experiment should I run to falsify chronovibration and hence your ideas? Assume I have the means to run experiments that are focusing on concepts in established theories and the equipment is built by engineers whose methods relies on current understanding of physics. The following two statements do seem to contradict each other, can you clarify? (In case you missed the question earlier)

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to? You said: Can you clarify?

I am struggling wit the first sentences; From your statement "Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured" I get that Chronovibration has the same unit and the same value as the speed of light in vacuum; is that what you mean? Equation Fq = c / λC does not clarify how chronovibration itself is measured or detected distinctly from existing phenomena like the speed of light or photon energy. Could you provide a detailed methodology for how chronovibration is experimentally distinguished and measured independently?

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including: Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used? Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes? Units and Quantization: What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration? Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable? Conservation and Relativity: Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory? How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference? Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?

What is "chronovibration"?

I agree. @Externet what is the purpose of sharing the documents? Majestic 12, also known as Majic-12, and MJ-12 for short, is a purported organization that appears in UFO conspiracy theories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12) The wikipedia page have several references, for instance FBI comment on documents like those posted above: https://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic 12/

You are correct and I guess it depends on premise and any options one might have? Want to join a trip to a new planet? I want to know if it is habitable. We will send our kid to a new planet. I would like to know, like Jor-El*, if the planet is habitable. We have to go now or we are doomed! Ok, I'll join and hope for the best. But to be honest, I have no idea about what could motivate extra terrestrial beings, if they exist. If the goal is to use armadas of self-replicating machines and panspermia to propagate through the universe then I guess data return is of less concern? True; I did not refer to any sightings, just provided possible answers, from a human perspective. (just to be clear: I no not think any sightings or UAPs are in any way related to any aliens activities) *) Otherwise I guess Superman would have been in trouble; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jor-El

Home destroyed due to bad management or disaster(s)? propagation?

I'm a little late, I think all aspects are sorted out already. But I had started drawing a picture of different aspects of the relative velocities in the scenario. Posting in case anyone finds it helpful: Rocket A is traveling from space station a at velocity VAa (Aa denotes that the velocity is the relative velocity between a and A) Rocket B travels from station b at velocity VBb . The rockets will meet head on and VAa=-WBb Equations: 1: a and b (the space stations) are at rest relative one another, in the same inertial frame of reference 2: When each rocket's crew measures the velocity of the other approaching rocket, relative to their own rocked, the velocity does not match the sum of velocities relative their starting points. (Assuming the correct sign is used since velocity is vector) 3: for low speeds the sum of velocities is a reasonable approximation 4: Rocket A will measure its speed relative its starting point to be the same (with negative sign) as the rocket B will measure relative it's starting point 5: Rocket A will measure leaving a with the same velocity that it is approaching b (minus the sign) 6: In any case the relative velocities between the rockets, measured by crew on board A, is greater than the rocket's velocity relative it's starting point a (and symmetrical for rocket B and crew) 7 (now shown) observers on a or b will agree that the rockets will meet half way between a and b. The sum of distance traveled by A plus B can be more than a light signal could travel in the same amount of time. (did this in a bit of a hurry between other things, please point at errors)

Fiber optic cables operate on the principle of total internal reflection, not the photoelectric effect.

You are probably referring to electroluminescence, not photoelectric effect.

Are you by any chance using translation software? If so it is not very good; I think "technobabble" is the correct definition for the above.

No. As far as I know modern touchscreens typically work either via resistive technology or capacitive technology.