Ghideon

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

Can I assume that AI content can be discussed in the Computer Science section as long as it is used in correct context? Example: A member wants do discuss the scientific reasons for choosing between competing AI-based prompting strategies: "In the linked peer reviewed paper the LLM version X was observed to provide an improvement of 3.6% in test Y when using AI generated prompts based to template Z, below is a table of examples." The context in the example is science related to LLM's rather than the application of scientific-looking output of an LLM. In this case discussing AI content may be appropriate outside of speculations section? (English not my first language; so the answer may possibly be obvious)

Did you read what the AI generated? From your document: Your post looks like a joke about LLM usage. Was that the intention?

Ok. The sun's apparent motion across the sky is due to the earth's rotation. That means that a sudden shift in velocity of the suns movement requires the earth rotation to suddenly change. No such change in earth rotation was observed during the eclipse. It would have been a rather cataclysmic event. So the equipment and how it was used is relevant if you want to know how the video looks the way it does.

I agree. Modern equipment (hardware and software, phones for instance) may have image and video stabilisation. So the impression @Sensei mentions might be enhanced if the clouds are kept stable by the hardware/software so that the sun looks like it's moving quick.

Can you show, mathematically, how you transform between two inertial frames of reference in your conjecture? Especially; highlight any differences or similarities (due to your ideas) when mathematical equations are applied to brains and clocks* in different inertial frames of reference. Also highlight if any postulates or assumptions deviates from the mainstream. I know the established physics (Lorentz transformation etc) so I'm curious about a comparison. (Your explanations raises many questions regarding the logical consistency of your conjecture and explanations; I will return to these issues later) *) Your explanations seem to propose that human brains and time keeping devices does not follow the same physical laws

Can you explain this in the context of special relativity? Especially how the "internal clock" works for observers in relative motion.

Done. I bring £1000,000 to your house, zero times. Maybe you are confusing multiplication with subtraction when you create your examples. (edit: User banned while I was writing)

from your document: It seems completely incompatible with established physics, can you elaborate? For instance, how do your ideas explain the photoelectric effect?

I may depend on what your computer is connected to. Even if you have a dynamic IP address the device that responds to ipconfig /renew command does not necessarily hand out a different IP address. Note @swansont's spot-on response; renew the lease means that the same IP can be reused. An example of two situations where same IP is reused (there are others and a thorough answer would require insight into details): -Static lease (DHCP reservation); the IP is reserved for a specific device -the server may assign the same IP address because it's the next (or only one) available.

Ok! As an engineer, perhaps you could consider revisiting and rewriting your explanation, focusing on ensuring that the mix of scientific terms and concepts is presented coherently and aligns with established scientific principles and theories?

Your code does not seem syntactically correct.

Your descriptions do not match program code you have posted. What program do you try to describe?

What does "within range" mean? What do you mean by "approaches"?

The question is copied from https://www.iypt.org/problems/, @flyer6 can you be more specific regarding your interest in the competition?

You may have misunderstood the output from the LLM*. Your claims does not seem to match the code you posed above. What are your results from testing your program? Ok, you missed the point. *) LLM=Large Language Model

Maybe it helps to view the lack of patterns in more dimensions? I've generated a surface plot of the function x×y for x and y ranging from 3 to 100. This plot represents a smooth, continuous surface, as expected from the multiplication of real numbers. Within this plot, every prime and semi-prime number in the given range is represented. Notice that the surface is uniformly smooth. There are no distinct features, patterns, or anomalies that visually distinguish primes or semi-primes from other numbers: Let's modify the surface plot; the function is based on @Trurl's program code: This plot is also smooth. Again there are no distinct features, patterns, or anomalies that visually distinguish primes or semi-primes from other numbers. Using another algebraic function will not help; there are no patterns. Plotting a larger area does not help either; the surface is smooth for any numbers. please report your progress so far.

The video, which delves into quantum mechanics and theoretical physics, does not mention 'photons' at all in the transcript. Can you explain how the video is relevant? (Note: thanks to machine learning and NLP I did not watch the video)

You can test using the numbers I provided: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124453-simple-yet-interesting/?do=findComment&comment=1219386 Finding large primes with your approach unfortunately does not work; mathematical reasons why has been presented already.

I do not count that statement ("there is no such thing as programming without programming") as a law in computational science.

Thanks! For some reason I did not initially notice your quote @dimreepr It provides an answer to my initial question in this topic; Is there a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible?

The LHC primarily accelerates protons (and can also accelerate ions). The concept of "atom in orbit" does not apply to the operations and experiments conducted at the LHC at CERN so I do not know what you are asking.

Ok. Just show the mathematical equations and we'll insert numbers from publicly available CERN data. (Note: "atom in orbit" is not related to my question as far as I can tell.)

That is true. Your descriptions need to be more precise. (as @swansont said above) Pick any reasonable example of your liking. Also define what you mean by "orbit" is in reference to the circular motion of particles in LHC. @Bufofrog gave a correct answer above for celestial bodies in orbit and I do not know if that is what you mean here.

Maybe this helps: draw a simple diagram of LHC and show what forces there are, according to your theory, that cancels? Then we can compare your idea with what is happening according to established physics?