EightyUppercuts
3.2K posts






Is Relativity "right"? What do you mean by "right?" Here is an example of Evidence versus Proof when trying to show tests for or against a given model... Point a LASER or flashlight at a mirror. Pointing a light at a mirror, does not give you any math or proofs. But when you point a LASER at a mirror… You can interpret that scenario under Lorentz transformations. And that will mathematically "prove" it is the same light ricocheting off the surface of the mirror and continuing on within the same frame of reference. But that same scenario under Galilean transformations will mathematically "prove" it is a primary light hitting the mirror… And the electrons making up the surface of the mirror, will absorb that incoming primary and re-emit a brand new secondary light as an equal and opposite reaction. And that happens at the rate of c, serving the illusion that it's the same light bouncing back. And every point of interference and re-emission is a new frame of reference. You can point a light at a mirror 10,000 times… That experiment will not prove either scenario. Pointing a LASER at a mirror does not prove it is the same beam or a different beam. That "proof" is in the mathematical interpretation of the scenario. Does the mathematical justification make a given theory "right" though? If the math under Lorentz transformations makes Relativity "right"... then the math under Galilean transformations makes Dr. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle "right". For the same evidence and scenario. So, what does it really mean to be "right"? The entire world can conduct 10,000 experiments over and over… All it will do is provide EVIDENCE. And the entire world is interpreting that evidence under one specific mathematical framework of Lorentz transformations using relativistic procedures. But, indeed, there are other experiments to show unreconcilable discrepancies of relativity; as well as, other mathematical approaches to yield the same predictions and solutions as relativity using Galilean transformations. Back to the simplicity and elegance of Classical Physics again. But now under "a new light" thanks to Dr. Edward Dowdye's reformulations in 1991. When you hear a horn pass by you and change pitch... Doppler Shift and Relativity assumes The Same Sound constantly distorts within the same frame of reference. But Dr. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle views the same scenario as a brand new sound being produced at a constant and a stationary observer is hearing a brand new sound at at constant from constantly changing frame of reference. Lorentz transformations/ Relativity assumes The Same primary light propagates out from a source... gets interfered with and distorts... and then continues on as a distorted primary within the same frame of reference. But Galilean transformations as reformulated by Dr. Dowdye/ Effectivity assumes a brand new light and brand new sound is produced at a constant and when the path of that packet EM Radiation is interfered with... the electrons making up that blockage will absorb the primary, which diminishes to zero and becomes extinguished. Extinct. Those same electrons will re-emit a brand new secondary which simultaneously crescendos in proportion as an equal and opposite reaction. That process happens at a constant at the rate of c as well. And every point of re-emission is a new frame of reference with that new secondary light traveling relative to the electrons making up the blockage/ interference itself. Discourses & Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle Under the Electrodynamics of Galilean Transformations: amazon.com/Discourses-Mat… Introduction to the Extinction Shift Principle: A Pure Classical Replacement for Relativity (Peer Reviewed Paper) quantumrealism.net/wp-content/upl… Propagation and Re-Emission of Light: web.archive.org/web/2016033114… The Rebirth of Classic Physics: Time, Light & Gravity @verbz/the-rebirth-of-classic-physics-light-time-and-gravity-jason-verbelli" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">steemit.com/science/@verbz…
Videos for more context from my video titled Illusions of Relativity: Space-Time vs Real-Time rumble.com/v4guh68-the-il… Wave-Fronts and Wave-Ends: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… Reflection or Re-Emission?: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… The Velocity of Light IS Dependent Upon the Velocity of the Light Source: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… Evidence versus Proof: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… What is the point of Science?: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… AS IF ≠ Literal: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… Which is the Simpler Solution?: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… Alternative to the Perihelion of Mercury: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… In this Twitter/X thread, I'll introduce the brilliant work of Dr. Edward Dowdye. Credible Challenges to General & Special Relativity, Doppler Shift Theory and more. Retired NASA Engineer, University Professor of Mathematics and internationally recognized expert in atomic physics, optics, LASERs and satellites. If Einstein were alive today, he would concede to Dr. Dowdye's mathematical proofs under Galilean Transformations and re-interpreting all past experimental evidence attributed to Relativity. x.com/TheRealVerbz/s…



















"You’re not talking to someone who woke up a loser” - Jensen Huang Jensen nearly lost his composure during a heated debate about selling chips to China, despite showing tremendous patience in response to the pushback.









Google DeepMind researcher argues that LLMs can never be conscious, not in 10 years or 100 years. "Expecting an algorithmic description to instantiate the quality it maps is like expecting the mathematical formula of gravity to physically exert weight."

Uh yeah, looks like Trump and the US military had a game plan vs Iran. Lotta critics looking really fuckin stupid right now.





What I wrote in April after the H20 ban below. The smartest strategy is to keep China on CUDA with AI chips that are one or two generations behind current technology. I know nuanced strategy like that is difficult for politicians to understand, but that's the best way.



Distilled recap of the back-and-forth with Jensen on export controls: Dwarkesh: Wouldn’t selling Nvidia chips to China enable them to train models like Claude Mythos with cyber offensive capabilities that would be threats to American companies and national security? Jensen: First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane capacity and a fairly mundane amount of it by an extraordinary company. The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China. Dwarkesh: With that, could they eventually train a model like Mythos? Yes. But the question is, because we have more FLOPs, American labs are able to get to this level of capabilities first. Furthermore, even if they trained a model like this, the ability to deploy it at scale matters. If you had a cyber hacker, it's much more dangerous if they have a million of them versus a thousand of them. Jensen: Your premise is just wrong. The fact of the matter is their AI development is going just fine. The best AI researchers in the world, because they are limited in compute, also come up with extremely smart algorithms. DeepSeek is not an inconsequential advance. The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation. Dwarkesh: Currently, you can have a model like DeepSeek that can run on any accelerator if it's open source. Why would that stop being the case in the future? Jensen: Suppose it optimizes for Huawei. Suppose it optimizes for their architecture. It would put others at a disadvantage. As AI diffuses out into the rest of the world, their standards and their tech stack will become superior to ours because their models are open. Dwarkesh: Tesla sold extremely good electric vehicles to China for a long time. iPhones are sold in China. They didn't cause some lock-in. China will still make their version of EVs, and they're dominating, or smartphones, they're dominating. Jensen: We are not a car. The fact that I can buy this car brand one day and use another car brand another day is easy. Computing is not like that. There's a reason why x86 still exists. There's a reason why Arm is so sticky. These ecosystems are hard to replace. Dwarkesh: It's just hard to imagine that there's a long-term lock-in to the Chinese ecosystem, even if they have this slightly better open-source model for a while. American labs port across accelerators constantly. Anthropic's models are run on GPUs, they're run on Trainium, they're run on TPUs. There are so many things you can do, from distilling to a model that's well fit for your chips. Jensen: China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Today it's built on the American tech stack, Nvidia’s. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI are important. The United States ought to go win all five of them. in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want American technology to be diffused around the world—out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia—on that day, I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy ... caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.





