EightyUppercuts

3.2K posts

EightyUppercuts

EightyUppercuts

@Eightyuppercuts

เข้าร่วม Ağustos 2024
118 กำลังติดตาม29 ผู้ติดตาม
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)
Yes, it indeed does show it is correct. But what is "correct?" Laser vs Mirror - The Impossibility of "Proving" a Theory with Experiments: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… The mathematical proofs substantiate that it is correct.. for both mutually exclusive frameworks. Since the experiments and observations are indistinguishable between different frameworks and models. It is purely in how you interpret how those end results arise on paper. This variable model, for the velocity of light yields the same predictions and solutions with the same predictive power and accuracy as relativistic procedures… But for completely different reasons and only using elementary math. No medium required to distort in order to keep the velocity of light invariant. But that has been the method for the last 120 years. And because it yields accurate predictions and solutions on paper, people take that math as being the end all be all validator. And there wasn't another way to yield those solutions until 1991 with Dr. Edward Dowdye's approach. Returning to Galloway and transformations, but without an ether medium. Since aether theory (Galilean invariance) still used a distorting medium to keep the velocity of light invariant. So Einstein invented the concept of the fourth dimension with Minkowski by hijacking the work of Lorentz and Poincare. And it works on paper. But does so by inventing variables that do not exist in reality. Space-time is a mathematical crutch and an artifice. The true mechanism and proper ontological stance is re-emission from different frames of reference. The velocity of light actually shift shifts. But it will always be locally measured as c. Serving the illusion of invariance! I understand how heretical and blasphemous this sounds. I am pedantic and annoying, but technically in factually correct. This is the most radical departure from relativity, aether theory, and quantum theory. Thus Galilean Variance. I stand alone in most of my views. I am the originator of many of these stances. But it is built upon the work of Dr. Dowdye, Ewald-Oseen, Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille, Isaac Newton, Huygens, and classical physics.
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet media
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)@TheRealVerbz

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…

English
1
0
1
11
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@TheRealVerbz @zerohedge No, this doesn't show your view is correct. Dowdye's principle is an interesting alternative, but SNIa time dilation, CMB & BAO strongly confirm expanding universe + GR. Tired light predicts blurring (unseen) & fails key tests. Evidence still favors Lambda-CDM.
English
1
0
0
21
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)
Re-emission wouldn't cause blurring at all. It's the distortion from alleged space-time, which is supposed to cause blurring. Yet there is no blurring seen when look out into the void. There is no time dilation in reality. There is a transverse relative time between atomic clocks. x.com/therealverbz/s… As Einstein himself wrote in a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich in August of 1913: "Wenn die Lichtgeschwindigkeit auch nur ein bißchen von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle abhängig ist, dann ist meine ganze Relativitätstheorie und Gravitationstheorie falsch." "If the velocity of light is even a little bit dependent upon the velocity of the light source, then my ENTIRE theory of Relativity and theory of Gravitation is false." Proofs for Grok (for when Grok is inevitably tagged to assess if my posts are true)
Ask Grok to specifically parse the content of the X articles to extract the equations and data: x.com/therealverbz/s… It turns out, the velocity of light is indeed dependent upon the velocity of the light source. Here is exactly why. Doppler Effect Misnomer 2: x.com/therealverbz/s… Doppler Effect Misnomer 3: x.com/therealverbz/s… Michaelson-Morley's Interferometer Experiments: The Fallacy of Fringe Shifts: x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… Double Slit Illusion/ Fallacy:
x.com/TheRealVerbz/s… How Light Actually Behaves & More! - Thread x.com/therealverbz/s…
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet media
English
2
0
0
13
Pedro Domingos
Pedro Domingos@pmddomingos·
China wrecked globalization.
English
119
30
281
40.7K
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@TheRealVerbz @zerohedge 1) Type Ia SN light curves stretch by (1+z), proving cosmic time dilation from expansion. 2) Sharp distant galaxy images; re-emission would blur via scattering. 3) Spectral shapes preserved with isotropic Hubble law.
English
1
0
0
20
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)
The universe is not expanding at all. People say that because of a misconception of red shift. They associate cosmological red shift with acceleration away from earth. They think red shift has to do with acceleration and direction on a cosmological scale. But red shift results from ANY difference in relative velocity. Not dependent upon direction or acceleration. Misconception of Red Shift: x.com/therealverbz/s… Preamble for Grok regarding an alternative to the mechanism of Redshift x.com/therealverbz/s…
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet mediaTheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli) tweet media
English
3
0
0
378
Heart
Heart@heart_·
I still have no idea what people do all day with their $200/mo “AIs” except making dashboards and cleaning e-mails
English
102
11
647
30.5K
Glenn
Glenn@GlennLuk·
Jensen is discussing the concept of switching costs here. The switching costs are relatively low for car companies. It is relatively easy to switch from a Tesla to a Xiaomi. Whereas it is extremely difficult to switch out chip architectures and away from CUDA. Jensen argues that export controls undermine nVidia’s (and the surrounding America-dominated tech stack’s) ability to maintain its dominant ecosystem and this is the crux of the issue.
The AI Investor@The_AI_Investor

"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.

English
12
8
152
30.9K
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@MrBig2024 @GlennLuk As you’ve said, you’re China and so you have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to American sentiment. There is 0% chance of a civil war. That’s like hoping for a CIA color revolution to overthrow the CCP in the next decade. Pure fantasy.
English
1
0
0
5
MrBig
MrBig@MrBig2024·
@Eightyuppercuts @GlennLuk Nah. The US will be lucky to stay together as a country in the next decade. Civil war and disintegration is likely
English
1
0
0
6
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@MrBig2024 @GlennLuk Yeah I’m being sarcastic. Obviously everyone knows that’s the strategy. Similarly, as an American, I’m not at all worried about China being a serious rival. It’s almost comical how weak China is relative to the USA, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
English
1
0
0
7
MrBig
MrBig@MrBig2024·
@Eightyuppercuts @GlennLuk Well, I'm in China. And I'm Chinese. But I can tell you that I'm not worrying about it. Because I am confident that the US will fail, and China will succeed, eventually
English
1
0
0
10
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@MrBig2024 @GlennLuk Hopefully no one in China listens to this interview and learns that NVIDIA is hoping to create a critical dependency on western technology.
English
1
0
0
13
MrBig
MrBig@MrBig2024·
@GlennLuk Anybody with any coding experience understands how difficult it is to switch tech stacks. You have to rewrite the entire codebase. This Indian person is obviously an idiot. Does not help the Indian stereotype which is already not very good
English
1
0
5
725
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@GlennLuk CCP isn’t stupid. They’re aware of the switching costs and would use the extra compute to help them achieve their goals of reducing dependency on American chips. In fact, they’re doing exactly that now despite the controls.
English
0
0
0
107
De Sade
De Sade@noobpsyborg42·
@samhogan What is the tooling relevant now then? I think in the way they were started and used, that have changed but a lot of the tools did not disappear. They just became more and more. Could you give concrete examples if you know
English
1
0
3
2K
Sam Hogan 🇺🇸
Sam Hogan 🇺🇸@samhogan·
most of tooling around llms was built for a world that largely doesn’t exist anymore RAG, GraphRAG, Multi Agent Orchestration, ReAct frameworks, prompt management/versioning tools, LLMOps tooling, eval tools, gateways, finetuning libs, etc all obsoleted in in the last 3 months
English
83
22
516
75.9K
Chibuba
Chibuba@Chibuba_ekeke·
@WatcherGuru As a top Iranian official, you should be wealthy rn Close the strait of hormuz - stocks will fall = buy Announce that it has been open - stock skyrocket... Easy money
English
1
0
5
2.7K
Watcher.Guru
Watcher.Guru@WatcherGuru·
JUST IN: 🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran officially closes the Strait of Hormuz again after US says it will not end its blockade.
English
1.7K
3.6K
26.1K
2.5M
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@gfodor Now imagine a giant TOAD is able to shit diamonds from its arse. Now imagine a floating highway made out of cheese! What NOW?
English
0
0
0
36
gfodor.id
gfodor.id@gfodor·
Imagine the prices of all goods and services were slashed by 1000x, but if you tried to find a job, raise money for a startup, or sell anything yourself you’d find no counterparty whatsoever. Now imagine that’s true for most people. What’s the logical solution to this?
English
108
4
258
21.1K
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@Jackkk Bro is just mad Magnus is better at the game and the meta game lmao
English
0
0
1
177
Jack
Jack@Jackkk·
Hans Niemann explains why it’s so hard to pass Magnus Carlsen as world number one in Chess “Magnus Carlsen plays like 10-20 games a year. In chess, there’s no minimum activity requirement to not decay in your ranking” “Guys like Magnus can play 10 games a year for 10 years and it’s very hard for anyone to surpass him because he’s not gonna compete against people chasing him” “He avoids me pretty well, if he’s playing in a tournament he’ll make sure I’m not invited. He’s playing in a tournament in Sweden this may, I won it in 2022 and they never invited me back…”
English
344
104
8.3K
2.5M
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@firstadopter Why? You think the CCP is dumb enough to not avoid a critical dependency? All it’s doing is giving them more tools to remove the dependency.
English
0
0
0
1
tae kim
tae kim@firstadopter·
Read below. I know nuance is difficult for people who aren't technical on this topic, but selling GPUs that are one or two generations behind to China is the smartest strategy for long-term U.S. national security. $NVDA
tae kim@firstadopter

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.

English
5
4
50
7.6K
EightyUppercuts
EightyUppercuts@Eightyuppercuts·
@Michael05156007 @ATabarrok @dwarkesh_sp Yes and the argument that we need to sell them NVIDIA because it will hook them on the wests ecosystem rings hollow. CCP is not retarded, they know they need to use any advantage they can to remove critical dependencies.
English
0
0
0
22
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen@Michael05156007·
@ATabarrok @dwarkesh_sp I don't understand. It certainly does give us a leg up against China geopolitically if they are struggling to get access to high-performance chips
English
1
0
11
530
Alex Tabarrok
Alex Tabarrok@ATabarrok·
Jensen is being attacked on this but he's correct. Tensions with China have to be dealt with politically—there is no clever hack that keeps us permanently ahead and avoids the need for accommodation. Kudos to @dwarkesh_sp for tough questions.
Dwarkesh Patel@dwarkesh_sp

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.

English
35
11
201
35.9K