<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">Sorry, I wanted to say
something else about 'disbelief in physics'.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">Of course I do hold in high
esteem physics in particular, and science in general.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">I might not know all the
physics of doppler effects and EM propagation; I might be wrong
about expecting 1ms latencies from satcom. But I am sure that
where one is wrong today another one might be right tomorrow.
Imagine for example the entire Internet stored in just one drone
above the person's head, at 100m. A big cache so to speak. The
latency that person will see might be even below 1ms. Such
examples, counter-examples and exceptions like this can be
easily imagined.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">About skepticism related to
physics in particular, I can not abstain telling that, as with
all observation-experiment-equation crafts (physics is just one,
but there are others), the next big E=mc2 equation might very
well be generated by AI, rather than by a human. What makes me
think so? There is a paper published in Nature recently, whose
first author is a relative of Mr. Bohr (Niels) (if I am not
wrong about names; the point about a name being famous is not
important here). The first introductory paragraph is generated
by AI, as reported by the gptzero tool. I think that from
there, there are only a few small steps to have the 'meat' of an
article also generated by AI, i.e. some equation that our
children, not grand children, will learn as being fundamental.
E=mc2 is just one example; it is very remote and very
theoretical, but there are many other equation examples that are
touching us in a more direct and immediate way. Observing the
nature and making equations out of it so that to forecast the
future is very easy for AI.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">That might be a point about
disbelief in physics. But I am not distrusting the existing
physics corpus, that I might just simply not know it :-)</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Courier New">Alex<br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ZmBq3hzk8xJ_wzUJ@Space.Net">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">well, ok. One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have
enough requirements for its use :-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>