Sorry, I wanted to say something else about 'disbelief in physics'.

Of course I do hold in high esteem physics in particular, and science in 
general.

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.

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.

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 :-)

Alex

Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>> well, ok.  One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have
>> enough requirements for its use :-)
> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster