RE: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech
Robin - Lol, probably. I think it's likely that some works, in particular I like the interior limestone blocks at the pyramids for this, could easily have been 'geopolymer'. Most others though, not so much. Natural stone in most cases is pretty obvious. So are quarry marks and cutting evidence. Peru has some really obvious quarry locations close to the construction sites, some with blocks abandoned in apparent transit from the quarry. But no rock crushers, vats, kilns, etc. that I know of. - Rick -Original Message- From: Robin Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech In reply to 's message of Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:59:49 -1000: Hi, I wonder if people thousands of years from now will wonder how we managed to carve large concrete structures? [snip] Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech
In reply to 's message of Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:59:49 -1000: Hi, I wonder if people thousands of years from now will wonder how we managed to carve large concrete structures? [snip] Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
RE: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech
MSF - >> This is one of my favorite subjects. Obviously mine too, and thanks for your ideas and response. I notice that your experiment might have had a kind of low ratio of total brick mass to vibrating momentum energy. No trouble for a brick, but maybe hard to up-scale without some very powerful vibration source for a block of significant size. Maybe multiple synchronized units, and of course, resonance in the target. Interesting. There’s recent YouTube vids of a guy moving big objects around his garage using vibration, and of course there’s our beloved Vortexian Chris Tinsley (RIP) with his story of the old days and a giant hard drive walking across the server room using ‘special’ head-seek instructions. No doubt that this works and might in some circumstances be a viable method of actually transporting megaliths with just sound (and a crew of large dudes/animals with ropes. And beer). But a lack of such necessary circumstances in so many locations where these constructions exist (Peru especially), is part of the problem, in addition to the fact that I don’t see it explaining other megalithic evidence besides the horizontal transport issue. I’m looking for a single key. Sure, different processes could be broken out over multiple applications, and many demonstrations have been attempted to show that this or that could have been used, with most having a poor or unconvincing result. I contend that the single-principle idea would support the apparent ease and obvious massive extent with which the work was performed, in addition to being a good fit to the wide range of unexplained evidence. For a comprehensive megalith theory, I believe we need two things. First is a single principle hypothesis which explains multiple features found in the processes of cutting, finishing, fitting, horizontal and vertical transport, and ease of performing all of those tasks on extensive large scale work using relatively primitive techniques and tools. The second of course would be successful modern reproduction of those processes using the hypothesized principle. Also, I don’t really need to reference Hutchison’s work, fraudulent or not, to support this idea. It’s used more as a conceptual example (although I also believe it’s likely real) to explain a situation where under special conditions of confinement pressure, charge insinuates itself into and accumulates inside of metal crystalline structures and ionically disrupts them - like water soaking into dry clay or salt crystals. For Hutchison the special conditions are supposedly standing/travelling waves at high amplitude around the sample, and for exploding wires I assume it’s large-current /small-time deltas for a similar effect – bulk non-thermal structural disruption originating at a very fine scale. The point is that the basis for it with electric charge already exists conventionally elsewhere as well. Acoustic charging - let’s expand the definition for the moment to include a large momentum phonon energizing a single charged particle, like in solar radiation or linear accelerator. Add that to the idea of a huge number of small phonon bumps over time as I’ve proposed. Acoustic charging under that expanded definition seems to work great on poorly shielded spacecraft insulation and in accelerator-zapped Lichtenberg tchotchke sold on the internet. But why would more gentle acoustics allow greater useful or higher maximum charge accumulation? I suppose it’s the same reason I can’t make a big pile of playing cards on a card table by shooting them out of a compressed air cannon. If I manually lob them gently to the table, they’ll pile up better. Spacecraft insulation arcs out in failure when that last-straw particle impacts and triggers a cascading jail break of many other particles already resident as a charge cloud in the material. The energy required for a single electron to penetrate a meter of rock in one stroke is probably well over 1.0MeV, being somewhat rare in small cross-section even in solar radiation most days. See lunar rocks for example. Why not break that down into many small manageable steps at low energy? I think the place to start is to try slowly loading dielectrics internally with a single polarity using sound, and likely cymatics, to draw, guide, and accumulate charge from a natural external source like the sky or ground plane. I’m pretty sure this can be done in principle (I think I may have already done it), the big question is can it be scaled using relatively primitive systems against stone and achieve such a huge accumulated magnitude that it allows for controlled copper tool-tip/edge EDM, bulk stone softening to a moist-clay consistency, transmutations in cutting residue (EVOs etc.) and levitation effects. Any forum members remember playing with those tiny magnetically reactive bits appearing after carbon rods were arced underwater, and speculating transmutation
[Vo]:xAI TruthGPT Seeks the True Nature of the Universe
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/12/elon-musk-launches-his-new-company-xai.html
Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech
MSF wrote: This is one of my favorite subjects. Not Hutchison, but speculation about > how the ancients were able to cut and transport those huge blocks of stone. Conventional techniques, I believe. Long ago I saw a video with a large group of enthusiasts in England. They had a gigantic concrete block the size of a stonehenge stone. They hauled it a good distance using cut logs as rollers. Then they dug a hole and erected it. I don't recall if they put another stone across the top. I don't think so. That would have cost a lot. But they demonstrated various techniques that would have accomplished that. They used wood, ropes, and other manual equipment. They wanted to raise a large mound of dirt at one point, but safety standards forbid that, so they used modern scaffolding in the shape of a dirt mound. They had to experiment with various ways to use human power, and wooden levers, and they had to consult with engineers to keep from crushing someone by accident. So it was not a pure recreation of 5,000 year old techniques. But it demonstrated how those techniques might have worked. I do not know how people cut stones 5,000 years ago, but they did in England, Central America and elsewhere.
Re: [Vo]:EVOs, Hutchison, and ancient megalithic tech
This is one of my favorite subjects. Not Hutchison, but speculation about how the ancients were able to cut and transport those huge blocks of stone. It might be that electrical effects are involved, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Hutchison effects might be real, but those videos he made had some rather obvious primitive video fakery. At least that's my opinion. Here's an experiment I did longer ago than I care to remember. It's simplicity itself. I epoxied a small DC motor to the top of a brick and placed it in a sandbox. The motor had an eccentric weight attached to the shaft. Connected to the motor was a variable DC power supply. Obviously, the frequency of vibration could be controlled by varying the current to the motor. As the RPM of the motor increased to a certain level, the brick began to move. Depending upon small adjustments of the current, the brick might rotate in one direction or the other or shift slightly. When stabilized, the brick could be moved with the touch of a finger. You could see light under the brick through the oscillating sand. This doesn't exactly constitute levitation, but you could see how it could be interpreted that way. There are so many ways of creating sonic frequencies, it's hard to say how ancient peoples did it. There you have it. I encourage anyone reading this to replicate my little experiment and tell us what happened.
Re: [Vo]:No Originality
Terry Blanton wrote: > See Wolfram's book > I think you might like this book – "What Is ChatGPT Doing ... and Why Does > It Work?" by Stephen Wolfram. > Wolfram is a smart cookie. This a good book. Much of it is over my head. I will read it again from the beginning. Perhaps I will understand more. I wish it had more examples. One of the interesting points he makes is that LLM AI works much better than he anticipated, or that other experts anticipated. And there is no solid theoretical basis for knowing why it works so well. It comes as a surprise. When he says it "works," he explains that means it produces remarkably good, relevant answers. And he means the grammar and syntax of the responses is very similar to human speech. He does not mean the LLM is actually thinking, in the human sense. As I said, I think the LLM do have a form of intelligence. Not like human intelligence. It somewhat resembles the collective intelligence of bees. They are not capable of creativity, although they do respond to stimuli and changes in the environment. They have a hard-wired repertoire of responses. They build their nests to fit in a given space, and they take actions such as ventilating a nest on a hot day. I do not think the LLM AI model will ever approach human intelligence, or general intelligence, but other AI models may do this. Perhaps there will be a hybrid AI model, incorporating LLM to generate text, with a more logical AI model controlling the LLM. I think Wolfram thinks he can provide something like that already. See: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its-wolfram-superpowers/ I expect these other AI models will also use artificial neural networks (ANN). So the effort -- the dollars! -- pouring into ANN may contribute to higher level AI, and ultimately, to actual, human-like intelligence. Or even super intelligence. Which many people fear.
Re: [Vo]:No Originality
Suit brought to Google Deepmind, too. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/tech/google-ai-lawsuit/index.html On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 11:26 AM Terry Blanton wrote: > Being a Class Action suit, it should prove interesting. I don't think the > ChatGPT approach will lead to true AI as presented in Iain Banks' Culture > series. > > See Wolfram's book > I think you might like this book – "What Is ChatGPT Doing ... and Why Does > It Work?" by Stephen Wolfram. > > Start reading it for free: https://a.co/iphsADj > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 10:23 AM Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Quoting the article: >> >> The trio [of actors] say leaked information shows that their books were >>> used to develop the so-called large language models that underpin AI >>> chatbots. >> >> >> The plaintiffs say that summaries of their work produced by OpenAI’s >>> ChatGPT prove that it was trained on their content. >> >> >> I doubt that information was "leaked." It is common knowledge. How else >> could the ChatBot summarize their work? I doubt they can win this lawsuit. >> If I, as a human, were to read their published material and then summarize >> it, no one would accuse me of plagiarism. That would be absurd. >> >> If the ChatBots produced the exact same material as Silverman and then >> claimed it is original, that would be plagiarism. I do not think a ChatBot >> would do that. I do not even think it is capable of doing that. I wish it >> could do that. I have been trying to make the LENR-CANR.org ChatBot to >> produce more-or-less verbatim summaries of papers, using the authors' own >> terminology. It cannot do that because of the way the data is tokenized. It >> does not store the exact words, and it is not capable of going back to read >> them. That is what I determined by testing it in various ways, and that is >> what the AI vendor and ChatBot itself told me. >> >> >> >> >>
