Oh no. We don't want AI to be...

checks notes

Woke...?

It's a joke. They need to store a cache of everything that has been generated over the course of a week/month. Then, use that to detect plagiarism. Should catch the worst cases and they can even make it a feature built-in to ChatGPT.

They can do this with ease. But, they just haven't for some reason.

Micro is too big. Need to go nano scale

I don't understand why they don't just have a cache of everything ChatGPT produces over a month, and then delete. Should curb most plagiarism.

Social media companies do it.

They're not going to find any dark matter. The concept is broken from the outset.

He didn't deny their existence, he just said he doesn't believe. Einstein himself had the same opinion, despite discovering some of the equations.

And, tbh: since the model says to divide by zero, that's a perfectly fair stance. "Black hole" might be erroneous terminology for these objects that we're now detecting.

I think the model is correct myself, but it is incomplete. We definitely don't have a good idea of what dividing by zero even means.

I think most of his initial description was lame. But, he promptly deleted it. As for the actual question he posed though? Perfectly valid.

The model has issues, and alternative ideas might be worth looking into. Measured skepticism doesn't hurt, especially in science.

I think I've seen it suggested: a hyper-dense object of some kind, which isn't a singularity.

Maybe some other effect is in play that we're ignorant to, which prevents singularity formation. This might be a clean way of explaining away why our current math breaks down at the center of these things.

To be clear, I'm not sold on the idea myself. But, if these objects are singularities (I believe this to be the case), the strangeness of them is massively underrated.

There are actually valid criticisms of the theoretical models for black holes. It's possible that the objects we are observing aren't the same as the mathematical models we have of black holes.

We have good reason to believe that our models have a pretty good lead on how these objects behave though.

Masking a mothership might be an issue, especially on the scale discussed here.

The equations for reaching a fraction of the speed of light are fairly simple (specifically, without considering warp-drive techniques). Building a working system is undoubtedly complex, but it's chiefly a game of attaining the required energy.

Cloaking a large stellar object so that it's invisible is a much more difficult task. There still might be ways, but spacetime should see clear warping at the given masses and velocities.

Earth is puny. But... Our Sun might be useful.

There are unique things about our Sun. It's an energy dense mid-sequence star, in a galaxy mostly comprised of red giants. Also, it's in the center of a fairly empty region of space: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/the-solar-system-floats-in-a-void-now-we-know-how-that-void-triggered-the-formation-of-stars/amp

If some aliens decided that our star is good for refueling or for settling a colony (or both) we'd be toast.

To achieve any fraction of the speed of light, you'll need a ton of energy. And, due to time-dilation, it's a one-way trip. If aliens decide to swing by us, it can only mean so many things...

This is pretty cool!!

Granted, if that mothership showed up in our neck of the woods, we're probably screwed.

I'm also skeptical of warp drives. But, there's definitely a chance of detecting something that moves slower than light-speed.

His model is using negative energy. The only scientific models I know of that allow negative energy to exist in large amounts, without being woo-woo, are within black holes...

Another commenter here put this scientist's credentials into question. Additionally, they linked his original paper here, and the conclusions are pretty weak:

"The analysis also showed a possible intersection with a model developed in the context of general relativity to understand how hyperfast stellar travel might be manifested mathematically. The qualitative correlation would suggest that a chip-scale experiment might be explored to attempt to measure a tiny signature illustrative of the presence of the conjectured phenomenon."

Key takeaways: he doesn't have a mathematical model for FTL travel to work from (he also calls it "hyperfast", which could be an attempt to lower the bar). He only has a "possible intersection" where his experiment only gives a "qualitative correlation". This is weak for such bold claims... And, the phenomenon he's still looking to measure is only "conjectured".

I also saw a picture of his device, and it looks pretty scrappy for such precise electromagnetic measurements. The anomalies he claims to see could attributed be any number of mundane error.

I didn't read the whole thing, due to how weak the conclusion section was... But here's the article: https://idp.springer.com/authorize?response_type=cookie&client_id=springerlink&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2F10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-021-09484-z

Seems they didn't create a bubble, just the exotic conditions that they might need to build one??

And, once again, everything I'm aware of suggests you need regular mass at the density for black holes... Which, obvious problem...

...OR some sort of "exotic mass/matter" that currently doesn't exist...

If this helps: the speed of light being a constant is one of the few things that roots/grounds a scale in our universe. I'm convinced that attempting to break the speed of light is doomed to fail, because you lose the definition of spacetime. The idea of spacetime originates from the fact that light moves at constant speed, and matter cannot exceed it (Einstein's special relativity, to be specific).

Trying to break spacetime's speed of light is like trying to make a water-bed perfectly flat by squeezing down every bump you can find.

One option is you burst the water bed. It ceases to be full of water, as well as ceases to be a bed (analogous to black hole in spacetime -- ceases to adequately represent space or time)...

Other option: you're just pushing down on one end of the bed, only to push another end up, like a game of whack-a-mole.

Erik Lentz... Yeah, I emailed that guy.

I identified a potential problem to him: the mass-energy (100(s) of Jupiters, I believe) within his given radius (100m) met the criteria for Einstein's definition of a black hole.

It's a pretty simple equation if anybody wants to check me, btw.

Anyway, the dude told me that this lil' black hole problem was a "key challenge" to all models for warp travel. After that he directed me to his blog, where he was working on it...

I'll give him this: his blog has very complicated mathematics to create beautiful spacetime origami. But... He still doesn't have a solution to this "key challenge".

Tbh, that email turned me off to the whole idea of a warp drive. I'd rather not have a black hole park in our solar system, thanks.

I'm sure that their terms of service has all of the legal exceptions and loopholes listed out. But, not worth reading...

Say WHAaaaa?

I never would've guessed in a million years😒

Sure, but evidence does. There's no evidence, therefore making bold predictions on how it relates to fusion is just insane.

I do hope a theoretical breakthrough resolves our issues with fusion. I do not think that we're at the liberty to act like we know what that breakthrough is though

Einstein's handling of a fourth dimension is one thing. He wrapped time and space together, and I'm fine with his model.

A fourth spatial dimension, as string theory and its ilk propose?? I'm not into it

Come back to me when your fourth dimension wants to interact, and doesn't have to be folded into the size of a walnut

So long as hydrogen rockets are built sufficiently advanced, trips to the moon can be made fairly cheap. Hydrogen also only emits water, so polution concerns can be minimized.

Space elevators also have potential, but I'm less inclined to buy into that. Seems iffy logistically, on several levels.

We need fusion though, if we want to get there!!!

Wtf is this gloomy ass take!?! Is this Futurology or Futur-nah-logy??

I love github!!

Has it landed successfully yet?

Blue Origin is definitely slow. But, I have always believed their tech fundamentally will be more sustainable, if they pull it off.

One of the core issues at Blue Origin is their hydrogen rocketry. But, hydrogen rockets are much better for the environment, better for higher payloads, and is also better for national security (hydrogen tech has a lot of nuance and secrets).

SpaceX uses kerosene. It's cheaper, easier to handle, and easier to engineer a system with... But it's not as scalable and it's worse for the environment if you're doing a lot of launches. Plus, much of it is based in Russian tech.

If hydrogen storage gets better or cheaper (current goal of this government administration) we will see further favorability toward the Blue Origin approach.