AI Topics ...

AI algorithm detects deepfake videos with high accuracy
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-ai-algorithm-deepfake-videos-high.html

Something is Definitely Happening on the Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkK3NB9t2U

I hope the above AI will work as the headline/title claims and that Miles and co. will be able to use it to help prove fake images.

The second headline/title above about the Moon shows an image of tracks on the Moon made apparently at a location where astronauts landed, which suggests that at least some of the Moon landings were real. I tend to think the Moon landings were real too, but the actual astronauts may not have been the ones who are claimed to have gone there. I hope the AI mentioned above can help prove if images such as those of the supposed tracks on the Moon are real or fake. Even though I think the Moon missions were probably largely real, I'd like to know the truth, whether I'm right or wrong.

Does anyone have an idea if my hope for the AI is realistic or not and why?

AI is a misnomer, we probably all agree. I suppose machine learning is also a misnomer. What's a better term? Advanced Computing? The following video says AI has created an AI of its own, which is more advanced than itself or anything else, I guess. Does it sound realistic, or like hype? It's apparently from Google, after all. What's more hyped than Google?

AI Codes its Own ‘AI Child’ - Artificial Intelligence breakthrough!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNLC0wJSHxI

Hi Lloyd,

Yeah the moon landings were real and AI-ML are both over hyped. AI-ML can't create anything of real substance. Some algos have good uses but most of them are worthless especially financial ones. What's funny is that corporations are finding that most managerial leaders have ideas and interpretations of data that are just poor.

.
Hey Lloyd, it's been a while, I may as well try replying to your prior post too.

Lloyd wrote.

AI algorithm detects deepfake videos with high accuracy
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-ai-algorithm-deepfake-videos-high.html

Something is Definitely Happening on the Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkK3NB9t2U

I hope the above AI will work as the headline/title claims and that Miles and co. will be able to use it to help prove fake images.

The second headline/title above about the Moon shows an image of tracks on the Moon made apparently at a location where astronauts landed, which suggests that at least some of the Moon landings were real. I tend to think the Moon landings were real too, but the actual astronauts may not have been the ones who are claimed to have gone there. I hope the AI mentioned above can help prove if images such as those of the supposed tracks on the Moon are real or fake. Even though I think the Moon missions were probably largely real, I'd like to know the truth, whether I'm right or wrong.

Airman. All well and good, machines can recognize deepfakes. What does it mean to say that a so-called AI algorithm detects deepfake videos with high accuracy? They indicate that the computer was trained to distinguish deepfake videos from real ones by using a portion of its internal 100 real, and 100 deepfakes data set. How they did that is probably based on a number of parameters. A sufficiently complex algorithm might be able to improve its performance by adjusting computer controlled variables within feedback loops. In that case I might say the operational programming included optimization algorithms instead of artificial intelligence. But don't take it from me, cause I'm no expert.

As far as the Moon video goes, there’s more than just determining whether lunar landing sites were fake or not (I think they’re real). World leaders have more information than we do. There’s something they’re not telling us. Bright Insight is identifying a few surprising widespread unknowns in an attempt to understand why nations of the earth want to start moon mining. Like the underground caverns and green lunar lights. I believe his description of Lunar Transient Phenomenon deserves mention on Cr6’s recent pyramid post, as examples of lunar lightning.
 
Lloyd wrote. Does anyone have an idea if my hope for the AI is realistic or not and why?
Airman. If finding deepfakes is your main hope, I don’t see why anyone would doubt that facial image recognition, real vs deepfake, wouldn’t eventually be done better by sophisticated machines. Any task might be done better by a machine.

Lloyd wrote.

AI is a misnomer, we probably all agree. I suppose machine learning is also a misnomer. What's a better term? Advanced Computing? The following video says AI has created an AI of its own, which is more advanced than itself or anything else, I guess. Does it sound realistic, or like hype? It's apparently from Google, after all. What's more hyped than Google?

AI Codes its Own ‘AI Child’ - Artificial Intelligence breakthrough!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNLC0wJSHxI

Airman. I tend to assume sophisticated machines might include active monitoring and programmed controls, those might resemble AI. I believe AI is just a fancy name for a complex machine programming. On the other hand, I believe Arthur C. Clark (or someone else) predicted that mankind will be replaced by intelligent machines. That's all we need, if machines were to become self aware, I'm afraid its Sky-Net and Terminator time.  
.

I just hope we can get a few simple Juypter Notebooks on Miles' work, like Nevyn's C.F. Engine, that allows for further break-throughs. Obviously, when University researchers, CERN types, NASA types and lab experiments effectively show that as the time and space are reduce for measurements -- the "weirdness/unexpected" is not explainable especially at the nano-level. Hence Mathis or another revision of QT or something.  Like, Okay...you found these properties in matter.... now how do you explain it with accepted theory?  Miles' papers in a Notebook might point to some groundbreaking. Most published micro-bonding theory is pretty flimsly after new discoveries just basically invalidate their canon explanations with QT. Basically it is getting harder to match QT-80 year old theories with actual measurements/observations and I think some folks know it.

Hello thinking team.

I don't think Miles has written any papers on the faking of the moon landings, but I know he sometimes criticizes them as likely fakes. I think there's a good chance he's wrong about that and about nuclear weapons, which he has written papers on. He seems to be right about the faking of nuke tests and it's very possible that the nuclear bombing of Japan may have been faked, which would be good. I think he wrote about the Trinity test. Dwardu Cardona wrote a little about that in his book, Newborn Star. I think all he said was that microspherules were found at the Trinity test site after the bomb was detonated. Microspherules are said to be evidence of thermonuclear explosion, as from meteor impacts. Charles Chandler explained that impacts at 20 km/s or greater should produce enough heat and pressure to cause a thermonuclear explosion. U235 is said to give off enough neutrons to cause a chain reaction explosion. That seems plausible, but it would be nice to see if Nevyn's and Miles' models could determine if it's true or not. Maybe ordinary explosives would be capable of producing thermonuclear explosions too, if in large enough quantity. Maybe their models could determine that too.

Airman said: "if machines were to become self aware, I'm afraid its Sky-Net and Terminator time."

Maybe it's trivial to say so, but I don't think that will prove to be possible. I think consciousness is likely all that exists and the universe is "made" of consciousness. That includes photons and all matter. Miles criticized Rupert Sheldrake and I appreciate the criticisms, but I don't think Miles read Sheldrake's book, A New Science of Life. Sheldrake there discussed the problem of how form originates. How it occurs in living things is what seems most useful in his discussion. He didn't get into discussion of "spirit", but I think form likely originates in spirit and that spirit is higher consciousness. Maybe spirit is like a vortex that drives photonic matter to a center at atomic or molecular scales. Sheldrake was finding interesting ways to test his ideas about formative causation. But it's a difficult, tedious subject to tackle, I think.

Thanks for creating this thread LTAM and Lloyd.  Was also looking at this python http://gym.openai.com/    gym library
It has examples of an AI library that could create the charge field via algos if programmed correctly with Miles' theories. Still an early library but shows promise with actors and receivers. Long term this is is they way to go. If you have ideas from the examples I'd love to hear them.  This example in particular:   http://gym.openai.com/envs/Pendulum-v0/

.
Lloyd wrote. I think consciousness is likely all that exists and the universe is "made" of consciousness. That includes photons and all matter.
Airman. Sounds interesting. I suppose you’re including the charge field – where all matter recycles charge. Given your idea, I might point out that such a universal consciousness - or all photons and higher matter - is in constant motion, both circular and linear, transferring energy through collisions. Awareness of the charge field provides a new and improved understanding of the nature of reality that will eventually result in changes to our way of seeing the world, as well as in new models and understanding of subjects like philosophy or theology.  

Lloyd wrote. Miles criticized Rupert Sheldrake and I appreciate the criticisms, but I don't think Miles read Sheldrake's book, A New Science of Life.
Airman. Miles is a genius, but he isn’t especially likeable, he criticizes an awful lot. Try not to take it personally. Even though I love and work at the charge field, I’ll never be more than one of his so-called weak-allies.

Lloyd wrote. Sheldrake there discussed the problem of how form originates. How it occurs in living things is what seems most useful in his discussion. He didn't get into discussion of "spirit", but I think form likely originates in spirit and that spirit is higher consciousness. Maybe spirit is like a vortex that drives photonic matter to a center at atomic or molecular scales. Sheldrake was finding interesting ways to test his ideas about formative causation. But it's a difficult, tedious subject to tackle, I think.
Airman. Spirit like a vortex, eh, who knows? The charge field is a source for many new ideas. Recall Miles mentions that the charge field and the gravity field are equal at the one meter distance, charge is stronger at smaller distances, and gravity is stronger at larger distances. Life thrives where the forces are balanced. Another fun charge field fact, corporeal reality is generally erroneously limited to visible matter. Charge, likely the spiritual domain, is twenty times heavier than visible matter. I imagine there may be life forms we might never be able to directly perceive.
.

.
http://gym.openai.com/ GYM Quote.

We provide the environment; you provide the algorithm.

Hi Cr6, I see their examples involve motion control systems. Like moving a rail car - with a vertical suspended rod - side to side keep the rod from falling. In that example, a feedback loop monitors the angle of the almost vertical rod in order to control the car’s motion and position.

What algorithm do you have in mind? GYM may be another fine phython/jupyter notebook library, but I’m unable to come up with any charge field subjects involving feedback motion controls; i.e. there’s no balancing act to PI=4. Please share your thoughts if you've got 'em.
.

The library itself may need to be tweaked to use Miles' PI=4.

.
Cr6 wrote. The library itself may need to be tweaked to use Miles' PI=4.

Airman. Absolutely. Not to be a smart ass, each and every library containing the definition of PI needs updating to include curved motion, of course that won’t happen in my lifetime. The exception being the alternative PI - Manhattan metric, where PI=4 by definition – taxis travel via a square grid. Even in cycloids, where PI=4 is known, the explanation involves wheel rotation and not “curved motion”.

Giving it more thought, thanks, I believe a motion controlled system might be useful for simulating orbits, i.e. PI=4. With a twist. Satellites aren’t balanced between earth’s charge repulsion and gravity; generally, satellites are too small, forward velocity must be included. Where is the second velocity which causes orbital acceleration? It occurs to me there is also another charge field factor at play.

Recall Miles suggesting a possible charge based gravity, based on “coherence”, where the falling object aligns its charge channels to the earth. We weren’t much help with the idea, but it seems to me “coherence” could rotate the orbiting body, keeping it aligned to earth’s center. Along with its linear motion, the satellite rotation must somehow create the satellite’s orbital acceleration.

?

ACCELERATION.
By satellite acceleration, Airman, I assume you're referring to the satellite's constant change of direction as acceleration. Right? It seems to me that acceleration involving a constant change of direction should have a different name than acceleration involving a constant increase in velocity. Why hasn't that been done? Aren't they two different things?

MANNED MOON LANDINGS.
I just noticed that Miles did say the moon landings were faked in the Shuttle paper at http://mileswmathis.com/shut.pdf/. It's in the third paragraph, where he said this.
"We now know that the Apollo program was an even more massive fraud, and that no one ever went to the Moon. That is what I would call common knowledge, although the governors wish it weren't, and pretend it isn't so. They are still trying to sell it, but have very few buyers outside of their government, university, and military hires. We also know the more recent SpaceX launches are fraudulent. They are so poorly faked even school children can see the seams. They have rockets flying backwards and landing on tiny spots in the ocean, while paid crowds of college students, meth heads, and gangbangers cheer and high-five."

I think he's quite wrong about the Moon missions being faked, but he could still be right that they ripped off the U.S. treasury, although I once heard that the Moon missions improved technology enough to benefit the economy 20 times more than their cost.

.

Lloyd wrote.
ACCELERATION.
By satellite acceleration, Airman, I assume you're referring to the satellite's constant change of direction as acceleration. Right? …

Airman. Thanks for the discussion Lloyd. Correct, the satellite’s path describes a curved motion around the earth. Curved motion results from the addition of two orthogonal velocities. In standard geometric motion equations and calculus, the addition of two or more velocities is by definition an acceleration. I’m trying to be correct, but I suppose I should call it the satellite velocity. Like Miles uses the term “orbital velocity” because that’s what it looks like and that’s what everyone calls it.  

Lloyd continued.
Right?, It seems to me that acceleration involving a constant change of direction should have a different name than acceleration involving a constant increase in velocity. Why hasn't that been done? Aren't they two different things?

Airman. Agreed, and a name change or better understanding would be helpful. As you indicate, we must distinguish between linear and circular motions. Linear motion accelerations result in a constantly changing linear velocity. A curved motion acceleration results in a path with a constant change of direction and constant radius of curvature. Miles is probably correct in calling it orbital velocity, with the understanding that orbital indicates curved motion. Of course the mainstream is still wrong in calculating orbital distances, but you know that.

Lloyd wrote.
I just noticed that Miles did say the moon landings were faked in the Shuttle paper at http://mileswmathis.com/shut.pdf/. MANNED MOON LANDING.

Miles wrote. "We now know that the Apollo program was an even more massive fraud, and that no one ever went to the Moon. That is what I would call common knowledge,
…
while paid crowds of college students, meth heads, and gangbangers cheer and high-five.

Lloyd continued. I think he's quite wrong about the Moon missions being faked, but he could still be right that they ripped off the U.S. treasury, although I once heard that the Moon missions improved technology enough to benefit the economy 20 times more than their cost.

Airman. "Common knowledge"? I also believe Miles is wrong about fake moon missions, and many other fakeries. I stick to his science papers. Even if he's right about everything, I’m afraid he gives his enemies ammunition to damage his reputation, which will probably delay public acceptance for all his work in rebuilding physics.
.

Okay, thanks.

Here's another AI article.

Harnessing the power of AI to understand warm dense matter
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-harnessing-power-ai-dense.html

.
Some additional thoughts about distinguishing between linear and circular motions. I suppose the main difference is dimensionality. Linear motion boils down to a one dimensional line, which allows use of the linear equation: Rate x Time = Distance. Simple geometry. Turns out linear forward velocity changes can be created or described by adding two (or more) separate linear forward velocities - an acceleration.

The simplest curved motion – caused by constant forward and constant sideways velocities describes a circle in a plane. Two, orthogonal – nonlinear - dimensional variables are necessary to describe the object’s curved path. Separately, the forward or sideways velocities behave like linear velocity. By changing either forward or sideways velocities such as might occur due to a loss of energy due to photon collisions, may result in spiraling or looping paths Miles has shown us from bubble chambers.

Please add loopy to the curved motion indicator list.

I'll check out your phys org article next.
.

.

Lloyd wrote.
Harnessing the power of AI to understand warm dense matter
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-harnessing-power-ai-dense.html

Airman. Wonderful, an AI success story. Or is it?

The task.

to develop a new method to calculate the properties of warm dense matter more efficiently and faster.

Airman. They needed to make sense of x-ray scattering data. They want to be able explain and simulate those results well enough to account for future x-ray scattering data.

The solution.

over millions of processor hours on mainframe computers. Based on this data and with the help of analytical statistical methods, the scientists trained a neural network to numerically predict the interaction of electrons.

Airman.
Comment. The main problem the researchers faced – extreme complexity, were no match for the AI computers. It only took over millions of processor hours to explain everything in terms of electrons, based on the latest Quantum electron theories. Undeniable proof that current theory and future AI computers will likely be needed to deal with future major data problems.

Unfortunately, given the charge field, we know the interaction of electrons cannot possibly cause the observed results. As Miles has shown, electron binding theories are false. Electrons are over a 1000x smaller and weaker than protons. Electrons cannot cause dense molecular behavior, electrons are pushed along by the charge field.

Relax, rely on AI computers to do your thinking for you. They are programmed in and provide false affirmation of bad theory. Garbage in - garbage out.

P.S.

With respect to the unified field, the charge field and gravity, Miles has explained that modern mainstream theories are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain without a charge field. I.e. exploading Quantum Theories. Part of the problem is the fact that those theories have always contained charge field data, they just never figured it out. Mainstream theories need to be de-unified before adding the charge field.

Now if instead of describing the distribution of electrons in dense matter those computers replied –

THE QUANTUM ELECTRON THEORY IS WRONG, EVERYTHING IS MADE OF LIGHT.

Well then, I just might agree, let AI inherit the earth. We won't be able to stop it. It will likely do better job than we have.
.

169

Thanks for highlighting the fakery of that article, Airman. I usually don't read the articles. I just read the titles to see if they sound worth posting. Some of them I do read. Here's another I haven't read.

applying artificial intelligence to chemical reactions
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-chemistry-science-artificial-intelligence-chemical.html

It would be nice if their AI was actually sensible, but it seems it seldom is.

181

New AI model boosts mapping of chemical reactions
https://sciencex.com/news/2021-02-ibm-rxn-ai-boosts-chemical.html

New machine learning theory raises questions about nature of science
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-machine-theory-nature-science.html

The AI-driven initiative that's hastening the discovery of drugs to treat COVID-19
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-ai-driven-hastening-discovery-drugs-covid-.html

AI can now learn to manipulate human behavior
https://www.sott.net/article/448655-AI-can-now-learn-to-manipulate-human-behavior

.
Lloyd wrote. New machine learning theory raises questions about nature of science

Quoting the article. "Usually in physics, you make observations, create a theory based on those observations, and then use that theory to predict new observations," said PPPL physicist Hong Qin, author of a paper detailing the concept in Scientific Reports. "What I'm doing is replacing this process with a type of black box that can produce accurate predictions without using a traditional theory or law."

Airman. I think we agree, our understanding of AI is filled with plenty of bad examples, usually based on quantum theories that are too complicated for people, but not for AI machines. The machines can continue making progress where people apparently cannot, although I'm sure there are greatly diminishing returns in developing what we know is bad theory.
 
This article about Black box machines making predictions without benefit of pre-programmed mainstream theory is a much better quality AI example. I see such black box projects as the likely way forward in developing future theories. Mainstream scientists today may choose to ignore the charge field, but unexpected black box predictions may force some of those scientists to accept new charge field ideas.

Lloyd, pardon me for asking, why are you including numbers - 169, 181 and 232 - at the tops of your last three posts?
.

200

The numbers atop my posts are the number of views of the thread. So I subtract the previous number from the current number to see how many views since last time. It's actually 1 or more less than that, since some of the views are my own or some people view more than once.

225

Machine learning revolutionizes methods to quantify the terrestrial biosphere
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-machine-revolutionizes-methods-quantify-terrestrial.html

An open-source machine learning framework to carry out systematic reviews
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-open-source-machine-framework-systematic.html

AI reads brain data, generates personally attractive images
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-beauty-brain-ai-personally-images.html

Researchers publish roadmap to harness data science and artificial intelligence for electron microscopy
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-publish-roadmap-harness-science-artificial.html