Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12377

The retrieved global constancy of c in the equivalence principle implies that the vertical distance to the surface of the neutron star has increased compared to the traditional view: the indentation into the “cloth” of spacetime has become deeper.

The stronger the gravitational acceleration, the deeper the trough. The new globally constant-c result due to Noether implies that the spatial distance right down to the “horizon” (surface) of a black hole has become infinite. This novel spatial distance valid from the outside corresponds with the well-known infinite temporal distance valid from the outside for light sent down to, or coming up from, the horizon (Oppenheimer and Snyder, 1939).

So black holes are never finished in finite outer time. But I hear you ask: Is it not quite well known that one can fall-in onto a large black hole in finite astronaut time? Yes, this is correct.

How come? This is the last Noetherian point: The on-board clocks of the astronaut are infinitely slowed. Also our rotating wheel comes to a virtual standstill of its rotation on the horizon (the tangential velocity of the wheel staying invariant in reality while the wheel’s diameter invisibly approaches infinity).

So the Noether wheel teaches us that there is no Hawking radiation. And that general relativity can be re-scaled so that it no longer masks the new c-global constraint. Noether’s genius thus implies that a whole new simpler version of general relativity exists – predictably without any remaining incompatibility to quantum mechanics: a bonanza for young physicists.

c-global forms a no longer ignorable reason to renew the 7 years old Safety Report LSAG of the LHC experiment in Geneva which, in light of Noether’s result, will now with a certain probability produce miniature black holes that can only grow exponentially inside matter.

Dear young generation: I publish this “call to you in 4 parts” on Lifeboat.com before CERN can start to double their in the universe unheard-of center-of-mass collision energies on one celestial body – yours – in the no longer valid hope to create Hawking-evaporating black holes down on earth.

Such pre-Noetherian experiments are scientifically outdated by now and will, if endangering the planet as the Noeterian result implies, in addition constitute a crime against humanity if attempted. Can you help me persuade CERN to kindly reply to this objective criticism of what they have announced to do – before starting to “shoot sharp” in June as still officially planned?

To see what happens, let your Noether wheel rotate about a horizontal axis (that is, rotate vertically). Then the doubled radius will still be optically masked in the horizontal direction, but not so in the vertical direction. Hence you get a 2:1 vertical ellipse.

The optical contraction in the horizontal directions, found to be valid downstairs using the Noether wheel, implies that light will be seen to “creep” downstairs at halved speed when watched from above. This is what Einstein already found in 1907. So everything is fine.

But: does light really creep down there? The answer is no. For the distance travelled is doubled compared to above.

The conserved angular momentum L obeys a simple formula for a constant vertical (or else horizontal) rotation axis of the wheel:

L = ω m r^2

Since this expression is hard to remember by heart, the word “L’hombre” can help even though it is not high-Spanish. ω is the rotation rate, m the mass and r the radius of Noether’s frictionlessly rotating bicycle wheel.

If ω is halved (as on the surface of a neutron star), what about m and r , the other two components of the conserved L ?

You guess it: m is halved and r doubled. How come? The halved mass follows from the halved frequency and hence energy of the photons produced down there. They are locally transformable into particles with mass, via quantum mechanics’ creation and annihilation operators. The resulting half-mass atoms have a doubled Bohr radius: so r is doubled if ω is halved.

But does this doubled size of the wheel rotating downstairs at halved speed not contradict the fact, implicit in the theory which underlies the accelerating Einstein rocketship (special relativity), that light has to travel up and down along straight vertical lines?

The latter fact indeed remains in charge. It thereby entails that the doubled radius of the horizontally rotating wheel must be optically masked when viewed from above. So the wheel looks non-enlarged horizontally when viewed from above – even though its radius r is doubled.

This simple insight amounts to a revolution in physics. It resolves an inconsistency accepted by Einstein in the absence of Noether’s theorem in 1907: that c were reduced downstairs in a constantly accelerating long rocketship in outer space.

Noether allows you to see what happens. She discovered “global conservation of angular momentum in nature” as is well known in 1916.

Take a frictionless bicycle wheel that is suspended from its hub, and lower it and then pull it back up again. What happens if angular momentum is constant all the time as she showed?

Answer: The rotation rate of this “clock” must go down reversibly like that of any other clock. But since angular momentum is conserved (Noether), the other two components in angular momentum besides rotation rate (i.e. mass and radius) cannot both remain unchanged.

This is a wonderful new result enabled by Emmy Noether.

Vicki Turk & Brian Anderson | Motherboard
“That’s another basic thing that the doom-and-gloom, death-is-preferable-to-the-future crowd seem to misunderstand. The world won’t just stay the same, with everyone trudging along in a state of boredom; it’ll keep changing. There’ll be new stuff to do because we’ll keep making new stuff. We’ll get those jetpacks we were promised, and that’s just the start.” Read more

Robert Szczerba | The Next Webscience
“The advancement of technology generally evokes a range of emotions in people from all walks of life. Some view technology as a great evil that slowly diminishes our humanity, while others view it as a way to bring the world closer together and to help solve some of our greatest challenges.” Read more

Steve Lohr | The New York Times

https://lifeboat.com/blog.images/ibm-creates-watson-health-to-analyze-medical-data.jpg
“The company and its partners say that technology, economics and policy changes are coming together to improve the odds of making the IBM venture a workable reality. They point to improvements in artificial intelligence, low-cost cloud computing and health policy that will reward keeping patients healthy instead of the fee-for-service model in which more treatments and procedures mean more revenue.” Read more

Game-changing technologies can be a waste of money or a competitive advantage. It depends on the technology and the organization.

It seems like the term “game-changing” gets tossed around a lot lately. This is particularly true with respect to new technologies. But what does the term mean, what are the implications, and how can you measure it?

With regarding to what it means, I like the MacMillan dictionary definition for game-changing. It is defined as “Completely changing the way that something is done, thought about, or made.” The reason I like this definition is it captures the transformational nature of what springs to mind when I hear the term game-changing. This should be just what it says. Not just a whole new ball game, but a whole new type of game entirely.

Every industry is unique. What is a game-changer for one, might only be a minor disruption or improvement for another. For example, the internal combustion engine was a game-changer for the transportation industry. It was important, though less of a game-changer for the asphalt industry due to secondary effect of increased demand for paved roads.

Just as every industry is unique, so is every organization. In order to prosper in a dynamic environment, an organization must be able to evaluate how a particular technology will affect its strategic goals, as well as its current operations. For this to happen, an organization’s leadership must have a clear understanding of itself and the environment in which it is operating. While this seems obvious, for large complex organizations, it may not be as easy as it sounds.

In addition to organizational awareness, leadership must have the inclination and ability to run scenarios of how it the organization be affected by the candidate game-changer. These scenarios provides the ability to peek a little into the future, and enables leadership to examine different aspects of the potential game-changer’s immediate and secondary impacts.

Now there are a lot of potential game-changers out there, and it is probably not possible to run a full evaluation on all of them. Here is where an initial screening comes in useful. An initial screen might ask is it realistic, actionable, and scalable? Realistic means does it appear to be feasible from a technical and financial standpoint? Actionable means does this seem like something that can actually be produced? Scalable means will the infrastructure support rapid adoption? If a potentially transformational technology passes this initial screening, then its impact on the organization should be thoroughly evaluated.

Let’s run an example with augmented reality as the technology and a space launch services company. Despite the (temporary?) demise of Google Glass, augmented reality certainly seems to have the potential to be transformational. It literally changes how we can look at the world! Is it realistic? I would say yes, the technology is almost there, as evidenced by Google Glass and Microsoft HoloLens. Is it actionable? Again, yes. Google Glass was indeed produced. Is it scalable? The infrastructure seems available to support widespread adoption, but the market readiness is a bit of an issue. So yes, but perhaps with qualifications.

With the initial screening done, let’s look at the organizational impact. A space launch company’s leadership knows that due to the unforgiving nature of spaceflight, reliability has to be high. They also know that they need to keep costs low in order to be competitive. Inspection of parts and assembly is expensive but necessary in order to maintain high reliability. With this abbreviated information as the organizational background, it’s time to look at scenarios. This is the “What if?” part of the process. Taking into account the known process areas of the company and the known and projected capabilities of the technology in question, ask “what would happen if we applied this technology?” Don’t forget to try to look for second order effects as well.

One obvious scenario for the space launch company would be to examine what if augmented reality was used in the inspection and verification process? One could imagine an assembly worker equipped with augmented reality glasses seeing the supply chain history of every part that is being worked on. Perhaps getting artificial intelligence expert guidance during assembly. The immediate effect would be reduced inspection time which equates to cost savings and increased reliability. A second order effect could be greater market share due to a better competitive advantage.

The bottom line is this hypothetical example is that for the space launch company, augmented reality stands a good chance of greatly improving how it does business. It would be a game-changer in at least one area of operations, but wouldn’t completely re-write all the rules.

As the company runs additional scenarios and visualizes the potential, it could determine whether or not this technology is something they want to just wait and see, or be an early adopter, or perhaps directly invest in to bring it along a little bit faster.

The key to all of this is that organizations have to be vigilant in knowing what new technologies and capabilities are on the horizon, and proactive in evaluating how they will be affected by them. If something can be done, it will be done, and if one organization doesn’t use it to create a competitive advantage, rest assured its competitors will.