by Brigit » Tue Jan 27, 2026 12:27 am
In the Space News episode called "Seeing Double - Electric Cosmology," Wal Thornhill addressed the ubiquity of computer models in science in this way:
- Stuart Talbott: "Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by TheThunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
How do objects in our universe form?
In the unimaginably vast cosmos at all scales,
from comets and asteroids in our solar system
to the vastest superclusters of galaxies
stretching for hundreds of millions of light years,
astronomers and astrophysicists imagine gravitational processes --
and only gravitational processes -- governing these objects' formation.
But the objects we see tell a different story and demand new theoretical pathways.
In our own solar system, one of the most puzzling forms
is the double-lobed shape of most common nuclei imaged to date,
a weirdly similar form also seen in nebulae
and even in the peanut-shaped cross-section of the galactic bulge of our own Milky Way.
In this episode, physicist Wal Thornhill will explain
why the pairing of celestial objects
is a predictable effect of a universe governed not by gravity
but by electromagnetism."
Wal Thornhill: "It is almost 50 years since Hannes Alfvén
predicted the inevitable death of gravitational big bang cosmology.
Why is it taking so long?
The reason seems to be that cosmology has become a dogmatic belief system
as firmly entrenched as any religion
within a global fraternity who have been taught
that computer modeling based on those beliefs will provide the answers
someday, at whatever cost.
But computer models tend to have a life of their own.
New parameters, forces, particles and imaginary celestial objects can be introduced
and endlessly adjusted to match almost any observation.
Gone are the classically trained scientists of the 19th century
who aimed for simplicity and matched theory against physical experiment.
Today, theorists waste most of the computing power on Earth
generating virtual reality objects and universes.
They sit in front of computer screens reflecting back to them
what they know, about what they know, about what they know.
Meanwhile, the key is to be found in what scientists don't know they don't know,
which is a consequence of dogmatic training that there is no alternative to gravity
as the governing force in the universe.
--Yet no cosmologist will admit that the force of gravity
remains unexplained in the 21st century...."
He points out that "theorists waste most of the computing power on Earth generating virtual reality..."
This is an extremely helpful pointer which can aid our analysis of the development and use of computer models.
After all, a Large Language Model is a computer model. The LLMs give the impression of modeling the intent, understanding, and intelligence behind language, but in fact, as the OP points out, the LLMs are a probabilistic model using numeric values, purportedly (and they use original works only slightly reworded).
So, to answer Wal Thornhill's observation about the actual "waste of computing power on Earth," -- just how much energy, water, and computing power has been devoted to cloud datacenters in the US? And how much
more electricity, water, and computer chip production, in real measurements we all use, would be needed for ai hyperscale data centers?
In the Space News episode called "Seeing Double - Electric Cosmology," Wal Thornhill addressed the ubiquity of computer models in science in this way:
[list][b]Stuart Talbott[/b]: "Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by TheThunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
How do objects in our universe form?
In the unimaginably vast cosmos at all scales,
from comets and asteroids in our solar system
to the vastest superclusters of galaxies
stretching for hundreds of millions of light years,
astronomers and astrophysicists imagine gravitational processes --
[i]and only [/i]gravitational processes -- governing these objects' formation.
[i]But the objects we see tell a different story and demand new theoretical pathways.[/i]
In our own solar system, one of the most puzzling forms
is the double-lobed shape of most common nuclei imaged to date,
a weirdly similar form also seen in nebulae
and even in the peanut-shaped cross-section of the galactic bulge of our own Milky Way.
In this episode, physicist Wal Thornhill will explain
why the pairing of celestial objects
is a predictable effect of a universe governed not by gravity
but by electromagnetism."
[b]Wal Thornhill[/b]: "It is almost 50 years since Hannes Alfvén
predicted the inevitable death of gravitational big bang cosmology.
Why is it taking so long?
The reason seems to be that cosmology has become a dogmatic belief system
as firmly entrenched as any religion
within a global fraternity who have been taught
that computer modeling based on those beliefs will provide the answers
someday, at whatever cost.
But computer models tend to have a life of their own.
New parameters, forces, particles and imaginary celestial objects can be introduced
and endlessly adjusted to match almost any observation.
Gone are the classically trained scientists of the 19th century
who aimed for simplicity and matched theory against physical experiment.
Today, theorists waste most of the computing power on Earth
generating virtual reality objects and universes.
They sit in front of computer screens reflecting back to them
what they know, about what they know, about what they know.
Meanwhile, the key is to be found in what scientists don't know they don't know,
which is a consequence of dogmatic training [i]that there is no alternative to gravity
as the governing force in the universe.[/i]
--Yet no cosmologist will admit that the force of gravity
remains unexplained in the 21st century...."
[/list]
He points out that "theorists waste most of the computing power on Earth generating virtual reality..."
This is an extremely helpful pointer which can aid our analysis of the development and use of computer models.
After all, a Large Language Model is a computer model. The LLMs give the impression of modeling the intent, understanding, and intelligence behind language, but in fact, as the OP points out, the LLMs are a probabilistic model using numeric values, purportedly (and they use original works only slightly reworded).
So, to answer Wal Thornhill's observation about the actual "waste of computing power on Earth," -- just how much energy, water, and computing power has been devoted to cloud datacenters in the US? And how much [i]more[/i] electricity, water, and computer chip production, in real measurements we all use, would be needed for ai hyperscale data centers?