The greatest achievement of humanity is being able to take prior works and build on them. That is our strength. Hopefully we will survive our weaknesses...

I totally agree. This is why I find it hard to classify something as a greatest achievement. Something like the railroad was a great, history changing achievement. But now it is so ubiquitous (and perhaps dated) technology, would you consider it one of the greatest?

Having said that, computing is definitely one of the greatest. It has enabled so many other accomplishments. I am amazed at the simplicity yet complex nature of the Apollo computers.

To me who started in the childhood of computing, the smartphone is a greatest accomplishment. For some, it has replaced other computing forms, communication, commerce, media, etc… in a device as small as your hand.

 

one thing about computers, can they do anythying that a man cant do? they are faster, but can they come up with anything new?

 

one thing about computers, can they do anythying that a man cant do? they are faster, but can they come up with anything new?

It's quite possible that they have. Take a read of this article on Slate. "A computer program known as Eureqa that was designed to find patterns and meaning in large datasets not only has recapitulated fundamental laws of physics but has also found explanatory equations that no one really understands. And certain mathematical theorems have been proven by computers, and no one person actually understands the complete proofs, though we know that they are correct."

Knowledge has ballooned so much, that it is impossible without luck becoming involved, for one person to be fully aware of even his/her own area of expertise. A scientist proves that A => B. Another discovers B => C. Will anyone discover if A => C?

Has anyone tried manually inverting a 48x48 matrix? I haven't because I had a computer available. But I knew some budding aeronautical engineers who tried. They (there were 5 of them) had spent 72 hours on what took the computer and I ten minutes. While certainly possible, it is impractical to the point that the limit of the process is infinitely difficult. In that case, I propose that the computer is doing something that we cannot.

 

In that case, I propose that the computer is doing something that we cannot.

In those terms, actually HARD to do, not impossible, thus possible. Extension of this concept, is what lawyers use to call "illusory" (I am not sure if the translation into English means the same for you).

Like testing possible solutions to a key taking so long time that makes no sense to try because when the solution is found it would be not useful to anyone alive.

 

I've been told that its not possible to fly the stealth fighter without computer assistance.

 

I've been told that its not possible to fly the stealth fighter without computer assistance.

Pretty much any new aircraft. I don't think the simplest of quad copters could be flown by human either - the required feedback loop is too fast. Not exactly what I would call impossible as far as intelligence, just impractical as far as speed and sensory perception and motor neuron and muscle response speed.

 

Mankind will never know the greatest achievement. We will all be dead and gone and some other being will discover mankind's greatest achievement on an archeological expedition to the planet Earth.

We can relish in the thought of mankind's greatest achievement in our lifetime. Without that period qualifier, there is stiff competition.

I will submit, for the ages, that man's credulity is the greatest non-achievement throughout the ages.

from: http://www.ndtv.com/article/offbeat...the-ones-who-should-be-ashame-557776?ndtv_rhs

The headline is :

Some People Think 'Dinosaur Hunter' Steven Spielberg is Evil But They're the Ones Who Should be Ashamed

 

Not exactly what I would call impossible as far as intelligence, just impractical as far as speed and sensory perception and motor neuron and muscle response speed.

I'd say impossible as far as speed, etc. That stuff is important too, especially when it comes to flying aircraft.

 

I'd say impossible as far as speed, etc. That stuff is important too, especially when it comes to flying aircraft.

Wasn't the computer installed because the humans were capable of flying the machine exceeding the specifications ... you know, causing multiple structural failures ... or flying it apart?

At today's prices, the fighter jet is too expensive for some pilot to test the limits of the machine to the point of destroying it.

 

The way I heard it was the areodynamics are so poor, its just not possible to fly w/o the computer. I've also heard stories about pilots turning off their terrain following computer assist not able to fly in that mode.

 

Forward swept wings have been around since before WWII. It was an aerodynamic tool used in some popular sailplanes. The X29 with a very pronounced forward swept wing, which was developed after that war, was noted to be too unstable to fly by human only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-29). Of course, overstressing the tips was also a consideration.

Much more recently, in the past few weeks, I read an article about development of remotely controlled fighter jets (DARPA?). In that case, remote control allowed for the aircraft to perform maneuvers with far greater G-forces than on-board pilots can withstand.

John

 

Look at something like a basic Cessna, the wings are on top of the fuselage, i.e. the weight is under the wings which make it more stable. A lot of other planes have the wings lower down but angled upwards, this means that as the plane starts to roll a greater wing area is presented on the lower side, which tends to counter act the roll, again adding stability. So on most aircraft if you let go of the stick it will tend towards straight and level, other conditions permitting.

However fighter jets want to be able to maneuver quickly so they are are designed to be unstable, like a marble balanced on an upturned bowl, stop constantly correcting and it will go in any old direction. The amount and subtlety of these corrections on a modern fighter is such that it needs a computer to do it.

 

The way I heard it was the areodynamics are so poor, its just not possible to fly w/o the computer. I've also heard stories about pilots turning off their terrain following computer assist not able to fly in that mode.

The plane (the stealth fighter and many others) was designed for post-stall flight using thrust vectoring and a hyper-critical wing that's inherent instable. The first public demo of true (controllable) post-stall flight was the SU-27. The trick is have a smooth transition from a aerodynamic plane to a flying brick with a thrust vector and back again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOPK07baBw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkPKmutOOLk

Flight is a great achievement.

 

So they have a cure for cancer? No. I am only talking about fundamental levels. Living matter is composed of the same particles, but life comes with choice and with choice there is no law. Without law.......it can not be explained.
Peer review. Who would peer? Modern science is based on in-correct Maxwell’s equations. And besides...the current peer review is very corrupt. But most importantly.....the greatest peer....me, is the only one that counts. The only peer that counts for you is you.
I apologize for not paragraphing. I am used to pounding on a key. My antenna will be down for a couple of months, I will endeavor to improve.
If you don't believe that the universal force law is the greatest......then it would be putting a man on the moon. Of course it's all subjective. But it is very hard for me to believe that if the 10 most prominent QM scientists and the 10 most prominent GRT scientists announced that they have discovered the universal force law.......and all these questions have been answered..... That it would be proclaimed man's greatest achievement.
Common Sense Science goes thru all the equations and explains the cause of all properties. It invites you to peer review their work and experiments. See what the universe is really like.

 

in-correct Maxwell’s equations.

lol. You posted this in the wrong thread.

Perhaps here would be better? http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=60389

 

You don't hear from me very often but my suggestions would be the wheel or the Bikini

(runs away and hides again)

 

The bikini is a horrible attrocity!

They should be made to take them all off!

 

Near the top should be 'Money'. Money allowed us to separate work from physical goods that might perish or not be useful for the general public for personal use into a abstract concept of exchange 'worth' that could be saved and used for anything we wanted and could afford. This lead directly to debt, taxes, bankers and lawyers so it wasn't a completely positive development.

 

Is money an achievement or an emergent function of the need to trade? But that train of thought seems to get a bit existential as far as the original question is concerned. Is the wheel an "invention" in the sense that someone sat down and thought about it, or did someone just get a log and use it as a roller? Presumably somewhere between slices of log and the spoked wheel someone did think about it.

Where is the line* between something that comes naturally, like walking on two legs (which freed up our hands to use tools and spend money) and something like the paper clip where someone sat down to create a specific invention to address a requirement?



* boundary, horizon, there is probably a better word for this spectrum but it feels like at some point we cross over from things that come naturally to things that are a conscious act to achieve something non-natural

 

I think that achievement in this context is not invention. It's the development of a concept emergent, natural or unnatural to a level that has allowed fundamental change in the modes of human interaction with each other and the world around us.

If we ever achieve 'world peace' that might be man's greatest achievement but it wouldn't be an invention and would be unnatural by todays standards.