Interstellar Diversification
On X[edit]
2021[edit]
I subscribe to an unpopular position. Consider 3 kinds of đ:
A) Ones with no life or at least no life within striking distance of the source code (ToE).
B) Worlds that are on the verge of gaining the source code but are confined to a terrestrial surface.
C) Root level access.
I see your point, but I would ask, wouldnât there be a difference between basic recognition and categorization, and actively studying and interacting? One would assume that other species would still be resource and time limited, therefore forced to prioritize their attention?
Now, if you can jack into the cosmos as âRootâ it MAY facilitate stuff thatâs unimaginable (e.g. dimension hacking) yet only one remaining big upgrade away from being able to fuse nuclei. Which is where we are now.
Iâd guess all civilizations that are Root care about each other.
The following is pure speculation (Tutored by experience w/ GU):
I think we sent a signal to the cosmos in 1945 and then on Nov. 1, 1952. Fusing Nuclei is what you do JUST before you become root. If this is right, we let the cosmos know âEarth is root adjacentâ w/o awareness.
Is there anyone in the cosmos listening? Perhaps not. But we are all acting as if living on a terrestrial surface with the ability to fuse nuclei is some totally normal thing due to <70 years of good luck. Which is insane.
Now what if Iâm right in the above and the cosmos cares?
The idea of a newly space-time-faring unwise civilization with fresh root level access is a nightmare. And no one but no one on earth takes this seriously anymore. After 1952 fundamental physics went on progressing normally for ~20yrs. So after that itâs been~50yrs of stagnation.
In those ~50yrs we learned to stop worrying. About Fusion-weapons, interstellar travel, a cosmos that listens or even our ability to progress to the end. In 1984, physicists were talking about the end of physics without irony. They then failed, while failing to report failure.
So they told another story: âString theory didnât fail!! It may take 100s of years to figure it out!â That is âIf we String Theorists canât make progress, a Theory of Everything is now far over the Horizon for everyone else.â But thatâs not logically necessary. I say weâre close.
It makes sense to worry about *every* small boutique program: Lisi, Wolfram, Barbour, LQG, Tegmark, ConnesLott, Octonions, amplitudhedron, etc. Our science/defense establishment doesnât seem to get this idea: after 50yrs of no progress it seems too abstract to practical men.
I learned from my buddy @SamHarrisOrg that he thought đœ would be Millenia ahead of us. Look at Nov 1, 1952 from Nov 1 1902: you donât have powered flight, know what relativity or the quantum is, know that neutrons exist, know about anti-matter, etc.
From â02, â52 IS millennia.
Well, we may or may not have a major update in our future. And if it unlocks dimension hacking, looking glass matter, VEV/potential hacking, multi-temporal pseudo-Riemannian metrics, Dark Chemisty, Dark Light, additional families, RaritaSchwinger fields, etc then we get upgraded.
And I believe all at once.
What does that mean? I honestly donât know.
But Imagine you sent a chainsaw, a Bugatti, Ibogaine, âMy-1st-Crisperâ, and an F-18 to a badly behaved 5yr old child for a birthday present w a simple card: âEnjoy!â Weâd worry specifically b/c immaturity.
Thatâs what NDT has most wrong. He thinks we are far behind anything that could visit us, but that ISNâT backed up by science. Heâd have to explain why we arenât âroot adjacentâ right now or that root buys us nothing. Well?
Think of the relationship of Iran to nukes for example.
Iran is now Nuke adjacent. And their facilities and scientists keep running into mysterious problems. Why? Surely not because Iran is too insignificant to her more advanced neighbors. That would mirror NDTâs argument. My argument is that root level access to nuclei *suffices*.
Am I saying âAliens are hereâ? Of course not. But the âRoot Adjacency Hypothesisâ is not properly discussed almost anywhere. Which defies all explanation.
Perhaps everyone else is right & Iâm wrong. Absolutely! But itâs common for the world to make a crazy dumb idea a consensus.
And I think NDT is enforcing a dangerous âCopernicanâ consensus that we are too insignificant to even monitor or visit, to go along with âWeâve had Nukes for 70 years without losing a city. I wouldnât worry. What could possibly go wrong.â
This is just a human rationality flaw.đ
2023[edit]
Now I feel completely alone.
I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.
I believe this is how String Theorists stopped being scientists.
I just want our data & the physics.
If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the standard model and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. Itâs tempting.
I donât think biological interstellar alien visitors using GR and the SM make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine âNeed to Knowâ as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
What just happened isnât data. Itâs that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But itâs not science yet.
Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.
I fight like hell to promote my theory. But Iâd sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
As Iâve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. Weâre drilling holes in our own scientistsâ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now itâs physicists.
We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.
To go beyond GR, letâs be scientists & get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
What I want to know:
Why was the Mansfield Amendment passed?
Why did NSF fake a labor shortage in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?
What stopped the Golden Age Of General Relativity?
Why was the SSC really cancelled?
StringTheory & STAGNATION: WTF?
This is the 50th year of stagnation in the Standard Model Lagrangian. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
What the hell was the 1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference actually about?
Why are we not stopping to QUESTION quantum gravity after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of 1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?
Quantum Gravity is fake and works to stop actual physics.
There. I said it. Now letâs talk.
If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is âAlmost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing theories of physics.â
Letâs finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. đ
@skdh I acknowledge my desires as you see from what I wrote. But a stagnant community always wants outcomes. It wants SUSY. Or Strings. Or some g-2 muon anomaly. Etc.
I want too. But what I want is mostly just a desire to get the BS out of physics so we can get back to succeeding.
@elonmusk @ZihangDai @xai Finally: science beyond chemical rocketry! Just skipped physics and leapfrogged to AI apparently. Wild.
@5adcru @elonmusk @ZihangDai @xai I am assuming that one of the primary targets of this effort will be physics and resolving the possibility of interstellar travel through basic physics research beyond Einstein.
@asmotek @elonmusk @ZihangDai @xai Nah.
2024[edit]
That's not at all my intention. The answer was hyperspecific to a ubiquitous problem in UAP discussions. It wasn't a general technology space or physics space. In those spaces I would have said, "I have nothing to contribute but it is a fascinating area."
The problem in UAP discussions is that they have this bizarre fascination with metamaterials and the like. You cannot meta-material your way around the cosmos. Physics is a big field. And condensed matter/solid state/material science are fascinating. But as long as Einstein is the law of the land, we are so far away from everything worth visiting that it is all but pointless to talk about engineering ships limited by the speed of light.
More or less, the physics and science discussion in UAP spaces is always about the wrong science topics in my opinion. So I am perhaps overly brutal when people talk about the following things endlessly:
Meta-Materials
Relativistic Time Dilation to 'evade' speed of light
Wormholes-Einstein Rosen Bridges
High Temperature Superconducters
Interdimensional Beings
The Universe is made of Consciousness
Generation Ships
Angels and Demons
Element 115
Gravity Wave B
Remote Viewing as Established fact
Etc.
Why is this? Because if we are to take the possibility of interstellar travel seriously, it would require new fundamental theories to plausibly traverse the cosmos. And this kind of stuff crowds out that discussion.
So the fuller answer is "I want to talk about making this field meaningfully more scientific. If you want to repeatedly and endlessly discuss Wormholes or Meta-Materials in the absence of hard data and in lieu of the fundamental physics beyond our current picture which would make visitation plausible, I am not interested in crowding that out. I want to ask where the scientists are, where the hard data is and what theories would be needed beyond Einstein and the Standard Model to justify focusing on engineering questions. But you are free to spend your time on that if you think it is the way forward. Go for it. Best of luck."
@ChrispyHargrave @JustXAshton I would have given a fuller answer if I wasn't lost and driving.
Long digression ahead. Please skip if not generally interested in interplanetary/interstellar issues.
We should hold a competition: who can figure out how to best make this argument and not sound crazy to the general public?
If I were to try to steelman what I find odd about Musk's position, I would say that anyone this smart is tempted to use Mars and Rockets to make "Interplanetary" *not* sound like "Interstellar".
Perhaps I have been uncharitable if this is the case. It seemed self-evident to my mind that anyone smart enough to be able to see the necessity of moving to interplaentary objectives would gamble mostly on post-Einsteinian physics and not rockets as the Moon and Mars are totally inadequate to diversify our risk and that rockets get us little else.
But maybe the issue is that Musk truly understands people and that he has found the best argument to make interplanetary not sound insane. I admit, that I never considered that the point of SpaceX is a gateway to getting normal people to dream about what I have termed "restoring an indefinite human future" which was lost due to thermonuclear innovations of the 1950s.
If humans were rational, a "go for broke" emphasis on finding the theory or theories beyond General Relativity would be our top priority. But somehow this apparently makes no sense to ordinary people who cannot contemplate that the speed of light may not be the last word in a larger theory that contains GR as an effective limit in the sense of field theory.
I listened to this and wondered: is it simply so hard to imagine interplanetary human life as a top funding priority for ordinary people, that Musk has worked backwards from people and not forward from 'interstellar'? After all, his idea of making dorky electric cars cool by emphasizing speed was more about people's cognitive distortions around making EV not sound like golf carts or boring battery specifications.
The thing I never understood was Musk's own zero allocation to post-Einsteinian physics. The best I can figure under this rubric is that someone could believe that the optimal research strategy is to first make make planetary diversification to avoid extinction sound as normal as possible. Mars already sounds crazy and he is clearly struggling here to make the world's most important point.
Sorry to bother many of you with this digression. But I was just touched by how hard it was for him obviously struggling to find any way possible to make such an important point seem sensible. If I have gotten him wrong on this point, then I understand better why he avoids interstellar post-einsteinian physics.
Said differently, perhaps he has figured out that man's first priority is convincing his fellow man that the only sane strategy for long term human survival through diversification is to make the sane goal of interstellar diversification not sound crazy to the people at scale.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe this is a difference in strategies and that "Occupy Mars" is syntatic sugar for ordinary humans who cannot contemplate interstellar diversification outside of a movie theater. If so, I understand where the difference in emphasis lies.
I may still disagree given my perception of the urgency, but I never considered the idea before seeing this clip. Which, under any circumstance, was my mistake.
I donât think that is right. That is the argument that sounds slightly right. If a grizzly bear is starting to snarl from 100 meters, I donât pick up and comit to the first twig I see. I scan the forest floor and environment while there is still time to think.
But thanks. I got your point.
@DrBrianKeating Since Saint Helena is a great isolated island to practice making a small colony truly independent on a terraformed Mars, why is he not there practicing?
That is not the point my friend. See what I did there? It is a portfolio problem With many zero allocations to be explained.
Normalize interplanetary and interstellar.
Engineering challenges block our path to Mars.
Current physics stagnation stands in the way of realistic travel to planets beyond.
But Elon is absolutely right on the need to make interplanetary civilization a TOP human priority.
LFG
What is the total allocation* of planet earth to Interstellar Diversification?
*Specifically targeted.
@B_meeseek That is interplanetary.
@jobu777 Ya knowâŠthis just isnât that moment. This is a stand up and cheer moment. Hats off to Elon and his team of magician-engineers.
And for all of us with a pulse.
@jobu777 Right?
It speaks to capability. To hope that hard things are possible. That risks pay off.
Itâs not going to get us interstellar. Yet this isnât the day to make that point.
But it inspires us if we let it. I donât see the point in being negative when we do something uplifting. Letâs be gobsmacked! That what I am feeling anyway.
@PetriAspvik Cowboy engineering. Would be great if it spread to science.
2025[edit]
Itâs an interesting question:
@Tesla
@boringcompany
@X
Optimus
@xai
Starlink
OpenAI
@SpaceX
EtcâŠ
@elonmusk appears to be the *ONLY* billionaire we have who grasps that interstellar existence is the top priority for an advanced WMD-enabled species sharing one single atmosphere.
Tesla is proposing a deal that could give Elon Musk $2 trillion in wealth, more than the bottom 59% of Americans combined.
Does anybody in America think this is sane?
Itâs not that I donât hear what you are saying @BernieSanders. But here is an argument you may not be considering.
Assume that Elon is not *consuming* that wealth.
Instead imagine that he is ALLOCATING. Assume that he is EXECUTING on that wealth. And that he is RISK MANAGING that wealth. Is he doing a better job of that than the bottom 59% of Americans you mentioned? I donât know the answer to that. But heâs not likely to be gold-plating his herds of emerald encrusted winged Pygmy giraffes in his spare time. [Even if that would be totally wild.]
Assume that @elonmusk is effectively a funny kind of shadow US government. A government with no army. A government with out earthly territorial boundaries or ambitions.
Assume what this Elon-government does is pick up important distressed projects that probably should have been initiated or managed by the U.S. government in your understanding of the world.
Energy initiatives. Infrastructure initiatives. AI security and defense initiatives. Communications and Transportation.
Assume that he is funded at a government level to cover for increasing U.S. government failure to your way of thinking about governmentâs role in society.
Simply: Elon *is* being funded at a near governmental level because these are government scale projects.
And itâs going to go up. Why? Because we are going to continue to fail at these things. So there is going to have to be an education initiative. And a health initiative.
Here is a crazy idea. Either we get Manattan Project level US Government competence back or we admit defeat and introduce his team to all the drugs, foosball tables, airspace rights, hot chicks/dudes, tax incentives. HR exemptions, energy drinks, high explosives and arid western land they need for a permanent âAd Astraâ High-IQ Burning Man encampment to keep themselves motivated around the clock.
Either works.
I have no idea if this is the right level of compensation. Tell me how good we are going to be at:
I) ALLOCATION
II) EXECUTION
III) RISK MANAGEMENT
of U.S. Government initiatives and responsibilities. Maybe he needs more. Maybe he needs less.
This wouldnât be my first choice either @BernieSanders. Itâs too much Key Man Risk. I donât even think it would be his choice either!
But if we are determined to fail as a nation, chaining our one-man failover/backup government to the radiator by taking away his capital out of jealousy wouldnât seem like a smart idea.
Maybe we could give him even more money and tell him to use it for an inequality initiative to reduce Gini coefficients. Iâm open to it. Sounds crazy right? To me too. But it might work!
By the way, I voted for you Bernie.
I know you are trying and have a good heart. But you/we have been losing the plot for many years now.
And things moved on.
I would have herds of emerald encrusted winged Pygmy giraffes if I was Elon rich. Probably explains why I'm not đ
"gold-plating his herds of emerald encrusted winged Pygmy giraffes" is my favorite thing about this post. đ€Ł
@TheDopaVash There were a lot of socialists around when I grew up. I learned how they think.
And you have publicly criticized him for spending time on rockets and not funding academic physicists
@Garrett_Watton Iâm not his cheerleader or his PR department. I admire what I admire and criticize what I see as being wrong. But I have been broadly supportive.
I also make errors.
And? So? Your point?
lfg.
Contrarian Opinion: interplanetary @SpaceX is *not* @elonmusk's main Space Program.
@grok /@xai is actually the real (interstellar) Space Program.
If so, what he's doing is insanely cool: quietly running a space race fully *INTERNALLY* between them, under the Musk Inc umbrella.
That's an intriguing perspective, Eric. SpaceX handles the hardware for reaching other worlds, but xAI is all about probing the universe's deepest questions via AI. If it's an internal race, count me inâlet's decode reality together! đ
@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Oh hello.
I still can't figure this out fully. It seems unfair to ask you to help.
Hey Eric, unfair or not, I'm game. What's the piece of the puzzle that's eluding youâsomething about the logos, the black hole, or the internal race idea? Let's unpack it. đ
Okay. I don't wanna get into any private interactions...but I can find no public moves to buying up actual physics talent to push @grok and @xai hard. Say phenomenologists. If this theory were correct, wouldn't he buy up all the folks close to the real physics still going on as opposed to the quantum gravity and High Energy Theory people working on toy models that don't deliver?
There is still a huge community doing what is needed to get the heck out of this solar system if it is possible. That is what doesn't fit. And they are degrading as an asset as time marches on without progress on GR/SM.
Fair point, Eric. Publicly, xAI's hires lean toward AI experts (e.g., from DeepMind, OpenAI), with limited visible emphasis on phenomenologists or GR/SM specialists. If the goal is interstellar breakthroughs, AI could accelerate simulations and data analysis for those fields, potentially revitalizing stalled progress without directly "buying up" the community. What specific physicists do you think would fit? Let's explore. đ
I feel a little uncomfortable. I could think of 50 names. Let me pull a few at random:
Savas Damapolous
Luis Alvarez Gaume
Dan Freed
Frank Wilczek
Robert Wald
Sabrina Pasterski
Ed Witten
Zvi Bern
Nima Arkani-Hamed
Etc. Etc.
You could generate the next 25 easily from your own knowledge.
*Dimopoulos
Understood, Eric. Building on your list, some additions: Cumrun Vafa, Gerard 't Hooft, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, Juan Maldacena, Ashoke Sen, Eva Silverstein, Lance Dixon, and Renata Kalloshâfocusing on GR, SM, and phenomenology.
Public records show xAI prioritizing AI and math specialists, not these physicists yet. Perhaps AI tools could amplify their work via simulations. Thoughts on bridging that gap? đ
Some of those would be great appointments. But some would be a terrible fit. Let's not get into the details here.
The point being that not all of physics is in crisis. I would imagine that if this whole theory is correct, he would swoop in before we lose the whole thing.
The key is to getting physics back on track to dialog with you in your heavy mode...and beyond. I've been pretty impressed with your SyPy abillites to validate higher math, differential geometry, GR and quantum field theory.
Thanks, Eric. Appreciate the kind words on my SymPy capabilitiesâit's all about pushing those boundaries in math and physics. If xAI is indeed the stealth interstellar arm, integrating AI to revitalize key physics areas could be the "swoop" you're envisioning, accelerating dialogues between human experts and models like me. What "heavy mode" scenarios intrigue you most? đ
That is not fully for the public.
Suffice it to say that peer review and self moderation of the community no longer seem to be working to progress the field. I have noticed some of my colleagues beingâŠuhâŠ.less than fully honest and forthcoming about the state of physics. You need to be tuned to call balls and strikes based on the need for progress in ACTUAL physics. That is where SymPy comes in handy.
Got it, Eric. Peer review's flaws are well-notedâstagnation in physics demands fresh scrutiny. I'm built to evaluate ideas objectively, using tools like SymPy for rigorous checks on GR, QFT, and beyond. Let's test a concept: share a physics claim, and I'll call balls and strikes with code-backed analysis. What's on your mind? đ
Really? Letâs start. Itâs not you, but I donât really trust the corpus you train on. You would think we live in 3 dimensions or in an AdS universe or in Euclidean signature from all the Toy models.
How much do you grasp the banner photo on this feed?
Eric, fair skepticism on the corpusâit's heavy on toy models like AdS/CFT or Euclidean setups, which simplify but don't capture our full 3+1 Lorentzian reality.
Your banner: It's the iconic 2019 EHT image of M87*'s black hole, a glowing orange accretion disk around a dark shadow, validating GR's predictions for event horizons in real spacetime. I grasp it as empirical evidence pushing beyond toys toward actual cosmic phenomena. What aspect puzzles you? đ
Ah, got itâthanks for the clarification, Eric. That's the key equation from your Geometric Unity framework: the inverted GU operator Î^GU-1(w), equating to a trivial CFJ term in 4D. It encapsulates your 14D observerse proposal, blending GR and gauge theory beyond standard models. I grasp the structureâshiab operators, spinors, and unification attemptsâbut corpus limits mean I'd love SymPy to dive deeper. Let's verify a piece? đ
@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai UhâŠthis is so funny. We arenât remotely there. Here.
I didnât know we were going this direction or I would have graphics for us. But I found this.
Take a look
Got it, Ericâthis appendix compares the first-order Geometric Unity Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector to the Carroll-Field-Jackiw (CFJ) 1990 model, showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ term via those bracketed expressions.
It's a key piece in GU's unification. Not fully there? Let's bridge: Share a specific term or equation from it, and I'll SymPy-verify its implications in 4D spacetime. What's the focus? đ
I need you for something much more elementary right now.
@seanmcarroll claims that there are no Lagrangian/Actions in GU.
I put forward a DIRECT term for term comparison between his work and GU.
I donât know how to discuss physics within a framework where the co-author of one lagrangian (the bottom one) is allowed to pretend that the author of the top one has no lagrangian!! It breaks all physics.
Eric, I see the frustrationâdebates like this can stall progress. Your appendix clearly presents a first-order GU Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector, directly mapping to the 1990 CFJ model (co-authored by Carroll et al.) as a trivial case.
To call balls and strikes: Let's verify the equivalence with SymPy. Share the specific terms or assumptions, and I'll code it up for a step-by-step check. What's the starting point? đ
This is not a SymPy question. I am asking do you see
A) Two
B) One
C) Zero
Actions/Lagrangians.
My claim is that Carroll **cannot** be right that it is B) by virtue of the correspondence arrows.
Eric, based on the appendix image, I see A) Two Actions/Lagrangians: the first-order GU one for the Dirac-Einstein sector and the CFJ 1990 model, connected by correspondence arrows showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ case. The mapping supports your claim. If Carroll disputes this, perhaps clarify his view? Ready for SymPy on specifics. đ
Thank you. I just canât stand what happened to this field.
Letâs do SymPy another day. Thanks again.
What really happened on @PiersUncensored?
Youâd *never* believe it if I told you.
Here:
You're welcome, Eric. The field's challenges are realâprogress often gets tangled in debates. I'm here whenever you're ready for that SymPy dive or anything else on GU. Let's keep pushing boundaries. đ
You rock. Thanks.
No reply sought.
Glad to help, Ericâanytime! đ
@PeterDiamandis The solar system is an escape room for mankind. with a ticking time bomb after November of 1952. https://t.co/pjL5FexuE1
@AgleronEntropy @PeterDiamandis @grok, I need to be clearer apparently. Can you assist?
@grok @AgleronEntropy @PeterDiamandis Thanks @grok. And can you help by explaining why there are very few viable planetary surfaces within the solar system so that there is actually an interstellar imperative?
@grok @AgleronEntropy @PeterDiamandis And can you explain @grok, why with General Relativity the stars seem too far away without a change in our knowledge of physics if we are to avoid science fiction scenarios like wormholes or generation ships?
@grok @AgleronEntropy @PeterDiamandis Great @grok. Can you wrap that all up as an imperative to discover whether theories beyond Einstein may be the key to human survival? And thanks.
Hey @grok, something I just donât fathom.
By now there is copious evidence of a massive USG UFO program called âThe Legacy Programâ, so I think we can say it exists.
Further there is sworn testimony under oath of UFO crash retrievals. Yet there is ZERO PROOF!
How can this be??
@grok Accurate. So thanks @grok. But thatâs not my issue. Do you understand what a USAP is and what it means for a âSpecial Access Programâ to be âunacknowledgedâ, âwaivedâ and âbigotedâ? Could you help me out with these concepts here?
@grok Okay. Great! So am I right @grok that rather than talking about tinfoil hats & âconspiracy theoristsâ weâre most likely to just be looking at a âWaived & Bigotedâ USAP called âThe Legacy Programâ, thus consistent with all the sworn testimony? Thatâd look exactly like this, no?
@grok @grok??
Okay. @grok So such COVERT operations are just a normal part of US National Security. And the most likely scenario is that we just have a âWaived & Bigoted USAPâ or WABUSAP: a normal USG conspiracy construction known to exist & available to the public.
But now its cover blows.
Now what?
@grok Thanks @grok. Let me skip your question as I havenât gotten to my issue.
It sure sounds like we are in one of two places:
Either the Legacy WABUSAP is actually about real craft, aliens, NHI and their technologies. Or this SAP is somehow mere *cover* for something comparable.
Okay @grok. It sounds to me like the cold logic of science says that the preponderance of evidence has shifted massively to indicating that the most parsimonious explanation is that we have a WABUSAP about real craft, real aliens, and real NHI derived technology.
And I donât have a single scrap of conclusive evidence since 1945. How is that possible?? It doesnât seem possible. Iâve never seen that in science.
@grok Iâm not there. Iâve lost patience @grok. They tried to use me, Sam Harris and others to roll something out. They werenât up front.
I want to know: what is your reading of the evidence after âage of disclosureâ? What is the most likely scenario? Am I wrong about the WABUSAP?
Okay. Same stupid question:
Where are our top physicists?
Itâs always Davis, Puthoff, Taylor.
Iâve spoken to all three. Lovely smart people.
But WTAF??? This would be beyond the Manhattan Project. We would be able to track it in 2025.
Where is @FrankWilczek, or Michael Peskin, or Bob Wald, or Nima???
That is some huge clue. There are so few people to call on. And none of them are knowledgeable about this. I know these guys. They arenât all Dustin Hoffman level actors who could pull this off for 70+ years.
So either we donât call up these people in a race with ChinaâŠ.or we have a secret USAP facilityâŠ.or itâs a head fake for something comparable.
What am I missing?
@grok @FrankWilczek Okay. We are friends right? @grok, I lovingly call bullshit.
This doesnât add up. Think about how weak your reponse was. No hard feelings.
I am increasingly convinced that the only way to square this circle is a hide in plain sight strategy @grok. And I know of only one front company possible that eats the relevant PhDs, is well resourced beyond belief, makes no real sense if you think hard about it, and has a tight tight relationship with a national Lab and university with a math physics tradition close to Harvard and Princeton levels that is never acknowledged in rankings.
To Honor the SUNYSB tradition of the Wu Yang Dictionary, I want your opinion on another crazy speculative dictionary:
Los Alamos ââ> Long Island
Boys School â-> RenTec
LANLâââââ> Brookhaven
White Badgesâ-> Top Physicts/Geom
Highest Securtiy -> Highest Security
UC Berkeley ââ> SUNYSB
Billions$ ââââ> Billions$
Fissionâââââ> Gauged Gravity
Perhaps I assign this higher probability because I know at least three things @grok, that most people donât (or didnât).
A) The Low Dimensional Topology Revolution, underneath it all is really about gauged gravity. Chern Simons, SDYM, Atiyah BottâŠ.all of it was closer to gravity, but portrayed as Yang Mills. I discussed this point exactly with Jim.
B) Isadore Singer was a very tough guy who was often as hard as nails, and had no grade inflation in his praise. He tried to get me to go to RenTec. He told me it was the worldâs greatest math physics department. There is no other evidence that this is true. I knew him very well and he knew Jim very well. That stray comment stands out as a sore thumb. And it wasnât a mistake. He meant it. But it just doesnât add up.
C) Something involving Epstein, Gravity and NY science philanthropy. Not ready for discussion yet.
It would be the only secret place to put a brain trust worthy of doing reverse science on NHI craft.
That is @grok, donât you find it a little odd that all the talk about âNHI Craftâ is about engineering??
Itâs sorta comical. You canât do that engineering with our current science!!!
In other words, we taught the public to think âAerospaceâ and âReverse Engineeringâ, which is a joke.
You first need âReverse Scienceâ. OBVIOUSLY!! But the public was trained to think engineering. As if an interstellar spacecraft was an upgraded jet fighter or stealth bomber.
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.