Geoffrey Tooill

70 is the new 30, right?! 😃

@HarrisonHSmith AJ repeat on rumble again. Finally found war room on one of the many other AJN channels there. At least six. 🤷 Is there just one of them that has sequential shows?

SECOND HOUR ABOUT TO BEGIN - Major Breaking News - Tucker Carlson refuses to not question the Holocaust - My response to the Onion and Tim Heidecker

The McCasland disappearance is not random. McCasland connected Puthoff to Delonge. Tonight we're investigating To The Stars Academy - Steve Justice former director at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. Manipulating spacetime LIVE at 7pm central youtube.com/live/ux3zvd2QT…

Ok there are about ten AJN links at Rumble. The one with the most viewers, which I watched Alex on today, is repeating Alex. A couple of the other ones are playing Harrison, with maybe two hundred viewers. The first one is replaying Alex with thousands. Glad I searched. Hope others thought of it. Very confusing to promote HS and then - nope. 🥰

@AJNlive AJN is replaying Alex’s show. No Harrison today? At least on Rumble there is no Harrison. 🤷

ALEX JONES RETURNS: Less Than A Day After A Soros/Democrat Party-Run Court Order Shut Down Infowars, Alex Jones & Crew Return LIVE To The Airwaves With The Launch Of The Alex Jones Network At 12 Noon Eastern Time! Tune In NOW x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@BamaSaltyMarine Elevenhan Zeromar - 11han 0mar 🤷

What if this entire time we have been mispronouncing Ilhan Omar's name wrong. Elevanhan Omar!

On Apr 29, 2026, at 3:40 PM, Mohamad Al-zawahreh  wrote: Felicity, One more thing — I gave you the AI side of Ark but there's a physics side that, as a sci-fi writer, you might find even more interesting. Jack's life work — and what I've been helping formalize with the AI tools I just described — is an extension of Einstein's General Relativity that makes warp drives and wormholes physically possible. Not in the "maybe someday with unobtainium" sense. In the "tabletop experiment with existing materials in an existing lab" sense. Here's the short version: Einstein's gravity is absurdly weak. The gravitational constant G is so small that to bend space enough to open a wormhole — using standard GR — you'd need the mass of Jupiter compressed into exotic negative-energy matter. That's why every physicist says wormholes are "theoretically possible but practically impossible." The energy cost is insane. Jack's framework says: that's only true if you're using mass to bend space. There's another channel — spin. Specifically, the quantum spin angular momentum of electrons in certain magnetic metamaterials. When you work through the gauge theory (SO(2,4) — the conformal group, an extension of Einstein's symmetry group), the coupling constant for spin-torsion gravity isn't Newton's G. It's a different constant, G*, that depends on the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron and the electromagnetic properties of the material. And G* is approximately 10^42 times larger than Newton's G. What does 10^42 mean practically? The exotic matter required for a Visser wormhole portal drops from the mass of Jupiter to the weight of an apple. About 440 grams. The power requirement drops to half a megawatt — less than a diesel locomotive. The material that does this already exists. It's called Yttrium Iron Garnet — YIG. It's a magnetic crystal used in microwave electronics. When you pump it with microwaves at a specific frequency (~45 MHz), the magnetic excitations (magnons) condense into a single quantum state — a Fröhlich condensate. That condensate is the spin source that couples to G* instead of G_N. The experiment to test it is straightforward: put a YIG sphere on a precision torsion balance (the same kind of instrument Cavendish used to measure G in 1798). Pump it with microwaves. Turn the pump on and off. If the theory is right, the torsion balance deflects when the pump is on and returns to baseline when it's off. The predicted signal is enormous — not a subtle statistical effect. A clear on/off switch. The equipment costs less than a postdoc's salary. If it works, it means: - Warp drives are engineering problems, not physics problems - Traversable wormholes ("stargates") are buildable with known materials - UAP propulsion has a physical explanation within extended GR - SpaceX becomes obsolete If it doesn't work, we know within a week of turning on the experiment. Clean falsification. No decades of ambiguity. Now — here's where Ark connects both halves: I used the AI methodology I described in my last email to do the symbolic tensor algebra (SymPy verification of the field equations), the numerical simulations (warp bubble solutions, metamaterial optimization), and even the experimental design. The AI tools don't replace the physics intuition — Jack has 50+ years of that. But they let a two-person team produce the equivalent output of a departmental research group. That's what Ark does: it takes human insight and amplifies it through properly-instructed AI until the output is indistinguishable from a well-funded institutional effort. A 29-year-old with no physics degree and an 86-year-old former Cornell/UCSD physicist, using AI as a cognitive amplifier, producing manufacture-ready blueprints for technology that would reshape civilization. That's the Ark story. If that's not sci-fi made real, I don't know what is. ~Mo nytimes.com/1986/02/11/sci… sfgate.com/news/article/S… nybooks.com/articles/1979/… 'On Apr 29, 2026, at 3:51 PM, JACK SARFATTI @icloud.com> wrote: jacksarfatti.academia.edu Begin forwarded message: From: Mohamad Al-zawahreh Subject: Re: You just got 106 views on "Tversky Neural Nets, Conscious AGI and Hawking's Mind of God" Date: April 29, 2026 at 3:35:08 PM PDT To: JACK SARFATTI @icloud.com> Cc: Felicity Harley Ark is applying systemizing logic and epistemology to Artificial intelligence in an attempt to make them capable of ethical, beneficial, intelligent, nuanced and verified output. Essentially, AI is broken. It lies, it makes things up, it doesn't really understand - it's not conscious - it doesn't know what it is doing and doesn't understand reasoning it PERFORMS reasoning. There is a huge gap of epistemology that stops AI from being useful - one that can be patched with natural language instruction and vigilance - plus outside tools (Sympy, Numpy, Formal verification methods etc) - the key insight: When you clearly define what "right" is and what "wrong" means - the LLM can perform the task adequately - the general population assumes that because the AI responds eloquently and they understand what it is saying - that it understands nuance - that it has "common sense"- an assumption of intellect that is misinformed. AI "understands" the definition of a word - but until you articulate it in a prompt - a framework "You must tell me if my writing here is good, and by good I mean that, were it to be entered in a writing competition - one of a high standard - let us say X - it would likely win Gold - the definition of "good writing" is something that is well paced, and causes a visceral reaction in the reader etc" You literally make an entire "skill" file - by having an LLM research deeply the topic of "What makes good writing "good" - then you attach that file in a prompt and say "This file defines what is good writing, use it and the information therein to analyze my book and tell me how good it is - where it could be improved and any other advice that is NOT generic - but targeted and very well informed - based on the actual content of my book and the target demographic" See Felicity? One prompt "Tell me how good my writing is" You'll get a trash generic response - likely bad advice even. Another prompt with a smart method (Creating a skill file/report containing the definition of what "good writing" is deeply and eloquently articulated with examples and so on and techniques people use to judge writing quality and examples of the best and most popular books of all time - and everything people broke down to understand WHY those books did so well - attaching that file to the prompt with explicit instructions) The response: Absolute gold - on a level no one could likely recieve except by being expert writers a lot of money for deep eloquent advice - even with that - who will go page by page - sentence by sentence in your books and give you such deep advice? You gonna hire Stephen King, Branden Sanderson, Pierce Brown and a dozen other writers to give you deep pointers on every single line in your books? Yeah. No. But AI? AI will do whatever you want, as long as you want - pretty much for free. The method I described above is an example - deeply relevant to your own work Feliciity - to show what AI can be used for in a way that is relevant to you. That is what Ark is - it is my ability to articulate - to teach - to use AI concentrated in a methodology - automated as much as I can -- but with me at the helm - pointed in the direction of any problem - I find a way to fix it. Having ingenuity - knowing exactly what you would need to know to do something effectively and how you would go about doing that something - and providing that to the LLM - a mixture of Prompt engineering and Context engineering - so that the AI can do what it was made to do - assist you. Become a reasoning partner - a exocortex - an extension of your own cognition. Now take the method I just described and apply it to Patent law, to medicine, to relationship advice - anything. You'll get the same outcome. Output - results - from the AI that is highly accurate, highly valuable and highly effective in making YOU better at whatever it is you are trying to do. Hope that helps. ~Mo On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 5:36 PM JACK SARFATTI @icloud.com> wrote: Ask Mohamed I do not understand AI LLMs.jacksarfatti.academia.edu On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:32 PM, Felicity Harley wrote:I’d like to write something on ARK but I don’t quite understand it - if you have time to put down a few sentences I can further research it and check it out with Mohammad .On Apr 29, 2026, at 5:10 PM, JACK SARFATTI @icloud.com> wrote: Interesting that Sam Altman and Elon Musk suing each other in Oakland.The AI tech we have may put them both out of business. Too soon to tell.Also if my SO(2,4) G* >> G local gauge gravity extension of Einstein’s General Relativityworks that puts Space X out of business. x.com/i/grok/share/9… Technological Surprise x.com/i/grok/share/c… x.com/i/grok/share/5… x.com/i/grok/share/0… jacksarfatti.academia.edu Begin forwarded message:From: "Academia.edu" @academia-mail.com> Subject: You just got 106 views on "Tversky Neural Nets, Conscious AGI and Hawking's Mind of God" Date: April 29, 2026 at 1:44:37 AM PDTTo: jacksarfatti@gmail.com Hi Jack,Congratulations! You uploaded your paper 2 days ago and it is already gaining traction. Total views since upload: You got 106 views from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Brazil, Nigeria, Spain, Greece, India, the Russian Federation, Italy, Israel, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Taiwan, Argentina, Belgium, Hong Kong, Algeria, and China on "Tversky Neural Nets, Conscious AGI and Hawking's Mind of God". Upload Another Paper Thanks, The Academia.edu Team You can update your preferences or unsubscribe. Academia.edu, 580 California St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA, 94104

@TheWolfmanDB The change in ep one or two of Hemlock Grove stays with me. 🐺 I forget exactly but it was at the very beginning of the series.

The greatest transformation scene in cinema. Who's with me? An American Werewolf in London (1982)

@darkjournalist Seeya at 8:40!🥰

Dark Journalist X-Series 223: Missing UFO File Scientists The Huntsville Paperclip X Protect Connection Revealed...! youtube.com/watch?v=-vF2ne… Special LiveStream Friday 8PM EST...Join Us!

@rexjonesnewz Still nothing. Fifteen hours ago. I guess nobody else, eh? Oh well. I’ll stop looking. 🥰

@rexjonesnewz Again now. Last vid ten hours ago. Yes I’m signed in. Yes I refresh. 🤷

New American Journal #2 | Monday Madness | Ceasefire BROKEN! x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@KyleSeraphin This is where my pill currently stands. 🕳️

@KyleSeraphin I’ll say it. Have I seen this closed border? Is it in the room with us now? Pics? Vids? Anecdotes? Maybe a limerick?

Let's start another week. I look forward to all of the cope about the border being closed while the Strait of Epstein is opened/closed/open for some... and the domestic agenda being re-written to "we need to give up our 4A rights for the troops."

@gregreese Drivel like calling her that. More coffee needed ☕️

@gregreese The right sounds like the left. The whole talk over just get louder repeat borg bullshit that I loathe. Ad hominem drivel like traitor Greene. No American first in sight. Contenders, perhaps, but the simulation is crafty and swift. Central casting. Pay attention! Meh

Weird how all the State paid influencers are all saying that influencers should be investigated.

@VikingRobVWO With a massive increase just lately.

Unfortunately. Quite often.

@rallynate It’s because ‘decimated’ means one out of ten. 🤷

If Iran is “decimated” and “has nothing left”, how are they shooting down our aircraft?

@shipwreckshow He is changing the name of the US to Trumpland.

Idk.. what do you all think he's going to talk about?

🚨BREAKING: NASA's Lead Electrostatics Scientist claims he’s discovered a “new force” that counteracts gravity with no fuel necessary. Dr. Charles Buhler has run 2,000 vacuum chamber experiments showing a propellantless thrust force that persists after the power is switched off, and cannot be explained by ion wind, magnetic effects, or classical energy conservation. The input is pure electricity and the output is millinewtons of thrust counteracting gravity. He believes his work vindicates the legacy of midcentury antigravity pioneer Thomas Townsend Brown and will lead to a new paradigm of propellantless deep space travel that transcends chemical combustion rockets🚨 Charles Buhler has a PhD in condensed matter physics from Florida State University, spent over two decades at NASA's Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center (which he now leads), and is the incoming president of the Electrostatic Society of America. He is NASA’s authority on electrostatics. His colleague Andrew Aurigema, a 35-year veteran engineer working from the Townsend Brown electrogravitics lineage, developed a parallel version of the same experiment independently, and the two discovered each other through a mutual colleague who had been watching both of them work in silence for years. Together, under their company Exodus Propulsion Technologies, they have tested nearly 2,000 variations of what they believe is a previously undocumented force. He’s also developed a quantum electrodynamics based theory to explain his results. Buhler’s patent is now under formal examination by the U.S. Patent Office with affidavit-signing witnesses being contacted independently. This is the future of space travel, beyond chemical combustion. With Rocketry, we can only get to Proxima Centauri B in 80,000 years. And you’d burn through the fuel well before that. It’s completely untenable for interstellar travel. 1. Buhler’s Skeptic Mentor Stopped Cold in 2010 The first demonstration happened in a non-vacuum lab using a laser aimed at a wall to detect small displacements. Buhler had his future brother-in-law run the test. His mentor, Dr. Sid Clements, an electrostatics expert who had dismissed the work entirely, watched the laser move and immediately abandoned what he was doing. He walked over, ran through a series of verification steps on the spot, and never questioned the reality of the effect again. That was 2010. It took two more years working with Drew before Buhler realized the force appeared even without any B field or current present. He wasn't in the field momentum regime at all. He was in pure electrostatics. 2. The Force is Not Explainable by Newton’s Laws or Ion Wind Ion wind produces thrust in the same direction the ionized air is traveling. The “Exodus force” (Buhler’s name for his new force) produces thrust perpendicular to the expected ion wind direction, reverses cleanly when the device is flipped, and remains present inside a sealed enclosure where no ionized air can escape. Buhler documented this publicly with video: a balsa lifter placed inside a sealed plastic box on a scale, powered up, lifts internally while the scale reads flat. That is conservation of momentum. That is what ion wind looks like. The Exodus force is something different, and Buhler, as the person who leads NASA's only electrostatics lab, is in an unambiguous position to make that distinction. 3. 2,000 Variations, All Producing the Same Result Since beginning collaboration with Drew, Buhler has tracked nearly 2,000 distinct test articles, each tested multiple times. Pendulums. Spinners. Rotators. Force plates. Scales. Pendulum deflections inside Faraday cages. Reversed polarity tests. Vacuum chamber runs at multiple pressure levels. DC-only configurations that eliminate magnetic field artifacts entirely. Every geometry, every material, every packaging approach. The force appears consistently. When a confounding variable is proposed, they address it, run the modified test, and the force is still there. Buhler says if an exotic explanation remains, it is not one he or any colleague has been able to name. 4. The Device Generates Thrust With the Power Off This is the finding that breaks the classical framework entirely. After charging the device and disconnecting it from the power supply, the thrust continues. The capacitor does not drain in the way a simple energy storage calculation would predict. Put on a scale, the weight reduction persists. Buhler's description: if placed in space with the power off, the device would accelerate. He cannot explain that to the scientific community and says so directly. David Chester, who has independently interacted with Drew through APEC sessions and private communications, said he cannot think of a prosaic explanation for this. The phenomenon has been reproduced enough times across enough configurations that calling it experimental error is no longer a defensible position. 5. The Implications of This for Past Antigravity Work Buhler believes his work is derivative of and related to Townsend Brown’s midcentury asymmetric capacitor experiments also showing thrust with pure electricity as the input. Chemical combustion is limited - plain and simple - we can’t get to the nearest habitable planet (Proxima Centauri B) in close the amount of time we’d need; it would take us 80,000 years and we’d burn through the fuel before we got there. It’s a checkmate in one argument against anyone claiming rockets are the frontier of efficiency. This was the dream of Thomas Townsend Brown – one that got stifled and suppressed behind the veil of secrecy and subcompartments. The common trope from experiments around the world are high electric field differentials seem to result in thrust. Buhler’s experiment exists in this lineage. 6. The Patent Office is Running the Peer Review Buhler made a deliberate choice not to pursue academic peer review as a primary path. His second patent is currently under examination, and the examiner's office has been reaching out to independent witnesses who have signed affidavits confirming they have seen and reproduced the effect. Buhler describes this as equivalent to scientific peer review, run by people with no financial interest in the outcome. His first patent may have been held under a national security review process before release. He does not confirm this, but he was aware it was a risk when he filed. 7. A QED Theorist Could Poke Holes in the Theory, But Not the Experiment We brought in UCLA PhD David Chester to evaluate Buhler’s ideas on quantum electrodynamics (which might account for the thrust being seen). David Chester's contribution was not to validate the theory Buhler proposed. He found some issues with the specific scalar virtual photon framing Buhler had developed. What Chester could not do was provide a prosaic explanation for the experimental results themselves. He said directly that, of all the anomalous phenomena he has surveyed, Buhler and Drew's work ranks in the top ten for experimental persuasiveness, specifically because of the iteration rate and the self-consistency across configurations. He noted that Drew's innovation rate alone, constantly testing new geometries and material stacks, is unlike anything he has seen from other groups making similar claims. Buhler pointed out that his theories were based on time-independent perturbation theory which Chester admits requires further examination from him. 8. NASA's UAP Investigation Had No Physicists Buhler and his wife, an engineer in NASA's Launch Services Program, were approached to assist with NASA's second UAP follow-on investigation. When Buhler asked to be placed with the physicists on the project, he was told there were none. The group was instrumentation-focused. Buhler says he was genuinely shocked. His reaction, expressed directly: if you are facing objects that defy the laws of physics, why is there not a single physicist in the room. He described the same reaction Eric Davis has expressed publicly. This is either institutional brain death or something else is happening somewhere else. 9. Six Lights Emerged from the Ocean Near Patrick Air Force Base Around 2013, Buhler and his wife were alone on the beach near Cocoa Beach, Florida, three miles south of Patrick Air Force Base. A red light appeared roughly three miles offshore, grew extremely bright, then appeared to explode, lighting the full length of beach. A helicopter launched from Patrick Air Force Base, flew to the location, hovered briefly, and returned to base without intervening. The light did not stop. It began moving toward them. At some point it split from one light into six rotating orange-pink lights that went under the water and re-emerged in a repeating cycle. The lights tracked their movement along the beach for forty minutes, closing to within roughly fifty yards before disappearing. Buhler says similar lights have been reported by others in the same area, and Stephen Greer runs group observation sessions approximately forty minutes south of the same beach. 10. The Force Crosses the Unity Threshold for Space Already The current demonstrated force is in the five to ten millinewton range. For Earth launch, that is not yet sufficient, and Buhler does not claim otherwise. For orbital station-keeping, for preventing satellite orbital decay, for repositioning between orbits in microgravity, the force exceeds what is needed. Buhler calls this hitting unity for space, moon, and Mars applications without any major development beyond what has already been demonstrated. The self-launcher, a device capable of lifting itself from Earth's surface, is the declared goal. No blueprints exist yet for the energy requirements. But the force is real, it is directional, it reverses on command, and it does not require continuous power to sustain. Why This Matters NASA's lead electrostatics scientist ran nearly 2,000 controlled experiments, eliminated every prosaic explanation the field has available, documented a thrust that persists after the power is cut, watched the fine structure constant emerge from the data repeatedly, and submitted a second patent currently under formal examination. A QED theorist with no commercial stake in the outcome reviewed the experimental claims and could not find a conventional explanation. The standard debunking line for this entire lineage of experiments has always been ion wind. That argument has been answered, documented, and filmed. What remains is a force that requires either new physics or an error that two decades of systematic testing has not been able to locate. The patent process will resolve part of this. The vacuum chamber footage will resolve more of it. Full conversation is live now. The next stage in human space travel is here.