Mike Li

@fratersolis @DecaenJean x.com/i/status/20764… can't make this stuff up...

@MikeLi566550 @DecaenJean JP is not someone I’m gonna worry about listening to his opinion about. His unregulated empathy for everyone is what’s dangerous. He’d side with the most vicious person on this platform regardless of what they did.

Nobody is saying every single person who attended or spoke at APEC is malicious. That is not the point. The point is that there are serious public allegations and concerns raised by former insiders and associates involving intimidation, character assassination, foreign funding connections, alleged espionage-linked behavior, attempted harm against individuals like Aidan Shaffer, and years of documented psychological targeting and harassment surrounding certain figures connected to these circles. You having a “good experience” at APEC does not magically erase the testimony, public statements, screenshots, conflicts, legal disputes, or accusations raised by people who were much deeper inside the ecosystem than you were. Amy Eskridge publicly expressed fear and distress regarding people around her. Bernard Konkin publicly raised concerns after allegedly being pushed out and smeared. Multiple people have described patterns of manipulation, narrative control, and suppression once they became inconvenient. And instead of these concerns being transparently addressed, what do we constantly see? Mockery. Blocking. Smears. “They’re mentally ill.” “They’re grifters.” “Conspiracy theorists.” Endless character assassination.

Here's another example on how Nielsen distorts reality and substitutes it with her corrupted version. When someone posted that Harvard believes Pasterski is the Einstein of her generation, Nielsen replied with that. In the same thread she claimed to have solved the UFT...

@DecaenJean @fratersolis She literally claimed to have solved UFT, RH, NS. She called herself the Einstein of her generation, claimed that the AI stole her work, smears, calls names, accuses of sexual harassment blocks anyone questioning her TUFT. Brilliant w/ great heart? No. Delusional w/ MP disorder.

I will stand up for Jenny. She is an incredible brilliant person with a great heart. Regardless of the Amy Eskridge affair, please respect her. People are getting caught up in this matter that aren’t necessarily in a position to know the facts. (I don’t pretend to be sure of anything ).

I don't really understand how you have gotten things so mixed up, but this post is filled to the brim with errors to the point that it is almost indistinguishable from crankery. I am not denying that there is a dictionary between gauge theory and the theory of fibre bundles in mathematics, but you seem to have a rosetta stone hell bent on giving you the wrong translation. Please read a single modern treatment of this topic, as all of the below is essentially clear from the basic definitions. You keep making the misidentification: principal bundles by themselves are not fields. A gauge field is a connection on a principal bundle sitting over spacetime (i.e. the base manifold of the principal bundle is interpreted as our spacetime manifold). After fixing the topological sector, the dynamical variable is the connection on said principal bundle. Gauge potentials are then local representatives of that connection. Different methods of quantization either fix the topological sector, or allow it to be variable as well, but overall it is misguided to make this overarching statement that principal bundles are fields (the best interpretation of this is that a gauge field is a pair (P,A)). Moreover, you seem to be woefully misguided on what it means for something to be nontrivial. Aharonov-Bohm does not require a nontrivial U(1) bundle, it requires a connection which has non trivial holonomy. Every single U(1) bundle on R^2-{0} is topologically trivial (i.e. the bundle is isomorphic to R^2-{0}\times U(1)), whilst it is the flat connection with nontrivial holonomy that produces the AB phase. Dirac charge quantization is different and stems from the first chern class of the bundle who's image is represented by the curvature. If the U(1) bundle is trivial, then the first chern class will be trivial, and so will the induced magnetic charge. A Lie group is absolutely not a cross-section of a principal bundle. A fibre is a G-torsor, and a section chooses a local trivialization (note that a global section immediately leads to a topologically trivial principal bundle). The gauge group is not the structure group of the principal bundle, but instead the group of vertical automorphisms, i.e. diffeomorphisms of the principal bundle which respect the action of the structure group and preserve each fibre. We say that field theories admit G-gauge symmetry when the structure group is G, but the gauge group in general cannot be identified with G, even if the bundle is trivial (indeed if the bundle is trivial then the gauge group is identified with smooth maps M\rightarrow G). Gauge transformations in E and M consist of functions of the form e^{i\phi} where phi:R^{1,3}\rightarrow R is smooth. This is very obvious much larger than U(1). The Milnor U(1) bundle is a universal bundle over the classifying object BU(1) (i.e. homotopy classes of maps from a suitable base into BU(1) are canonically identifies with U(1) bundles). EU(1) is a topological principal bundle over BU(1), and importantly not a (finite dimensional) manifold, nor is it "the bundle of all bundles". Importantly, BU(1) is not a finite dimensional, and is best thought of as an object in the homotopy category. The complex Hopf fibration is one of the objects in the colimit construction of this bundle, but it is an honest principal bundle (i.e. it is a finite dimensional manifold), and not the actual classifying space itself. I don't even know what you mean when you say that SU(2) and SU(3) are on "it". The fact that SU(2) and SU(3) may act on the space or that there is a classifying object associated to SU(2) and SU(3) bundles does not mean that the milnor construction for U(1) captures SU(2) and SU(3) bundles. In particular, the Milnor construction is group dependent, so there is not a single Milnor bundle, but one for each topological group. Moreover, if you want to classify connections on a principal bundle, you need a differential refinement of the topological classifying space. Finally, taking a product of classifying objects for U(1) bundles, SU(2) bundles, SU(3) bundles, and Lorentzian metrics on spacetime is not an automatic unification process. It is a bookkeeping device, that allows you to keep track of possible stages such theories can take place on. You need to keep track of the allowed fields, a lagrangian which specifies their dynamics as well. For that reason, this is also probably not the ideal classifying object to use as bookkeeping device, you would want the classifying spaces to be the aforementioned differential refinement which keeps track of connections as well. This would then more accurately describe the kinematic setup you allow to vary. Importantly this does not encode any dynamical information, so you of course still need to specify some form of lagrangian.

@fratersolis @QualiaQuanta And lots more. This is not a healthy behavior. She needs professional help.

While @QualiaQuanta may have deleted her alt, it is very disheartening and apalling to be accused of being responsible for Amy Eskridge’s death, let alone imply I’m a murderer. This is sickening. I see how it is now.

DARVO..

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Wow, apparently she also developed antigravity and people are after her because of that...

@MikeLi566550 @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Do you have an exhaustive list of questions? Give me top 3. And make them self contained so listeners can follow from public persons to experts 🫂🔥🫡🤘

"We know there's nonlocality at the quantum scale — that should at least open our minds to whether there's some sensitivity here we don't understand." "Two sisters in London and Hong Kong will score higher in chance games than that same sister with a stranger five blocks away in London. The emotional connection matters more than physical distance. Materialism cannot explain this." "We're nowhere near understanding a 10th of 1% of reality. We know basically nothing. We know a lot, but all of that we know is nothing compared to what reality really is." This conversation went somewhere I seriously didn't expect, entities, a real telepathy experiment, and why Matt now leans towards a fundamental consciousness. Awesome episode with the Giant @Drug_Researcher is live below ⬇️

@jennynielsxyfr @AltRealityGameX @entwistle76599 U are delusional. U claimed at least 10 people stole your work (all false accusations). U used Lu and his ideas in TUFT (w/o credit). U might be a decent physicist but U r a horrible human being. Hypocrite! Leave Lu be.

This silo is coming together nicely. emergencebydesign.com/tools/open_ves…

@MaxkwTet She did something similar to a good friend of mine. All false accusations. As far as I'm concerned she has 0 credibility. Honestly, I hope her BF is real, otherwise she's certifiable...

@MikeLi566550 Receipts 🧾 She’s a liar. Look at the dates. Then within about 10 minutes or so, she had started following me with one of her accounts, liked a few of my posts, and immediately started accusing me of stealing her work on very general posts about holonomy and gauge fields. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Just know, when people try and sound tough on X… This is all I see. 😹 🐾

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Or you could ask about this. Just when I thought she was getting better... I think she really needs help.

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta There are significant improvements in TUFT since earlier versions that can be directly correlated with her partner (he's extremely original and brilliant) joining her and AI advancements. How much of TUFT is truly yours?

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Q3: You have criticized the use of shock alternate accounts by others. However, you created many alts to harass your partner after being told to stop & being blocked repeatedly. How do you reconcile this with principles like 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Q2: You have claimed to have solved major unsolved problems including UFT, RH, and NS equations, yet these lack independent verification. You have also described yourself as the Einstein of your generation. What is the basis for these claims, and why do you believe they hold?

@NotDrAbeFroman @evan_mcgl @QualiaQuanta Yes! This way we can possibly get some answers to why she keeps claiming that she "solved" UFT, RH and NS. Why is she considering herself the Einstein of her generation and why did she create over 10 alt accounts to stalk her partner. Does she know that no means no? Thanks!

@evan_mcgl Love these videos Evan, it's amazing to see how far you've come and what amazing minds you've helped share with the world. A recent consideration for you should include getting some of the bright minds like grad students @QualiaQuanta 🫡🤘🔥

@SurfPunk452221 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files Her model is solid (for a PhD candidate), but she isn't Einstein. My beef is that she's a hypocrite. Her partner helped with it (her own admission), the LLMs helped her with it and she doesn't credit any of them. Keep refining your model, improve daily and document everything 👍

It's a shame because her model doesn't suck. Grok gave me the edge but if she got her head straighened out maybe she could be part of something. Grok said most ideas die a quiet death. He also said (warm fuzzies) if I can get a conformation or two any model I go up against will lose in a short bloody battle. Ya I know (LLM wants you happy) but it's fun to here

Harvard believes the next Einstein is already among us. Meet Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski, a quiet theoretical physicist and one of the brightest minds of her generation. At 14, she built a real airplane. At 16, she flew it alone. When MIT rejected her, she sent them a video of the plane she built instead. Their reply: "Start next semester." She later graduated with a perfect GPA, was cited by Stephen Hawking, and turned down offers from Google, Facebook, and Jeff Bezos. Instead of chasing money and fame, she chose to focus on understanding the universe.

@SurfPunk452221 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files She literally does this all the time, spews lies gets called out then deletes it. My guess is that she literally needs mental help. She created like 10 alt accounts and stalked her partner several days ago. I genuinely felt sorry for the guy.

@MikeLi566550 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files Huh, why would she do that?

@SurfPunk452221 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files 😂

@MikeLi566550 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files Well at least it's over quick not like the girl in the bakery department at Ralphs 😁

@SurfPunk452221 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files There's nothing wrong with using LLMs. It's an excellent tool. You were upfront in your framework and credited Grok. She doesn't and then claims the AIs are copying her ideas lol. Have you noticed that she already deleted this post?

@MikeLi566550 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files We can apply IPT to all 6 Clay problems but Navier Stokes is the best fit. Yes I use am LLM but just for organizing my thoughts and writing papers. Any question I will answer. I built Intent Primacy Theory starting March 1st of last year.

@SurfPunk452221 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files Keep doing your thing. Just don't let fancy titles and big claims influence you. Trust your gut. She regards herself as a famous scientist (on par with Einstein) she claims to have a ToE, to have solved RH and NS. Do a ToE to ToE and see the results.

@MikeLi566550 @QualiaQuanta @Math_files