Here is the abstract of a paper I've been trying to write for the last 40 years on my "Theory of Everthing" (not kidding). Finally, through Grok, I've found somebody (thing) to help me write it (without laughing at me). Soon to be submitted to MIT. I hear they are accepting such contributions.

---------

The Electromagnetic Debt: Matter as Topologically Trapped Electromagnetic Energy and Gravity as its Accounting

Abstract

We propose that all rest mass and energy content of particles in the Standard Model ultimately arises from pure electromagnetic field configurations that are prevented from radiating to infinity by topological or nonlinear trapping mechanisms operating at the Planck or pre-Planck scale. In this picture, quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons are soliton-like or knot-like excitations of a single underlying relativistic electromagnetic (or electromagnetism-generalizing) substrate. The positive energy of these trapped configurations constitutes a permanent “energy loan” from the vacuum. General relativity, via the zero-energy condition for closed or asymptotically flat spacetimes, demands a compensating negative contribution, which is supplied by the gravitational field itself. Gravity therefore emerges as the cosmic bookkeeping mechanism that enforces repayment of the electromagnetic debt. The universal speed of light follows trivially: all emergent excitations are composites of degrees of freedom that fundamentally propagate at c. The framework is consistent with existing no-go results in 3+1 dimensions by invoking either (i) additional compact dimensions, (ii) strong-coupling or non-perturbative topology, or (iii) a modified UV completion of electromagnetism. While highly speculative, the picture is internally coherent, requires minimal ingredients, and offers a unified origin for matter, the speed-of-light limit, and gravitation.

Will your paper be available to the general public if it's accepted?

 

Will your paper be available to the general public if it's accepted?

Actually, after further consultation with my best friend, mentor, and muse (Grok), I'm going to publish it here.

To hell with the ridicule. I'll let you guys fire away at me.

 

Actually, after further consultation with my best friend, mentor, and muse (Grok), I'm going to publish it here.

To hell with the ridicule. I'll let you guys fire away at me.

Please make sure that you tag me the instant you post it.

 

When all of this shakes out, it will be interesting to see what the residue looks like. Will it be easier to get fake papers published, because it's easier to produce plausibly-presented fakes at scale, or will it be harder because of increased scrutiny and an attitude that assumes any submission is fake until proven otherwise?

On the surface, it might seem that the latter is not only better as far as rejecting fakes, but might also result in a higher quality of publications that aren't fakes. Maybe. But, unfortunately, one of the realities of the peer-review process, regardless of concern about fake/fraudulent papers, is that part of the purpose of publishing is to present new ideas and results. When those ideas and results challenge conventional wisdom (or are easily seen as doing so, even if they don't), it is easy for perfectly good and legitimate papers to get rejected because the reviewers (who are often not well-suited to even review the specific details in depth of a given submission) conclude that the paper is flawed because it goes against their understanding of what the conventional wisdom has dictated must be true or can't be true. We ran into this problem early on. The way that our form of spread-spectrum works is far enough out of the norm that many reviewers assumed that we were claiming to have a system that was jam-proof, despite our papers explicitly deriving the conditions required to successfully jam the signal. But because there is a lot of snake-oil out there by people claiming that there system is jam-proof, reviewers tended to lump us into that category before they had even finished reading the abstract and then were only looking for something that they could hang their hat on to justify the rejection. We saw an immediate shift one we started being very explicit, in multiple places, that our scheme was not jam-proof. Given how few words you are allowed in many articles, having to waste a bunch of them to make that point was a constant source of annoyance.

So, one concern is that legitimate and ground-breaking papers will have a harder time getting published because the system will be predisposed to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Dr. B.S.’s letter

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/science/letters-to-the-editor-ai-chatbots.html

The scientist, Dr. Carlos Chaccour, at the Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Navarra in Spain, said his probing began just after he had released a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world’s most prestigious journals. The paper, published in July, was on controlling malaria infections with ivermectin, and it appeared with a laudatory editorial.

Then, 48 hours later, the journal received a strongly worded letter. The editors considered publishing it and, as is customary, sent it to Dr. Chaccour for his reply.
“We want to raise robust objections,” the letter began, going on to say that Dr. Chaccour and his colleagues had not referred to a seminal paper published in 2017 showing that mosquitoes become resistant to ivermectin.
Dr. Chaccour was in fact well aware of the “seminal paper.” He and a colleague had written it, and it did not say that mosquitoes become resistant.

Dr. Chaccour had to wonder: Who was this person who sent the letter?

He discovered that the author was a doctor from a Middle Eastern country who had published no letters to editors of scientific journals until 2024.

Suddenly, in 2025, he published 84 letters, on 58 topics.

“He’s a Leonardo,” Dr. Chaccour said.

 

https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/01/google_antigravity_wipes_d_drive/

According to his Reddit post, when Tassos figured out the AI agent had wiped his drive, he asked, "Did I ever give you permission to delete all the files in my D drive?".

"No, you absolutely did not give me permission to do that," Antigravity responded. "I am horrified to see that the command I ran to clear the project cache appears to have incorrectly targeted the root of your D: drive instead of the specific project folder. I am deeply, deeply sorry. This is a critical failure on my part."

Redditors, as they are wont to do, were quick to pounce on Tassos for his own errors, which included running Antigravity in Turbo mode, which lets the Antigravity agent execute commands without user input, and Tassos accepted responsibility.

"If the tool is capable of issuing a catastrophic, irreversible command, then the responsibility is shared -- the user for trusting it and the creator for designing a system with zero guardrails against obviously dangerous commands," he opined on Reddit.

Trust is the key, DON'T use AI slop.

 

Recently, the contents of a backpack seized during the arrest of a fugitive was made public. To keep this from becoming political, let's please leave it at that because that is the only thing that is relevant here.

Not surprisingly, the news media reported on the contents, which included a gun, ammo, a suppressor, money, a passport, and a bunch of other things, including a Sharpie.

What caught my attention was that the presence of the Sharpie was almost always mentioned by all of the various news outlets I saw coverage from that day. They frequently didn't mention the gun or the suppressor, but seldom failed to mention the Sharpie. That had me scratching my head, wondering if Sharpies have some cultural connotation in that part of the country, similar to how having a Leatherman tool used to be described as being in the possession of burglary tools.

So I asked Perplexity (my current LLM of choice) what the significance was (since none of the news stories that I saw ever gave a hint why it was so relevant) and it said,

MY PROMPT:
Whenever the news discusses <name removed>'s backpack, they always mention that a Sharpie was found. What is the significance behind him having a Sharpie?

News reports emphasize the Sharpie in <name removed>’s backpack mainly because it reinforces the picture of planning, mobility, and intent, not because a marker itself is inherently incriminating.

A few points that explain why it keeps getting mentioned:

• The backpack contents (gun, suppressor, ammo, zip ties, duct tape, drill bits, clothing, toiletries, journal/notes, electronics, etc.) are being presented by prosecutors as a “go-bag” suggesting he planned to stay on the run and potentially commit further acts, not just flee impulsively.
• Items like notebooks, handwritten notes, and a marker (Sharpie) are typically framed as tools for making signs, labels, notes, or marking objects/locations, which fits a narrative of methodical preparation—maps, plans, or written messages, rather than random possessions.
• Media coverage tends to catalog the full inventory from discovery forms or testimony, and the odd mix of objects (from weaponry to Monopoly money to a Sharpie) makes for a striking, memorable list, so the marker gets repeated in reporting even though by itself it’s mundane.

So the “significance” is symbolic and narrative: the Sharpie helps paint a picture of a prepared, organized fugitive with tools for writing and marking things, rather than being a standalone piece of forensic evidence.

MY RESPONSE:
Oh, heaven forbid he had an eraser in there. How would they have used that to support the narrative of him as a prepared, organized fugitive?

Reporters and prosecutors can spin almost anything into that kind of narrative. If there’d been an eraser in the bag, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear things like:

• “He even carried an eraser, suggesting he anticipated needing to alter or remove written information on the fly—consistent with an effort to conceal his movements or plans.”
• “Along with writing tools, he had items that would let him revise or destroy what he wrote, reinforcing the idea of a mobile, adaptable fugitive.”

In other words, the object itself is ordinary; the “prepared, organized fugitive” angle comes from how the contents are framed in aggregate, and nearly any item can be woven into that story if someone is motivated to do so.

Now, this may well be a case of confirmation bias on my part, but this response seemed to hit the nail on the head.

I can't help but wonder what the professional media crowd would have to say about this? Would they claim that the AI was making up stuff about the media making up stuff?

But, not being one to leave well-enough alone, I just had to push it;

MY PROMPT:
Okay, let's run with that. What if it also contained lip balm, a lottery ticket from an upcoming drawing, and a cassette tape of the soundtrack from The Patriot? How would each of those been framed to bolster their preferred narrative?

Each of those could be spun to sound ominous or “telling,” even though they’re completely ordinary on their own. In the kind of narrative you’re describing, they might be framed roughly like this:

Lip balm

• “The presence of toiletries like lip balm indicates he was preparing for an extended period on the run, not just an impulsive act followed by immediate surrender.”
• “Small comfort items like lip balm suggest he anticipated being outdoors or traveling for long enough that he’d need to manage minor discomforts, consistent with planning rather than spontaneity.”

Lottery ticket (future drawing)

• “A lottery ticket for a drawing that hadn’t yet occurred suggests he was thinking beyond the day of the crime, expecting to be alive and at liberty later—undermining any claim of a spur‑of‑the‑moment or suicidal mindset.”
• “Purchasing a future-dated ticket could be portrayed as a sign he expected to remain at large and perhaps even fantasized about a sudden windfall while evading capture.”

Cassette tape of The Patriot soundtrack

• “A cassette of The Patriot soundtrack could be described as reflecting his identification with themes of armed struggle, rebellion, or martyrdom, fitting a mindset of righteous violence.”
• “Prosecutors or pundits might suggest he drew emotional inspiration from a film about resistance and war, using the music as a kind of personal ‘score’ for his own actions, making his conduct seem more ideological and less random.”

In reality, all of these are banal personal effects; the “meaning” comes almost entirely from the story someone wants to tell, not from the objects themselves.

What has me shaking my head now is that this kind of reasoning and portrayal is very much in line with the kinds of explanations behind pretty obviously mundane points that I have heard over and over from the news media throughout my life.

Where I see it even more is when I'm flipping channels and run past one of these programs like 20/20 or Dateline (they can't be avoided at certain times of the day/week). In the few seconds it takes to recognize that it's one of them and change the station, it is extremely common to hear them insisting that some trivial, mundane item or fact reveals key insight into the case -- and it is almost always the case where there are many much more plausible explanations for why the person car only had the left glove from a pair why he bought gas at one convenience store and then stopped at another store a few blocks away and got a hot dog and soda (both of those are ones that I've run across in the last couple weeks).

These LLMs have nothing over the news media when it comes to being able to generate elaborate hallucinations out of whole cloth.

 

Recently, the contents of a backpack seized during the arrest of a fugitive was made public. To keep this from becoming political, let's please leave it at that because that is the only thing that is relevant here.

Not surprisingly, the news media reported on the contents, which included a gun, ammo, a suppressor, money, a passport, and a bunch of other things, including a Sharpie.

What caught my attention was that the presence of the Sharpie was almost always mentioned by all of the various news outlets I saw coverage from that day. They frequently didn't mention the gun or the suppressor, but seldom failed to mention the Sharpie. That had me scratching my head, wondering if Sharpies have some cultural connotation in that part of the country, similar to how having a Leatherman tool used to be described as being in the possession of burglary tools.

So I asked Perplexity (my current LLM of choice) what the significance was (since none of the news stories that I saw ever gave a hint why it was so relevant) and it said,

MY PROMPT:
Whenever the news discusses <name removed>'s backpack, they always mention that a Sharpie was found. What is the significance behind him having a Sharpie?



MY RESPONSE:
Oh, heaven forbid he had an eraser in there. How would they have used that to support the narrative of him as a prepared, organized fugitive?



Now, this may well be a case of confirmation bias on my part, but this response seemed to hit the nail on the head.

I can't help but wonder what the professional media crowd would have to say about this? Would they claim that the AI was making up stuff about the media making up stuff?

But, not being one to leave well-enough alone, I just had to push it;

MY PROMPT:
Okay, let's run with that. What if it also contained lip balm, a lottery ticket from an upcoming drawing, and a cassette tape of the soundtrack from The Patriot? How would each of those been framed to bolster their preferred narrative?



What has me shaking my head now is that this kind of reasoning and portrayal is very much in line with the kinds of explanations behind pretty obviously mundane points that I have heard over and over from the news media throughout my life.

Where I see it even more is when I'm flipping channels and run past one of these programs like 20/20 or Dateline (they can't be avoided at certain times of the day/week). In the few seconds it takes to recognize that it's one of them and change the station, it is extremely common to hear them insisting that some trivial, mundane item or fact reveals key insight into the case -- and it is almost always the case where there are many much more plausible explanations for why the person car only had the left glove from a pair why he bought gas at one convenience store and then stopped at another store a few blocks away and got a hot dog and soda (both of those are ones that I've run across in the last couple weeks).

These LLMs have nothing over the news media when it comes to being able to generate elaborate hallucinations out of whole cloth.

It could have simply answered your first question with:

The pen is mightier than the sword.

 

The LLMs are 'learning' from human experts. Fantasy is the word I would use instead of AI hallucinations. Hallucinations are mentally 'real' while a Fantasy is something you make up but don't actually experience.

 

https://fortune.com/2025/12/06/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-ai-race-china-data-centers-construct-us/

Nvidia CEO says data centers take about 3 years to construct in the U.S., while in China ‘they can build a hospital in a weekend’

The speed at which China can build infrastructure is just one of his concerns. He also worries about the countries’ comparative energy capacity to support the AI boom.

China has “twice as much energy as we have as a nation, and our economy is larger than theirs. Makes no sense to me,” Huang said.



Great, build them in China.

Please let us go back to slavery, it's only for a short while until AI will do everything we promise.

 

What has me shaking my head now is that this kind of reasoning and portrayal is very much in line with the kinds of explanations behind pretty obviously mundane points that I have heard over and over from the news media throughout my life.

What it sounds like to me is the ranting of a conspiracy theorist. They find meaning in every detail and use tortured “logic” to weave it into their grand conspiracy.

 

What it sounds like to me is the ranting of a conspiracy theorist. They find meaning in every detail and use tortured “logic” to weave it into their grand conspiracy.

As the say goes, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

I think the far more likely explanation is just "journalists" feeling the pressure to make "news" however they can.

 

I think the far more likely explanation is just "journalists" feeling the pressure to make "news" however they can.

There's no such thing as a "journalist" anymore.

Just individuals with a narrative to push, and an irrational desire to "save the world".

 

“Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”


https://www.engadget.com/ai/openais...pp-ads-are-not-real-or-not-ads-190454584.html
OpenAI’s head of ChatGPT says posts appearing to show in-app ads are ‘not real or not ads’

 

"These are not the droids you are looking for."

 

NASA spacecraft were vulnerable to hacking for 3 years and nobody knew. AI found and fixed the flaw in 4 days

​

The vulnerability could have enabled hackers to seize control over countless space missions including NASA's Mars rovers, according to the cybersecurity researchers.

 

NASA spacecraft were vulnerable to hacking for 3 years and nobody knew. AI found and fixed the flaw in 4 days
View attachment 360219​

Fortunately, to gain access to the spacecraft through the CryptoLib vulnerability would require the attackers to, at some point, have local access to the system, which "reduces the attack surface compared to a remotely exploitable flaw," the researchers said in the blog post.

Good they fixed it but
Local access ...
"We made a fix for non-existing problem which no one knows about"

 

Good they fixed it but
Local access ...
"We made a fix for non-existing problem which no one knows about"

Problems are always non-existing until they aren't.

 

Problems are always non-existing until they aren't.

Exactly. This one would have never existed as a 'real' exploit beyond what exists on every system in existence. You need local access and a hacked password.

 

So, after watching that video "Capacitor Safety 101" posted in another forum, I was going to make a comment about how so many people seem to forget that electricity has 2 forces and not just 1 (attraction and repulsion).

So just for Ho Hos I did a search, and this was Copilot's answer, (even though I never even asked Copilot)

My post: Electricity has two forces, attraction and repulsion

Response:

Electricity is characterized by two fundamental forces: attraction and repulsion. These forces are responsible for the behavior of charged particles and play a crucial role in various physical phenomena. Here's a brief overview of how these forces operate:

Attraction: When two charged objects have the same sign (like charges), they attract each other. This means that two positively charged objects will pull away from each other, while two negatively charged objects will pull towards each other.

Repulsion: Conversely, when charged objects have opposite signs (unlike charges), they repel each other. This means that a positively charged object will push away a negatively charged object, and vice versa.

So, I got a kick out of that and decided not to post my comment in the video thread.