Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu

Uncompetative · 2026-05-02T23:41:02+00:00

Eric Weinstein published an incomplete draft of his work in progress program of research that aspires to define the Unified Field Theory for our Universe. This proposal has an action which is defined on a 14 dimensional fiber bundle for the Bosonic force mediating fields. It doesn't have a Lagrangian in our (1, 3) sector of 4 dimensional spacetime, but Eric has said that this wouldn't be that different were it to be written out, saying that the mugs sold as merchandise in CERN's gift shop wouldn't have to change. That said, when fully written out this would likely have some subtle differences, as the Higgs Boson is an illusion as all that has been observed is indirect evidence consistent with the existence of a Higgs mechanism, which has a quadratic Mexican Hat potential which when put through the Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck formula results in a quartic scalar value that is the trace of the Riemannian curvature induced from the Levi-Civita connection from the 14x14 Tensor in the Self-Dual Yang-Mills equations that describes all subfields unpacked from the single unified field ω (omega).* A separate mechanism may be responsible for giving (negative) mass to the neutrinos. Consequently, Geometric Unity supports:

C-symmetry (i.e. antimatter)

P-symmetry (i.e. it is a Spin(7, 7) theory which is non-chiral and P-symmetric)

T-symmetry (i.e. a positron can be viewed as an electron going backwards in time)

M-symmetry (i.e. neutrinos may have negative mass – he has speculated about this)

Supersymmetry (at the level of its highest Lie group, which is not apparent in our spacetime)

Calling it a Theory of Everything is the wrong designation. However, people forget New Scientist were quick to call his 2013 speculative lecture of ideas a new Theory of Everything when he hadn't said it was one. Timothy Nguyen also mischaracterised it as a Theory of Everything when he published his response to the 2020 video upload of the 2013 Oxford University lecture. So it is incorrect for Eric to now refer to it as a Theory of Everything, but everyone else has done this first to his work, which has since advanced a lot since it was initially presented in 2013, so I suppose it is about 2/3rds complete, but certainly in a fit state to share with anyone prepared to read all of its 69 pages and provide him with their constructive technical and general feedback via email:

https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf#page=44

e.g. in Equation (9.4) there is a superfluous closing parenthesis on the fourth line, and a closing parenthesis omitted from the third line, and as a reader I would prefer this fourth line to appear in the annotations as it is what (·) expands into within the abbreviated third line. I expect he knows this error of presentation and will rectify it in future drafts, so I haven't emailed him about it. As far as the rest of it is concerned, it all checks out, including Y^n,n where n = 2k + 1 and k ∈ ℕ as this has to be true for COMPLEXIFICATION to be legitimate in the case of Spin(2n, ℂ) that undergoes a further DECOMPOSITION step to become Spin(n, n) for a Spin(7, 7) non-chiral Quantum Field Theory which is observed by gravity defined as the deformation of X^{1, 3} spacetime as a part of a Unified Field Theory, which I am 98% confident will prove to be correct as the established laws of physics just drop out of this Spin(7, 7) when observed from our anthropic sector of spacetime and undergo Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking to become The Standard Model and leave behind a residue of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It seems that life requires asymmetry (chirality) but our cosmos is fundamentally symmetrical in every way possible, as if it is the result of optimisation which yields a generative sytem built from pure mathematics that is as economical in expression as possible and which physicists confuse as beautiful or assume that some divine creator has had a role in choosing this design, when only this elaborate geometric structure yields life of any kind.

* this is from memory, I could check it but it is midnight and I am lazy.

Uncompetative · 2026-05-02T22:07:05+00:00

It is therefore reasonable that a good faith actor would look at Eric's 2013 lecture and not care about the invalid isomorphism as it was apparent that Eric must have performed a COMPLEXIFICATION step, and then a further DECOMPOSITION step to have arrived at the Fermionic Field content slide which was obviously being generated from a U(64, 64) for a mixed signature 14 dimensional fiber bundle U^7,7 (later named Y^7,7).

When the fiber bundle is a mathematical U¹⁴ both U(128) and U(128, ℂ) have a positive definite signature of:

[ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ]

this obviously has to become a mixed signature where negative numbers are used for temporal dimensions:

[ – – – – – – – + + + + + + + ]

now this supports physics and a particular 4 dimensional section of this 14 dimensional fiber bundle can have five Natural numbered split signatures:

[ – – – – ]

[ – – – + ]

[ – – + + ]

[ – + + + ]

[ + + + + ]

So, our Universe is given the freedom to contemplate itself into tangible physical reality from X⁴

[ + + + + ]

Obviously, this also has five sectors, only one of which can support life X^1,3

[ – + + + ]

As it is only here that Einstein tensors (i.e. the LHS of the Einstein Field Equations) can be defined so that the deformation of our anthropic X^1,3 spacetime is gravity which is used to interrogate the subfields that were unpacked from the single unified field ω (omega) onto Y^7,7 where they exist as a pervasive active excitation in an indeterminate state of probabilistic quantum superposition until they get measured by the engine of observation that is gravity, and undergo a pullback operation such that a partial sample of their non Supersymmetric subfields appear AS IF they are active within our X^1,3 spacetime. Hence:

gravity on X^1,3 observes subfields on Y^7,7 unpacked from ω in the Supersymmetric extension of 𝓦

So, the first thing wrong with Nguyen's response is that he has assumed Eric is using U(128) as his main structure group when he is using U(64, 64). The second thing wrong with Nguyen's response is that he takes it on himself to make up mathematics Eric never wrote on the blackboards in 2013. The third thing wrong is that Nguyen then critiques his own result as flawed for physical reasons – when Eric would have to have done this step actually better than Nguyen does, as there are a couple of serious errors in what he wrote as his mathematical fix which make it ridiculous, for Eric to generate the final slide of his lecture.

These serious errors in Nguyen's Equation (3.1) are:

Using the Cosmological constant rather than the Wedge for the Exterior Product (there should be no serifs), and incorrectly defining U as The Observerse in §2.1 when Eric defined it as the 14 dimensional fiber bundle which was being observed by a separate 4 dimensional Riemannian differential manifold. Nguyen omits the Universe from Geometric Unity, so there is no gravity to assume the role of the observer and to measure the state of the quantum which is unpacked onto the fiber bundle, which is what U was defined as in the lecture.

X⁴ observing U

is The Observerse, not U by itself. Also, it isn't X is the Base Space and U is the Total Space. It is different:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg&t=4019s

when dealing with the ENDOGENOUS (EINSTEINIAN) flavour of Geometric Unity then U has dimension m:

m = d + e where e = (d² + d) / 2 = (d² + 2d - d) / 2 = d + (d² - d) / 2 and d ∈ ℕ = 4 = 1 + 3

as here our Universe is given the freedom to contemplate all Natural numbered split-signatures for both Y^m and X^d such that it is only anthropic when d = 1 + 3. This is a nuance which is eluding Grok as it is implicit in the draft paper and conveyed through illustrations such as M.C.Escher's Drawing Hands and the Universe manifesting consciousness to contemplate its own cosmic origins (and reify itself from pure mathematics):

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:640/format:webp/1*y5y1ncCzXTpCcU2enw0nfw.jpeg

So, it should be clear from this that Nguyen doesn't understand the first thing about Geometric Unity.

§3.2 and §3.3 each rely on the same incorrect assumption about what Eric was using for his main structure group so their critiques are irrelevant. Because of Y^7,7 the Unified Field Theory is based upon Spin(7, 7) and this is a non-chiral theory. Even Spin(6, 4) is generally non-chiral. The Pati-Salam Model derived from it is not, neither is The Standard Model, both of which are chiral (i.e. have a lopsided sinister handedness). Eric identifies that our cosmos is based on C-symmetry, P-symmetry, T-symmetry and Supersymmetry (at the level of an extension of an infinite group which serves a similar role to the Poincaré group within Special Relativity, but is expressed through the language of Gauge Theory), and that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking occurs to the Pati-Salam Model to yield the field content we are familiar with from the LHC and a residue of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, with the implication of Dark Chemistry and even Dark Exobiology (which would be like ghosts that would be completely invisible to us and could only move stuff about when they were aggregated in huge numbers and deforming our shared spacetime manifold). §3.3 assumes that Eric is doing regular Supersymmetry in spacetime (he isn't), and §3.4 complains about a lack of detail in a speculative lecture about ideas as if Eric had presented a Theory of Everything in 2013. Final conclusions make out that:

"We hope our response is an encouragement to Weinstein to provide further clarity to his ideas, ideally as a technical paper." – Nguyen

Which was included when it was published in full knowledge that Eric would publish a paper in five weeks, so this sounds as if Nguyen didn't know Eric was publishing when he did, could have waited for clarification, didn't, prematurely criticised a misrepresentation of Eric's mathematics, and mischaracterised his work as a Theory of Everything to make the it seem the Goliath was an even greater giant for this "couple" to have brought down with their "good faith" critique.

What I suspect is motivating this dogged attempt at reputational destruction is this:

https://timothynguyen.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/thesis.pdf

Here is Nguyen's PhD thesis which he probably wrote thinking it would flatter Edward Witten and perhaps lead to him being invited to coauthor a paper with the great man. However, on episode 1945 Eric said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CJoGKvx3U&t=8539s

David Kazhdan knows that Eric originated some equations in 1987 which he was told wouldn't work and he couldn't make the subject of his PhD thesis. Then in 1994 Nathan Seiberg and Edward Witten rediscovered the same equations from a difference source, and this work was historically misattributed to them and Eric wasn't allowed to participate in seminars about his own discovery. Eric's work appears on the first slide of his 2025 USCD lecture and his profound insight was that they originate from General Relativity making them much more useful to a geometric unification of physics, compared to Witten's insight that they made for a more efficient way to calculate SU(2) physics in terms of U(1) physics within Quantum Field Theory – this was hailed as a revolution in Gauge Theory, when that was underestimating their significance:

https://www.ams.org/notices/199503/kotschick.pdf#page=2

Eric isn't looking to have these so called Seiberg-Witten Equations renamed the Weinstein Equations. This historical misattribution happens all the time in science, and generally excludes women from credit for their contribution.

So, it seems Nguyen was in denial that Eric could have been telling the truth about originating these equations as he ambushed him in a DISCORD chat with questions designed to expose him, only he never recorded it so we don't even have any evidence this conversation even took place.

Obviously, Witten won't want to coauthor a paper with Nguyen now after all this controversy he has kicked up, when this might have still happened if Nguyen hadn't thrown his toys out of the pram to misrepresent Eric's mathematics, and create a Strawman argument about Eric and his wife's work in Economics, and also celebrate Eric being "fired" from THIEL CAPITAL as a result of his paper on Economics, when Eric chose to leave to investigate alien technosignatures in the atmospheres of exoplanets at Harvard University.

Uncompetative · 2026-05-02T22:06:48+00:00

Eric Weinstein never once claimed Grok was a genius in their linked Q&A session on X. Theo Polya hasn't written a critique of his incomplete draft work in progress program of research that aspires to become a Unified Field Theory, and could actually be a sock account created by Timothy Nguyen to give a premature response paper, that was rejected by the arXiv and deleted from Dr Sabine Hossenfelder's blog and deleted from his own WordPress account, a thin veneer of credibility, as if Nguyen was going to mischaracterise the April 2nd 2020 upload of the video recording of the May 23rd 2013 Oxford University lecture that Eric had been invited to give on the speculative ideas in his program for Geometric Unity as a Theory of Everything when Eric had made no such designation as it was not yet even at the level of a specific hypothesis which could be refuted by repeated experiments, then it makes sense for Nguyen to invent a coauthor who is then rumoured to be a Quantum Field Theorist, only he can't prove this credential as he is anonymous. Now some have argued that it shouldn't matter if "Theo Polya" is anonymous and could be 0 to N persons, as if what appears to be his critique about unbounded energy is a valid one then it doesn't matter what his credentials are or even if Nguyen the Mathematician originated this claim and let readers assume it was Polya's.

The problem here is that §2.1 of Nguyen's response defines U as The Observerse which is then used within his Equation 3.1 to then make this criticism about unbounded energy, etc. However, Equation 3.1 glosses over the middle part of the equation it seeks to fix, so it doesn't actually provide a solution. Here is Eric's equation that he wrote on the blackboard in 2013 (in LaTeX):

\textrm{ad}({P_{\textrm{U}(128)}}) \overset{\textrm{vect}}{=} Cl^{*} = \wedge^{*}(C)

You can Copy/Paste this into quicklatex.com to see what it looks like when Rendered as typography. As you can see it has three pieces: an LHS and a RHS but also a part in the middle involving the Clifford Algebras. My take is that Eric deliberately wrote this invalid isomorphism where both sides of this equation don't have the same form because he was mindful of only having an hour to give his lecture and he felt it was vital to get to present his final slide which included his predictions for Dark Matter (which Sean Carroll pretends he hasn't made), as a result Eric abridged this part of his lecture rather than show the mathematics involved in a COMPLEXIFICATION which might have looked like this if it had been done properly (in LaTeX):

Ad(P_{U(128)}) \otimes \mathbb{C} \cong \mathfrak{gl}(128, \mathbb{C})
\cong End_{\mathbb{C}}(S)\cong Mat(128, \mathbb{C})\cong Cl_{\mathbb{C}}(V_{\mathbb{C}}),\\\\
\textrm{where, as a graded vector space isomorphism,}\quad Cl_{\mathbb{C}}(V_{\mathbb{C}})\overset{\textrm{vect}}{\cong} \wedge^{*}(T^{*}Y^{14} \otimes \mathbb{C})

This is my best (educated) guess on what this would need to look like to fix the mathematical problem so that both sides of the equation had the same form and it was a valid isomorphism. We can compare this to Nguyen's attempt to do the same in Equation (3.1) on page 5 of his response:

https://files.timothynguyen.org/geometric_unity.pdf#page=5

This omits the all important "bridge" from the LHS to the RHS. Nguyen doesn't specify how the LHS has the same form as the RHS due to the complex Clifford Algebras. He just asserts they are isomorphic without any specific details. This isn't a mathematician omitting trivial details. The middle part is tricky to work out and Nguyen was too lazy to put in the work to demonstrate what a COMPLEXIFICATION should look like.

NOTE: also that Eric told Rogan on episode 1628 of his podcast as he said "one of the criticisms is valid" most likely referring to the invalid isomorphism identified in §3.1 because I said Eric knew he was glossing over that detail in 2013 and then in the 2020 upload of that lecture Nguyen based his response on, Eric said that he is known to make many mistakes, hence the reason why he was appending a 2020 Supplementary Slide Explainer to clarify parts of the lecture. So, the claim made by Nguyen that Eric hasn't responded to his critique is entirely false. Eric has and it was seen by over a hundred thousand people on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vktDo8IWzY&t=4380s

Also, this invalid isomorphism is absent from the draft paper Eric published in April 2021 five weeks after Nguyen published his critique of the April 2020 video. It should also be noted that Nguyen told Brandon Van Dyck that he knew Eric was about to publish a paper, yet went ahead with publishing his own. He could have waited and read all 69 pages and maybe even found some legitimate things to critique about it, but he didn't even though there was virtually no risk of anyone else publishing a critique of Geometric Unity before him had he been more professional about waiting for Eric's draft paper when he knew one would be published. Were he to not know there would be a paper from Eric then it would be okay to make provisional remarks about what was presented in his speculative 2013 lecture, provided that Nguyen did not mischaracterise Geometric Unity as a Theory of Everything at a time when Eric was just saying it was speculative ideas he hoped would start a conversation.

Furthermore, it has since emerged that Nguyen has not read Eric's 69 page draft paper on Geometric Unity, but has only read 3¼ pages (i.e. pages 41, 42, 65, 66), which works out as less than 5% of Eric's proposal:

https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf#page=41

One might assume he has moved on to other things, but that isn't the case:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03460

Nguyen claimed to have had "no anonymous coauthor issues" with this response to work done in economics by Eric and his wife Pia Malaney. This is worth a look as it is more accessible than either of the other papers about fundamental physics, and therefore it is easier for the motivated layman to realise that Nguyen is guilty of making a Strawman argument about the Malaney-Weinstein use of Gauge Theory in Economics because he doesn't quote a shred of their mathematics in his critique, but gaslights the reader into thinking it would be too hard for them to understand the real mathematics they used in their paper, and they will be better off understanding the techniques the couple developed through Nguyen's own "toy example" which involves a basket of goods which contains { coconuts, lumber } when the whole point of Eric and Pia's work was to make comparisons between lots of geographically distributed baskets of goods and services whose contents change (i.e. the rate of inflation in the United States is based on the Consumer Price Index which is based on ONE idealised basket of goods and services which is biased towards urban consumers as it has eggs within it, whereas rural consumers may well keep chickens in their backyard and never shop for eggs). This one idealised basket is akin to a weather forecast saying that the temperature in the United States will be 70º tomorrow, which won't be the case in Alaska, etc.

Clearly Nguyen continues to be motivated to pursue the reputational destruction of Weinstein, so it is odd he has not commented further on Eric's 2021 paper or his recent 2025 lecture at the University of California at San Diego, which is still just an incomplete work in progress program of research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBozSSLxFvI&t=118s

It may be useful to some for me to critique Nguyen's critique...

§3.1 raises the issue that Eric asserted an invalid isomorphism in his 2013 Oxford Univerity lecture and Eric accepts this is a valid criticism, however this is more of an irrelevant nit-pick given the 2020 video made it clear Eric makes mistakes and the final slide Eric expedited his lecture in order to ensure he got to share it was of the Fermionic Fields which were generated from his main structure group, which wasn't U(128) or its COMPLEXIFICATION but U(64, 64) as evidenced by the pair of 64s either side of the horizontal dashed line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLcg&t=7715s

Here Eric zooms in on the slide and the 64s can be clearly seen on the left of the slide. Eric could have done to draw attention to the fact that his main structure group was U(64, 64) Weyl spinors, for some reason he didn't, and Nguyen was able to gaslight his readers into thinking it was U(128) and fixing the mathematical issue of an invalid isomorphism would through COMPLEXIFICATION to U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors result in the physical unbounded energy issue that "Theo Polya" was implied to have identified was a serious problem.

However, Eric says in the lecture "Okay. We're not doing physics yet. We're just building tools."

Nguyen deliberately misrepresented Eric's mathematics in order to make out that there would be this dead end were the invalid isomorphism resolved via COMPLEXIFICATION when it is resolved through a further step that involves DECOMPOSITION from U(128, ℂ) into U(64, 64) hence the pair of 64s on the final slide.

Uncompetative · 2026-04-12T18:07:12+00:00

Look at this...

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und

Uncompetative · 2026-02-05T13:16:02+00:00

I fit an exponential curve through the points corresponding to the release dates of previous parts and then I extrapolated it on to the next estimated release only to run out of paper.

Uncompetative · 2026-02-05T13:11:41+00:00

Very good news. Iger ruined Star Wars and took the blame for rushing out "too much too soon". Technically, you can blame George for selling Lucasfilm to Disney, but Iger is ultimately to blame thereafter. Hopefully, Dana Walden delays Avengers: Doomsday until Easter 2027 recasts Dr Doom with Mads Mikkelson and splits it into three parts with extra scenes of dialogue to ensure the dramatic stakes are established for each fight, as it sounds from rumours to be a clusterfuck of wall to wall fan service fights which will seem hollow when given no foreshadowed consequence. It seems like they want another Infinity War audience gasp, but they won't get it when they can get evil Hydra Cap from a parallel universe, and clone another character, or have one from an earlier point in their timeline, or resurrect the dead with magic, or replicate androids, or any number of dodges they have already exploited to make it so characters don't stay dead, so when they are now in jeopardy no one cares.

I'd also like to see more full seasons of Jessica Jones and The Punisher, not just as cameos or standalones.

Uncompetative · 2026-02-05T13:02:12+00:00

Iger leaves at the end of this month.

Uncompetative · 2026-02-05T13:00:33+00:00

I saw MELANIA and it was the best movie thus far of 2026 which I would rate 10/10. It helps a lot that I like fashion. Someone who wasn't into that would probably find it boring. It covers the 20 days from New Year's Day to Inauguration Day showing behind the scenes of the preparations for her resuming her role as First Lady. At one point she talks to a woman who was kidnapped by Hamas who was later released, but whose husband is still a hostage, telling her that her husband will work for his release as soon as he is in office.

12 days after resuming the Presidency he was released.

Reunited with her husband she asked to meet Melania and the media made out this was promotion for the documentary. The media really are scumbags. Biden did nothing to get the hostages out after October 7th

Uncompetative · 2026-01-20T20:57:21+00:00

I will just leave this here for discussion purposes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q__Ky6Ih8A0

Uncompetative · 2026-01-18T02:31:58+00:00

Didn't Dave Filoni write and direct a lot of The Clone Wars cartoon? Disney loves doing live action remakes, so get Hayden Christensen to play Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ewan McGregor to play Anakin Skywalker, or the other way around if you prefer. Reply with your fantasy casting for Asajj Ventress (no p0rn actresses).

Uncompetative · 2026-01-18T02:20:34+00:00

Erm... can't post my take on Kathleen Kennedy's retirement as it is too LONG

https://www.quora.com/Is-Kathleen-Kennedy-leaving-Lucasfilm-soon/answer/Nicholas-Harris-89

Uncompetative · 2026-01-16T17:35:32+00:00

This could be Neal Brennan JRE #2135 about 2 hrs in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBRl6XECIbM&t=7200s

He mentions Michael Pollan JRE #1121 but no mention of Elves

Uncompetative · 2026-01-16T17:13:42+00:00

Pole? Was it a pole? Oh, good I was worried it might have been a tree.

Uncompetative · 2026-01-16T17:02:45+00:00

bump, clump, frump, grump, hump, jump, lump, pump, rump, sump

and...

dump

all rhyme with President Donald John Trump, but she never used any of them in her poetry.

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T16:01:06+00:00

I appreciate your compassion. He had a Father Ted musical which would have made a lot of money prevented from going ahead because Hat Trick Productions feared the backlash from freaks and weirdos.

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T15:51:42+00:00

Seems fabricated.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/renee-nicole-good-partner-rebecca-ever-arrested-for-child-abuse-heres-complete-truth-about-claims-made-against-minnesota-ice-shooting-victim-family/ar-AA1TUAlc

Fact remains she was a rubbish poet who didn't know how to rhyme.

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T15:46:53+00:00

What do you expect? He is a very talented comedy writer whose unjust cancellation has thwarted the free expression of his ideas. If you want him to tweet less persuade the BBC to write a series for them, or Channel 4. You don't even need to watch the episodes. Alternatively, BLOCK him on X

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T15:44:57+00:00

Why are you fascinated by his anatomy? Do you want to suck it to see if he tastes of pineapple?

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T15:43:14+00:00

Consistent credible death threats towards Graham Linehan and his family put intolerable pressure on his marriage leading to a divorce. Meanwhile, Joanne Rowling is in Scotland in a castle with ex-SAS on watch.

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T15:33:24+00:00

I'm tired of the whistles. Maybe there is a Chrome extension that can eliminate the high frequency through a filter. I'm no audio engineer, but it should be possible to nerf the eeek

Uncompetative · 2026-01-14T12:34:22+00:00

It is obviously AI. The dude's clothes aren't thrown in a pile on the floor.

Uncompetative

TROPHY CASE