HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185.jpg
1.74 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email thread
File Size:
1.74 MB
Summary
This document is an email thread from January 20, 2017, between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias Jeffrey E./jeevacation) and David Grosof. The conversation is highly theoretical, discussing physics concepts such as gravity, probability, centrifugal force, and the law of large numbers, including a reference to Einstein's quote about God playing dice. The thread also includes Grosof mentioning his past meetings with famous scientists Watson (James Watson) and Crick (Francis Crick), noting Watson's opinions on autism during a Google book tour.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey E. | Sender/Recipient |
Using email jeevacation@gmail.com; discussing physics, probability, and gravity.
|
| David Grosof | Sender/Recipient |
Correspondent discussing scientific theories; mentions meeting Watson and Crick.
|
| Watson | Subject of discussion |
Likely James Watson. Described as 'wild and fun' but overconfident about ideas on autism. Did a book tour at Google ~...
|
| Gunther Stent | Connection |
Introduced David Grosof to Watson.
|
| Crick | Connection |
Likely Francis Crick. Met by David Grosof on another occasion.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
Extensive email thread discussing physics and probability theories on a 'Special Day' (likely birthday).
Grosof states 'I met him [Watson] once through Gunther Stent'.
Key Quotes (4)
"god - so he does play , just not with fair dice"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185.jpg
Quote #1
"gravity is merely the result of paticles being pushed together"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185.jpg
Quote #2
"Watson's pretty wild and fun, if overconfident about some ideas about autism"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185.jpg
Quote #3
"is probability a force rather than a markter"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,309 characters)
From: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]
Sent: 1/20/2017 1:04:00 PM
To: David Grosof
Subject: Re: Your Special Day
Sent: 1/20/2017 1:04:00 PM
To: David Grosof
Subject: Re: Your Special Day
Importance: High
god - so he does play , just not with fair dice
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:44 AM, David Grosof <[REDACTED]> wrote:
Is there something for central tendency that is like an inertial reference frame, from which a different abstract understanding of probability develops, one that's better for showing the kloodgey, apparent force nature to which you point?
Is there something for central tendency that is like an inertial reference frame, from which a different abstract understanding of probability develops, one that's better for showing the kloodgey, apparent force nature to which you point?
Please forgive typos. Sent from Android Nexus 6 phone.
On Jan 20, 2017 4:32 AM, "jeffrey E." wrote:
yes , now assume that there i a balancing force. and gravity is merely the result of paticles being pushed together . etc
yes , now assume that there i a balancing force. and gravity is merely the result of paticles being pushed together . etc
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:26 AM, David Grosof <[REDACTED]> wrote:
http://xkcd.com/123/ can't resist!
http://xkcd.com/123/ can't resist!
Please forgive typos. Sent from Android Nexus 6 phone.
On Jan 20, 2017 4:14 AM, "jeffrey E." wrote:
probablity and statistics gets its strengh from the law of large numbers . centrifigal force is a pseudo force but not distinguishable in the right frame. . like gravity. lets assume that there is a force pushing heads and tails towards a 50 50 distribution. . not merely recording it. regression to the mean. etc. would . could be a force similar to the EM one.
probablity and statistics gets its strengh from the law of large numbers . centrifigal force is a pseudo force but not distinguishable in the right frame. . like gravity. lets assume that there is a force pushing heads and tails towards a 50 50 distribution. . not merely recording it. regression to the mean. etc. would . could be a force similar to the EM one.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:11 AM, David Grosof <[REDACTED]> wrote:
Cool. And the former question, of clarification?
Cool. And the former question, of clarification?
Please forgive typos. Sent from Android Nexus 6 phone.
On Jan 20, 2017 4:10 AM, "jeffrey E." wrote:
pretty well
pretty well
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:02 AM, David Grosof <[REDACTED]> wrote:
Probability as a force rather than a what?
Didn't suss out the next word...
Watson's pretty wild and fun, if overconfident about some ideas about autism when I saw him talk ~4 years ago on book tour @Google. I met him once through Gunther Stent, as well as Crick on another occasion. Know him well?
D.
Probability as a force rather than a what?
Didn't suss out the next word...
Watson's pretty wild and fun, if overconfident about some ideas about autism when I saw him talk ~4 years ago on book tour @Google. I met him once through Gunther Stent, as well as Crick on another occasion. Know him well?
D.
Please forgive typos. Sent from Android Nexus 6 phone.
On Jan 20, 2017 2:47 AM, "jeffrey E." wrote:
1. is probability a force rather than a markter. if you look at a bell curve from scratch, it looks as if it under a force pushing things towards the center. i think gravity might be just that . 2. all signals
1. is probability a force rather than a markter. if you look at a bell curve from scratch, it looks as if it under a force pushing things towards the center. i think gravity might be just that . 2. all signals
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025185
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document