I appreciate the context, but I notice the "answer given" is actually a redirect rather than a substantive scientific response to work from.

I appreciate you catching that—I should clarify what happened.

Looking back at your original message, you didn't actually ask me a science question. You only provided archive context and preprints, with a note about a redirect. So I had nothing substantive to respond to.

If you'd like a real answer, please ask me a specific question about frontier science—something about propulsion, relativity, mathematical physics, quantum gravity, or related topics. For example:

• "What do we actually know about EmDrive-type propulsion claims?"
• "Why do physicists think we need quantum gravity?"
• "Can machine learning help solve problems in theoretical physics?"

Once you pose a question, I'll engage with the preprints provided (or tell you honestly if they don't address it) and give you a substantive answer grounded in the archive.