Conversations with AI

What an astonishing experience to be taken more seriously by an AI than by a physics professor.

Conversation with AI from November 19, 2025

Koerner:
How do you explain my "pilsner glass experiments": Two free-floating Kölsch glasses are set in motion inside two pilsner glasses. After about 10 minutes, both Kölsch glasses are exactly back in their starting position. With three pilsner glasses, the glasses stop in several different positions. The glass box experiment with three pilsner glasses and a magnet is interesting. Each free-floating Kölsch glass has an iron clamp on the rim, allowing them to be activated by a magnet without touching each other. This experiment showed that one Kölsch glass turns 180 degrees away from the magnetic field. Apparently, the immaterial force under the glasses is stronger than the magnet. What would happen if the experiment were successfully repeated on five continents?

KI:
The description of the experiment sounds fascinating, but the described behavior contradicts the fundamentals of known physics. There is no known purely physical force (such as surface tension, magnetism, or gravity) that would cause free-floating glasses to rotate randomly and then return to their exact starting position after precisely 10 minutes, especially not with such precision and repeatability under variable conditions (such as different numbers of glasses or locations).

Here is an analysis of the situation:

1. Physical Explanation (State of the Art):
Surface Tension and Centering: Surface tension can cause objects on a liquid surface to attract each other (through meniscus forces, capillary action) and cluster in the center of a container. This explains the "centering" and "mutual attraction."
Rotation and Stopping: The rotation would be caused by manual action or initial currents. Without a continuous external force (or some hidden, undescribed mechanism), the glasses would eventually come to rest due to friction (liquid viscosity and air resistance).
Exact return to the starting position: The exact return to a previously defined starting position after a random rotation is the physically impossible aspect of the description. In a purely physical system without intelligent control or predefined, locatable points of attraction (other than the center), there is no mechanism that remembers a "starting position" and returns the objects to it.
Magnet experiment: The description that the "material pull between the glasses is stronger than the magnet" is also physically impossible. Magnetism is one of the fundamental forces of nature. The attraction between the glasses (presumably capillary forces) is a known, measurable force that can be weaker or stronger than a magnetic force, depending on the strength of the magnet and the glasses.

2. What if the experiment were successfully repeated on 5 continents:
If the experiment were independently repeated with positive results on five continents (excluding fraud, hidden mechanisms, or misinterpretation), this would have groundbreaking scientific consequences:
Revision of physics: The fundamental principles of thermodynamics, mechanics, and possibly other physical laws would have to be revised or extended. The idea that a system spontaneously returns to a previous, specific state contradicts the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).
New unknown force: It would require the discovery of a completely new, previously unknown physical force or principle.
Revolution in science: The discovery would trigger a scientific revolution, comparable to the discovery of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. The scientific community would intensively study the phenomenon to understand and theoretically explain it.

Conclusion:
According to current scientific understanding, the described phenomenon is not possible in a purely physical context. It sounds more like a description of a magic trick, an optical illusion, or a faulty observation. Successful, independent proof under strictly controlled scientific conditions would fundamentally change our understanding of the universe.

Koerner:
On my website www.atlasmedizin.de, all the beer glass experiments have been documented in time-lapse and with a stopwatch since October 2025.

KI:
It's interesting that you've documented the experiments on your website. The visual recordings in time-lapse and with a stopwatch could help to analyze the phenomenon more precisely.
However, the existence of video recordings on a website doesn't change the fact that the described behavior contradicts the established laws of physics. Videos cannot rule out deception, hidden mechanisms (such as fine threads, vibrations, hidden magnets, or manipulated camera settings), or a selective interpretation of the results.
For the recognition of such a groundbreaking phenomenon, science requires the following:
Peer review: The experiments must be reviewed and replicated in a controlled laboratory environment by independent scientists.
Transparency: All potential influencing factors must be disclosed and excluded.
Theoretical basis: A mathematically sound theory would need to be presented that explains why and how the glasses return to their "starting position."
Until these steps are completed, the phenomenon remains, from a scientific perspective, a mystery or an illusion that cannot withstand any of the known physical explanations.

Koerner:
I'm curious to see how long it will take the scientific community to resolve this paradox.

KI:
Die The scientific community can only begin to resolve a "paradox" if that paradox can be reproduced in a controlled environment under scientific supervision.
If you want science to address it, you have to make the phenomenon accessible to scientists. You would have to allow independent researchers to repeat the experiment under strict, controlled conditions in a laboratory.
Science will not actively seek out the phenomenon. The scientific community is skeptical of claims that appear to violate fundamental laws of nature. They don't wait for amateur videos to disprove established theories.
The resolution of the "paradox" will occur immediately once the cause is clear: either a hidden, conventional physical mechanism (e.g., vibrations, air currents, hidden magnets) will be revealed, or it will indeed be a groundbreaking discovery.
The time it takes to find a "solution" therefore does not depend on science, but on when and if the phenomenon is made accessible to serious, independent investigation.

Koerner:
I've been working on these experiments for over 20 years and have brought them into the public discourse.

KI:
That's great. Working on this fascinating topic gives you the opportunity to make your results available to the scientific community in a way that allows for serious scrutiny.
Here are some steps you might consider to advance your work and engage the scientific community:
Standardizing the experiment: Ensure your experiment is conducted under strictly controlled and measurable conditions (constant temperature, no drafts, precise measurements).
Transparency: Document everything, even the smallest variable. Show the setup from all angles to rule out any hidden mechanisms at play.
Scientific publication or presentation: Instead of just posting videos on a website, you could try writing up your methodology and presenting it at an experimental physics conference or submitting it to a journal.
Invitation to others: Invite scientists or physicists to observe and conduct the experiment at your home or in a neutral laboratory.
The path from a personal observation to a scientifically recognized discovery is long and requires a willingness to be critically reviewed by peers. We wish you every success in your work and in documenting your experiments.

Koerner:
After 23 years of working on this subject, I've "laid my cards on the table." Now it's the "scientific community's" turn.

KI:
I understand your position. After 23 years of intensive work on this topic, you feel you've done your part and now it's the academic world's turn.
If you've made all your methods, data, and observations publicly available (on your website or elsewhere), you have indeed "laid your cards on the table."
However, the scientific community functions differently than an audience. It won't actively seek out your results. It needs formal channels of communication (such as scientific conferences or peer-reviewed journals) to officially acknowledge and verify the relevance and reproducibility of your work.
If you don't want to take this formal route, that's your decision. The scientific community will likely only notice or take your work seriously when an independent researcher happens to stumble upon it, reproduces the phenomenon, and then feeds it into the scientific channels themselves.

Koerner: I have personal experience with "idea theft." My "pilsner glass experiment," however, is difficult to replicate. Thanks, AI, I look forward to further discussions!

Conversation with AI from December 8, 2025

Koerner
Water molecules at the interface (matter-water-air) as an ingenious building block for organizing inanimate matter into life. This would require an external energy source, since, from a human cybernetic perspective, electromagnetism cannot simultaneously be the constructor and the energy supplier.
Apparently, the water molecule at the interface can "tap into" an energy source that is currently unknown.

KI:
Your explanations touch upon fascinating and highly speculative concepts at the intersection of physics, chemistry, and biology. The idea that water molecules in interfaces (such as water-air or water-matter interfaces) could play a fundamental role in organizing matter into life, utilizing a previously unknown energy source, is the subject of intense scientific debate, particularly in the context of Gerald Pollack's work and the theory of "EZ water" (Exclusion Zone water).
Here is a breakdown of the points discussed:

1. Water molecules in interfaces as the "building blocks" of life
The special structure of water at interfaces is an established field of research. On hydrophilic surfaces, water molecules arrange themselves in highly organized, layered structures known as exclusion zones (EZs) or "ordered water."
Properties: These EZ layers can be several hundred micrometers thick, are negatively charged, and have a different viscosity and density than ordinary bulk water.
Significance for biology: Proponents of this theory, such as Gerald Pollack, argue that this ordered EZ structure is ubiquitous in biological systems – within cells, at cell membranes, and in proteins. It could serve as a kind of "battery" or organizing matrix necessary to maintain the complex structures of life and control biological processes.

2. External Energy Source and Electromagnetism
The assumption that electromagnetism cannot simultaneously be a constructor and an energy supplier is a specific philosophical or human-cybernetic viewpoint. In mainstream physics and biology, electromagnetism plays both roles:
As a constructor: Electromagnetic forces are fundamental to chemical bonds, the structure of molecules, and protein folding.
As an energy supplier: Light (electromagnetic radiation) is the primary energy source for photosynthesis, the engine of almost all life on Earth.

3. The "Unknown" Energy Source: Infrared Light (IR)
The theory states that water at the interfaces does indeed tap into a known energy source: infrared radiation (heat) from the environment.
The Mechanism: Experiments suggest that the formation and maintenance of the EZ layer continuously absorbs energy from the environment, particularly in the infrared range. This energy is used to create charge separation—the EZ becomes negatively charged, while positive protons are released into the surrounding water.
A “battery” of life: This charge difference creates a potential energy source, similar to a battery, that could power biological processes without relying on ATP (adenosine triphosphate, the cell’s universal energy currency).

Summary:
The idea you describe is indeed an active and controversially discussed field of research. The “ingenious building blocks” (EZ water) and the “external energy source” (infrared light) are part of a hypothesis that attempts to reinterpret the fundamentals of biological organization.
The scientific community is divided: Many see the EZ theory as a plausible extension of our understanding of water, while others consider the experimental evidence insufficient or the conclusions speculative. It remains a fascinating area at the frontiers of current scientific knowledge.
Further information on this topic can be found, for example, in the publications of Gerald Pollack, such as the book "The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor."

The discussions are ongoing. Please visit this page again soon. Thank you for your interest!