Can't go through everything. This is 14 pages of it. Okay For those who just came in you might want to come down to get some lecture notes We'll wait a couple more minutes because I think I heard people had a great time last night So most people haven't slept too late So for those who came in late you might not want to sit too far from people because you wouldn't know that the others Actually had lecture notes and of course we'll play games after yeah, okay So today we're gonna go through a little bit more derivations because I think a lot of people were asking me questions Yesterday, and I figure it's not gonna hurt if I go through a little bit of derivations What I'm gonna show you next which is in the slides will be following the beginning of the lecture notes that you just got okay Let's go back to what we left off yesterday so it's about basically something called the Russian space distortions and it's describing a probe that focuses on the velocities Vx Vy Vc and What do you do when you actually have rush shifts in? Velocities while the philosophy is coming from the rush of because we're observing of rush of the actual combination of the position and the Velocities as called the Russian space distortions are described the effect and the derivation is actually in your notes And it will go through a bunch of this so let's just go from what we learned yesterday to what we will learn today We have the correlation function in 1d So this is the one with the little dip on you know the very interesting extra Excess of probability of finding another galaxy a hundred mega parts are over actually right So that's that little dip but you sweep it out in 2d You see a quadrant like this the BAO is in this little quadrant right there that has an extra power Right, but this is in correlation function in real space What you actually observe is something in rush of space So we do not measure in fist we do not measure in physical space We actually measure in rush of space Russia measures a combination of Hubble recession and peculiar velocities So if you look at the equations below is the observed Velocities is a combination between the Hubble flow and the peculiar velocities So your distances observed is a combination of velocity and actual distances Okay, and that's actually coming To the discussions in the lecture notes here So the third dimension of Russia survey is not radio distance is reshift The rate of distance is related to Russia by Hubble expansion But also peculiar velocity feedback that you actually see in your notes on small scales the random motion of the particles Say within the clusters will cause the particle at the same distance to appear to have different reshifts Call the fingers of God no offense to any religion just people name me the first time I'll show you a picture on this one on the largest scales The object force towards something. That's like an overdense region So the object between us and over density will appear to be further away from us I'll show you a picture very soon an object on the other side of the over density will appear to be close to us Because falling to us. So this is what it means here When you have an over density Which is the one that you see in a center at linear flow, which is at the largest scales It will appear to be squashed. So we're observing from below It's falling into this over density Things are moving towards us. We'll make it. You know, we look like it's closer things are moving away from us It looks like his father. So that's actually the second column. So I need to have a laser pointer to realize So this is what you see in your eyes down here. We're observing down here. So this start has moved Look like it's actually further away from us and this thought has moved in so it looks like it's closer to us That's why it's the on the largest scales is squashed and the Lonnie Lonnie a structure such as the clusters You actually see it is moving randomly So the outer boundary looks like it's elongated So of course things that move out, but there's also things that move in because it's random, right? But the one that moving out will actually stood out because the stuff moving in just there's all these other stuff around Okay, so the boundary the boundary itself will elongate it. That's what they call a finger of God So we'll go through a little bit derivation of linear theory of a call Kaiser is some what basically developed by Nick Kaiser 1987 the main assumption the first principle assumed there is that Basically the galaxy numbers are conserved. So let's start. This is actually in your notes You might want to start making notes in that Lecture that you get for those who just came in and don't know why everyone else has this You can come down to get it We denote the Russia space coordinate s and the real space coordinate s are So now we are it's the peculiar velocities in the units of the Hubble constant. So Right here This is the observed Russia space coordinates. This is the real space coordinates Actually, this is the one that is a line of sight velocities. So this is not product with the line of sight are Assuming that originally is zero the velocity and Assuming the object's distance enough that's k times R is very much larger than one. So this is called the distant observer Assumption so we'll relax it in the lecture notes later, but we might not be able to do it today But that's later on in your discussion and then we have Now we have the Jacobian that you between the two different coordinate systems. It's very simple You look at it. It's basically like this. We drop the bunch of the high-order terms. So that's why it looks this simple We're only getting the first order. That's why it's a linear case of theory. Also Hey, have I lost everyone it's early No, okay, good Now the this is the derivation you should be able to do if you just walk not go close your eyes entirely if you can Assume the following the number density conservation requires a plane with perturbation delta Assuming H is equals to one right now, which is fairly simple What is just the easy assumption to make because you can end to put it back on later? And then you'll have this equation which comes from the Poisson equation for those who might have done the Prodivation theory is the simple prohibition theory for overdensable in how much in this universe You probably recognize it right away. Delta is the over density dot is the derivative over time the velocity k k is the for a component The UDR is equals to mu d BDR This one is just coming from from a very early equation. Do you guys see why that's the case? Yes, maybe maybe not But this is too early for that derivation but basically if you work through and plug in for example Mu is the cosine theta between line of sight and where the pair particle is or the coordinate is and then you Put in ikv, which is right here to delta dot and delta dot is coming back down to the growth factor times Well, this is a change of growth times delta times the over density you plug it back in here Then you actually would derive this very important equation You can actually go through all the equation on your own But I think it's very beneficial if you can make the first calculation on your own Back then to this particular question which relates the over density in rush of space to over density in real space With basically this particular parameter and you're like, okay. What is this right f is defined by the change of Delta as a function of time Mu is the angle in between the line of sight and whatever is moving right this stuff We're just looking at and if you assume the galaxy fluctuation is a linear bias trace of underlying dark matter density You basically take this Correlate with itself, which is the auto correlation Multiplied by bias square, which is basically relating by galaxy over density to dark matter density Then you'll get this While beta is basically a rewrite of f is f over b Okay, I'm gonna take a big pause and see how everyone is doing here too much too fast Okay, okay, so So this is the first equation of linear kaiser theory for rush of space distortion And that's what people usually plots when they plot what rush of space distortions actually does to The real space correlation function or power spectrum So it enhances the power so you can see usually without the rest of the distortions you don't have these terms But it's bias square times dark matter or power spectrum, right these terms enhances it. I have few heads nodding So this will go back to let you know, sorry quickly actually So we have this equation and then what people do is that you now can expand out this dependence on the angles in Lajana polynomials People remember Lajana polynomials. It's something you learn in undergrads and you might not remember at this point Yes, no Some science and coscience. Yep, okay So people expand it out and you can actually see that you can plot the differences between the two Well not plot to write the differences between the two the ratios as a function of these Zero and second and the fourth moment of Lajana polynomials May I ask who knows why we only consider the even moments of Lajana polynomials here, okay? This is time to start having some game Okay, think about why you only have zero two and four Lajana moments and you can talk to your friends Like if that equation does not make sense So let's group together and talk to each other. Okay, so you know how this, you know group one through three four works I'll call on random person to explain this later. Okay Five minutes So since you guys are discussing I want to pose a second question which comes up very quickly For a very long time It is believed that the ratio of the quadrupole to monopole is the best way to measure beta But we discover it's not Do you have a guess why it's the case? So the third very very long time people just try to measure the quadrupole moments of the clustering of the field of the galaxy to the monopole And you get the growth factor which is beta, but if you look at the equations, you know It kind of makes sense. You just kind of this five one by another It should get you beta, but then why that's not good So that's a second question since you're discussing might as well All right parody question for the question about the odd moments think Symmetry and parody and something physical So I have some good answers for the first question Do you guys have volunteers to tell us? Well quiet no volunteers. Yes Yeah, I'm trying the most physical argument we could come up with I think is the fact that a plane with a plane wave with K and a plane wave with minus K That could be the idea of going from mu to minus mu. I mean we have like a fixed observation direction and If I like the mode with K and the mode with minus K would look pretty much the same I mean if you're if it was like a time propagation thing Then it would be like in opposite directions, but if you're just creating a plane wave One with K and one with minus K. They eventually give you the same pattern So it should be the same if you have like mu or minus mu So that's a very mathematical way to look at this equation So that's one way to look at it. Is there someone who think of a physical reason why that's the case? Anyone want to help out? Know someone knows the answer No, I suppose The universe shouldn't have any Good it starts with the universe No, I'm serious I don't feel like the universe should have any preference between these K and minus K mode I mean they feel I mean in every Intuitive way they should look the same Because it's isotropic and there is no preference for the direction But it's exactly so we have a physical and a mathematical argument here I think you guys are going to the same idea But it's good to have one way and the other way looking at it And also, I mean we still have a slight symmetry breaking because you know we have the radial direction It's special. So that's why you know, it's not entirely isotropic But it's the general idea is that I thought to be cool the second question anyone. Thank you second question The one that we have the quadrupole divided by the monopoles Why is it a bad way to measure beta beta which is related to grow factor is F divided by bias Why is that bad? We're not good enough Because there are distortions in the radial direction with K, but The cosine of the angle so that's perpendicular and you wouldn't get any ridges based distortions from that So there's a mathematical way to look at it. There's a simpler reasons a simpler one much simpler I think you're a first year grasser who going in and measuring this What could go wrong? Think about signal to noise of the measurements. That's where I will start I'm gonna try to raise the hands. Are you trying to raise your hands? Maybe we don't know the normalization of the power spectrum and so it's impossible to have a We have a constant that we don't know So this is one very good guess. We actually really don't know the bias So that's one problem with Russia's face distortions, but it's not because of that. We don't do, you know Quadruple divided by monopole, but that's a really good reason for why Russia's face distortions when combined with gravitational lensing It's way more powerful because the gravitational lensing tells you about the bias Which is amplitude which is basically modulating the amplitudes up and down, which is what you're pointing out Good very very good point, but different reason. Okay. I'm gonna give you this is a very simple reason The quadruple it just really really really noisy So for most of the measurements the quadruple is a very very noisy term So you're basically dividing a very noisy term by another noisy term So these are two very like the monopole itself was quite noisy back in the days So for very long time you're taking very two very noisy measurements You're trying to compute a ratio out of it And it was just a very hard way to do it now people measure and then Actually try to model both of them together and don't forget the next reason why we don't want to do that Is this is linear theory? So any when you're doing this ratio you're mixing a lot of modes and scales together And you don't want to do that So when people what they do nowadays actually some of the students who know this Is to actually model both monopole and quadruple Together with whatever theory you're doing usually it's not linear theory Usually it's something higher order than linear theory and you want to use something a little bit better than just Kaiser theory these days So Kaiser theory is the basic of freshers-faced distortions There are many other things that actually in your lecture notes I think about page 10 or so you start doing Prohibition theory that's what people usually do now So if you're interested to see what people actually do nowadays, that's also in your lecture notes about page 10 or so quickly take a look Cool. Okay. Have I scared everyone and put everyone to sleep yet? No, yes question. Oh There's other moments too, so I only show you know The first three because even the fourth and the fourth one is also really really the hexadecabot is also really hard So right now we haven't seen a very good measurement of even hexadecabot, which is the fourth So that's why I don't show all the other even moments because they completely noisy Yeah, yeah, but then there is sound. They're just super noisy. We're not measuring Yeah, for the non-linear thing you could they go forever Exactly cool. Okay numerical simulations. All right the next thing. So I want to show you one more thing Back to this slide So now do you see this plot and you say, okay, I'm only showing one squashing effect in the largest scales That's the one that's squashing That is why the BAO peak you can see that it's usually like a circle around it a shell around it But then you actually have a Squashing comes down a little bit. Well, this size went out a little bit So this is why the squashing effect is and can you reconcile with your mathematics that you have seen in the equations just now? a little bit So the physical effect is a squashing in the middle term here. I mean in the middle column and I'm only showing you the quadrant That makes sense Now going back to something physical. I see a few heads nodding. How's everyone? Okay? This is hard to questions in the morning Well, someone asked me to have harder lecture yesterday so blame it on them. Okay Okay, so the next part So the correlation function so some of you have seen this before so I think in the inflation lecture You've seen a correlation function. You've seen the power spectrum, but that's usually they do it for the early universe here I'm showing you basically what you do for the lower shifts. I mean, it's the same math But you might not have seen it in this way before so So it's straightforward to derive the correlation function corresponding to the Kaiser power spectrum So you have the Lagrange polynomials So I use L in my light at my power point It's actually P here for the Legendre polynomials the usual way and then you have the correlation functions on the right-hand side and Then you bring it down here. This is this CFR The Rayleigh expression is boy down here where you have the best of functions Okay If you use the correct recursive currents relationship, you can actually write it down in this particular way How's everyone any questions what those are so the next part that I'm not gonna be able to go too much It's the beyond the plane parallel approximation So there's a approximation you made at the first derivation There's a plane plane parallel approximation and if you relax that which is not necessary You will want to do this following expansion so there's a best of function and the spherical harmonics basically you want to do those two And you do it in 3d Of course Why don't you guys ask yourself a following question? Why do we use the spherical harmonics and the best of function here? For this particular expansion Talk to each other for like five minutes. I mean you can Okay, I heard many good answers already. I suspect multiple group knows the answer Do you someone want to volunteer and tell us? Okay, do you guys want to pass the mic? Where's the microphone? It was so original press the red button. It's not on Yeah, so The plane way, okay, so this is going beyond the plane wave approximation, but then again So whatever wave you have which is coming at a distance r for example You can you have a sphere and on the sphere the eigenfunctions. We know are the spherical harmonics So that is the that part of the decomposition and then we know the wave has to decay when it comes to us So decaying part is taken care of by using the spherical whistle functions. So yeah, that's that's what I think Any other supplemental suggestions? Well, so this is a general idea basically that's the parts about the radio way radio parts is described But the best of functions and the part of the sphere is a spherical harmonic. So that's great Everyone can understand this and what I'm showing right here is the Why we actually care about versus my distortions. So I'm showing the quadruple and the monopole. This is an animation So hopefully it's not so bad after all the equations you've been staring at You'll have a key test of dark energy versus modified gravity is the growth rate of structures and Fixed expansion the geo actually predicts a very specific growth rate So for different growth rate, which is f here f is a logarithmic growth rate of the structure You will see that the monopole and quadruple actually looks very different So as f changes you change the model and quarter mostly the quadruple more dramatically than the monopole And if you can tell which one is the real f so a lot of the measurements these days They will measure something called f sigma 8 by modeling those two curves Then you can actually tell someone that may be modified gravity is correct or incorrect. Maybe gr is deviated I mean something's deviating from the gr So a quick question for some of don't don't have to start a discussion might know the answer right away Is how can I prove that a model of modified gravity is correct? Given a measurement, so you have a bunch of galaxies and you can calculate the correlation function You get the monopole and the quadruple And can I immediately say I think f of our gravity is correct? Is there some steps? I'm missing here questions Maybe not right away. So discuss for like two minutes not too long But you should know you should start thinking about what do we need to do before we can claim geo is incorrect And the second thing is that what do we do if want to claim a specific of about gravity model or a specific modified gravity model is correct? Can you speak loudly sorry? Right, so so he's really good about saying that you need to have a hypothesis and you have to test a model So say if your model is general activity We can test its deviation from general activity if you don't want to prove that a modified gravity model is correct You need to say to start your hypothesis in a modified gravity model part And that's actually hard because most of the modified gravity models don't have Nonlinear evolution that we understand very easily So you need to actually run the simulation even the simulations are not done most of the time because it's actually very hard to Code in some of those into a normal and body simulations So most of these tests are done in a way to test the deviation from gravity of GR general activity gravity Because that's something we have we have the animal simulations of GR type stuff Okay, so that's how people do it now. Let me just go to the next slide This is to give you a sense what the Lockworth growth rate f this f parameter that you've seen Many times in your equations actually how does it change as a function of scale and time scale and rush shifts? So distance on this axis is same as matches and rush shifts. This is in Einstein's theory of gravity Hey, very different From f of our gravity model So we can measure f as a function of a scale and rush shifts You have a pretty good shot of telling people whether Chameleon gravity model is correct f of our gravity model is correct or Einstein's theory of gravity and Notice that for Einstein's theory of gravity the Lockworth growth rates this f parameters is scale independence So that's something very easy if you see something scale Dependent for sure, then it's something already telling you that maybe it's different from GR question Wait, this is this is not sure. It's just the angle is it's flat. It's just the way it's shown. It's a little weird Yeah, I know it's even for me too. It's it's the it's an illusion because of the color Okay, so how do we do this so now going back to how we actually do this right you create a clean sample We did that yesterday We want to test the theory model the theory model I show you here is something called conflux of Lagrangian conflux Lagrangian perturbation theory It's the LPT it's by started by Actually started by white modern whites and Jordan Carson and company and this is the most recent version that shows you here is the radio distance versus transfer assistance and The dash line here. I believe is the simulations The solid line is theory And you can see that they match pretty well in small scales in large scales is easy because they actually need theory So the kinds of stuff that you just did is mostly found in fairly large scales But for the smaller scales like 30 megaparsec and below maybe 40 even sometimes That you will need to have a description of the theoretical model of the larger structure How does it look like under Russia space in correlation function? And that's what you get a squashed that's something you actually have seen before so you expected that and this is for a Specific type of halo mask. So that's what that 13.8 so it's 10 to 13 to 10 to 14 or so for the halo mask right there so people use this model because It's very similar to the theory the theories can predict the simulations pretty well Okay, but what we have done so far is only for general Einstein's theory of gravity Nothing about modified gravity, right? So I cannot prove as far as I can tell that certain modified gravity models correct I can only test deviations from GR and Then you also want to test one thing is whether you can recover all your pipeline is correct You want to test F? Which is what you want to measure this growth rate of structure the logarithmic one as a function of the minimum Scale you can use in your data analysis and the input is the dash line the dash black line and The cyan distribution is basically the one-sigma variance of 600 marks here So if you run your 600 simulations Through your pipeline and they achieve your recovered F You can see there's a this a distribution of F what you actually can get From all your pipeline and they're not always the truth There's a distribution to it So you want to know how wide I is and at what point it's really bad So if you start deviating if the means does deviating from the truth that you want to really not use it Okay, so that's how people actually go about doing it to test whether GR is correct Okay, so next part have another question for you so what people do here is that they want to do more than just Constraining F sigma 8 this measurement of the growth rate times sigma 8. Do you know what sigma 8 is probably learned this? I think from the previous lectures. Yes. Okay. See multiple has nodding You want to combine with multiple surveys Because you test multiple rush of ranges You remember we talked about the growth rate as a function rush shift and scale will help you tell whether GR is correct So you want to have multiple rush of because mostly surveys only give you one or two rush of bins and So What can go wrong when we combine multiple surveys to get at the best constraint of gravity Suggestions if someone has to answer raise your hands now because I don't have to go into discussion mode I give yourself two minutes two minutes. So think about this. Let me just pull this up a little bit Right now you have a bunch of these Measurements of all the different surveys All the different surveys and you want to combine them to get the best constraint on gravity Because you know that F as a function of rush shift and scale tells you whether it is gravity or maybe it's chameleon gravity something not GR What can go wrong when you combine them my question is are these surveys Independent of each other. I mean there's no Interdependence between them. That's definitely one very good thing to ask are these surveys covering different parts of sky Right or different chunks of the sky some of them are some of them are not So that's something you need to take care you look at the covariance matrix amount of different surveys So we can't take care of that. That's very good point any other suggestion. You want to pass them my back Maybe the completeness of the series are different Yeah, complete a survey is fairer than every one of them is different And so you need to take care of that, but that's assuming all the service did the job, right?  But it's very good point Any other suggestion you raise your hands? I'm not sure about f6 my 8 but some measurements depend on the calibration and for example ground-based Instruments and space-based instruments have trouble like relating amplitudes because the atmospheric effects are really really Complicated sometimes. I don't know. It's a really good point So this is actually a question people have been starting to deal with for future generation of surveys like we have something called a LST you probably heard of before and then you have something like Euclid or WFIRST as space-based Missions and if we want to analyze all the data together, you might actually need to Say look at the shapes of the galaxies together with all the different data sets So that's basically what you're hinting at. There's atmosphere on the ground. There's no atmosphere in the space Which one should I be using? How do I come complement our data sets? Very good point So you guys are raising very very interesting points. The one I'm looking for is much easier than this I'll show you what they are Well different measurements and made assuming different cosmological models say if the survey was done when WMF 9 was you know The cosmology it will be assuming WMF 9 cosmology or assuming Plan 13 cosmology or assuming Plan 15 cosmology So when you do that, you want to make sure that you calibrate everything the same cosmology So that's something kind of easy, but you have to not forget that And it's not trivial because the growth is scale dependence in modified gravity models So while most measurements also assuming scale independent growth So that's the second part that we need to be careful about most people most experiments actually assuming scale the independence models when they're measuring this Even though we're testing gravity Okay, so these are results that you can get you can get very good constraints of multiple modified gravity models These are some examples that you can see this is about an f of our gravity This is the first constraint on general scale scale with Henson theory I actually do not do theory of modified gravity. So don't ask me exactly what these models do because I actually don't know improve the architecture constraint because if you know the growth of structure And also you can fit the whole shape of model point quadruple. You also get the distances Like the angle of diameter distances and the Hubble parameter that you were just asking me about earlier from the BAO from the full-shape Measurements and you actually break some degeneracies because you know the growth rates of the universe So same thing how we glancing actually measure the growth of structure of the universe that will also help break some degeneracies on Basically, W naught w a plane So here we showing Plunk. I think Plunk 13 measurements for W naught w a with Plunk only I believe there might be some priors and then there's easy mass which is basically just See mass, which is a one particular example a high ratio sample of boss galaxy with Russia space distortions and very acoustic oscillation measurements and then the third one was just a blue one actually shows all the different constraints from This one with all the different Russia space measurements from all the surveys That's the blue one and it really shrinks the measurements really shrinks the constraining power Increase the constraining power. All right, so we have Russia space distortions I think I gave you a tour of Russia space distortions with some of the theory in your hands Hopefully you get to study them a little bit more We did not relax a lot at approximation when we did the first derivation So go back and relax all the approximation if you go beyond linear theory what happens And then I show you a little bit about how you actually do the work with Russia space distortions And next thing I want to show you is something new because one group actually send me a cool Answer yesterday about what is the new probe you can create by combining seem be a larger structure group one here But people might have moved so don't know yesterday's group one Has sent me an answer and they talked about Sunil Sadovich effect I say other people has done the homework and want to tell the class about it other than group one. Go ahead Where's the mic? Do you want to pass the mic down someone? It takes a little time to react lens by large-scale structure So Planck has produced lens map of lensing potentials So that map is unbiased lesser of integrated mass from current epoch to the last scattering surface So this can be cross-correlated with the other tracers of large-scale structure like galaxy positions So this will give us more information about the cosmology Any other suggestions? Yes, do you want to pass the mic down don't don't turn the mic off here right here Extending on from that you could use the lensing maps to I think we talked about another lecture course to Find a cluster counts, which is also another way you can probe Find the clusters Yes, so the cluster mass function could be a very good way to do cosmology. Very good. You can also do SC It's the thermal Sunil Sadovich effect. You can also do the clusters any other suggestions Maybe you get the one I'm gonna tell you about then I don't have to tell you anything You know pass the mic back The lecture hall doesn't propel the sound. Yeah, so Planck has also produced these Compton scattering y-parameter maps so those can also be cross-correlated with the last course of time What does it do? Do you want to tell people a little bit about the Y map? Yeah, so so that is that generally traces the gas that is in the clusters So that map is a tracer of gas in the cluster so which causes the gas in the cluster causes Compton scattering of CMB photons Okay, I feel like there's more. Okay. You want to pass the mic back Last row. Thank you Well, the galaxy clustering is proportional to the galaxy bias squared Well, the CMB is proportional to just the galaxy bias so you can break the genesis with This parameter very good So this is basically saying that the galaxy lens in cross larger structure give you one factor of bias Well, if you do a galaxy clustering By itself you have bias square so you can help break some degeneracies right there and it's very useful Way to look at parameters to boil down from the galaxy-gassy correlation to dark matter correlations So very good. Very good point. Okay, so I'm going to show you quickly something what we're doing That's new not one of these and I'm just gonna show you quickly because we have maybe five minutes left Okay, perfect. Okay, so what happened when we combine the both so I'm going to show you one thing There's something called the EG that our group has been doing something a little newer It's a combination between lensing Graphitational lensing the velocity field and the clustering of the density field so a lot of things all together So if you look at equations proportional to CL which is the angular power spectrum of the kappa kappa being the Gravitational lensing a potential gravitational lensing kappa and then galaxy so those two will pull out one factor of bias as we just talked about and then you have beta which is coming from F of a B Right, so the growth rates divided by bias and then you have COg which is the angle of power spectrum of galaxies When you combine all of that it's kind of interesting because you've proved both the metric potential This is the metric. We're looking at here Non-relativistic particles feel the gravitational potential so motions of these particles probe the dynamical mass Well, the relativistic particles like photons in gravitational lensing are deflected by a spatial curvature So it probes basically different metric potentials and it's very interesting Well, okay one of them probe both metric potentials the other one probes only one of them So it's really interesting combine them And why is the case that this particular form is good is because it's independent of the galaxy bias when you combine it correctly So as the one in the back just talked about the galaxy lensing is on top Velocity probe by the bottom and the galaxy clustering there if you combine it properly You have the bias one fast term on top The others become also exactly cancel out all the biases all cancelled out EG itself ranges from point about point two eight to six with a variety of Gravity models and it is scale independent in GR, but it's not so in other gravity models So it's also a good way to look at deviation from general activity So, let me just show you what EG looks like in various gravity models This is in Einstein's theory of gravity as a function of scale and Russia. You've seen something similar before but for the growth factor F of our gravity model Chameleon model so fairly different. So now if you see anything different from the original expected GR Measurement of EG then you can say, okay At least there's a deviation from GR and if you know what it is as a function scale in Russia You might be a pin down what gravity model it should be So this was implemented the first time using galaxy lensing and clustering from Sloan to the sky survey not our work Someone else's work actually right about Reyes, and I mentioned about over subject 2010 it ruled out actually modified gravity model teffas Back in the days when teffas was still okay model So you see this data points as a function of distance EG as a function of distance right here Teffas model was actually ruled out by quite a number of sigma because of them So it's actually interesting and then so but there's no other measurement since 2010 2015 why why do you think that's the case? Maybe you already know the answer. So if you do raise your hand anytime Otherwise have a quick maybe not five minutes two minutes discussion So we have this amazing measurement like it just wrote out teffas model 2010 Why is then not repeated till 2015 your friends so it combines gravitational lensing galaxy clustering and Velocity measurements, which is from Russia's face distortions Think what you need to do that measurement Because you can assume this plus some kind of a hint, but that's how I was playing it very soon Any suggestions yet nobody come on Okay, someone actually have the answers can I have the mic down here wherever the mic is It's on it's on it's on don't touch it. It's on People have exhausted all the data. It was that they are present at that time. So we'll need to go for high-rate ship galaxies high-rate ship lenses Which will be lens by in between? Matter so we don't have that sample of galaxies at high-rate ship Beyond this point six or so. So what I was looking for is that you basically need a combination of many things, right? so you need lenses and sources photograph galaxy lensing and That means you have a very good imaging survey that's able to do galaxy lensing Somehow at high-rate shift. So that's what his point is So we already measure it once at this rush of at certain amount of sky So we want something with huge imaging Nice spectroscopic measurements. We can do galaxy clustering and You need to have us well galaxy cluster to get retrospective distortions Remember, we need the philosophy field and then you need the galaxy galaxy clustering that one is a little easier Okay, so you actually need to be able to measure the retrospective distortion effect of the lens population and you require good imaging to do graph is your lensing and The galaxy clustering so you need large volume and medium high and density of spectroscopy over the same area as the sky As the imaging so that's actually hard. There's not that many out there So we start thinking can we do this a little better? Can you guys come up with ideas that you can just change this around and make it possible? People have mentioned it earlier in class about 15 minutes ago. That's the hints. We will have just talked about it They still do e.g. But slightly differently That does not require good ground in ground-based imaging and or space-based imaging in large volume of spectroscopy You have the microphone up there We have a surface CMB, which is lensed and we have that available I did not tell him earlier, but he just figured out but he actually told us about there's a gravitational lensing Done because there is a CMB lensing that's possible So yes, so what if we place the galaxy lensing with CMB lensing? Very simple replacement, but that changes many things And I will show you quickly So it dramatically increases the range of number of traces we can use because anything in front of the CMB is lensing the CMB Right. So instead of we have the lens and the source playing like this The source is the galaxy and the lensing of the galaxy right by this by the stuff in between the sources are being lensed by this lens population You actually have the source 1100 rush shift because what the CMB is and you have everything in front of his lensing it so that helps and CMB is a lot cleaner than galaxy lensing at least for me No astrophysical system acts such as things like intrinsic alignments for people might not have I know you don't have a gravity's gravitational lensing lecture, but that's something that is a major astrophysical System acts right now is called something called intrinsic alignments in Galaxy lensing so something we have not figured out how to deal with at all while in CMB is quite Gaussian before the lensing But the galaxies before the lensing is already aligned to some tidal fields And if they already have alignments that could mean that you get the wrong amounts of matter Lensing because the lensing I should just increase the alignment of galaxies in a certain way So that's very important CMB does not have that and we have a very well-known source playing rush shift because we know where CMB is much better than Trying to get the photometric rush shift of all the galaxy sources because you actually need to do that if you do Galaxy lensing you need to get the rush of distribution of the sources at the minimum So we don't have to do that in CMB lensing because we already have to CMB rush shift Okay, so I'm not going to show you everything here because we have to go to the next lecture and the break I Will show you in the next lecture how people actually do this and I think this is great People have come up with many good ideas and if you have questions on the lecture notes, please let me know Okay. Thank you


Welcome to What Now America? It's October the 20th, 2021. I'm Tim Appachal your host and today's title of the show is Trump Says GOP Won't Vote in 2022 and 2024. Back in 2020 and 2021 there was a special election in a very red state Georgia and it was a special election to either determine where the incumbents of David Perdue or Chris Kelly Loeffler would stay as the Republican senators in the state of Georgia. And a funny thing happened. They were ousted. They were ousted by John Ossoff and Raphael Ornick. And what was the reason for that? Well, one I could say Stacey Abrams had a big play in that. She got the vote out. But another curious thing happened that was Donald Trump couldn't be quiet about his grievance of losing the election. He was going on and on about how the election was stolen from him, how all elections are rigged, and certainly in Georgia. And he said just that the Georgia election was rigged. So a funny thing happened as well. Republicans stayed home. They didn't vote. And we had an upset victory in a very red state. And that's what happened. Now we fast forward to Des Moines, Iowa. And Donald Trump said the podium basically encouraging people not to vote in 2022 and 2024. Here's this quote. If we don't solve the presidential election fraud of 2020, which we have thoroughly documented, Republicans will not be voting in 2022 or 2024. It is the most single important thing Republicans to do. So if you're part of the Republican leadership and you hear Donald Trump once again poisoning the waters to discourage voting of Republicans, what do you say to that as he's your standard bearer? So that's the main topic of the show. And I'm going to go straight to my guests. I want to welcome Jay Fidel, Winston Welch, and back from assignment our special Cynthia Lee Sinclair. Good morning, everyone. How are you? Morning, Tim. Good morning. So Jay, if you're Mitch McConnell or McCarthy or any of the leadership in the Republican party, and once again, you hear Donald Trump crying the blues about the election stolen, the big lie, and how if this is not solved, and if the Republican leadership doesn't follow behind Donald Trump on this particular issue, he's basically saying, don't come out and vote. What would you do if you're the Republican leadership on that point? I have a mentally examined is the first thing. There are various options here about why he said that. And one of them is that he's lost it.  And he did this as part of a way to get his constituents to focus on helping him overturn the 2020 election. That that's the first priority for them. They have to get him. He has to get them to overturn the election. And I think inherent in that, Tim Winston, Cynthia, is that he's asking them to be part of the insurrection going forward, to turn it over. And that means going back to the Capitol and that direction. Yes, he's giving him a priority. They can't worry about the election in 2022 or 2024, because first they have to turn the whole government upside down and make him the president. That's one option. Jay, let me ask you this. Is this a litmus test for loyalty to the dear Donald? Is this what he's really trying to do is to see how tight they are to follow his every word and every command? And God forbid anyone should break ranks from him? What he's saying is you have to follow my primary point, which was that I'm still the president. That's what you have to follow. So I suppose it is. But there are other options here, too. So one is he's mentally unstable, which maybe that's part of all of this. Two is that he wants them to have another insurrection and that's a high priority. Number three is that it's the reality show again. He's saying something to disturb and disrupt. And he wants everybody to pay attention to him. So he makes these ridiculous comments about how, in fact, Republicans won't turn out for the polls. It's not true. They will. If they show any loyalty to him, he who is the Republican Party, they will show up to the polls. So it's a very odd kind of statement to make. But I think there's a fair possibility that door number three is important. That is, as through his entire term, he wanted to disrupt and distract in people with ridiculous and outrageous statements. Outrage was a way you deal with the public. And the fourth is a dog whistle. It's, you know, I'm kidding when I say this. What I'm really telling you is you have to get out to the polls. I'm challenging you. I'm provoking you. I want you to get out to the polls. I do not mean what I say.  Those are my four possible reactions, my four options about why he said that. But notice that in no one of those options, did he mean it as a true statement of the reality because it is not. Okay, thank you. Winston, going to you with the same question, but also adding on Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana, was in an interview with Axios. And he basically said, there's no saying Donald Trump is going to be the 2024 nominee of the Republican Party. And he said candidly, I choose not to vote for him. Pretty bold thing to do for any Republican, particularly a Republican Senator. Your thoughts about what Donald Trump did in Iowa and like Georgia, do you think it will have an adverse impact on voter turnout if he continues with that kind of rhetoric? And then your comments about Bill Cassidy standing up to Donald Trump and making the statements that he did. Well, he'll have to be a sacrificial lamb in it. And they're testing the waters to see how this works. And maybe it'll pop up here and there, but and they're hoping maybe for a game of whack-a-mole that the attention will be localized enough that Donald Trump won't jump on it or have the ability to jump on it. But he's being advised by very strategic people as well that says, this is the person you need to attack. These are the points you need to attack. They're unloyal to you as a leader. And we saw the sort of despicable comments on Colin Powell immediately after his death. Colin Powell, you know, he talked about it being the rhino or whatever. It was just sad to see. I have that quote we'll talk about later, but it was sad.  But let me add this though, going back to the comments I made a minute ago, it caught him attention. He wants attention and he wants, you know, to distract and disjoint and disturb everyone. And that's what he did for his entire term, attacking people like McCain and then all that, attacking the, you know, the widow of a fallen soldier. Outrageous things is what he gets off on. True, very true. He doesn't have Twitter anymore, so yeah. But yeah, he doesn't need Twitter and Facebook because the media is putting him out there for that. I remember when he called the veterans in Mobile One Cemetery, his losers, you know, and he didn't want to, I mean, it doesn't really matter. It's sort of just like, this is a reminder of the daily onslaught of the incredible things that Donald Trump had said and subjected us to over, not four years, but four years by the 15 minute or 10 minute increment, unless it was a Twitter storm and then we had 60 tweets a minute or whatever it was. You know, I think what we're looking at here is that he does like to be out in front of the media. He doesn't care what he says. He has no effective filter at all. I don't think he was trying to really, I don't think he cared one way about Colin Powell. And Colin Powell, when he was talking about how he led us into these wars, Colin Powell was the first one that said this was the, you know, the big mistake of my life. I owned up to it. When did Donald Trump own up to any mistake he's ever made about anything ever in his entire life? You know, so people are entitled to, I suppose, you know, quiet opinions about things, but not the day, the first, not the hour that the news of the person's death is released. I was just found that really shocking and important. You know, the thing is, I was more troubling is the Quinnipiac University national poll that came out that said Republicans by a 78% to 16% margin want Donald Trump to mount a White House bid in 2024. That's incredible. 78% of Republicans. Now this is Quinnipiac, a little bit right, I think, but not that much. I imagine this is... No, I think everyone is shocked by that percentage. And given what Donald Trump has been and has done, yeah, it's completely shocking. Well, the 94% of Democrats, what are the other 6% there? Do they just want him in? Because he will be seen as so, you know, important by then that it doesn't matter that they could run Mr. Potato Head against him. I don't know. And 58% of independents said he should sit out at the election. So I'm not sure what Mitch McConnell's game is in on this, because SCNN blared out with their headline. He sends a very clear message that I didn't think it was a very clear message. I thought it was just milk toast that we should focus on the future and blah, blah, blah. I was just like, I don't know what Mitch McConnell's really thinking here, honestly. Well, he dodged the question. By talking about the future, he's dodging the past. And that's all it was. But he's also looking at this poll that's saying his... I don't know what his percentage of approval is, but Donald Trump's still 78% of Republicans, which, you know, just want him to run again. So this is either it's a mass amnesia or it's part of the... I really don't know what it is, but just that number is enough to make us just sit up.  Good point. Okay. Thanks, Winston. Cynthia, Winston brings out a great point about the 78% desire Republicans to see him run again. Again, if you're the Republican leadership that can't deny those numbers yet at the same time you see your standard bearer saying crazy things about don't vote in 2022 and 2024 unless you follow me to the edge of the cliff and over the cliff on the big lie that the election was stolen from him.  Same question I asked today. Well, there's not a lot that you can do, but I don't think he's doing that as a way of trying to say don't vote. He said that in the Georgia race also, because that way, when he loses, he can say well, see they didn't come out. That's why I lost because the Republicans didn't show up. But he encouraged him not to come in Georgia. He said it's rigged. It's election. It's completely false. You're wasting your time. Yeah, but that's what he's saying again too. If you don't back my big lie, just don't bother to vote.  It's all about projection and it's a way of covering I didn't really lose. He because if everybody really come out, then I would have won. So I think that's part of it. And there's something though that I think is important that's going on right now. And it is that there was an article in Independence that is from that it's talking about in a new interview with the Washington Examiner, David Drucker for his new book in Trump's shadow, the battle for 2024 and the future of the GOP. That ought to be an interesting book to try to swallow. But at any rate in this interview, he claims that he was surprised by the assault on Capitol Hill that was committed by his supporters and adds that he would have stopped the mob, had the Secret Service only let him attend the scene in person. That was pretty. I thought that was pretty. I'm sorry, I missed that. Is this a quote from Donald Trump? It is a quote from Donald Trump saying that he was surprised by the assault on Capitol Hill and that was committed by his supporters and added that he would have stopped the mob, had the Secret Service only let him attend the scene in person.  That's hilarious. That's something for the daily show. I'm not buying that book. I'm not buying that book. Hey, Cynthia White, you're still on the line here with me. Let's talk about Liz Cheney and her clear blunt pointed words to her fellow Republicans about the folly of following Donald Trump on the big lie. Would you like to comment on that for a minute? I would. I personally have just the highest admiration and respect for Liz Cheney for standing up to the bully, so to speak, and to, you know, just for speaking truth to power and to standing by her principles as opposed to just going for the power and the glory and going along with the crowd. She said Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's privileged arguments do appear to reveal one thing. However, they suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th. And we will get to the bottom of that, Cheney added, and I thought you go get them, girl. Okay, thank you very much. I think, yeah, it was a breath of fresh air to see her come up with those comments. Jay, did you have any reaction to Liz Cheney and what she said? Yeah, I think she spoke for all of us in a way. I could even put a side effect that she's a conservative Republican for a moment, but in terms of her participation, the committee is exemplary, and she is one of the personalities who's driving that committee and good for her. I hope she stays on it. I hope she stays influential, and I hope she stays influential with the public. It's all good as far as I'm concerned with her. Okay, well, you let's tie that into the context of why she spoke in the first place, and that was the subpoena that's been issued to Bannon and his refusal to accept it, and now we have a criminal referral from the select committee that now has been voted, or will be voted, I think, today on the entire House of Representatives. Is Bannon just trying to play the role of the martyr, or does he have some other scheme up his sleeve? He's an extension of Trump. Peel off that bearded face in which you get is Trump. Trump is telling him what to do stroke by stroke, so that's why he's doing it, and Trump is also saying, don't worry. He can kick the ball down the road, the can down the road so far and so long that you don't have any real risk. We'll kick it all the way to the Supreme Court. You'll never go to jail, and thank you for helping me just as I helped you in the pardon. So I see him as an extension of Trump, and he's doing what Trump would do in his shoes, and it's not, it's disgusting as what it is, of course. Well, in recent news reports, it's showing that Bannon was actually part of some kind of pre-planning on January 5th. I forget the name of the hotel across the street, but he and I never, the Willard Hotel, showing that there's a really very good reason to subpoena Bannon and his knowledge about what took place at the Willard Hotel and what conversations took place and to what degree planning of the insurrection was about ready to happen. Now, we probably have all heard or seen on TV Bannon's podcast of what he was saying to his listeners on January the 5th, and that was basically, watch out, hang on, and this is going to be wild, and the revolution starts, and that's where you want to be tomorrow. Now, there's Shane, he goes through that. He goes through that and much more to say that the remarks that he's made about the events just prior to the insurrection indicate that he was in on it. And I don't think any reasonable person could argue with that. It's very clear that he was in on it, and he becomes a very important witness. And for that reason, Tim, to go to a point you inferred, and that is, well, he doesn't want to show up and have to talk about that because he will be incriminating himself, or they'll have to be the whole negotiation of immunity and force him under contempt again to talk to the members of the committee. So that'll be a bad moment for him. And you know that Liz Cheney will be all over him about it. But the question I think legally right now is that he has to show up at all. And he says no, that he enjoys through Trump some sort of absolute privilege even to not show up. And that's really Poppycock. He's never going to get to first base in any court, including our wrong way car against the Supreme Court. He's not going to get to first base on that. So the question is, does he have to show up? And the answer is he will have to show up. And the practical solution for him and Trump is to kick it down the road as long as they can. At the end of the day, though, as and when he does show up, hopefully before Election Day in 2022, he's going to have some hard questions to answer. And the play is going to be on what he does when they ask him questions that might incriminate himself as an active member of a foment or of the insurrection, a person who organized and conspired about it in the essential conspiracy. That's pretty risky. Do you see criminal charges coming? Do you see criminal charges coming his way, Jay?  Forget that for a minute. Right. Let's talk about his participation in the conspiracy. I mean, absolutely. I see very serious criminal charges coming down. And I think that may be part of his reasoning here, that he's greatly vulnerable to those charges of conspiracy, insurrection, what have you. The problem is that if Trump ever gets elected, Trump will pardon him again. Right. You're Winston. Well, hang on here. I'm still writing down poppycock. Let's see. Jay has used a word that I haven't heard in decades. To Winston, and that is what's really at stake here for Congress. If they let Ben and Slide on this request for, well, not a request, demand for subpoena, and he blows it off. Is it something that the select committee is going to pursue? And is the credibility of the House of Representatives as providing oversight in the future for all things? Is that at stake? And is there credibility at stake? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We're looking at an institution needs to be able to gather facts to run the nation. And this is part of their obligations, part of their duties. And when they're thwarted in that, it thwarts the whole democratic process. Obviously, this will be seen as a partisan play, even if you have Liz Cheney on the side. Will anything happen? Is Merrick Garland's Department of Justice going to do anything? I don't know. Maybe there's something coming down the pipe. Is Steve Bannon going to get up there and said, I fomented an insurrection against the United States? Probably not. He's probably going to say we were, you know, if I was involved in anything, it was just supporting our great leader who felt that this was a stolen election or whatever. I don't think it's just going to be theater in the end that's not going to be good. And I thought, you know, Danny Degrazia, I think that's the way he pronounced his name. He had an article in Civil Beat on the 18th of this month called Hawaii's Broken Political System is the real emergency. And I think what he's, what he wrote about there, I just thought that's writ small of our national situation, although he didn't talk about the courts here specifically. But I think that plays into it as well, is that you have this sort of three-ring circus as it is, and that people's trust and faith in the institutions, that's the real danger here, is that they don't have the power. They have their active leader saying, ignore this, sideline it. I'm your true president anyway. And so it's no wonder that people are confused and misled. And as we're talking, and I'm thinking about that Quinnipiac number again, and thinking, and by the way, just to finish up on the legislative committee investigating this, they're going to have to go to emails and that sort of thing to get any truth. But even then, they may be stymied for years, but they'll be able to put together some sort of report that's very absolutely incriminating. But will it be read? Will it be cared for? Well, I want to go to that point because if Bannon stretches this out and I don't know how long it'll take Attorney General Merritt Garland to respond to the House's referral, can you produce a report without really not having the key players justify? Exactly. And how many, what's the Democrats, like eight surplus Democrats in the House? A lot of them are in vulnerable seats. In the Watergate era, remember, it was the president's own party going after him. And that was what the clincher was. This one, there's zero of that. So I don't know that we can expect a lot out of it. I don't think maybe someone will get indicted somewhere for something. But how many people went to prison in Watergate? Now, the idea is that our system is predicated on the threat, not the threat, the promise of good faith in government. And citizens, we have a healthy distrust of government in this nation. But we also rely on citizens trusting in the government as well. And that when the government says, okay, you need to all get a polio vaccine, then people lined up to take it. These days, you have people, they don't, I'm surprised people even stop at stop signs anymore because it's become everyone's a law unto himself. Well, there is a suggestion, not a law. That's what's scary here is that we're really losing basic faith in our institutions across the board. It's not just government, but it's especially government. Because when we don't trust or believe, then that makes it also the government reacting a certain way as well of how they deal with the population.  And it brought me to a thought, and I brought it up before, is that we need to really go back and try and understand what are these 78% of Republicans thinking that they would still support Donald Trump after all I've been through and really, really need to go through, do a deep dive, strip off all of our preconceptions and say, what are the, are there real grievances here that are and maybe a poll question isn't getting to what you're suggesting. We need a deep dive to understand that so that we can address that whenever it is. And maybe it's just a general trust in government and say, okay, how do we address this stripped of Donald Trump? He may be the messenger of all of this, but we need to say, how do we get these folks back on board so that they're not not voting? We want people to vote. We want a principled conservative party in this country. We may not agree with them all the time, but we need principled players that are invested in the system. And so we do really need to go back and look at this rather than just dissuade it out of hand. And it's the same. All right. I want to get to Cynthia on this before we conclude our show today, but Jay, you said you wanted to interject something real quick. Yeah, I want to go back to your question. And gee, it's been so long since you asked a question. Oh yeah. But I think we are operating in the assumption that at the end of the day, we want to see this committee hang some people. We want to see a quote, accountability end quote. But Trump is going to do everything he can to prevent us from getting there. And bottom line is the committee can only do what the committee can do if Supreme Court does a rule in time. Okay, okay.  Mueller didn't do. He didn't really report on the difficulties he had. He didn't report on the obstruction that he had with regard to his own investigation. And if I were running the committee and I ran into these kinds of things, I would say, look, this is what we got in the documents. This is the testimony we got from others. That's what I'm reporting on. And I can make my recommendation that go this way, that way, the other way. But I can't control the ultimate result. I can't control the Attorney General. I can't control the President. I'm just telling you what I learned. Yeah, no, I did not. We should not be expecting more than that from them. Yeah, okay. Cynthia, what's your opinion about Bannon and his role in all this and his reluctance to submit to a subpoena? And what does that get him? And do you also think that maybe he could be criminally charged in the future? I absolutely believe that he can be. I hope that he will be. I think that it's all about a stall technique. It's his MO to drag their feet, drag it out as long as they can. You can imagine they're probably going to try and drag it out till the 22 election so that that way none of this will be decided yet. And right now, among the Republican Party, 66% of the people think that what happened on January 6th was not an inner instruction, was not a riot, and that nothing bad happened. 66%, I saw another poll, but we only have to look to that so that the big lie is still believed by that many people. If they just keep getting fed lies, we're never going to be able to pull those Republicans back from the brink because they're going to be too buried in lies, and we'll never get them back. And that's what I'm afraid of more than anything. And there's so many of them. And I don't know if you guys saw the clips from Jim Jordan when he was being questioned by the committee and he suddenly can't remember how many times he talked to Trump on the day of, oh, what was it before or was it after? And he's already been, he's already told a reporter that he talked to him before and during and then many changed his whole story to being after. So it's like they're all just going to lie. Well, they have to be careful because there's something called perjury before Congress and maybe he needs to be aware of that little rule. Yes, absolutely. And especially when, and I can't remember which Senator or which Representative, I can't remember which one of them was questioning him when they just nailed him to the wall and go, okay, so was it before or was it after? And he goes, after, after. And he said, well, then you mean when you told the reporter blah, blah, blah, oh, well, I guess it was, I guess it was during and after, you know, I talked to him all the time and it was like, I don't know, we're going to nail you down on exactly when it was and they didn't let him squirm out of it. I didn't get to see the whole finishing the little episode that they had with him. But at any rate, boy, they were not letting him squirm very good. Well, I guess that's the question whether or not they'll let Ben and squirm and your prediction about whether Ben and squirms out of this or not. Oh, I don't have a prediction. I know that my prediction is this, he will get in front of Congress whenever he does end up getting there. And he will lie through his teeth, okay, his own and to save Trump's neck and and to save his own power. So I don't trust any of them to tell the truth by any stretch. Okay, you get the last word on this topic. Cynthia, we've run out of time, so I'd like to get your last comments. What do you think is going to happen here in the coming week or or on this subject? Go ahead. Oh, wow. In this coming week, instead of on this subject, how about either or take it's a potpourri of decisions here. I want voting bills. I know that just yesterday or today or whenever it was this last when they went to go through the Senate with the voting bill and then of course, didn't go anywhere because not one single Republican signed on with it. But I think that if Congress doesn't get extremely, extremely dialed in and focused on voting rights, it doesn't matter what our infrastructure is. It doesn't matter if we get the January 6 commission all the way through. If we don't have voting rights, we have nothing. And so that's my biggest thing, voting rights. Okay, yeah. Well placed. Thank you, Cynthia. Thank you for your comments. Jay, your last thoughts for for the show and for the week coming. Ashley's right. Voting rights is very important. But even with the voting rights bill, we still have a lot of problems that are going to happen next couple of elections, 22 and 24. And that it's going to be more of the same slow rolling insurrection. Never forget what Carl Bernstein said. I would repeat it at every show. We are in a slow moving insurrection, a civil war. There's no turning back. We're going slowly over the cliff. And all of this falls second to that. I don't know and neither does Carl Bernstein what you do in order to prevent the fall. But we are in a fall now. Okay. Thank you, Jay. Winston, your last thoughts. Let's focus on that. What Cynthia said about the 68% said it wasn't an insurrection, the 78%, 74, whatever it was that want Donald Trump to be president again. Those same people, those are our countrymen and country women and they are supporting him for some reason, even whether they think he got elected or not, the big lie before that they're still supporting him, after that they're still supporting him. We need to understand what that is deconstructed so that we can address it and hopefully turn this ship. I think I remain optimistic and hopefully we'll get some chicken in every pot as it were with these stimulus bills being passed or rebuild America, building back better, whatever they're going to call it. It looks like they're going to come to some agreement and that's where we really need to focus. I know Donald Trump is an amazingly attractive distraction and he's grabbed our attention again and we need to go back and say, the country needs to be rebuilt. We have to do it. We have to focus on that and it's so easy for him to derail us. Alrighty. Well, we've run out of time but I want to thank everyone, Jay Fidel, Winston Welch and Cynthia Leeson-Clair for your wise and sage comments. That's the nice thing about Think Tech Hawaii is that we talked about the tough subjects, the tough topics and we get a great response. We get great opinions and perspectives and so remember that in October for the fund drive that's taking place right now, click on Think Tech Hawaii and donate. We appreciate your time. Thank you for watching us. Join us next week, Wednesday at 11 o'clock. I'm Tim Apatel, your host for What Now America. Aloha.