Hello, and welcome to the show. I'm Martin Willister, host and a
couple of announcements. First of all, Alejandro was not on the show,
and this time was my choice actually, and nothing against him at all.
Of course, he and I are good friends. It's just that I have
a wonderful guest an hour one. I want to make sure I had him
for the whole hour. Jeff Bennett is coming up in a minute, and
very excited to have him on. He was on the show, I think
a number of years ago, and he was on my other show that I
did for a short while. I think we're talking about other subjects other than
UFOs and things like that. Tonight we will touch on other subjects as well
as the UFO topic as well. In my second hour, I have Deep
Prasad on and he is going to be talking about all kinds of things,
including extraterrestrial artifacts, if that's such a thing, and quantum computing and all
kinds of very interesting things. So hanging there for hour two as well.
Blogs. Last week I forgot to announce our blog and that was titled UFOs
over Massachusetts. Check that out over at podcast ufo dot com. And this
week is not so ancient UFOs and I learned something by reading that blog myself
only about oh, I don't know, fifteen twenty minutes away from where I
live, in a town called Camden, Maine, there was a eighteen o
eight UFO sighting in a diary. It's really quite interesting and really detailed.
A school teacher wrote that up all the way back in eighteen o eight,
and so basically that block covers through the centuries, you know, mostly from
the eighteenth century when he's saying not so ancient UFOs eighteenth century forward, and
little tidbits here and there of different sightings. It's very interesting, So check
that out. I want to thank everyone that helps out with this show.
Race over at KGr A Radio. We also have Keith over at the dark
Matter Digital Network. I've been running over there for a long time and we
have people that help out behind the scenes for from graphics to you name it,
to the Facebook page. We have a lot of UFO news, so
check that out. There's something new up there every single day, whether it's
space related or UFO related. And so my first guest I'm going to them
on right now is Jeff Bennett. Welcome to the show. Jeff, Thank
you very much. Jeff, you're an astrophysicist, and to me that that's
brain numbing. I just call an astronomer instead, okay. And physics is
only what we say when we want to impress people. I see, okay.
And so we're gonna be talking about different topics this evening. And one
of the things I remember when you were on the last time, and I
think it was something like maybe five years ago or something like that, and
we talked about the Big Bang theory, and you know, I was trying
to argue against it, and you had I think you said there were three
lines of evidence and relativity is based on it. But I have a question
for you, as far as relativity goes, if the universe was actually contracting
instead of expanding, with relativity still hold well, So first I would turn
that around the idea of the Big Bang and how we understand it is we
understand it through relativity, But relativity is not dependent on the Big Bang theory
at all. Relativity is completely independent. Then was discovered long before the idea
of the Big Bang came out. Now, what Einstein did discover with relativity,
which he at first didn't himself recognize and took him later to realize it.
It was actually proven by some other folks that the theory of relativity is
not compatible with a static universe. So, right, didn't you say that
it was his greatest blunder? Yes? Yes, and so he should have
recognized it himself. So relativity actually predicts that the universe has to be either
expanding or contracting, So either one of those possibilities would be okay with relativity,
but just standing still is not because of the way gravity works. And
so when Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe, Einstein called it his greatest
blunder, not to have recognized that his theory had actually essentially predicted that before
Hubble discovered it. I see. Now, this is probably an odd question.
You probably have never been asked this question before, But is it possible
that there's a polar opposite of the Big Bang? In other words, where
the universe can expand so far and all of a sudden something like we don't
really know what happened to make the Big Bang happen. Could the opposite happen
and then the universe start contracting instead? Well, that's actually a very common
question, and so we know the universe is expanding, and basically your question
is, could it be that someday the expansion will stop and it will turn
around and end even have a name for it called the Big Crunch when it
all comes crashing back together. And the answer is, we don't know.
I mean, certainly that is one possibility. The evidence to date is pointing
to continued expansion forever, particularly in light of the discovery that the expansion is
actually accelerating, which makes it even seem more like nothing could ever turn it
around. But I like to point out that when we say it will continue
forever, that also means we have forever to discover something new that might change
our minds about that. Wow. Yeah, And so if it you know,
the black I think of like black holes, and like the more and
more black holes there are, like to say, if it was contracting,
you know, I mean, is it possible that all of a sudden the
black holes out there could gather more and more material? And you know,
is that part of the big crunch? In in other words, thoughts of
it, It would be, it would occur as part of the Big Crunch
process. It's not causing it in of itself. If to remember, black
holes are just a source of gravity, and the only difference between them and
any other source is that when you get really really close to them, really
strange stuff is happening to space and time. But from a distance, there's
no difference between say a one million mass black hole and a one million one
million stars. Their gravity would be the same at a distance. And so
if there is a big crunch, if the universe starts contracting, then at
some point, as it gets very small, the black holes would find it
easier to consume nearby matter and grow, and then ultimately they would all merge
together. And you may be aware that the idea of two black holes merging
is something we've already discovered through gravitational waves. Yeah, yeah, not that
all that long ago. Now when I've heard people say that, or people
say I've seen a documentary on this that I think, if if you took
all the space out of every atom in your body, you would be down
to like on a pinhead or something ridiculous, really really tiny. Is that
what happens when in a black hole the matter just gets condensed in atomic structure?
Well, actually it's beyond that. So when when a star, when
gravity takes over so this can happen. For example, at the end of
a star is life. So when a star has no more fuel for generating
energy, that energy in its core is generating heat and pressure, and that's
what's keeping gravity at bay, preventing gravity from collapsing the star down. Once
that's gone, at the end of the star's life, then that core will
collapse, and depending on its mass, the question is who wins between gravity
and the collapsing core. So, for stars like the Sun, gravity ultimately
fails once the core collapses to a size where the electrons are as closely compressed
as they can be without themselves disintegrating, and that's what we call a white
dwarf. And so there you have an object that was the mass the size
of the Sun collapse down to an object the size of an Earth. So
that's a thousand times smaller in diameter. If an object, if a star,
has even more mass than that, the electrons can no longer exist as
independent entities. It's a little complex to explain, but it has to do
with the way the strength of the electromagnetic force, and so they combine with
protons and become neutron form neutrons. So at that point, the entire object
collapses down until it's just a ball of neutrons. So that's kind of what
you were asking about, sort of subatomic particles. It's all neutrons. And
there you've got something that was larger in mass in the Sun compressed down to
something that's only a few miles across. Now, it turns out that with
even more mass, even the neutrons can't fend off gravity. And at that
point there is no form of matter that exists. It just keeps compressing itself
down out of existence to what we call a singularity. And that's when you've
made a black hole around it. Wow. Now, would say there's a
star that collapsed down to it was big enough to collapse down to a black
hole. Would the gravity effect of that be no different than it was in
its original form? In other words, at a distance it would be.
And we know lots of such black holes. These are black holes and binary
star systems. And so you see another star. In a normal binary star
system, you see two stars orbiting each other. Here you see one star
orbiting something else, and you see lots of material from that star being pulled
into that hidden something else, giving off lots of X rays because it's heated
up very hot as it's as gravity brings it in and creates friction as it
orbits down to that unseen something else. And from the mass of that unseen
something else, you know it's a black hole because there's nothing else that could
be that small and that massive. Wow. And so we know that we
have a black hole in the center of our galaxy. And do you think
all galaxies? Is that? What makes a galaxy happen? Basically that's a
really good question. So first I should say there's basically two different classes of
black holes. One is the type that form when a star dies, so
their masses are going to be just a few times that of the Sun,
and we see those all over the place, you know, in these binary
systems, like I was mentioning, giving off lots of X rays, that's
how you find them. The other are black holes that are millions to billions
of times the mass of the Sun, and those are found in the centers
of galaxies. So the one in the center of the Milky Way has four
million times the mass of the Sun, which is actually pretty light weight compared
to many others. There is pretty strong evidence that most, if not all
galaxies have a black hole at their center. But one of the big questions
is the chicken or egg question, which is which came first. Did the
black hole form first and lead to the galaxy collecting around it with its gravity,
or is it the other way around? The galaxy forms first and mattered
down in the center collapses to make the black hole, And no one knows
the answer to that question. Well, how how safe are we as far
as like a super nova actually getting us someday? You know, I mean,
I've listened to astronomy casting h Frasier over there says something like the universe
is out to kill us in so many different ways, you know. I
mean it's possible, right that I mean, but is it in our galaxy
that we have to worry about? No further than that, right, it
would have to be quite close within our galaxy to pose any real danger.
So we know the kinds of stars that supernova. They're very big, bright
stars, so if there were any near us, we would know about them.
And the closest star that is likely to go supernova anytime in the next
few thousand years is Betel Juice. Oh yeah, in the shoulder of Orion
and it turns out for complex reasons. It's really difficult to determine the exact
distance of Batel juice, but it's probably about six hundred light years away.
Now. At that distance, the radiation and the particles from the supernova explosion
could potentially have some impact on Earth, you know, causing mutations and living
organisms and so on, but I would not expect it to be a major
influence. It wouldn't be much different than you know, for example, the
effects of when we had the ozone hole forming back a few decades ago.
Now, if there were a supernova to happen much closer, that could have
more significant biological effects. There is nothing There are no stars close enough to
do that right now. But if you go millions and millions of years in
the future, because we're all orbiting in the Milky Way, stars are moving
relative to one another, there will be times in the future when there are
stars that go supernova nearby. And there have been times in the distant past
when that's happened. And there are some scientists who wonder if you know,
some of the big events we see in evolution when you get increases in the
mutation rate, you know, mass extinctions, and things like that. Whether
there could have been some ties to a supernova happening nearby, it's an unanswered
question, my own guests is probably not I think, as I usually tell
people when they're worrying about cosmic catastrophes like this, we can't rule them completely
out. But we have much more to worry about in terms of what we
do to ourselves than what the cosmos does to us. Right I think we're
sort of undergoing a mass extinction right now. We can talk. We'll talk
a little bit about that when we're going to talk about something that you've been
really working hard on later on in the show. But before that, I
want to talk about last time I had you on, you were talking about
a project that you did where I think it was somewhere in Maryland or maybe
even Washington, d C. Where you set up a replication of what the
solar system would be like with the sun the size of a grapefruit, and
I remember Earth was a size smaller than a ball point pen, the point
on a ballpoint pen. Yes, very good memory. And the nearest star,
the nearest star is in California right on that scale scale. So that's
that's a really good way to explain to anyone out there how far the nearest
star is, and you know, and as far as that goes, what
is that for about four light years? Yes, so I'm really glad you
brought this up because it's something that we're actually, after not working on it
much for a while, we're working very hard on right now. So,
yes, we've one of the big things that my career has been working on
building these scale models of the Solar system. So we build it one to
ten billion scale, and on that scale, the Sun is about that big.
Earth is smaller than the ballpoint in a pen. The Moon is that
far to two and a half inches from Earth, and the nearest stars the
distance across the United States on the same scale, but on that scale,
you can walk the Solar system in a few minutes. So we have the
voyage scale model Solar System. The one you're mentioning is actually it's on the
National Mall and Watching in DC, right outside the National Air and Space Museum.
We have a couple others in other cities and they were all actually based
on the one we built first at the University of Colorado and Boulder. And
beforehand you were telling me that you actually lived around here, but we didn't
have the model installed at that time. But our Boulder model is now thirty
two years old and we're getting ready to replace it with one of these Voyage
models, and then we're hoping to replicate them all across the country because they
are such a great learning tool for so many things, to get a sense
of what the Earth really looks like in space. And so anyone can go
to Voyage Solar System dot org and learned about how you can get your own
Voyage Solar Model Voyage Solar System in your community. Let me ask you how
how was that thing displayed? Because when you're picturing like something smaller than a
ballpoint and a ballpoint pen, how would you actually even position something like that?
Yeah, so they're they're attached to these structures that have, you know,
some information and color pictures and information about each planet as you go along,
and then the planets themselves are in laser crystals. Some of your viewers
can see me right here, Oh yes, yep on YouTube, Yeah,
on YouTube. So I'm holding here a laser crystal that has all of the
planets in it to scale, and the Sun is the big outline here.
You probably can't see it too well, but when you go right up to
it, you can see the planets really clearly. So each planet has its
own laser crystal on its own pedestal at the correct distance from the bottle Sun
in this exhibit. Yeah, great, thank you for that. So I
want to talk a little bit about the possibility of life out there, and
first of all, just thinking about this in general, the first spark of
life is such a mystery and how you know, do you I know,
as a scientist you probably don't like to speculate too much, but I mean,
do you or do people theorize in the science world that it was just
a happenstance that the first life happened. Everything just was exactly right at the
right time. And to make the first spark of life, well, that's
a really big question in terms of you know, that's why studying the possible
origin of life is such a big part of the search for life beyond Earth,
because if that's a key question, and the question is basically you can
take it down to the fact that at this point, thanks to the discoveries
of the Kepler Mission and lots of telescopes around the world, we now know
that planets are very common in the universe star almost all stars have planets.
We also know that planets the size of Earth in earthlike orbits are very common.
And so now we essentially know for sure that planets of the right size
at the right distance from the Earth are all over the place. So the
question is, then, would they, as happened on Earth, also get
life. How likely is that? And to answer that question you need to
look into how you would expect chemistry to work and whether it would naturally point
in the direction of life, or whether it takes some really odd lucky event
to make life happen. And I would say that general belief of the vast
majority of the scientists to study this, including myself, is that the chemistry
favors life. I think most of us would say, if you have one
of these planets right size, right distance from the Sun, and we know
there's lots of them out there, that they are most likely going to have
life on him. I mentioned I think it was two shows ago, maybe
the last show caller called in was talking about life out there, and I
said that life is really fights to be here on this planet. You know,
when you think of where they have found life actually since the last time
we spoke. I believe, you know, in acidic places and you know,
then deep below the Arctic, you know where Photona to a light may
come down that way at some point. But I mean, it's just amazing
where life will just to be here. Yeah, you know, yes,
And I think that's another thing that makes most of us think that life is
almost you know, we can't until we discover it, we can't say for
sure, but but I think most of us expect that life is very common
in the universe because it's favored. Yeah, you know, I know I've
always you know, I've wondered things like I wonder what the equivalent of someone's
first car out there, or someone's first kiss out there, maybe to another
being. You know, it's probably pretty nice to speculate all that. We're
going to go into break and we'll be picking this up when we come back.
My guest is Jeff Bennett, and we'll be right back right after these
messages. All right, Jeff, so we're still we're still on Well,
we'll bring up another topic while we're here and break for this three minutes.
And so I'm just going to ask you about um UFOs in Colorado. Do
you know anything about uf sightings in in Colorado or have you ever looked into
that topic at all? You know, honestly, I have not. Um.
We were recently this summer we took a hiking trip down to the sand
dunes and I saw there's some sort of UFO place down there. Oh uh
huh and them but oh, yes, the tower. Are you talking about
the tower? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, um, because I
know, um, there's the I'm trying to remember exactly. Chris O'Brien does
a lot of work on it. This San uh guy can't Lewis bow Lewis,
thank you race. Uh yeah, I mean there's a there's a that's
a real hot spot, you know, as far as UFOs go. And
I know you know UFOs isn't really your thing, but you're not you're not
closed minded to the topic. No. I had a great discussion recently with
James Fox, who you probably oh yeah, no. He turns out to
be the brother of a good friend of ours. And how about that.
Yeah, yeah, we had a lot of fun, fun chatting and stuff.
Yeah. Yeah. His by the way, up, since you mentioned
him, his film was just purchased by uh ten twenty one. Uh I
think that's the name of it. It's going to be released next um,
June or July. So excellent, So that'll be that'll be great. That's
what did I say? Okay, a race, Why don't you just stay
right here and help me through this. I'm trying. I'm trying, I
know. Yeah. Yeah, thanks for that. Um So anyway, that
will be coming out next year. Yeah, James is James is a lot
of fun. He's a really interesting guy and uh uh uh we shared a
cab out in Phoenix a few months ago and had really a lot of fun
conversations. He's great. Yeah. I don't think anyone works as hard as
him either. Not too many people putting together a film like he does.
He does a really great job. Yeah, and so I know that,
for instance, in the whole Midwest, there are a lot of UFO sightings.
And all right, everyone, welcome back. This is Martin Willison.
My guest is Jeff Bennett, and we were talking before the break. We
were talking about basically the Solar system and the distance and between stars and the
likeliness of life happening out there. And so I think that is really interesting.
The fact that you know I mean life most likely is happening out there,
and intelligent life I think it was you're saying that when it comes to
intelligent life out there, that can you tell me how that went? That
if a society can get through the bottleneck of technology, how did that go?
Exactly? Well? So that there's two parts to this. The first
is while I think it's very commonly thought that life would be common among scientists,
the question of whether that life eventually becomes intelligent is more more difficult because
you know, on Earth it took four and a half billion years before intelligence
finally evolved, so that might mean there's a lot less intelligent life than just
life plane. But if you do get an intelligent civilization, then the question
is we're always going to get to the bottleneck that we're at today because the
technology that we could use to communicate or to travel into space is the same
technology technology that we can use to destroy ourselves. So the question is due
and elligant civilizations make it past this bottleneck. It's a question we all want
to know the answer to because we're in the bottleneck now right And my argument
is that if we do get past this point, if we can survive the
next century and deal with problems like nuclear war and global warming and so on.
Then at that point there's nothing that would stop us from eventually moving out
exploring space, traveling to the stars. Yes, and the bottlenecks you know,
you mentioned global warming. I know that's some of your study before we
get into that though, as far as the technology, you know, we
just talked about a star being as far from the East coast to California,
when the sun is the size of a grapefruit, the distances, and as
far as the technology that we have not discovered yet that would actually make us
able to travel that type of space. Okay, I have a point here.
I'm just trying to think where I'm going with this. Do you think
that artificial intelligence is something that's going to be building something that will make this
happen? In other words, you know that artificial intelligence someday make it to
the point where it can replicate itself. And then there's the quantum computing that
I'll be talking to the next guest about. And do you think that it's
possible that that is what's going to put us there instead of the human mind?
Well, certainly that's a that's an interesting possibility, and in fact,
going way back before people really even talk too much about this, the famous
mathematician John von Newman, back in like the nineteen twenties or thirties or as
I think, had proposed that it wouldn't be people colonizing the stars, it
would be machines, self replicating machines. Wow, and nineteen twenties, did
you say. I don't remember exactly when, but it goes way way back
that he was talking about this, this idea, and you know, you'll
find a lot of stuff written about bonus machines and whether they might be the
things that we should be looking for colonizing the galaxy. And it's just basically
the idea that these voyages, even with you know, technology far beyond our
own, you're still talking about distances that because you're limited to slower the speed
of light travel as far as we know, they're very, very long voyages,
and people might not enjoy them that much, but machines could handle them
fine, and they could get someplace and then start building copies of themselves and
then move on to the next place and so on. I think that we
talked before the show. I told you that I had set shot stack on,
and I think that that is the only type of a situation that he
may think is a possibility that you know, machines might be or could be
traveling, but not not beings. I think he mentioned something along those lines,
and I understand that. But also it is possible that there's something about
the physics that we don't understand. You mentioned that as far as we know,
we're limited by light speed, but maybe we're not. You know,
uh, there's a warp drive. Yeah, yeah, that there are possibilities
is really interesting to um, you know, contemplate that that whole thing,
right, And Okay, another thing that's worth thinking about here when you bring
up the artificial intelligence, is also the sort of virtual reality type of thing.
For example, you could imagine, in fact, if you saw there
was a Steven Spielberg movie about a video game Ready Player one, you know,
where they had the whole suits and can go into virtual world where they
not only saw like we do with the mask today, but felt and so
on, and so you can imagine that we send machines out to other stars
and other planets and you don't even have to go, but you can feel
like you're there. So that might be something that people would find more attractive
than getting into spaceship themselves and traveling as well. So it's hard to say
where the technology will take us. Yeah, I know I would. I'd
rather do that. So do you do you think we're so you think we're
kind of in a bottleneck right now as far as technology goes. Do you
want to talk about that? Well? Yeah, I think by that bottleneck,
I mean basically that we've reached the point where we have the technology to
destroy our civilization, uh, you know, run us back into the dark
ages. And there's multiple ways that we could do that. You know.
The perhaps the simplest to understand and most obvious is blowing up lots of nuclear
bombs, right that would send us back to the dark ages for sure.
Just general hatred, intolerance, civil wars around the world that could do it
too. But as you mentioned, my big focus has been on global warming
because I think that's the one that's most likely to create that problem for us,
primarily because it's one that's easy to ignore because it's been creeping up on
us, and you have people who try to pretend it's not real and so
on, and that makes it one that we're having you know, nuclear weapons,
it's easy for everybody to say, oh, yeah, that would be
bad, and we still have them, but hopefully we're smart enough not to
use them, whereas with global warming, it's harder for people to see and
therefore more likely to buide us. You know, I've had this subject of
global warming between a few different friends, and I get the comeback of,
oh, well, that's a liberal thing, and also there's people are making
millions and billions of dollars on it, and that's what it's all about,
and so what what's your argument. I'm sure people say something like that to
you as well. Those are both very easy to answer. The first terms
of the liberal thing is just look back in time and find out who was
the first major global leader to warn about the significant danger of this problem,
and it was actually Margaret Thatcher in nineteen eighty nine giving a speech to the
United Nations about this topic. That link has posted on my website. You
can watch it at global warming primer dot com. Margaret Thatcher was not a
liberal, and so it clearly was not a liberal issue, and that's just
a myth that's been manufactured. And the same for the people making lots of
money you know, there's there are researchers who get grant money, but I
tell you none of them are getting rich. Research salaries are very low compared
to what lots of people are earning in the private sector, and no one's
getting rich off this topic. In my case, I've never received a set
for it. And that's true of the vast majority of people who are focused
on this and speaking out on it. On the other side, the people
who are spreading the misinformation about it oftentimes are coming from places where they're getting
paid quite a lot of money by companies that have invested interests there. And
can you give us an example of that. The Heartland Institute has been one
of the major funders of disinformation on climate change. I actually had the opportunity
to debate someone funded by them who they mail out these things two hundreds of
thousands of teachers saying how the IPCC is all wrong, and when I investigator
did it in detail, and I have a whole post on the website medium
that people can look at for this. It turns out that every study they
cite, they if you actually talk to the scientists who did those studies,
they say they've been grossly misinterpreted by these folks, deliberately misinterpreted. All right,
so, how I've been worried about climate change for a while. How
and you know, recently, I think was last year there was a number
like twelve who don't get our act together within twelve years or something like that,
we're basically screwed. Can you let us know what you have found out?
Where are we? What type of situation are we in right now?
Well, we are in an extremely dangerous situation. The twelve year number is
not a specific, you know, hit or miss thing. The twelve year
number is based on the models. That's a certain level of warming that we
could stave off if we act by that point. If we don't, we're
going to have more warming than that. In terms of at what point were
you're facing a really serious crisis to our future, to our kids and grandkids
future, my answer would be, we're already there. The warming that we
could stave off in twelve years to me is already and lead to very very
serious consequences for our kids and grandkids. So I think the sooner we do
something, the better, and the longer the weight, the more severe of
consequences will have to deal with. Before we get the opportunity to hopefully turn
it around. And what we're turning it around involve and it seems like people
are going to be sacrificing, and that's what people do not want to do,
correct, you know, I think that's false actually, And that's one
of the things I would like to really emphasize. Are you still hearing me
because you pose? Okay? Yeah? Good? You know what it involves
is we have to not be using fossil fuels for our energy anymore coal,
oil, and gas, which means we need to switch to other energy sources
better efficiency, renewables, nuclear power. None of those give off any greenhouse
gases. And the fact is, when you look at the subsidies that we
give to fossil fuels, which have been estimated by conservative economists from the IMF
and the US and so on, or a trillion dollars per year in the
United States, we're actually spending much more money for our fossil fuel energy than
we would be if we were using these other sources. So it would actually
be a net benefit to the economy as opposed to a sacrifice if we were
to switch over. And one of the best examples of the analysis done by
This is by a group I've mentioned to you beforehand. I got to meet
George Schultz a little over a week ago, who was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of
State, and he's formed a whole group of former Republican administration officials who've done
this economic analysis. And if you look at the cover of their report,
you'll see it says that this changeover not only solves the problem of global warming,
but it strengthens the economy, reduces regulation, benefits working class Americans,
and so on. That this is actually something that even if you don't believe
it's real, we still benefit from solving it. But do you think I
know this is way off, and I hope the listener will hang in there
because I know this is way off of the topic we usually talk about,
but I really think it's important to talk about. And do you think that
there has to be like a complete breakdown of the system. You know,
I mean, for like the oil companies and everyone involved in fossil fuels,
they're not going to give up easy. They're not going to go away easy.
You know. Actually, the vast majority of fossil fuel companies already understand
this problem and know it needs a solution, and they're actually advocating for solutions
because they need the business incentives that will allow them to make the change in
their business structure away from those fuels toward other ones. I mean, the
same companies that are doing fossil fuels now are in the best position to do
renewables, nuclear and so on. So they want to make that change,
most of them, not all of them. And so they're advocating for the
same carbon tax that George Schultz's group is advocating for the Citizens Climate Lobby,
because that provides the market incentive to help them make that transition. And I'll
just point out for anybody who's got more questions on this, my whole book
and show is posted for free online at global warming primer dot com and it's
in question and answer format, you know, probably answer any question anyone has
on it. And just to tie it back to our UFOs discussion, if
there are people visiting us in UFOs, they went through a time in their
civilization when they would have faced the same type of threat. Maybe not in
the exact same form, but fossil fuels probably exist on any planet that gets
a civilization, and they're easy to tap into. So they would have presumably
had to have solved this problem just as we're faced with solving it now.
So it'd be really nice to talk to them and find out how they did
it. Wow, something I certainly have never thought of. That's really interesting.
Well, I'm not an advocate of nuclear power myself, and that is,
you know, for the number one thing for me as the not just
the danger of it, but the waste we put on our future, five
thousand generations of our future to take care of, you know. And I
don't think there's any real good answer for the waste when it comes to that.
Well, that's true, but I can tell you, for example,
if you want to know where most nuclear waste is being generated right now,
it's actually from coal plants. Coal plants are spewing something like a hundred times
as much uranium into the atmosphere because there is uranium and coal then is produced
by nuclear power plants. And with a nuclear power plant, you take that
waste and you store it in one place where you can in principle keep an
eye on it. With the coal plants, it's just being spewed out into
the atmosphere where it's affecting all of us. So there's actually a greater total
radiation danger from our current sources than Wow. I got in an argument in
Los Alamos at my sister's house and brother in law's house many years ago with
the scientists out there that was saying the same thing, and I was calling
him BS. So I guess you can look at that he has senting to
it after all. No, Nope, and I'm not necessarily advocating for nuclear
I'm just saying it's a potential solution to this problem that we should consider.
But I think no energy source will ever be completely benign, and so you
have to look at trade offs, and in my opinion that one's a lot
safer than the ones we're currently using. Renewables might be even better or might
not be, depending on various things like what goes into the mining and so
on. As far as the renewables is, what do you think is is
it Germany? What country is up relying mostly on you know, solar and
wind and and there's one country that almost switched right over right. Well,
nobody's been able to make a super fast transition. There's been a lot of
people talking about doing it, you know, the real limiting factor at the
moment for solar and wind is storage, right, batteries or some other form
of storage for when the wind's not blowing and when it's nighttime or cloudy.
And that problem has not been fully solved, which is part of why I
think we shouldn't rule out nuclear before we solve that problem. But if we
do, then that might be another way to go. You know, we
have we have about ten minutes left. I can take a call if someone
would like to call in. Would you like to take up? Would you
like to take a call? Sure? All right, So I'm going to
put that number up on the screen and that's going over there right now.
And that number is eight five five four seven two five four eight three.
So we only got about ten minutes if someone would like to call in and
ask a question, you know. And while we're waiting, I thought I
might mention because you asked me before about the you know what, if we
do get through this bottleneck, and I think it's worth a moment on that
because it's something that ties in with global warming. When I'm talking to kids
also about what does their future look like? And you I remember, like
you know, I met George Schultz. I said he's ninety nine years old.
Today's kids won't be ninety nine until well after the year twenty one hundred.
So ask yourself, if we survive this century, what kind of technology
will we have in the year twenty one hundred, and you start to realize,
well, we should by then have things like nuclear fusion, or solar
energy from space and other things that would essentially give us free, clean,
unlimited energy. So when you talk about wanting to start sending spaceships off around
the Solar system, or eradicating poverty throughout the world, those all should be
possible by that time if we deal with our immediate problems. Yeah, it
is immediate. We have Vents on the line from Ohio Vents. Welcome to
the show. You have a question question for Jack Martin Hie. Yes,
you know, I hate that to hear that we, you know, scientists
think that we are limited by our current physics knowledge and that I was wondering
if you guys thought that if we spent all the time and the money,
the energy towards looking at the nuts and bolts UFO technology, do you think
we had have more answers than what we put into trying to find a signal.
I know one day I was listening to you and you almost had Seth
in a corner and he didn't let you actually do it, and I just
wondered if there would be more information about disclosure if there was more energy put
towards it. I'll take my answer off here. Thank you, all right,
Vince, thanks for the call. Thanks you want to tackle that yet,
sure, you know. I mean, I think the difficulty with the
question for me is that we have to have something to study. I witness
reports or not, something that you can really study. You would have to
have something in your hands to study. And I think if anyone had that
and actually could show that they had something real in their hands, I think
lots of people would be putting lots of effort into studying it. Put so
far, you know, to my understanding of scientists, you've looked at these
claimed artifacts and things carefully. No one takes them seriously yet. So it's
not a matter of that we're not putting the effort into studying it. It's
that we don't think there's actually something there to study. We would love it
if there was, right, that's the one thing that has we have one
more call. I'm going to take that in just a second. That's one
of the things that has puzzled me about to the study Ours Academy. I
don't know if you have even looked at that at all, but one of
the things is that they were stating that they wanted to replicate the technology by
observing and you know, I just I haven't been getting that one, understanding
that one. And just to your point that you just made, we have
Jim calling from British Columbia. Welcome to the show, Jim, Hi Martini.
I wanted to talk to Jeff Bennett. Yeah, he's right here.
Hi. Yeah. I'm an engineer metallurgist. I did work on nuclear generate
nuclear power, and I learned a lot about it. It wasn't my main
job. I worked for a consulting firm and sometimes nuclear was our our customer.
Now I've given lectures on the difference between the engineering method in the scientific
myth, and I find a lot of scientists, even nuclear scientists own,
do not understand what's wrong with nuclear power. The problem is the risk calculations.
Actually, you can't do the risk calculations on nuclear and this is why,
this is why nuclear power cannot get insurance. They cannot get insurance from
the private sector. So all governments in the world where they have nuclear power,
the governments ensure the nuclear power liability insurance right. And this is because
you can't do the risk calculations. And the nuclear indus, sorry, the
the insurance industry likes to do their their risk calculations or else it go broke,
and they do them properly, but but you can't do them on nuclear
You can't do it. Now. Just take a look at Fukushima. It's
costing more and moral the time. It's not the cost of the Fukushima.
The aster is going up over time, not down. Same thing with the
one in the Ukraine, same deal. The cost goes up over time.
You know. It's just yeah, I know, we're very living on time.
So try to answer answer your question there. Yeah, we're limited on
time, jem So yeah. So you know, again I'm not a nuclear
expert and I'm not saying we should do it. I'm saying we shouldn't take
it off the table as an option until we really look into it. And
I think the key point here again is the trade offs. And we also
can't do the risk calculations for really almost any source very well. But you
can look at the historical data and we know, for example, that the
fossil fuel industry does cause air and water pollution that we know about, and
that's killing leading to an estimated premature ten million deaths per year, whereas in
the entire history of the nuclear industry there have been the deaths from Chernobyl,
but none others. And so you trade off ten million deaths per year going
on year after year after year versus the historical record. Nuclear safety record actually
looks a lot better than the safety record or fossil fuels. But again,
we do have to look going forward and make the do the best we can
to look at it, look at the economics of it, and then I
would like to see a carbon tax so that we're factoring in the true costs
of the fossil fuels, and then let the market figure it out. If
somebody figures out how to do nuclear and can prove that it's safe and economical,
they'll do it. If they don't, then we'll be getting our energy
in other ways from renewables or other things. A quick comment, Jim,
because we only have about two minutes left Okay, okay, Jim, you
are way off, way off. Sorry, I don't think so when you
can go to my website and you can see my actual data there. And
I know I have research papers, my friend, I have the research papers.
I don't read websites and environmental stuff I read. Okay, just just
make your make your point if you have, Jim my point, Yes,
nuclear costs too much. It's the risk is too high. And now you
mentioned Jeff, you mentioned something about risk calculations. Look at their nautical engineering,
look at the problem of getting an airplane across specific ocean and the risk
calculations done, and that the risk is down to ten to the negative seven,
ten to the negative seven. That's the risk for nuclear will never be
that low. But the question is what is the risk? What are the
consequences? Can you make it so that it's much safer than it is with
today's power plants. I believe the answers to those questions are probably yes,
I'm not one hundred percent you can't. That's my job. That's exactly my
job. I know. I've talked to lots of people who do this as
their jobs and have done nuclear and do research at some of the biggest nuclear
fores of the in the world, and they would disagree with you. So
you can. I would suggest to the listeners that that you go take a
look at the actual research that's out there and conclusions it's corrupt, the engineering
is corrupt. Well, so you are now in a conspiracy theory mode,
accusing the people who have debated nuclear engineers multiple times, my friend on this,
I have the research papers, all right, I have the calculations.
Okay, Jim, thank you, goodbye for now, thank you yea.
So we have just one minute left, and one of the questions I wanted
to ask you, as far as I mentioned too earlier on, I said
something along the line as we are NMSs extinction event right now because of the
rate is so high for extinction, and once something's gone, it's gone.
Do you think that's also global warming hess a part in that as well.
So far global warming has played a relatively minor role in extinctions, but it
could you know, most of the extinctions have been due to habitat destruction so
far, the burning of the rainforests and things like that. But going forward
global warming, one of the great fears with it is that it could lead
to much more extinction because if climates migrate faster than trees can migrate, then
you start to lose ecosystems and then you lose the animals that depend on them
also. So that's actually one of the great fears with it is that it
will lead to furthering of this extinction event that's going on. Wow, all
right, Jeff, Well that's it for this part of the show. Thank
you so much. It's been a real pleasure. Always fun to talk to
you, Jeff. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. All
right, take care you two. All right, everyone, we're going to
be going into a break and we'll be right back right after these messages.
All right, welcome back, and this is a second hour of the show,
and my guests this hour is Deep Persade and welcome to the show.
Deep Thank you, and we're talking. We're talking to you in Canada,
right Toronto, Yes, sir exactly. Did I read something that you were
consider one time in the top twenty of people under twenty or something like that
in Toronto or Yeah, Yeah, that's right, you got it. You
got that acafee right. I believe it was twenty fourteen, So yeah,
I was eighteen years old when I got it all right, and you've done
a lot of work. Um, some have said you're a prodigy, But
why don't you give your basic background if you would to the listener, who's
who doesn't know anything about you? Basically? Okay, sure. So I've
always been a fanatic of science from I don't know, since childhood, and
that expressed itself in different ways in high school that I'm expressed itself through combetations
and science fair and then in university I was kind of all over the place
where um, I switched from electrical engineering to industrial engineering and moved from hardware
to learning about computational math and m kind of just applying that to day to
day life. And I found that intriguing and so UM I really developed a
strong AI and slash blockchain background. So, for example, I took the
first official blockchain like university credit blockchain course in Canada on blockchain and what pardon
me, what is that exactly? So it's a very broad umbrella term at
this point, but UM, think about it as I would say, a
transition or an evolution of the Internet. So UM, in some extent,
you know how the Internet kind of digitized our interactions with people and how we
store information. Blockchain takes that and and you know, applies steroids to it.
Yeah, we can go deeper into it. I'd be happy to Yeah.
Yeah. And you've also gotten into quantum computing, which is which is
really a and I think there's a I'm not sure exactly how many supercomputers there
are right now? Is how many are I know they're building them all the
time. And are there like three major supercomputers something like that. Yeah,
Yeah, there's lots of exactly, there's lots of rankings of different supercomputers,
and there's also different metrics. Usually we're interested in the number of flops,
but there's other ways of measuring how good a computer is and how good a
supercomputer is. UM. With that said, though, there's probably I would
say thousands of what we would define as supercomputers, different groups around the world
kind of competing, whether they're big private organizations like the ibms of the world,
or straight up countries right like the US or Canada. Canada has UM
I believe, shark net and some other yeah, like Canadian Central supercomputers.
So that being said, there's a smaller number of quantum computers. UM I
would say that there's probably easily less than a thousand, maybe a couple hundred,
depending on how lenient you are with calling something a quantum computer. Well,
um, what I meant when I said that three? Um, I
think there's the top three, right, isn't there like the top three?
There are competing against each other as far as being the top and you're talking
about the flops or or whatever it is. Um, But these things can
calculate something like close to a trillion. Oh can you kind of tilli as
small? They can probably calculate more operations than that. If you just looked
up you know, the most powerful supercomputers. It's always changing. I believe
you can verify this. I think it China currently holds a lead for what
that for what is worth I'm fairly certain about that. So yeah, and
what type of calculations per second? So these are basic operations We're talking like
addition, subtraction, division. Yeah, which is why I said that there's
different kinds of metrics for calculating these operations and how well computer performs. For
example, you have a complexity class, right, so you have different ways
of measuring how complex the problem is, how hard it is to come to
solution and how hard it is to check the solution. So that's another way
of kind of measuring how good a computer can perform yea specific task. And
they're not actually using binary or are they using binary? Yeah, these are
all binary, the ones that I'm talking about, like China and everything is
all binary. The here's the funny part. The metrics for comparing to quantum
computers isn't as well defined. There's not necessarily any obvious way of comparing the
like different quantum computers with classical computers and with each other. That being said,
though, there are some bare minima and some you know, some results
that we've all read on. For example, Google's quantum supremacy results. You
might have heard about them. The news that's something that there's decent consensus on
was that it is impressive. It is indeed the real deal. Wow.
And so you're you're someone that's actually considered the UFO topic as well. I've
seen a couple of things out there, and so what are your thoughts on
that in general? Yeah, I believe that they represent that's the greatest mystery
of our time, and I think that is pertinent that we figure out everything.
We can about this topic knowing this is just my opinion, knowing that
will ever figure everything out about it, just like with anything else in science.
Yeah, yeah, certainly. One of the one of the the hang
ups of any science really looking at it is that it's not something that's uh
that you can replicate. It's it's it's random, it's it's not something that
can be studied easily in any type of way. There are some people attempting
to do that in different ways, but um, what do you think?
Also? Um, I saw that you have an interest in meta materials?
Have you? Um, have you looked into what people are stating out there,
what they have found in crashes and things like that? Yes, yeah,
great of research at this point into different claims by different parties. And
yeah, what would you like to know specific? Is there anything have you
specific? Have you actually actually had a look at any of the materials that
people are claiming that? Yes? Oh really okay? And so how would
you analyze something like that? What type of movement does it take? That's
a great question. There's a wide variety of different instruments and you really have
to what really what I found helped is knowing what kind of questions you you
need to ask, and what kind of things you're looking for specifically. So
let's say that somebody gives you a chunk of metal and it looks engineered,
as an example, what do you do with it? The first steps is
is to figure out are there anything you know interesting about the isotopes or the
isotopic ratios. So you would go to different labs and you would get a
spiss cross could be done, and there's a bunch of different instruments, different
methods that will give you ideally similar results or similar enough within a varying error,
within a acceptable margin RROR. So that being said, let's say that
some of these results do end up being anomalous and the isotopes are weird.
The next thing that you want to do is determine whether you have a meteorite
or an actual artifact in your hand right, something that might be manufactured potentially
off planet. And that makes a world of a difference. But that is
like the Devil's and the details. Proving that something is engineered off planet is
actually insanely hard. There's so, for example, let's say that I had
this alloy, right, I put under scanning latron microscope and I see that.
Okay, there's this continuous layering. There seems to be obvious manufacturing of
this metal. Right, people could argue that this is a natural or b
somebody took a meteorite and then they engineered, they attracted the medals from that
meteorite, and then they engineered it into what you're seeing. So it wasn't
actually built somewhere off planet. So you see where I'm going with that.
So it's very non trivial to task. Yeah, and what would it take.
What would you think that it would take for science to actually admit something
was actually manufactured extraterrestrial. We would need something that is obvious technological function,
something that for example, you know, imagine if you had something that resembled
a advanced alien microchip. So that's a complete analogy. We would never write,
we would never actually see an microchip like that. It would probably be
completely yeah, alien to us. It just wouldn't be obvious. But if
we found something that was like that, like that, that would be cool
or like and imagine an anti gravity craft for a fully functioning craft, that's
game over. So so you're saying, in an anti gravity, anti gravity
craft itself that is that what you just said. Yeah, yeah, that
would be like, uh, that would be the greatest scientific discovery of all
time, right right? Um, what about the um if a metal?
I guess what I'm getting at is what would it take. For instance,
there's there's some meta materials right now being studied supposedly um that people have been
talking about in the UFO field. And you mentioned okay, someone could actually
fake something with a meteor metior righte um material and something like that. But
um, is there going to be a point where someone would just have to
say this has to be something made elsewhere by another intelligent species? You know.
I mean, I guess what I'm getting at is what type of information
would they need before they would actually it would be accepted by science? Okay,
yeah, that's a fantastic question. Let's actually circle back to some of
the things that I've done or and some of the things that I've seen.
Right, one of the most common results you'll see are the scanning electron microscopes.
Now, this will give you only a certain amount of detail, right.
It does give you a lot of information, but it doesn't necessarily tell
you the function of what you're looking at. So let's say that I took
a chunk of my laptop and I gave it to you, and this is
in the nineteen forties. You would still have to figure out right what function
was this for, and it wouldn't be obvious. I think that your first
guest, I don't think would be that it was part of a keyboard and
it was part of this laptop. So so, but if you could do
that, then now we're talking. So that's what it would take, is
if you can identify using advanced scientific principles mixed with I guess, really good
design engineering that people can accept and believe, and you can prove clearly that
this is useful tech. Yeah, you're in the money, so it's not.
I guess. What I'm trying to say, by the way, is
that no mental materials alone would prove that they are you know, they're engineered
off planet unless they could do something interesting. You mean they had an interesting
function basically, yes, exactly. Yeah. You know people have said that
there are implants that people who have been abducted have plants, and there was
Roger lear Had, who is a podiatrist, actually had removed a number of
these implants, and supposedly they're being stored somewhere, and you know, I've
just wondered if that is the case, you know, why hasn't there been
any study on that? Have you ever looked at that part of the field
where people are claiming they're getting implants? I have, and I've actually,
specifically, I think, looked at the claim that you're talking about. And
I believe that at least as far as I think Creation seventeen was concerned,
or you know, one of the patients that was actually a scientist themselves.
One thing that we need to note is that they used Raman spectroscopy in order
to determine if there were carbonanotubes present inside these quote alien transplants lected things that
they thought. So the thing about Ramen spectroscopy is that you're looking at a
graph and you're looking at specific bumps and absorption rates, and based on those
absorption rates of where the element or the metal that you're interested in, you
can infer with some probability whether there are carbon nanotubes inside of it, because
they'll absorb a specific frequency and so that will show up. But that's not
other things can do that. And also carbon nanotubes occur naturally in nature,
so that was a big selling point, and I don't think it's good enough
of a selling point. We can't even prove that there are carbon nanotubes,
if you see what I'm saying, because like the spectroscopy alone and the Roman
scoscopy is not good enough. That being said, there were interesting claims about
these certain implants that have a radio wave frequency that they emit. So that's
pretty interesting. That would be something that's worth probing, right right, well,
it would be interesting, I know it doesn't to me. I thought,
you know, this part of this part of it, as far as
people looking into the meta materials and all that is interesting, but I thought
it would be extremely difficult to actually pinpoint something down. But you made a
really good point. The functionality part of it is is something that we you
know, we wouldn't be able to do. If that was the case,
then it would pretty much nail it. But I really don't have hope for
what we have so far. Neither do I don't worry so frankly, like
that was one of the awakening moments after all my investigation. I think a
lot of you know, scientists and background might agree with me, but I'm
not going to speak for them. Is that there's a lot of almost all
of this is impossible to prove et life. Frankly, like I could,
there's not a single sample out there that I could say that, yes,
this is going to this is it, guys, this is disclosure. It's
not it's no matter what how close you look at it, and it's not
that there's nothing that's weird out there there is. It's just not good enough,
right right. One of the things I know that you talk about or
you have, like this hypothetical scenario that we may discover that we're quarantine by
an intelligent species. Do you want to talk about that? I think that's
pretty fascinating. Yeah. Sure. So one thing that I was just twaying
with is the idea that, Okay, based on what Chris Mellan said in
that recent article about how UAPs have become more brazen in their in their incursions,
right, they're becoming more shameless and how they interact and more in our
face. So what that means to me, I think is that they have
no regard for our rules, no regard for our laws or any of that.
So Tom DeLong is technically right in the sense that we don't have so
d and to me, I think that it's not about politics. It's probably
that we are quarantined. We probably are you know, forced to follow these
set of rules. There's this you know, psychological wall over us. You
could say that we don't see um. And so what I what I was
wondering is that, let's say that we do find ourselves in this situation,
how do we negotiate with a more intelligent civilization or intelligent beings who have determined
that we're too dumb to uh, you know how complete sovereignty, Well,
that we just don't deserve it. Yeah, well, um, I could
see that case. I mean, you know, as standard Friedman would say,
you know, we're we're involved in tribal warfare, you know, and
that's that's and that's in a way primitive, you know. Um. But
I also have talked about on this show that you know, um, it
is the seating thing, the whole seating you know situation is uh is pretty
an interesting theory as well. You know if that if that was the case,
um, you know, if we're just a test you know, to
to watch over. Um, And would that explain a lot of would you
think that would explain a lot of what we see as UFO sightings in part
Yeah, in part um, some of it I think is just carelessness.
Like it could be species that just don't care about our existence. They don't
care if they see us, they don't care if we collect evidence. But
a lot are probably more careful. That's just my guests. Uh, Okay,
what do you think is more important as far as an extraterrestrial intelligent society
out there? Um? Culture or technology? Now? My last guest Jeff
Bennett, he kind of talks about that, you know, getting through the
bottleneck of technology without bloating, blowing ourselves up, you know, that type
of thing. So what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, So my
thoughts definitely kind of echo those as well. It's that culture, in a
heartbeat, is more important than technology. Technology is something that we can eventually
get to, and actually it's a question of if we can even get there
right, Like, we need to be able to survive to a specific point
in time, and that's dependent on our culture. And there's other things that
are dependent on our culture that we don't see and maybe we haven't discovered yet.
So if you think about it, consider this eventually the way that we're
headed the Internet is a way of you know, transferring thought very fast.
Right. It's something that we couldn't do even a hundred years ago. It
was impossible. And so people influence each other really quickly, much faster than
ever before. And there's meant much more of us. There's millions and billions
of us that are connected to this almost hive mind like state right where you
can't have an opinion other than that isn't formed by everything else you've already seen
right on the internet or like. So, so if you extrapolate that,
what I see is that eventually our culture will be super super connected. Even
you know, there's neural link that's coming up, will be connected by the
brain. We will become this potentially this hive mind state. Like I know,
there's a lot of negative connotations, but realistically I think that'll that's what
will happen. And when or if that happens, that's when culture matters even
more, because now you have billions of minds with varying degrees of tolerance for
each other's views and emotions, and you know, you can transfer the stuff
faster, and so like, how do you manage that? And that kind
of culture has to be super advanced, and at that point, I don't
think it becomes culture necessarily becomes something more. So what is this? What
do you mean exactly by you said something like a neurallink, Like we're linked
to each other, our minds are Like so I was using neurallink as an
Elon Musk example, because like Elon Musk is making the startup right, um,
so, so he's making neurallink, which essentially is a brain to computer
interface and it's right now. It's a bunch of electrodes that you can stick
into your brain and listens to your brain cells, like your brain signals,
and so you can in theory, once it's a little bit better, you
would be able to control your keyboard or you could control you know, your
mouse just by thinking because electrodes are implanted into your brain, and he wants
to make it eventually kind of like lasic eye surgery, like very simple,
like you get these implants and then you're good to go. I'm saying that
we're going to go even farther than that. But yeah, neurallink is like
clearly a step in that direction. Wow, And then there's a there's the
singularity you hear about you know, which is just an advanced advancement of all
that. Right, Yeah, you got it. So the singularity is more
like the hive mind kind of structure that I was talking about, where,
you know, kind of just joined as one m as it's big cyberkinetic being.
Yeah, and um, you know, do you think eventually it will
come down to the point where our brains could be downloaded into something and you
know, we could live on a machine type of thing, you know,
like science fiction out there. Yeah. I think it's uh, I think
it's a transient step. It's not our end goal. There's other ways of
storing who we are that will be Think about it this way. Matter is
very weak, It's not it. Matter will die out. If this universe
dies out, our information dies with it. So a sufficially advanced civilization,
I think, would learn how to store itself across multiple realities. It would
have redundant versions of itself. It would be a lot weirder than just being
just a digital computer that stores its consciousness. Wow. Interesting, I think
I'm going to start taking calls if someone would like to call in. That
would actually help me on my end a little bit, just because I'm not
like I say, I'm a little bit under the weather, and it wouldn't
mind if someone would pitch in a couple of questions this way, so that
numbers up on the line. It's eight five five four seven two five four
eight three And what do you think of the until the callers call in?
What do you think about the future of you quantum computing? Where can that
lead? Where do you think that that can actually, I mean, can
it get out of control? Like again like science fiction, technically everything can
get out of control. So UM, I guess it's this question of what
will I'm more afraid personally of nukes and the fact that people with basically a
combination of buttons voice commands can launch a nuke. Yeah, so so so
yeah. With that being said, though, um, I think that in
terms of where the future of quantum competing is added, I think the future
of quantum is photonicum. I mentioned this before as well, Like publicly,
I do believe that photons is the best way of representing quantum information for the
sake of computation as far as that's concerned um and naturally, I think our
some of our quantum competing applications that are really interesting involve quantum gravity and trying
to simulate quantum gravity in the lab, which is right now not possible.
Can you explain that a little more? I don't. I don't quite understand.
Quantum gravity is a field of theoretical physics that attempts to unify and unify
the gravitational and quantum mechanical models of the universe and those interactions. So it
looks at how does relativity play a role in the quantum world and vice versa.
This is, of course, you can imagine so far impossible to do
properly. No, no physicists, no branch of physics has managed it.
But quantum gravity does a really good job. Like it's not perfect, but
it's getting there, Okay. I was just looking on to see if we
had any questions up on the on the message board. So the lines are
open eight five five four seven two five four eight three. You're welcome to
give our guests a call. Um So, yeah, the launch codes that
that is that is kind of scary when you think of it. Um.
There there are several ways of destroying ourselves, and the last guest you don't
mentioned that we are possibly on that road right now with global warming or I'm
sorry climate change. Uh you're not supposed to call a global warming, but
anyway, UM, I don't know, you know, that's that's uh it
seems like a possibility, but um, that is something that any culture is
going to have to go through. And the last guest made a really good
point of it that fossil fuels are very easy to um interact with and to
use and you know, could cause you know a similar issue that we're having
right now. And you know, yeah, I agree, and frankly,
like when it comes down to it, fossil fuels and any known fuel source
we have, they don't really have a good enough energy density compared to what
we think is going on. When it comes to let's say the UAPs that
we're observing, and and about the what we're observing, if you had to
guess where they're coming from, would you think that they're extraterrestrial? Do you
think that's a likelihood or do you have a question about where they're coming from?
I mean that's the million dollar question, right. I think some of
them are extraterrestrial, but basically all of them, or some or a lot
of them are something that we don't have good enough words for yet ultratrastial doesn't
count. Interdimensional isn't good enough. I think it's something that our physics and
philosophy hasn't quite you know, encompassed just yet. And where do you think
that will lead in the future. Yeah, good questions. So basically it
comes out too on the physics side of things. We essentially need to understand
how there are how different kinds of life forms may be able to live in
higher dimensional higher spaceiful dimensions, for example, and whether that's possible. Because
one thing that we're seeing almost time and time again is that the nature the
encounters that we have happen anywhere, So they can happen in any state of
mind that you're in, whether you're dreaming, no, you're on let's say
DMT. Supposedly when you're on, when you can when you're completely wide awake,
you can still have what's called an abduction experience, right like let's say
Travis Walton. So all of these are examples of something that is able to
exist everywhere, which is weird. And to me that means that it sounds
like something that's spatially higher than us, because that's what I would think if
I was in flatland and somebody put like their hand through my you know world,
right, I would see five different points of the hand, but it's
all connected to just one hand. But it would seem like they're all totally
you know, different phenomena, so to speak. We have a caller.
We have a Vince Vince again, Vince once again from Ohio. Martin.
Hi, I'm sorry, I'm gonna I'm asking the easy questions, but I've
wondered, what does your guests think. If he's familiar with the manipulations that
we had with our nukes in the past, what does he think failed?
Oh oh, you mean as far as UFO is a new Yes, have
you ever looked into that topic? A deep yeah, certainly. I think
that's an important question, right, because like, we're spending billions of dollars
in the security of these ICBMs, and here you have these technologies that can
hack it. But more importantly, I think the message is very clear we
need to just stop playing with them. It's it's obvious that they don't want
to bother talking to us, and therefore any kind of interaction with something that
might be more intelligent than us is going to be important. So if they're
just flying over and shutting down our nukes. Let's listen. Great, thank
you, Yeah, no problem, Thanks for the question. Yeah, thanks
for the call. Yeah yeah. That's always been such a interesting part of
this whole phenomenon that that part of it. I think I mentioned Stan Freeman
earlier. He said the kids on the matches, you know, that's what
that's what he puts, you know, as far as the nukes go.
And I had heard about this, you know, before I really looked into
the UFO topic years ago. I had heard about, um, you know,
nukes and and UFOs over them, um, you know, back in
the nineteen nineties or something like that. We have another caller. I'm going
to take that in just a minute. And uh and so that number is
up on the screen eight five five four seven two five four eight three,
and we have Andy calling from Connecticut. Welcome to the show. Andy,
Hi, guys, thanks for taking my call. Sure. I wanted to
ask Deep great. So I wanted to ask Deep real quick if he thinks
that Moore's law, where computer speed is constantly increasing, if that will continue
you to be the case for the foreseeable future, or whether it'll outpace you
know, the traditional standard we've seen over the last few decades, or just
his thoughts on where that's all headed, and I'll take your answer off the
air. Thanks again, guys, good show, Thank you Andy. Yeah,
thanks so yeah. Essentially, I think Moore's law at this point is
telling us that there's almost no more ways to improve the current size of our
transistors, and therefore no more very little ways in dwindling ways of increasing your
compute power without spending lots of money and engineering just to increase it a little
bit. So, if you want to think of a practical example, consider
transistors that are that exists today. So we have transistors that are almost a
couple Adams big, and when you get to that scale, quantum effects start
dominating, and so you'll have these things like quantum tunneling that the electrons will
do that you don't have with bigger systems. But this quantum tunneling is something
that you don't want. So Moore's law is kind of at the end of
its tail, where we've pushed it to its limits, and now it's time
to look at different ways of compute. Because Moore's law was specifically for binary
classical computers and binary processing techniques are there going to be other types of processing,
do you think, is that basically what you're saying? Besides binary?
Now I mentioned that earlier, exactly exactly, there's already quantum, right,
Quantum is one example, and even within quantum there's different kinds of processing.
So there's cubits and then there's q modes. Cubits are superpositions of zero two
to the end states, whereas with few modes you have an infinite number of
possible states that one human can take on. So you have all these different
ways of representing information, even within quantum. And I feel eventually we'll go
beyond quantum as well. Right, we'll have a different model and that will
have its own compute paradigm. Yeah, which could almost be scary. Yeah.
Yeah. We have a bim calling from California. Welcome to the show,
Bim Hi Hi. I wanted to ask your guest, do you know
of Lee Smolan and his new theory of time? No? Wow, that
was a quick call theoretical physicist. Great, So what's his theory about?
Oh? He says, well, if you look at general relativity, you
know we live in spacetime, right, and he says that time the dimension
of time is the same as the other dimensions, is just that we perceive
time differently. And his name is Lee Smollen. He's been put in the
top five theoretical physics in the world. So I I, you know,
I assumed you might might have thought of him or might know of him.
But he says that we might have to throw out the scientific method because of
this, because things don't happen in order. You have to do the scientific
method in order, right, But if time is not as we perceive it,
then we have to throw out the scientific method. Even that's one of
his one of his statements, you know, I so, which I think,
Yeah, I mean, it's fantastic that you bring up that theory.
I'm always cautious when someone, no matter who it is, says that we
should throw away the scientific method, right. Like let's take for example,
so I'm not too much into relativity, Like, I'm not a relativists relativists,
I would say, more of a quantum physicists and quantum computing scientists.
So, and quantum experiments and quantum mechanics. We do have experiments where you
have let's say the quantum eraser experiment, where it's as if causality seems to
be broken in the way that we would normally expect it to. So you
can have information that somehow can seemingly travel backwards in time. And you could
say that this is breaking the scientific method or that it no longer applies.
But I think it just means that we need to get more creative. Okay,
that's interesting. Yeah, I'm trying to think of some of his other
quotes. Sure. Anyway, he says that he's trying to replace the general
relativity as Einstein replaced antony in physics. You know. He says that's how
big his theory is, his new theory time. It's that it's that gigantic,
you know. And I'm not too much up on quantum theory, I
don't know, but it's interesting. But I've done experiments in um consciousness and
UM, I've actually done it and experienced it. I've taught it to others
and they did it in front of me, so I've seen it. I'm
an engineer, so I've I use that method, you know, I've seen
it with my own eyes where I hate so and this this fits into the
whole ufology thing because UM and the native people too. Actually the indigenous people
of the world knew about these things. They knew about UM. They knew
that consciousness was not local, and they used that to survive. UM.
I study anthropology as well, and I've a lot of Native friends and so
on. I've learned some of their tricks and so on. And it's,
uh, it's a it's a different kind of knowledge. It's and it's it's
not scientific knowledge. I guess not now, it could be someday. But
the USSR did an amazing experience experiment where they were killing baby rabbits. I
wonder if you've ever heard of that. They found that when they killed when
they killed the baby rabbits, the mother rabbit responded at the same time.
So they took the baby rabbits into another room and they wired up the mother
rabbits brain and they got a signal when the baby rabbit was killed. So
they took the baby rabbits down in a submarine, down as deep as they
could go, and they killed the baby rabbits down there on a secret time
schedule, and up on the land where the mother rabbit was, her brain
responded at exactly the same time. They got the responses right, and so
what they were trying to do is to show that this connection between minds,
this communication between mind to mind, is not dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum.
That's why they took the baby rabbits down and the submarine to eliminate electromagnetic the
electromagnetic spectrum. So what they're showing is that there might be some other spectrum.
Is that possible other than the electromagnetic spectrum? I find humans are so
focused on the em spectrum, right, because her eyes are a mains sense.
But wouldn't that be interesting if what is the medium that carries the mind
to mind connection? As the question I ask, because I've done it many
times. I can communicate with wild animals and things like that. The native
people did this too, They knew all about this stuff, and so I've
demonstrated it to myself and to others, and I know other people who can
do these things as well. So the question becomes, how does this what
carries the mind to mind connections? That's the question I'm looking at. Yeah,
Well, when it comes to, let's say, anything to do with
consciousness, one thing that we should always do is make sure we define what
we mean by consciousness. Right. So for example, I could cheat and
say that my consciousness is everything in the universe, including myself, like there's
no separation. So then I define consciousness by saying i've by saying that it's
equivalent to defining the universe, and suddenly you're getting nowhere right. So one
thing though that I was that I wanted to say though about that rabbit experiment,
is that what Albert Einstein would say in this kind of situation is that
there's still hidden variables that you need to rule out. So let's say,
going back to the rabbit, I'm not saying this is possible, like there's
one hundred percent chance. It's just an example. The hidden variable in that
experiment would be that the rabbits over time learned English, and eventually they overheard,
because rabbits are good at hearing, they overheard the plan of killing her
children at a specific time. So at that time, the rabbit, knowing
English, having learned it internally, even you know what I mean, I
knew that it was time for her child to die, So it might not
be connected. I'm not saying that's like, yeah, their science was very
good. They used random number generators to generate the times for killing the baby,
rabbits and put them in an envelope. And you know it was very
well done, scrupulously done. Science too well, I just I just want
to say one thing. Who could kill baby rabbits for? Oh? Yeah,
I was just saying excibly dark Yeah yeah, anyway, yeah, I
don't care. All right, beat, thank you for the call. Yeah,
fascinated a discussion, all right. Interesting. So we had a question
in a in the chat room. M let's see, someone wanted to know
where quantum computers pull their data from. Okay, so I'm not sure what
they mean by that per se, Like, for example, you could have
like quantum ram q RAM, or you could have quantum processors. But if
you mean, but if you mean, how do you how do you leverage
quantum data? Like, for example, how is it even possible that we
can leverage quantum effects? That's possible when you specifically it depends on the physics
of your system, the hardware. So let's take for example, D waves
superconducting cubits. So you have these wires where you being them, you cool
them down to the point that they are super conducting based on a specific threshold
temperature. Usually it's a very very cold temperature. So we're talking about millie
Kelvin's, so like three, three or four thousands of a kelvin just above
absolute zero degrees. So in cases like that, the quantum information, the
quantum data, so to speak, that the quantum computer is pulling from.
You can say that's coming from the quantum state that you've now created because you're
in this superconducting state, and then because you applied these Joseph's injunctions and then
you poster with magnets to get your specific Yeah, overall quantum state. I
see. So as far as your interest in UFOs, we have about five
minutes left here. And as far as you're interest in UFOs, what part
of the subject are you looking into most have you actually done any research of
any cases in particular or is it just a general fascination. Yeah, both,
like general fascination. And I'm looking into the TikTok incident, right,
So for example, Yeah, with the TikTok, I'm going out to the
Catalina Islands with Kevin Day and doctor Kevin Knuth and some other guys. You're
part of that. I didn't even know that. Wow. So okay,
let's are about that. I'm the vice fastident of technology for the organization.
We're essentially another SETI, right, So we're an evolution of SETY. That's
how we're kind of framing ourselves. And my role will be to oversee the
technologies, either integrating ones that exist or developing new ones for detecting and tracking
these UAPs and creating different technologies you know, that are related to the UAP
topic. Interesting. Well, I'm glad you're a part of that. That's
that's fascinating. I don't know if you. A number of people have told
me to watch this video and I watched it recently, and basically it's a
guy, I think his last name is Murray, Michael Murray or something like
that, is claiming that he was an Air Force intelligence officer and that,
yeah, I watched some of it. He watched some of that, yeah,
and that it was basically the Air Force messing with the Navy UM And
I just I had sent that to Kevin and wanted to get his reaction,
and so what is the general consensus of that. I made a comment,
you know, I kind of thought there was a lot of red flags that
went up when I was watching that, and I wonder what your thoughts are
Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm in complete agreement. So the parts
that I listened to. The one thing that stood out to me is how
much faith he was putting into using the uf faux patents, you know,
those patterns. So he was saying, oh, yeah, so this is
how this works in it was completely superficial knowledge, Like he clearly didn't understand
what he was talking about, and that was a huge red fly to me
because he was using that to confidently debunk the tik tak. So I'm like,
all right, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, or he
does, and he's purposely just trying to fool like the laziest percentage you know
people. So that was my but I just I just felt a vibe of
overall nefariousness for whatever reason. Yeah, well, there was some fast talking
and some technical talking and all that, but I wasn't. I wasn't.
I don't know. There was a lot of things that he said that made
me think that it wasn't too well to be taken seriously. And one of
the things, you know, when whenever he was asked about anything specific,
he's he acted like, oh, was classified, he can't talk about that,
But he could talk about everything else, you know, I mean,
so as soon as he got nailed down he uh. Anyway, I don't
know if the listeners have paid attention to that or not, but anyway,
Um, so, where when is that actually there? That's next November.
So you're leaving next November and it's going to be You're gonna be on a
boat right exactly? Yeah, for ten days. Wow, that's that's exciting.
I can't wait for that to happen. And I'm sure I'll have probably
have Kevin on um before that happens. Well, that's it for us tonight.
Thank you so much for joining us, and thanks for hanging in through
the extra break we had to do. But yeah, all right everyone,
So that's gonna be it for our show. Thank you so much for watching
and listening, and we will be back next week. I can't wait for
our guest next week, that is Bryce Zabel and he's always very interesting and
it should be a great show next week. So I want to thank everyone
else. I want to thank everyone that helps out with this show, and
again, we'll be back next week, and remember to keep your eyes to
the sky.