Speaker 1: Ian Crossland. Welcome to hard Truths.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: How are you doing today?
Speaker 2: Great dude?
Speaker 1: You know, first question, do you know what these cards
Speaker 1: are over here?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: I know I know their magic. I thought they were
Speaker 2: magic cards. I couldn't tell if they were magic or Pokemon,
Speaker 2: but I thought they were magic cards. But what I
Speaker 2: can't tell what cards they are? Are they? What are they?
Speaker 1: How dare you judge me think that I'm a Pokemon card? Now,
Speaker 1: I know you played magic cards, but.
Speaker 2: Do you did you play Pokemon?
Speaker 3: I played Pokemon Go, so like, yeah, okay, but I
Speaker 3: didn't play Pokemon cards or whatever.
Speaker 2: But okay, so I was a.
Speaker 1: Kid and I played.
Speaker 3: I grew up with magic cards, but like I never
Speaker 3: really like played, you know, in the nineties, and then
Speaker 3: as an adult I kind of got into it. And actually, uh,
Speaker 3: this is the coach sent me that uncut sheet right there.
Speaker 3: That's a war the spark, the one with all the planes.
Speaker 1: Walkers in it. I don't know if you remember, but
Speaker 1: I bought some stuff from them, and they like mess
Speaker 1: up the order, so they sent these, uh these cards.
Speaker 1: I just think it looks really cool. So I got it.
Speaker 2: It looks amazing. Dude, are they foil.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, they're all like the foil plane that looks
Speaker 1: so good. I don't know, and I just lean into
Speaker 1: being a nerd anyway. I'm not ashamed of it at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's mathematics magic the gathering. It's just math with
Speaker 2: the colors and pictures of dragons and shit. But it's
Speaker 2: all math.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me ask you that.
Speaker 3: That brings me to kind of My first question is
Speaker 3: have you ever heard the thing about, like I know
Speaker 3: you're a musician, that mathematicians when they are asked what
Speaker 3: study are do they most relate to?
Speaker 1: I think that they overwhelmingly agreed music was the answer.
Speaker 1: Have you ever heard that before? Do you agree with Yeah?
Speaker 2: I have heard that. It's works with me too, especially geometry.
Speaker 2: I think of music as like spatial sound, spatial awareness, moving.
Speaker 2: I think of a lot in terms of momentum and
Speaker 2: like pattern, like when you moved, when you walk across
Speaker 2: the room, it's like a pattern. I see, like a
Speaker 2: pattern of motion, and so I hear that when I
Speaker 2: hear sound, like I can picture one, three, five, and
Speaker 2: I see it on a graph, and that's just like
Speaker 2: a line graph. I can picture the shape of the sound.
Speaker 2: But then you can actually hear like the wholeness of
Speaker 2: tone as well, and it kind of creates these like
Speaker 2: spherical canonical shapes and things like that. And I think
Speaker 2: a lot of is like filling space. Similar with cooking,
Speaker 2: you want to like make sure there's enough seasoning in
Speaker 2: all the little parts of the bowl and that no
Speaker 2: part of the thing is too hot, that all the
Speaker 2: temperatures evenly dispersed. So it's kind of with sound is similar.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: The other thing that reminds me of is I think
Speaker 3: this is something that we talked about on the podcast
Speaker 3: when we were on.
Speaker 1: Culture Wars, was like waves versus particles.
Speaker 3: You know, is that when you think of sound like that,
Speaker 3: when you think of you know, you're really describing waves.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, you know, it's like the up down motion.
Speaker 1: It's like you're this resonance kind of that's out there.
Speaker 1: I think that the question is is matter is matter
Speaker 1: a wave? Can matter be a wave?
Speaker 3: We stuck in this particle mindset where everything must be
Speaker 3: this definite thing, definite thing? But is it possible that
Speaker 3: we are just a complex series of wave forms? But
Speaker 3: we you know that there's some other explanation. Do you
Speaker 3: do you agree with the that kind of viewpoint, that
Speaker 3: esotery viewpoint.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And you know, after wayping, you and you came
Speaker 2: on and you you and you came on the culture war,
Speaker 2: I started thinking a lot about subatomic spin and like
Speaker 2: what's causing it? You know, the scientific community thinks maybe
Speaker 2: was it angular momentum, But then they're like no, because
Speaker 2: that would mean that these two vortices are traveling the
Speaker 2: speed of light, which is not possible. So what is it?
Speaker 2: They don't know? I think it's simatics that there's a
Speaker 2: vibration of space time that's causing the position of the
Speaker 2: subatomic space to face left, and then the frequency changes
Speaker 2: and it faces north, then it changes again, it faces east,
Speaker 2: faces south as the frequency changes, but the frequency is
Speaker 2: changing so fast that it looks like it's spinning. And
Speaker 2: so there's some maybe low, maybe not imperceivable vibration, but
Speaker 2: I think eventually we'll end up being able to measure
Speaker 2: what's causing shape to snap to that form.
Speaker 1: No, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 3: And so we were talking about quantum spin, and we
Speaker 3: know there is spin when we look at particles at
Speaker 3: the quantum level because we can see like the perturbation
Speaker 3: and we can measure that, like we can put electromagnetic.
Speaker 1: Fields next to them.
Speaker 3: We can see these things react, So we know that
Speaker 3: there must be this quantum spin. But then it's like,
Speaker 3: what does that actually mean? You could watch videos all
Speaker 3: day of people online trying to explain quantum spin, but
Speaker 3: end of the day, it's like, we know it has
Speaker 3: the properties of something that's spinning, but at the same time,
Speaker 3: we think of it as just this like quantum kind
Speaker 3: of magical uh.
Speaker 1: You know, dot this particle. So it's hard for us
Speaker 1: to wrap our brains around that.
Speaker 3: I think one other thing that could open the door
Speaker 3: to that is something we talked about on the podcast too,
Speaker 3: which is the ether. It's like the idea of this
Speaker 3: extra dimension that was thrown out, you know, like one
Speaker 3: hundred years ago. Because if there is this spin that's happening,
Speaker 3: if there is some effect that's had, where's it coming from?
Speaker 3: What's causing that to happen? And surely there must be
Speaker 3: some force kind of pushing on it from some direction
Speaker 3: to cause it to spin or for something like that
Speaker 3: to happen. Have you had any thoughts about the idea
Speaker 3: of the ether and extra dimension at all?
Speaker 2: Well? Yeah, but what does that mean? Exc What is
Speaker 2: ether exactly? Is that the fabric of space time is ether.
Speaker 2: They think it's an actual fabric.
Speaker 3: So not really like we've kind of moved away from
Speaker 3: this like fluid medium. I mean, it really would be
Speaker 3: a super fluid if you were really described it as
Speaker 3: a lot of different ways to describe it, but you
Speaker 3: could say that space time itself is like a flexible solid.
Speaker 3: So it can like it's solid, but it can move,
Speaker 3: it can jiggle it a little bit, like it's.
Speaker 1: Connected, but it can move around.
Speaker 3: Leonard Suskind, who's written is kind of popularized er equals EPR.
Speaker 3: I think he would call it like anti desiter space.
Speaker 3: So it's almost like a counter space. So like you
Speaker 3: have this the universe trying to expand you know, at
Speaker 3: the same time you have this force pointed together at
Speaker 3: the same time.
Speaker 1: So but that's more.
Speaker 3: I don't know how he geometrically like connect how they
Speaker 3: connect it together. But the way I perceive it is
Speaker 3: like Yin and Yang's like you've got our observable reality
Speaker 3: and then you have this quantum reality and they say
Speaker 3: it must be connected through this idea of quantum gravity
Speaker 3: that is in this imperceivable extra dimension. And what this
Speaker 3: then opens the door up to is like you know,
Speaker 3: wormholes and things like that, where you would say that
Speaker 3: like the holographic principle. So if I'm playing a video game,
Speaker 3: like if I'm playing Minecraft or something, it seems like
Speaker 3: I'm in a three dimensional world when I'm playing the
Speaker 3: video game, but I know I'm not really, I know, really,
Speaker 3: I'm on a microchip somewhere right, and that if I
Speaker 3: were to take that microchip, I could connect it to
Speaker 3: a different microchip somewhere else, and now you know they
Speaker 3: would be together, but you know, they would.
Speaker 1: Seem to be super far away. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: that idea.
Speaker 3: And I think that the ether then adds this extra
Speaker 3: dimension to explain like how can you you know, how
Speaker 3: can you wrap something together? There must be some medium
Speaker 3: that you're in in order for like that type of
Speaker 3: thing to happen.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So it's like a sub atomic real, like the
Speaker 2: fabric of the sub atomic reality.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And so like molecules will like exchange energy with
Speaker 3: this ether all the time. So it's the idea that
Speaker 3: like hal Pudov's nineteen eighty seven paper that says ground
Speaker 3: state of the hydrogen atom is he says it, Oh,
Speaker 3: this at the hydrogen atom when it's at rest, it's
Speaker 3: not radiating energy, but they would expect it.
Speaker 1: To radiate energy.
Speaker 3: And they're saying, well, why doesn't it do that because
Speaker 3: it's spinning, right, it's got this quantum spin. And they say, well,
Speaker 3: it's because it must be in some sort of equilibrium,
Speaker 3: like whatever energy is being radiated out must be getting
Speaker 3: absorbed in at the same exact rate.
Speaker 1: So there's this idea that.
Speaker 3: Like particles are actually just exchanging energy with the zero
Speaker 3: point energy all the time, so they might have like
Speaker 3: a reservoir of energy that they're kind of like tapping into.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a way to put it.
Speaker 2: Nasim Harriman has this concept of the schwartz Child proton,
Speaker 2: where he had mathematically derived that every proton was two
Speaker 2: protons spinning around each other at the speed of light,
Speaker 2: putting information into the vacuum. Maybe it's the ether is
Speaker 2: what he's talking about that he calls of the vacuum
Speaker 2: of space time, and so it's repositive depositing information into
Speaker 2: the vacuum. The vacuum itself then is doing a massive
Speaker 2: calculation of everything in the known universe and then giving
Speaker 2: you a local response in it lights as the net
Speaker 2: as the photon emerges from the vacuum back into reality.
Speaker 2: And so that may be how the information is being
Speaker 2: or one way that information is being transmitted into the
Speaker 2: subsystem into the Would.
Speaker 1: You guys ever talk to him or had him on
Speaker 1: the show or no.
Speaker 2: I've only seen his stuff. Yeah, I've been. People have
Speaker 2: been telling me to contact him for literally nineteen years.
Speaker 2: I would love to get in touch with them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I just realized we're actually live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: I accidentally went live without realizing this. So okay, I
Speaker 3: guess we're just going to play.
Speaker 2: This out awesome rock and oops.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, both of you on. I'll like re
Speaker 1: edit it, probably re upload it later on. Okay, I
Speaker 1: just realized it. Okay, So yeah, now seem here.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, he's I think he's the only
Speaker 3: person who can claim the title of zero point energy
Speaker 3: Influencer more than I can, probably because he's like the
Speaker 3: OG and one of the things to a lot of
Speaker 3: these guys. One of the things I've realized is they
Speaker 3: use the different terminology for the same stuff, So you
Speaker 3: will he'll hear people use like quantum vacuum, or they'll
Speaker 3: use a vacuum, but they'll also say, well, the vacuum
Speaker 3: is not empty, you know, it's it's not an empty vacuum.
Speaker 3: And so it's the same ideas that the zero point
Speaker 3: energy of the ether. Uh, they're connected through this idea
Speaker 3: of an extra dimension.
Speaker 1: And this is where I wanted to kind.
Speaker 3: Of take it in the next uh kind of discussion
Speaker 3: with you, which is that like the alien topic, you know,
Speaker 3: especially recently, ANNAPOLINEA Luna was on Joe Rogan and she
Speaker 3: was talking about, you know, the extra dimensional aliens. I mean,
Speaker 3: you guys have heard this thing. You guys have either
Speaker 3: had her Nancy Mace or you know, you guys have
Speaker 3: had people.
Speaker 2: On the Yeah, we had both. Yeah. We we interviewed
Speaker 2: Luna Ana Paulina Luna while we were at Congress. We
Speaker 2: did like a roundtable where different congressmen were coming in
Speaker 2: and sitting down. So she came in for about twenty minutes,
Speaker 2: and then Nancy Mace we had on officially as a
Speaker 2: guest on IRL once.
Speaker 3: So what are your thoughts, what do you think about
Speaker 3: Congress and what do you think about this UFO disclosure stuff?
Speaker 2: I think that extra Okay, I think it is. It's
Speaker 2: a misnomer to say extra dimensional. That's insane. You and
Speaker 2: I are extra dimensional creatures. We live in multiple dimensions.
Speaker 2: We are in the fourth dimension. We actually exist in
Speaker 2: the fifth dimension, even though you might not see it
Speaker 2: with your eyeballs. So that is like a really dumb
Speaker 2: layman thing to say extra dimensional, that these things are
Speaker 2: extra dimensional. Yes, of course. Uh you know, if we're
Speaker 2: talking like spirits, that's a I don't believe them. I
Speaker 2: don't believe that spirits are piloting airplanes. I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I need evidence, you said, so, okay, so this
Speaker 3: is why this is the thing too.
Speaker 1: It's like I love your take there. It's like extra dimensional,
Speaker 1: what does that actually mean?
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, we're extra.
Speaker 3: Dimensional beans, we live in three dimensions and a time dimension.
Speaker 3: So it seems like it's just like a red hairy
Speaker 3: and they're just throwing this idea. They're trying to make
Speaker 3: it sound scary or something like sensationalized, like oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: the extra dimension. Because when I found like, okay, there's
Speaker 3: this extra dimension, this ether, and you know, maybe this
Speaker 3: explains how we can do wormholes, I'm going, well, I
Speaker 3: wouldn't call a bean that goes through a wormhole an
Speaker 3: extra dimensional bean.
Speaker 1: I would just say it just went through a wormalle.
Speaker 1: It's still in our universe.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, I mean, but granted it could
Speaker 3: come run different you know, universe if you believe in
Speaker 3: multi worlds theory. So I guess what I would want
Speaker 3: to know from them when they're asking this stuff is like,
Speaker 3: are you saying that there's infinite universes and that you
Speaker 3: can go to different ones? Because that would be a
Speaker 3: major physics claim to say, right, is that there are
Speaker 3: multiple universes and aliens are coming from a different universe
Speaker 3: than we're coming from.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, do you what do you think?
Speaker 3: Do you think there she's just doesn't understand physics and science,
Speaker 3: or do you think that like this is some kind
Speaker 3: of narrative that's being pushed.
Speaker 2: Well, she doesn't understand what extra dimensional means. Obviously, if
Speaker 2: she's just repeating that, she's repeating what she was told
Speaker 2: by someone that probably was told that or decided that's
Speaker 2: the narrative we're going to run with. But I also
Speaker 2: think they are working with like space time warping technology
Speaker 2: that they're creating cavitation bubbles and defying you know, classical
Speaker 2: physics and things like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I mean you just have to listen to
Speaker 3: like what Science and Technology advisor Michael Kratzios has been saying,
Speaker 3: if you you know, if you question that, I mean
Speaker 3: literally said, we have the ability to manipulate time and
Speaker 3: space to annihilate distance. And we've had Trump say multiple
Speaker 3: times that we've got weapons that nobody understands.
Speaker 1: How they work.
Speaker 3: I mean you said it multiple times like it had
Speaker 3: to be scripted. Basically, people think that manipulating time and
Speaker 3: space is some magical sci fi Star trek type thing,
Speaker 3: but actually it's much simpler than that. It's really just
Speaker 3: about I mean, gravity is just mass that's condensed into
Speaker 3: a region, that's just pulling on something. That's the way
Speaker 3: we at least perceive it, right, It's not necessarily exactly correct,
Speaker 3: but mass is just energy equals mc square. So in theory,
Speaker 3: if you have a whole bunch of energy, then you
Speaker 3: should have gravity being sucked towards that, right. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's a simple thing to understand. So then what then,
Speaker 3: I would say, Okay, well, at what scale, like does it.
Speaker 1: Have to be a sphere? Of mass like this size
Speaker 1: of my this sphere here, or can it be a
Speaker 1: super super super tiny dot? Right?
Speaker 3: Can it be a super tiny dot and I just
Speaker 3: compact as much energy onto that little little tiny dot.
Speaker 1: Is it really about energy density?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: It's really about how much can you compact onto a
Speaker 3: little tiny point. And turns out when you look at
Speaker 3: it from that perspective, it's not that insurmountable of the challenge.
Speaker 3: It turns out we can have like these super powerful
Speaker 3: lasers that focus energy onto a very tiny point in
Speaker 3: time and in space, and that, in theory could be
Speaker 3: enough to stimulate a gravitational effect of me, you know, measured,
Speaker 3: and then that can also be useful for things like
Speaker 3: fusion as well. So it's I don't think it's surprises
Speaker 3: anybody that they're at least working on the ideas of
Speaker 3: anti gravity or gravity manipulation, space time manipulation, whatever you
Speaker 3: want to call it, it's all the same thing. I
Speaker 3: would just call it, like manipulation of the ether. You
Speaker 3: were talking about cimatics, Like, the question is how do
Speaker 3: you manipulate entanglement?
Speaker 1: How do you create entanglement?
Speaker 2: I think you need to understand where you're going, so
Speaker 2: What you do is you have to map the matrix.
Speaker 2: You get a three dimensional space, and then you you
Speaker 2: derive what is in each position, how the consistency, how
Speaker 2: much of it and where? So what how much and where?
Speaker 2: If you can mapch that for every incremental metal point
Speaker 2: in this three dimensional x y z cube, then you've
Speaker 2: mapped the matrix. You know what, where and how much
Speaker 2: of each in each space. Then you have a mathematical map.
Speaker 2: You can teleport too. So if you know where you're going,
Speaker 2: if you know what you're going, you know where you're going,
Speaker 2: what you're going, it's the same thing. What where? It's
Speaker 2: all one thing. What is it? That is where it is?
Speaker 2: If you know that and you can calculate that, then
Speaker 2: you can target it, I think, and then you can
Speaker 2: you can replicate it locally and be there at a distance.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: They have a term for what you just said. It's
Speaker 3: called solving Schrodinger's equation. So actually there are people working
Speaker 3: on this idea of like if there is a medium
Speaker 3: and even though we can't perceive it, is there a
Speaker 3: way where we can like reverse engineer, like you said,
Speaker 3: like figure out the matrix? Right, Like we only imagine,
Speaker 3: we only see this flat surface. Is there a way
Speaker 3: to figure out, like, what is all this like with
Speaker 3: this whole bulk here that we can't see? Is there
Speaker 3: a way to measure, measure it and measure its effect
Speaker 3: on our flat two D reality? And the answer is yes.
Speaker 3: The Aaron Hoff Bom effect is a good example of this.
Speaker 3: Aeronoff Bom effect is a real experiment. They take a
Speaker 3: solenoid that traps all the electromagnetic fields in a cylinder
Speaker 3: inside of it, and you would say, okay, well, there's
Speaker 3: no electromagnetic field signal on the outside of the solenoid,
Speaker 3: so if I shoot an electron past it, nothing, there
Speaker 3: shouldn't be any interference or any you know, shift in
Speaker 3: the phase pattern.
Speaker 1: But there is.
Speaker 3: There's an actual measurable effect. It's called the scaler potential
Speaker 3: and so or the magnetic scalar potential of it. And
Speaker 3: so the question here then is if you can measure this,
Speaker 3: then can you reverse engineer it. There's a great uh
Speaker 3: presentation that I was watching about or or optical vortices
Speaker 3: of light, and really what it was about was like
Speaker 3: trying to figure out like if you have this vortex motion,
Speaker 3: if you were looking at a two dimensional surface and
Speaker 3: you just saw a circle. Could you map out what
Speaker 3: the vortex motion is in an extra dimension?
Speaker 1: Could you map it out?
Speaker 3: And after they model it out a while, they come
Speaker 3: up with and they say, oh, here's an equation that
Speaker 3: you know, seems like it fits what the experimental data shows.
Speaker 3: And so from that that kind of you know, answers
Speaker 3: the question too. Could you actually create entanglement? Could you
Speaker 3: manipulate the ether or this extra dimension to cause two
Speaker 3: things to be you know, joined together.
Speaker 1: Now maybe, well, yes, if you can solve it.
Speaker 2: But if we can figure out the subatomic formation of
Speaker 2: the matter and then figure out what frequencies if this
Speaker 2: theory that it's a simatic you know, phenomenon that's causing
Speaker 2: sub atomic formation, if you can figure out what frequencies
Speaker 2: cause the sub atomic formation to cause the matter to be,
Speaker 2: what is thus like this this area that you want
Speaker 2: to entangle to, then it would be more of creating
Speaker 2: the frequency patterns in a system to reproduce the sub
Speaker 2: atomic features.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that actually is what it is. So
Speaker 3: because cimatics, if people are not familiar, the simplest explanation
Speaker 3: of cimatics is you just take a metal plate and
Speaker 3: you put sand on it and then you just hit
Speaker 3: it with or vibrate the plate at different frequencies and
Speaker 3: different shapes begin to form. So the question here is
Speaker 3: is this connected to this idea of the ether, Like
Speaker 3: why are those shapes forming from certain frequencies? Is it
Speaker 3: because we're in a medium and you're seeing this vibration
Speaker 3: and can you then map that that's what they are
Speaker 3: doing with Bose Einstein content states. That's actually what Bose
Speaker 3: Einstein content states are. Now we think of them at
Speaker 3: this thing at very low temperature, but it really when
Speaker 3: you boil it down to what is actually means this
Speaker 3: coherent shape that's being created by a frequency, and so
Speaker 3: how is that being created?
Speaker 2: Go ahead and like the simatics on the plate you
Speaker 2: were talking about, that's a two dimensional represent When you
Speaker 2: see three dimensional bubble simatics, good board, I think that
Speaker 2: is what is that Bose Einstein condensates. They think that
Speaker 2: they're bubble simatic or maybe something got to getting close.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think we're blurring the line at this
Speaker 3: point in terms of what, yeah, is it The same
Speaker 3: physics at play in the bubble simatics is what we
Speaker 3: see in the Bose ein Sein condensates, I think so,
Speaker 3: and the idea there is that we're creating these coherent
Speaker 3: stabilized shapes and the other thing that then ether then
Speaker 3: opens up the idea to is like just stabilize structures
Speaker 3: in general, and geometry stabilize geometric structures. So a good
Speaker 3: example of one would be like a smoke ring, you know, smokering,
Speaker 3: Like when you blow smokering, it's crazy how stable it is,
Speaker 3: like that thing can blow and blow and blow.
Speaker 1: And the reason why it's stables because it's a toroid.
Speaker 3: It's a toroidal shape, so you'll have the toroidal field
Speaker 3: and then you'll have the paloidal field going around the
Speaker 3: toroidal field as well, so you'll see the smoke kind
Speaker 3: of going around the ring as well as it blows.
Speaker 1: This also holds true for plasma as well. So the
Speaker 1: question then is can can we manufacture reality through these
Speaker 1: concepts or you know, going back to the disclosure question,
Speaker 1: can aliens do it? You know, can we make a
Speaker 1: Star Trek replicator out of this? When you start to
Speaker 1: be able to say, Okay, I'm gonna stimulate the ether
Speaker 1: with some you know, uh frequency, and then I'm going
Speaker 1: to cause an effect to happen the coherent shape to happen. Now,
Speaker 1: it's just like Okay, I'm just gonna tune it to
Speaker 1: whatever I want to occur, right.
Speaker 2: And it and it would be about the impulse of
Speaker 2: it too, so about the frequency and how fast you're
Speaker 2: introducing the frequency into the systems like bla bah blah
Speaker 2: blah blah by at a certain frequency and then you
Speaker 2: like slow it down, maybe you won't hit it, but
Speaker 2: then you like so like there's these what impulse are
Speaker 2: you delivering and what frequencies are being delivered, and then
Speaker 2: you'll be able to produce hydrogen with that that impulse frequency.
Speaker 2: And then if you do that and add other impulse
Speaker 2: frequencies to produce heat or or magnetic confinement, you might
Speaker 2: be able to produce fusion.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the hydrogen thing is really interesting because I keep
Speaker 3: thinking of this one experiment, the dynamic Casmir effect, where
Speaker 3: real photons are just being pulled out of the virtual photons.
Speaker 3: Because when I think about that from the perspective of
Speaker 3: you know, the ether is your point and going, wait,
Speaker 3: we're just pulling light out of the vacuum out of nothing, right, Well,
Speaker 3: how is that happening at all? And if we can
Speaker 3: pull light out of the vacuum, then well e equals
Speaker 3: mc squared, So light is you know, energy is matter.
Speaker 1: So and the.
Speaker 3: Most simple ad in the most simple element is hydrogen.
Speaker 3: So can we just literally produce hydrogen out of nowhere?
Speaker 3: I think the answer is yes. I think we actually
Speaker 3: can produce hydrogen out of nowhere and then transmute elements
Speaker 3: as well. The fusion aspect of it, I think is
Speaker 3: a little bit more complicated. I've been doing a pretty
Speaker 3: deep dive into fusion, and I don't think the secret
Speaker 3: is just like understanding gravity or what have you. It's
Speaker 3: a little bit more complicated than that. I think the
Speaker 3: real secret of fusion is actually.
Speaker 1: Non ignition fuel.
Speaker 3: Like in our heads we think of it as like
Speaker 3: we need to make a star, and we need it
Speaker 3: to be this star that's roiling with heat coming out
Speaker 3: of it. But if you incorporate the ideas of like
Speaker 3: Nikola Tesla and like electric circuits that are super efficient,
Speaker 3: then you can actually make an electric circuit, electric generator
Speaker 3: using fusion that doesn't require ignition that can produce over unity.
Speaker 3: So the idea of being we can get small scale
Speaker 3: fusion reactions like temporary ones like pulse ones like you're
Speaker 3: talking about, and get fusion reactions to occur, but we're
Speaker 3: not going to get this permanent sun that's there, and
Speaker 3: the output of that can be higher than the total
Speaker 3: energy input, which is really what we're trying to achieve,
Speaker 3: which is just infinite free energy.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, in order to build these little suns. I
Speaker 2: was thinking, I know, I think I know how to
Speaker 2: do it. There's this guy, John Kansas. He was a
Speaker 2: chemist in Ohio. He passed away in like two thousand
Speaker 2: and He was looking for a cure for cancer, and
Speaker 2: he was running frequency through salt water in his laboratory,
Speaker 2: different frequencies. I don't know if you've you've seen this.
Speaker 2: There's video of this guy doing this. He finds the frequency.
Speaker 2: I don't have it written down. He runs a certain
Speaker 2: frequency through saltwater. It lights off fire like a hydrogen flame,
Speaker 2: sixteen hundred degree hydrogen flame off the surface of the
Speaker 2: salt water. There's a gap between the saltwater and the flame,
Speaker 2: just like the sun, between the surface of the sun
Speaker 2: and the corona. There's that gap, and I'm like, okay,
Speaker 2: that's an electromagnetic flame being produced. So if that saltwater
Speaker 2: was in orbit, it would coagulate into a sphere. Naturally,
Speaker 2: we run the frequency through it, you get a light bulb,
Speaker 2: a star, and so you figure out if you can
Speaker 2: collect that heat somehow and use that heat to produce
Speaker 2: the electricity to continue the frequency, you'll have an ever
Speaker 2: producing star basically. But I wonder if that would produce
Speaker 2: like a z pinch phenomenon, if it would cause some
Speaker 2: sort of electric discharge into our own sun, into the
Speaker 2: Earth's magnetic field. Like it could be a real dangerous experiment,
Speaker 2: but it would be. It would be an immense amount
Speaker 2: of heat, and you just have to fuel it with saltwater.
Speaker 2: You just have to keep pumping saltwater in. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing is that once we realize that
Speaker 3: we can use like water as a fuel source, I
Speaker 3: think I think it was redheaded. Libertarian was posted about
Speaker 3: Stanley Meyer the other day, and you know, I thought
Speaker 3: at once upon time that the whole water power car
Speaker 3: thing was nonsense. But then I realized I watched this
Speaker 3: video about if you take water and put it in
Speaker 3: like a cup or a bucket, and then take a
Speaker 3: tube and go up like a couple hundred feet and
Speaker 3: just an altitude, like you know, up some stairs or whatever,
Speaker 3: and you have your water tube and you suck the
Speaker 3: water all the way up through the tube. You get
Speaker 3: to a point eventually where above a certain level the
Speaker 3: water boils.
Speaker 1: Room temperature just boils.
Speaker 3: So like the water will go up to this level,
Speaker 3: everything above it just turns into gas automatically because why
Speaker 3: the pressure.
Speaker 1: There's not enough pressure.
Speaker 3: So without enough pressure, the water can't stay together and
Speaker 3: the water just falls apart. And so this would be
Speaker 3: how are people able to make.
Speaker 1: A water power car?
Speaker 3: Well, that's how you basically cause the hydrogen and the
Speaker 3: oxygen you just fall apart. And now you can use
Speaker 3: either as the fuel source. You know, you can pump
Speaker 3: the oxygen I think it is to your engine. If
Speaker 3: you want to make it more efficient, you can potentially
Speaker 3: use the hydrogen directly as fuel source as well. So
Speaker 3: we have fuel all around us. If we understand nuclear
Speaker 3: physics and nuclear science, and if we can manipulate gravity,
Speaker 3: if you can manipulate gravity itself, in my mind, you
Speaker 3: should be able to cause that net pressure, that lack
Speaker 3: of pressure. You should be able to cause that to occur.
Speaker 3: And then the question is, okay, well, how do I
Speaker 3: how do you make a system. It's actually pretty simple.
Speaker 3: You just have your area where you have the water
Speaker 3: comes apart, and then you send it to a different area.
Speaker 3: You either send the hydrogen or the oxygen where you
Speaker 3: want to go to produce energy, or if you want
Speaker 3: it to recombine, you just send it to a different
Speaker 3: area where now that's gonna it wants to come back together.
Speaker 3: It's just gonna recombine there, and then you can use
Speaker 3: the excess energy or the energy that's produced from fusion.
Speaker 3: So I think the idea of the water power car
Speaker 3: is definitely within reason. And I think that some of
Speaker 3: these like low energy nuclear fusion reactors, they're trying to
Speaker 3: do what you just mentioned, which is like you know,
Speaker 3: burn salt water, or in some cases they're using the air.
Speaker 3: Air is fuel as well, because air's got potentially enough
Speaker 3: elements in it, they don't need a lot of molecules
Speaker 3: in order to make you know, fusion reactions occur.
Speaker 2: Oh man, you're as you were saying about the like
Speaker 2: making water reducing the density so it becomes gaseous. I realized, Okay,
Speaker 2: so if I took my saltwater out into orbit to
Speaker 2: light it up like a light bulb, it would turn
Speaker 2: into gas. So we maybe we need to take ice.
Speaker 2: We need to take ice into orbit and just electrocute
Speaker 2: ice or run a current through ice to give off maybe,
Speaker 2: and then it would melt and create like a self.
Speaker 2: Like the sun. The sun doesn't just evaporate, it's keeping
Speaker 2: itself in positions. So at some point I feel like
Speaker 2: the heat would would like be make a self containing
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: So let's talk about fusion, because this was the thing that, Man,
Speaker 3: what a eye opener for me. I was really all
Speaker 3: of like, why have we been failing at fusion for
Speaker 3: seventy years? You know, like we've been supposedly we've had
Speaker 3: the age bomb since the sixties, but I don't think
Speaker 3: there's ever been an official use of the age bomb.
Speaker 1: He really knows what a fusion bomb is.
Speaker 3: We just assume it's this big, big boom, right, We
Speaker 3: just assume that it is. So when I started researching
Speaker 3: fusion trying to figure out, like, okay, why we failed,
Speaker 3: why does it suck? The first thing I found is
Speaker 3: that the hot fusion people have really a one track mindset.
Speaker 3: They're trying to get to ignition. They're trying to get
Speaker 3: to a star producing a star that was really hot.
Speaker 3: Now here's the problem is that the energy efficiency of
Speaker 3: any system where we're just getting heat out of it
Speaker 3: is really low. Like let's I'm just gonna throw at
Speaker 3: random number. This is just an index number, like thirty
Speaker 3: twenty or thirty percent. Let's say if we could produce
Speaker 3: electricity directly from our nuclear reactions, that efficiency can get
Speaker 3: up to like ninety percent, so two three times more
Speaker 3: efficient than those other forms. So in theory, we don't
Speaker 3: even really want this all is excess heat. In a
Speaker 3: perfect world, what we'd like is we'd like our power
Speaker 3: plant to produce electricity directly, not like making steam and
Speaker 3: then having steam t spin.
Speaker 1: The turbine or whatever it is.
Speaker 3: So when I was looking at the fusion types, I
Speaker 3: found one that I've called the I can't say I
Speaker 3: coined it, but I'm calling it cool fusion. So cold
Speaker 3: fusion was this idea that you could put like metal
Speaker 3: rods in water and then all of a sudden, put
Speaker 3: like a current through it. Now it's gonna boil, and
Speaker 3: there's gonna be this excess heat in there. And this
Speaker 3: was considered like basically like room temperature nuclear reactions hot
Speaker 3: fusion is like a tokamac. We're saying, Okay, we're trying
Speaker 3: to get ignition, and once we get ignition, then ignition happens,
Speaker 3: and now there's enough energy that we've got this runaway.
Speaker 1: Star that runs itself.
Speaker 3: There's a third option, cool fusion, and this is the
Speaker 3: one I was kind of saying before. So the companies
Speaker 3: are doing cool fusion are Helion Energy, which is funded
Speaker 3: by Mythral Capital, George or pal whatever, Peter Thiel and
Speaker 3: Sam Altman, and another one is try Alpha Energy, and
Speaker 3: both of these have backing by the Department of Event Energy.
Speaker 3: And what they're doing is they're saying, we're not even
Speaker 3: trying to get to ignition at all. They're keeping their
Speaker 3: temperatures lower than that. But they're using a different fuel source.
Speaker 3: They're using helium three. So they're doing something where they
Speaker 3: call it a neutronic The neutrons are where the heat
Speaker 3: comes from, So why is it all this heat coming out, Well,
Speaker 3: the neutrons. So they found a form of fusion that
Speaker 3: they're doing where they call it a neutronic fusion where
Speaker 3: there's only a very very little bit of neutrons coming out.
Speaker 3: And so what this means is they can actually capture
Speaker 3: the energy as electricity directly. The way they explain this
Speaker 3: is they say, well, okay, we make this plasmoid and
Speaker 3: they literally creating a plasmoid like a plasma smoke ring.
Speaker 3: And they create this plasmoid and its magnetic field strength
Speaker 3: is so strong that while it's trying to spread out
Speaker 3: and come apart, the magnetic field strength keeps it together
Speaker 3: and the magnetic field strength pulling it together walls trying
Speaker 3: to expand like this is where they pull the kinetic
Speaker 3: energy out of the just and turn it.
Speaker 1: Into like an engine like this. At least that's how
Speaker 1: it's described.
Speaker 2: You know what I think, But I think that is
Speaker 2: is friction. That's that that excess heat that's in that
Speaker 2: system or something like friction. I asked chat GPC to
Speaker 2: help me calculate this because what's happening. There's this ideal
Speaker 2: gas lots that the pressure of a system is equal
Speaker 2: to the volume multiplied by the temperature. I think that's
Speaker 2: what it is. So there's an inverse relationship in the pressure,
Speaker 2: volume and temperature of a system. If you increase the pressure,
Speaker 2: the system's either going to expand in volume or it's
Speaker 2: gonna get hotter, and that's basically the thing. But the
Speaker 2: ideal gas law is written for tubes to go longer
Speaker 2: and shorter to get water out of wells. It was
Speaker 2: written in the eighteen hundreds. So fusion, I think, is
Speaker 2: this gas, this this plasma, you know, the fluid, and
Speaker 2: but it's expanding, but it's expanding spherically, and when it happens,
Speaker 2: it's expanding so fast that it the expansion itself produces friction,
Speaker 2: and that friction is brought from without the system. It's
Speaker 2: outside of the system, comes into the fusive system. The
Speaker 2: friction then makes it get hotter faster, which makes it
Speaker 2: expand even faster, which adds more friction, which makes it
Speaker 2: hotter faster. So you get this runaway expansion. It may
Speaker 2: not be as simple as just saying it's friction, but
Speaker 2: I think that that might be the phenomenon of like
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah.
Speaker 3: I think that's the idea, right, is that you're taking
Speaker 3: this kinetic energy and you're able to then convert this
Speaker 3: to electric energy. The way they describe it, like the
Speaker 3: CEO of helium fusion would describe it, says, it's high
Speaker 3: beta values is high magnetic field compression. I think it
Speaker 3: says like a bat a biotic. I forget, how do
Speaker 3: you say compression? And I guess this is the part
Speaker 3: where people like struggle with this concept because it's so
Speaker 3: different than what we've been led to believe from the
Speaker 3: public perspective of like, oh, we're.
Speaker 1: Trying to make this star right.
Speaker 3: And the benefit of his approach is they use a
Speaker 3: pulse approach as well, so they minimize the total input energy.
Speaker 3: So instead of like trying to like focus this huge
Speaker 3: amount of energy to make ignition happen, they're like, no,
Speaker 3: we're just gonna hit it with this small pulse, and
Speaker 3: then we're going to try to recuperate as much of
Speaker 3: the energy pulse as we can as well, just like
Speaker 3: with like with an electric car, with like how the
Speaker 3: breaking in the electric car like recuperates the energy, same.
Speaker 1: Kind of concept.
Speaker 3: And so I just even if I didn't believe that
Speaker 3: they were on the right track, I would still be
Speaker 3: like supportive of what they're doing because they're thinking outside
Speaker 3: the box about the problem. They're going, Hey, it's not
Speaker 3: really just a matter of trying to get to ignition.
Speaker 3: What if we make our system super efficient, because once
Speaker 3: we get to a point where we're getting more energy
Speaker 3: out of this fusion system, then we're getting it that
Speaker 3: we're putting into it. Then we just have to scale
Speaker 3: it up right, because then you just have you have
Speaker 3: infinite energy. Once you get to over unity, you're good.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter if you have ignition or not.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, when you're talking about getting a system started
Speaker 2: with like just impulses, I think of that when I'm
Speaker 2: lighting my incense with a lighter. You can click the
Speaker 2: lighter and have the flame there and just hold the
Speaker 2: stick and just run all that fire and you're gonna
Speaker 2: get that stick lit eventually. Or you can burst it
Speaker 2: and just tap it with flame and it'll get really
Speaker 2: really hot, really fascinating. Let go, and you can use
Speaker 2: like a third or a fifth of the of the
Speaker 2: fuel to get it lit. It's just about efficiency of fuel,
Speaker 2: efficiency of input heat. You don't need to lather your
Speaker 2: system excessive amounts of heat to get it hot. You
Speaker 2: can pulse it.
Speaker 3: And that's what Tim Poole was saying. Actually, he said
Speaker 3: I'll probably never forget that. He said, free energy is
Speaker 3: about efficiency, right. If we could get energy, if we
Speaker 3: could have energy that's even just ten times less or
Speaker 3: more efficient, less expensive than what.
Speaker 1: We have right now. It would change everything to everything
Speaker 1: about the world. That's what free energy is really about.
Speaker 3: Everybody thinks of it as like free energy is like
Speaker 3: energy is going to cause zero but it's not even
Speaker 3: about that. And it's also not about producing something that
Speaker 3: you know, produces energy from nothing at all. It's about efficiency.
Speaker 3: It's about getting a system, designing any system, you know,
Speaker 3: the square system, that you're getting more out of it
Speaker 3: than what you're putting into it if you've done that,
Speaker 3: and like.
Speaker 2: Can people even get access to it? You know, that's
Speaker 2: another aspect of is that energy free? Because if someone
Speaker 2: in a laboratory has unlimited electricity but no one else
Speaker 2: can use it, it's not really free energy. You know,
Speaker 2: freedom really means like can people use it? Is it
Speaker 2: accessible to people? Is it efficient in that it is
Speaker 2: easily utilized by the pop less?
Speaker 3: And that's what I wanted to ask you next, which
Speaker 3: is do you think they'll ever let us have this?
Speaker 3: Because you know, just long story short, I dug into it,
Speaker 3: they're definitely hiding fusion. Like and it's kind of silly
Speaker 3: when you think about it, because you go, we've had
Speaker 3: the fusion bomb since the sixties, but we can't figure
Speaker 3: fusion out.
Speaker 1: Like what am I missing here? The sixties was like
Speaker 1: a long time ago. So they figured the fusion bomb out,
Speaker 1: but they just couldn't figure out how to get energy
Speaker 1: from it like this is.
Speaker 3: So the question is are they going to give it
Speaker 3: to us? And why or why not?
Speaker 2: This is I think every time we hang out this
Speaker 2: we talk about this, and we like keep asking each
Speaker 2: other this question because it's like I think I want
Speaker 2: you to be like, oh, yeah, everyone's gonna be I
Speaker 2: don't know, it's dangerous obviously. This is like where I
Speaker 2: come through is like how explosive is the potential force?
Speaker 2: Like what if some idiot monkey drops it on the ground,
Speaker 2: are we all gonna die? Because if that's the case,
Speaker 2: you can't give it to every idiot monkey. No offense
Speaker 2: to the monkeys out there. The hominid species is a
Speaker 2: descend it from apes according to genealogy records, and people
Speaker 2: are a make accent and they sometimes fall down or
Speaker 2: mess up or get angry and do stupid shit. So
Speaker 2: I'm I'm not totally against like not giving every piece
Speaker 2: of information to everyone. I'm okay with with that. I
Speaker 2: don't know, if fusion is necessarily the answer to thriving
Speaker 2: is a species. But I do believe energy efficiency is
Speaker 2: I'm more interested in hydrogen, which I I'd like to
Speaker 2: talk about too. But where's your mind do you think?
Speaker 1: Then? Where's the line? Right? Like, where's the line between
Speaker 1: national security then and like the public good? Right?
Speaker 3: I mean, if you can make the justification that well, sorry,
Speaker 3: guys can't have fusion because you can make bombs that
Speaker 3: can annihilate the planet. And I think you could, in fact,
Speaker 3: I think that's probably what's gonna happen. That's just my
Speaker 3: personal opinion. But you know, where do you draw the
Speaker 3: line then in a scenario like that? And I think
Speaker 3: that does or maybe I actually does that explain the
Speaker 3: certain the whole situation that we have with the UFO.
Speaker 1: Phenomenon right now? Like why is this whole thing such
Speaker 1: a huge mess?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: Because because whatever it is that they're hiding is so
Speaker 1: dangerous that like there's a serious moral question over whether
Speaker 1: or not it can be allowed to be given to
Speaker 1: the public.
Speaker 2: That maybe like if they have fusion generators on those things,
Speaker 2: I don't think they do, because if one of them
Speaker 2: gets knocked down, that would be like the cat is
Speaker 2: out of the bag. It's such a risk to put
Speaker 2: one on board. But if they're not on board, how
Speaker 2: would they be powering it like by laser from a
Speaker 2: base station and moving it around like a magnet or
Speaker 2: something could be?
Speaker 1: Could be?
Speaker 3: I mean that is Bob Greenier literally thinks that, Yeah,
Speaker 3: like with the ORBS and that ma A Street seven
Speaker 3: zero video.
Speaker 1: He thinks they're using like.
Speaker 3: Satellites and shooting lasers to create like interferometry to shoot
Speaker 3: them around. Now, I think they are on board, And
Speaker 3: in fact, I would say I think some of that
Speaker 3: that has happened before. I don't think like they've shot
Speaker 3: down like a plasma ball and then they were like,
Speaker 3: oh we got this plasma ball.
Speaker 1: But like there's a drone called the RQ one seven zero.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you've ever heard of that, but
Speaker 3: during the twenty eleven under Obama, Iran hacked this drone
Speaker 3: and they they claim they hacked it. The Obama administration
Speaker 3: denied it, and then they like posted pictures of it
Speaker 3: and you're like, oh, well, that is definitely the RQ
Speaker 3: one seven zero drone, And then they made their own
Speaker 3: version of it, and I kind of wonder looking at it.
Speaker 3: I was reading through the other day, like everything about
Speaker 3: it's classified, so we don't even really know exactly what
Speaker 3: propulsion like they had. They suspect there's a certain kind
Speaker 3: of engine they were using. But what I found is
Speaker 3: that these fusion engines they kind of use a Z
Speaker 3: pinch type mechanism. They call it dense plasma focus, but
Speaker 3: it's like a Z pinch mechanism. All they've done is
Speaker 3: they turn that the turbine the engine. They just remove
Speaker 3: the turbine from the engine and they turn this into
Speaker 3: like a tube that's a heat exchange. So you put
Speaker 3: these magnets along the edges of it. They're like opposite polarity,
Speaker 3: and then this could just cause like any electron that
Speaker 3: goes through it, or plasma that goes through it like
Speaker 3: slows down, and I think they use like a helical motion,
Speaker 3: so it creates the plasmoid in the middle of it,
Speaker 3: and then the plasmoid creates the jets that come out
Speaker 3: of it, just like if you were looking at a
Speaker 3: neutron star and they just angle it. So those jets
Speaker 3: are the propulsion, Like that's how you fly around. So
Speaker 3: if you shot that down like you could figure out
Speaker 3: the science behind it, But I don't know if you're
Speaker 3: going to figure out like fusion immediately. You know, it's
Speaker 3: a slightly different concept.
Speaker 2: It sounds like rifling, like the way that they built
Speaker 2: they carve the spherical or the spiral into the engine
Speaker 2: to create either accuracy essentially plasmoidal accuracy trajection and very
Speaker 2: similar to how they built rifles.
Speaker 3: Did Yeah, did you know that when they uh some
Speaker 3: of the plasma fusion nuclear fusion scientists like there's a
Speaker 3: couple of shapes that keep coming up, toroids or one
Speaker 3: of them, but helical motion is another one that comes
Speaker 3: up all the time as well, like this vortex motion.
Speaker 3: So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there is
Speaker 3: literally a connection with like you know, guns and the
Speaker 3: and the helix motion of like the bullets and things
Speaker 3: like that as well.
Speaker 2: You nort now is the hydrogen revolution that it sounds
Speaker 2: like is like right around the corner. For the last
Speaker 2: fifty years out of Rice University, they're doing this graphene study.
Speaker 2: I talked with Jim Tour who's like one of the
Speaker 2: head scientists down there working on it, and they figured
Speaker 2: out this process called flash jewel heating where they'll take
Speaker 2: the electrocute carbon, any kind of carbon, trash, plastic, dirt, whatever.
Speaker 2: They put it in a vacuum and they electrocute it
Speaker 2: with seven thousand degree pulses of electricity and it breaks
Speaker 2: it apart, and then it cools down and reforms into
Speaker 2: its most stable form, which is the hexagon, which is
Speaker 2: the graphene start structure. And so you get this powder,
Speaker 2: black powder, graphene, bulk graphene, and it gives off hydrogen byproduct.
Speaker 2: And so for every kilogram of hydrogen that's released, you
Speaker 2: get about four dollars and fifty cents worth of graphene.
Speaker 2: So they've inverted the cost. It used to cost money
Speaker 2: to produce hydrogen. Now you receive, well, you receive product
Speaker 2: to produce the hydrogen. So after the cost of electricity induction,
Speaker 2: you get four dollars and fifty cents in return for
Speaker 2: every kilogram of fuel hydrogen fuel you've produced. And he's saying,
Speaker 2: our methane system across the United States is ready to
Speaker 2: introduce the hydrogen for cars for fuel, So if we
Speaker 2: want to start fueling our car. It sounds like they
Speaker 2: have contracts with the Department of Defense. He said that
Speaker 2: we're on the cusp of a hydrogen revolution. Fuel wise,
Speaker 2: I could see like a hybrid petroleum hydrogen cars where
Speaker 2: you can pump one or the other.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I think that they well, I mean,
Speaker 3: my sources have told me that there's companies that were
Speaker 3: already in the hydrogen game producing hydrogen. I didn't hear
Speaker 3: exactly how they were doing it. But once you open
Speaker 3: the door to solve the infusion, like and just what
Speaker 3: we've already spoken to, like cimatics understanding the ether. If
Speaker 3: you can create coherent shapes, now you can do alchemy.
Speaker 3: Now you can produce any element that you potentially want,
Speaker 3: and you can potentially do it at very low energy costs.
Speaker 2: Yeah go, yeah.
Speaker 3: So the last time I was to say is that
Speaker 3: part of low energy nuclear reactions. I did this interview
Speaker 3: with eng eight low energy fusion company, and one of
Speaker 3: the claims they made was that they could potentially produce
Speaker 3: hydrogen at a much lower energy cost than what the
Speaker 3: conventional approach would be to it.
Speaker 1: Too.
Speaker 3: So you kind of have to keep your eyes open
Speaker 3: on some of these companies, Like you know, if you
Speaker 3: were to look at it, they may just look like
Speaker 3: completely conventional company, but they might then be doing using
Speaker 3: some of these electromagnetic physics type concepts to really be
Speaker 3: making more money than what you would be possible otherwise.
Speaker 2: When I think about fusion, I think of the big
Speaker 2: ask that it's like, all right, this is okay. I'm
Speaker 2: from nineteen seventy nine. I'm cynical. That's just the way
Speaker 2: it was. Growing up in Ohio in the eighties. Our
Speaker 2: team Cleveland Brown's always lost was all we were always
Speaker 2: it never worked out. I had to chag break out
Speaker 2: of that mindset. But I'm like, that's what feels like
Speaker 2: with fusion. It's like we're never going to get I
Speaker 2: don't want to say it. I don't even want to
Speaker 2: joke about it because I don't want to manifest it's happening. Obviously,
Speaker 2: we're getting fusion. People are fusing things. But do you
Speaker 2: think it's actually reasonably going to be like a power
Speaker 2: source in the next thirty years for the common man?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it exists, I'll tell you that much.
Speaker 3: Are they going to give it to us? That's the
Speaker 3: bigger question. And I think that they are away in
Speaker 3: exactly what you just said, which is their way in
Speaker 3: the question of what's the risk of somebody using this
Speaker 3: and creating a weapon that wipes us all out, and
Speaker 3: can we stop it if they do? And do we
Speaker 3: have the deterrence in place to do it? But absolutely
Speaker 3: I think not only are we gonna get fusion, I
Speaker 3: think it's gonna get a lot weirder than that, is
Speaker 3: that one of the first things that is probably gonna
Speaker 3: happen is we're gonna have to start coming up with
Speaker 3: new new names for some of these energy sources. Maybe
Speaker 3: the hydrogen Revolution sounds like a good way. Maybe we
Speaker 3: just call it that, honestly, because I think it's gonna
Speaker 3: be more all encompassing. We're gonna see like fusion companies
Speaker 3: like Helium that aren't even doing ignition, that are producing
Speaker 3: excess energy, and people are gonna be seeing they're wondering
Speaker 3: how I mean. I was watching a debunker person who's
Speaker 3: like a nuclear physicists themselves, and they were like listening
Speaker 3: to the CEO of Heli and Fusion. They're wondering how
Speaker 3: all these claims can be possible when these people are
Speaker 3: struggling to make.
Speaker 1: A tokamac reactor, you know.
Speaker 3: But then you're also gonna see stuff like free energy
Speaker 3: microchips at the same time, like our low power devices
Speaker 3: everything up to like a cell phone. In the next
Speaker 3: five or ten years, like they're gonna be rolling out
Speaker 3: free energy microschips, Like these devices just aren't gonna be
Speaker 3: running out of energy anymore. And people are gonna be like,
Speaker 3: how is that possible? And they're gonna come up with them.
Speaker 3: They're gonna call it like like I've been joking, they're
Speaker 3: gonna call like space juice. They're gonna come up with
Speaker 3: some stupid, like made up name they're gonna call.
Speaker 1: It's just harnessing space juice. Don't ask questions, right like,
Speaker 1: and yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: It'll be like juice tapping into the piezo electric vibration
Speaker 2: of the ether or something.
Speaker 3: It's gonna sound something like really technical, you know, and
Speaker 3: then that's what they'll say, and then everyone'll just be like,
Speaker 3: I don't question why my phone never has to run
Speaker 3: out of energy anymore, you know.
Speaker 2: You know, sub atomic piazo electrics is a fascinating concept.
Speaker 2: I mean, just piezo electric in general that you can
Speaker 2: use like tensive vibration to get an electrical charge. And
Speaker 2: then if you can scale that down at the to
Speaker 2: the micro chip level, the chips themselves power just just
Speaker 2: by atmospheric you know, indenture create their own conductivity.
Speaker 3: There's probably like at least three different ways to do
Speaker 3: free energy from the micro scale that I found. One
Speaker 3: is using the Casimir effect, which Sunny White has been doing,
Speaker 3: and I think Garrett Model at the University of Colorado
Speaker 3: Paul Thibodeau is using like a thermal effect, like the
Speaker 3: thermal changes is vibrations, and even it can be in
Speaker 3: a stationary temperature, but just the thermal just vibrations. Brownie
Speaker 3: in motion he made a microchip that basically just harnesses
Speaker 3: that as well. So in addition to what you just mentioned,
Speaker 3: so there could be a multiple different ways, like the
Speaker 3: Pizo electric thing. People, anytime you have like a PhD
Speaker 3: physicist come on, especially if you're talking to them like
Speaker 3: on Tame Pool on a big show, you should always
Speaker 3: ask them what is electricity?
Speaker 1: Where does electricity come from?
Speaker 3: Because Pieso Electricity explains it, like for people who are
Speaker 3: not familiar. Pies electricity is like a quartz crystal. You
Speaker 3: can squeeze the crystal and it'll produce electricity. They use
Speaker 3: these in watches low energy devices, right, because you can
Speaker 3: just shake your watch and now you get electricity. The
Speaker 3: reason why that happens is when you squeeze the crystal,
Speaker 3: the positive and the minus charges in the lattice structure
Speaker 3: of the crystal separate. Normally, they're in an equilibrium the
Speaker 3: positive minuses. Imagine them being next to each other.
Speaker 1: When you squeeze the crystal, it pushes them apart a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 3: So what is electricity? Well, electricity is just the positive
Speaker 3: and minus charges being separated, just like with the pies
Speaker 3: of electricity. So anybody that understands electricity should be able
Speaker 3: to tell you at the basic level, all electricity is
Speaker 3: is positive and minus charge separated.
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: And we can go ahead?
Speaker 2: Is it? Because when you separate the positive and minus charge,
Speaker 2: the elect they want to come back together, so it
Speaker 2: produces an electrical current between them.
Speaker 3: Bingo, you nailed it, right, So now you can see like, oh,
Speaker 3: if I just look at it like that, then it's
Speaker 3: a completely different view of what electricity even is. Electricity
Speaker 3: is like a breaking of a symmetry, right, It's like, oh,
Speaker 3: we're stuck in this symmetry. Oh if I just rip
Speaker 3: these things apart, oh, now electricity exists, like oh, and
Speaker 3: we should be getting taught electricity like that. That's a
Speaker 3: much more logical, intuitive way than like, oh, the power
Speaker 3: plant is like producing this electricity and then shooting it
Speaker 3: through the wires and then it's like coming into my
Speaker 3: house at the speed of light, which is not how
Speaker 3: it actually works.
Speaker 1: It just seems like how it works.
Speaker 2: Dude. I want to capture lightning. I think that we've
Speaker 2: been staring at it the whole time. If we can
Speaker 2: produce tethers that can like graphine tethers or some sort
Speaker 2: of meta material that can absorb that can conduct the
Speaker 2: eat into a bay station and then absorb it down
Speaker 2: at the station, Like you could have these like feathery
Speaker 2: tethers up in the atmosphere constantly pulling the static charge,
Speaker 2: so you'll never actually have lightning strikes anymore, Like you'll
Speaker 2: prevent them and you'll just be absorbing the current. And
Speaker 2: then it's just about having a battery that can capacitate it.
Speaker 3: I think it's even easier than that. It's like, where's
Speaker 3: the electricity from the lightning strikes? Even coming from a
Speaker 3: deep space.
Speaker 2: If you see those above, if you ever watch above
Speaker 2: the clouds, those those those sprites they call them, that
Speaker 2: go just God knows where out into the next the
Speaker 2: next realm of galaxy or whatever.
Speaker 1: And I'm not like, I like the electric universe theory.
Speaker 1: I think there's some problems with it.
Speaker 3: But that was one of the fun things that I
Speaker 3: learned from is that I like to hearing other people's
Speaker 3: point of views, because then you hear like, are the
Speaker 3: what are the electric universe? People say about like the
Speaker 3: standard model and their view, And one of the biggin
Speaker 3: ones that go is like, where's all this energy for
Speaker 3: all these lightning strikes coming from?
Speaker 1: Like where else on this planet equilibrium?
Speaker 3: Well, those are a huge amount of energy coming from
Speaker 3: and so of course they claim it's coming from the
Speaker 3: lactric currents that are connecting the Earth and the Sun
Speaker 3: and all the other planets and the solarcism, which I
Speaker 3: think actually makes a lot of sense. But then the
Speaker 3: point is whatever electricity is, whatever is causing those lightning
Speaker 3: strikes that happen, we should be able to tap into that,
Speaker 3: We should be able.
Speaker 1: To harness that.
Speaker 3: I mean, my view is that if energy is mass
Speaker 3: and we can do stuff like the dynamic Kasmir effect
Speaker 3: and just pull light out of the vacuum, then that
Speaker 3: means energy is everywhere. That means we don't even need
Speaker 3: the sun, and we don't even need to make a sun.
Speaker 3: We can just pull energy theoretically just straight out of
Speaker 3: the vacuum.
Speaker 2: So you're talking dynamic Kasmir effect you're talking about. Is
Speaker 2: it light appearing out of the vacuum? Is that what
Speaker 2: that is? So that it's sort of like sono luminescence,
Speaker 2: where if you create a bubble underwater with a certain vibration,
Speaker 2: you'll create light. And I think maybe what's happening is
Speaker 2: that the Higgs field. There's a vibration in the Higgs field,
Speaker 2: and that if it hits a certain frequency, it cracks
Speaker 2: and produces photons, and then those they basically it's like
Speaker 2: the photon is coming through the Higgs field. This is
Speaker 2: an old idea I had fifteen years ago. I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's actually real or not. And then that
Speaker 2: cools down that photose hotons can cool down into matter.
Speaker 2: But I don't that was just a rough kind of
Speaker 2: a sure if I.
Speaker 3: Mean the Higgs field is it is really like zero
Speaker 3: point energy, but like with tricycle wheels attached to it,
Speaker 3: you know, it's like they're like.
Speaker 1: The Higgs field explains like one percent of mass. You're like,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't really explain like anything then does it?
Speaker 3: But it is the idea that, yeah, there are these
Speaker 3: fields that we are living, this structured, this construct, you know,
Speaker 3: and so that would be open the door to zero
Speaker 3: point energy and open the door to this you know,
Speaker 3: space time, flexible solid that can be manipulated.
Speaker 2: But if if like you're saying, electricity is produced when
Speaker 2: you pull apart a positive and a negative node and
Speaker 2: you and it's trying to find itself, trying to pull
Speaker 2: come back together so it has its current point, then
Speaker 2: then a lightning maybe is that? And so the Earth's
Speaker 2: core would be like the positive or the negative charge,
Speaker 2: but it's both. I think it's both positive negative. It's
Speaker 2: an interesting there's but so what's the capacitor? Right?
Speaker 3: And remember when doctor U was saying, when we were
Speaker 3: explaining why is gravity and electricity so like, why are
Speaker 3: they the strength so different? And doctor U took his magnets.
Speaker 3: He took a string of magnets and the string of
Speaker 3: magnets can pick up the balls, right, But once you start.
Speaker 1: Folding the magnets over, you're equalizing the charges.
Speaker 3: And what's happening now is that now all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: the magnet can't pick up any balls anymore because it
Speaker 3: got so much weaker.
Speaker 1: So the earth is also a magnet. And so why
Speaker 1: are we.
Speaker 3: Seeing the electricity, you know, strike down from the sky
Speaker 3: to the earth. Is that you're seeing this this vult,
Speaker 3: this potential difference. And as that potential difference builds up,
Speaker 3: eventually it gets so strong that zapp you know, theus,
Speaker 3: the minus and the positive decide that it can break
Speaker 3: through the insulator. What's the insulator? The insulator is the air.
Speaker 3: The air is the insulator. In this case, air is
Speaker 3: actually an insulator. We have to remember that even the
Speaker 3: air is a medium.
Speaker 1: So that's why we don't.
Speaker 3: See electric strikes. Well, that's why we do see the
Speaker 3: electric strikes. And here's another one for you. The lightning
Speaker 3: is a plasma because what is a plasma. All a
Speaker 3: plasma is is a positive charge and a negative charge separated,
Speaker 3: ripping the electron off the atom leaven behind a positively
Speaker 3: charged ion and a negatively charged electron. So when you
Speaker 3: separate these out, are we just creating electricity directly when
Speaker 3: we do that? And this is why I always thought
Speaker 3: like the whole idea of fusion using plasma like it
Speaker 3: should be direct energy conversion, because literally electricity is just
Speaker 3: a separation of positive and minus charge. Now Here's one
Speaker 3: of one of the things I'll thought I'll leave you
Speaker 3: with on this is that the electric universe theory. One
Speaker 3: of their big questions is why is there a plasma
Speaker 3: corona around the sun. Shouldn't plasma if it's positive and
Speaker 3: negative charges separated, shouldn't it try to come back together
Speaker 3: and equalize. But if that was the case, then we
Speaker 3: shouldn't see this corona around the sun at all. There
Speaker 3: shouldn't be in a difference of positive negative charges being
Speaker 3: so separated from one another. So clearly I think there
Speaker 3: must be something else going on.
Speaker 2: I think it's that similar thing with what John Kansas
Speaker 2: learned in his experimentations in the lab, is that there's
Speaker 2: a frequency running through the sun that's lighting it up.
Speaker 2: It's causing it to give off the flame. That's what
Speaker 2: the corona is. It's exactly like his experiment. If you
Speaker 2: watch that video John Kansas, it's k n s us
Speaker 2: It's like a two thousand and seven video of him
Speaker 2: running a free He tells you what frequency it is
Speaker 2: to run it through saltwater get that hydrogen flame, that's
Speaker 2: my guess.
Speaker 1: Interesting, So so that.
Speaker 2: That would lead to me to believe that that the
Speaker 2: Sun then has the chemicals make up saltwater. Obviously there's
Speaker 2: hydrogen in there, there's sodium in there, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of chemicals in the sun.
Speaker 3: But it Yeah, and the Sun itself, you know, maybe
Speaker 3: it just reaches a certain critical mass and then I mean,
Speaker 3: that's I think that the standard theory holds, right, You
Speaker 3: just have this huge amount of mass and then you
Speaker 3: have this critical event happen, and yes, then we get
Speaker 3: ignition to occur, and then what's happening inside the sun.
Speaker 3: There's actually a lot of theories about that that, you know,
Speaker 3: could be something related. Vibration planks constant is like what
Speaker 3: we imagine like the smallest possible vibrational.
Speaker 1: Scale that's out there. That could be a cut off point.
Speaker 3: That's where they uses the cut off point for calculating
Speaker 3: the zero point energy.
Speaker 1: Actually, so there could be a connection to that. The
Speaker 1: other idea is that maybe the Sun is.
Speaker 3: Like a lattice structure, like maybe it's more like a
Speaker 3: solid like when you get inside of it, maybe everything's
Speaker 3: so compact that it's almost like a crystal structure, and
Speaker 3: so then what could be happening would be more like
Speaker 3: pies of electricity, or like maybe you have like this
Speaker 3: vibrational like lattice structure inside the sun in the middle
Speaker 3: of it, which.
Speaker 2: I that's a cool idea that would make sense as
Speaker 2: to why a frequency would cause some sort of dissertation
Speaker 2: like that. I think that's the right word. I like
Speaker 2: the way it.
Speaker 3: Sounds because it's a resonance effect, right. It'd be like, oh,
Speaker 3: if you hit it with a frequency, then you're going
Speaker 3: to see some type of counter resonance effect, just like
Speaker 3: the photoelectric effect, which was like when we shot light
Speaker 3: at a metal, we did not see a significant difference
Speaker 3: when we increased the brightness of the light, but we
Speaker 3: saw a difference when we increased the wavelength when we
Speaker 3: changed the.
Speaker 1: Color of the light that hits it. So it goes
Speaker 1: to show, Yeah, resonance effects are what really seems to
Speaker 1: explain the universe.
Speaker 2: I think that comes from how photons interfere with surface plasma.
Speaker 2: They seem to refract off of the surface plasma at
Speaker 2: the center of every plasma cloud and transfer information, so
Speaker 2: that I think that's how light transfers information to plasma
Speaker 2: and if you look deeply into surface plasma in the
Speaker 2: way that it changes the red and the blue shift
Speaker 2: of the plasma fields, but depending on how the light
Speaker 2: is interfering with it.
Speaker 3: So the plasma front, let's see, is there anything else
Speaker 3: I want to touch on on that front? So yeah,
Speaker 3: the other thing I was going to touch on is
Speaker 3: the dense Plasma focused paper that I discussed i think
Speaker 3: on the podcast that we did together, which was finding
Speaker 3: out that they were taking these plasmas and they were
Speaker 3: trying to turn them into drones or you know, trying
Speaker 3: to turn it into a propulsion concept very clearly in
Speaker 3: the papers. And so plasmoids have another name. They're called
Speaker 3: few reverse configuration FRC. This is actually what they're called
Speaker 3: by Helia in Fusion as well as TAE. They came
Speaker 3: up with a new name for them, which are apparently
Speaker 3: just terroidal plasmas that are being shot together at one another.
Speaker 1: These frcs, they have a distinct characteristic. They have a
Speaker 1: spheremac shape, so they're shaped like a plasma sphere, but
Speaker 1: they also have axial jets that shoot out of them
Speaker 1: because they're creating that plasmoid in the center. They have
Speaker 1: these axial jets.
Speaker 3: So at some point the Air Force, and I don't
Speaker 3: know who the first person was to think about it,
Speaker 3: but I'm pretty sure it's this guy Frank Mead, They
Speaker 3: were like, oh, well, if there's these axial jets, we
Speaker 3: can use this as propulsion and then we can have
Speaker 3: now some type of thing that's flying around. I think
Speaker 3: that the thing that really took off was when they
Speaker 3: were able to turn into a drone. When you're like, okay, now,
Speaker 3: like having a plasma propulsion is one thing. Great, you
Speaker 3: got plasma flying everywhere, but that doesn't sound very safe.
Speaker 3: You don't want to be I wouldn't want to be
Speaker 3: near on a plasma a fusion reactor, you know, flying around.
Speaker 3: But one once you turn into a drone, now you
Speaker 3: have no problem. Now no human needs to be near
Speaker 3: it anymore. So this is where I personally my view,
Speaker 3: I'm curious about your opinion that I think they figured
Speaker 3: out these plasma drones and they've been flying them around
Speaker 3: for I don't know, ten twenty years, maybe longer, who knows,
Speaker 3: And that's why I don't know how far back it goes,
Speaker 3: and people are seeing them in the sky and they're going, Okay,
Speaker 3: there's a light in the sky flying around I basically
Speaker 3: anybody who sees that's going to think it's an alien, right,
Speaker 3: And now they're going, oh, UFO alien. And then this
Speaker 3: seems to coincide in the last let's say ten years
Speaker 3: with this like emergence of balls of energy balls of
Speaker 3: light that everybody's talking about. Even Louel Zando wrote in
Speaker 3: his book about three balls of energy and three balls
Speaker 3: of light. So my opinion is that they governments figured
Speaker 3: this out. I don't know, Maybe they figured out from aliens.
Speaker 3: Maybe they didn't, not sure. What do you think about
Speaker 3: the idea that like humans could have figured this technology out?
Speaker 3: This is like the biggest point of contention in the
Speaker 3: UFO community right now is like could humans have figured
Speaker 3: this techniclogy? How could we have reverse engineered it? Or
Speaker 3: does it have to be aliens because you know, we
Speaker 3: can't understand this alien physics.
Speaker 2: Human all human. If we can figure out electricity, we
Speaker 2: can figure out anything, dude. Any this is warping shit.
Speaker 2: It's I think a lot of it is talking plasma,
Speaker 2: which is a term they gave to this idea that
Speaker 2: you can triangulate or hit a point in time into
Speaker 2: space time time. It's funny. A point in time where
Speaker 2: you'll hit it with a bunch of like lasers or
Speaker 2: something creates a ball plasma and then you move that
Speaker 2: around like a laser pointer and then it flies and
Speaker 2: how does it move so fast? And it's like, well,
Speaker 2: it's because it's a it's an illusion that we're created.
Speaker 2: It's a ball of plasma. But then now you're talking
Speaker 2: about plasma drones. I don't know. And now I'm just
Speaker 2: thinking of actual autonomous balls of plasma that are using
Speaker 2: their own jets to maneuver, that are being maybe given
Speaker 2: information from the base station. But how would they be
Speaker 2: being produced either an onboard fusion. Then you're talking do
Speaker 2: they have on board power or are they being created
Speaker 2: by this talking fusion?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember, like a year and a half ago,
Speaker 3: I was thinking that they were creating them the same
Speaker 3: way that you just mentioned with the talking plasma, which
Speaker 3: I read which is honestly amazing. The talking plasma thing
Speaker 3: they can do. I mean, the fact they get it
Speaker 3: to literally talk to you means they can modulate the
Speaker 3: frequency and the and the standing wave of it to
Speaker 3: like at will, like constantly it's a very impressive thing
Speaker 3: that they can do that. Then in my mind, they
Speaker 3: can make their plasma ball like whatever size they want
Speaker 3: and need it to be, and it wouldn't take that
Speaker 3: much onboard fuel to make it happen.
Speaker 1: I think that though, that what like the plasma.
Speaker 3: Drone would look like would probably be like a tube
Speaker 3: with a bunch of stuff hooked up to it, and
Speaker 3: then once you like shoot it, and then it just
Speaker 3: spins up. And once it spins up, it's just it's
Speaker 3: a plasma ball now, and it just looks like a
Speaker 3: plasma ball until it's turned off. And but I a
Speaker 3: lot of people believe that these orbs can be like
Speaker 3: shot out of like a cannon, like you shoot a
Speaker 3: plasma can like a plasma sphere out of a cannon,
Speaker 3: and now it's just like a self contained structure and
Speaker 3: it's self contained until it dissipates, which it's it's stabilized
Speaker 3: so it won't dissipate it or it has like a
Speaker 3: very long life span. And then this would be the
Speaker 3: idea of like the ether and simatics, where like you've
Speaker 3: created this geometric shape where it's like a perfect geometric
Speaker 3: shape that just doesn't lose any energy and is able to.
Speaker 1: Keep its form.
Speaker 3: I kind of struggle with that because, like especially in
Speaker 3: like them a Streets of Zero videos, these things are
Speaker 3: clearly moving with some intelligent control.
Speaker 1: It's not just oh, shoot it over that way, right,
Speaker 1: it's like homing in on things and locking in. But
Speaker 1: I don't know, what do you think?
Speaker 2: Well, while you were talking about shooting a plasma drone,
Speaker 2: as that would be your bullet would be the drone itself.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of like a coil, just like the rifling
Speaker 2: we were talking about. Maybe it would be a series
Speaker 2: of rings, but it would give that that forward momentum
Speaker 2: of spin that would allow for some sort of energy
Speaker 2: propagation that could maybe blow it up like a plasma
Speaker 2: balloon for the for the you know excerpt for the
Speaker 2: for the journey that it has to go to until
Speaker 2: it either dissipates or hits its target. Maybe maybe the
Speaker 2: idea that because I was yeah, the idea that you
Speaker 2: would use that as the bullet itself and not the
Speaker 2: gun is pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and that's something I had never really thought of.
Speaker 3: But that Okay, you've got these plasma bullets, and now
Speaker 3: you might be able to use them for multi things
Speaker 3: as well. I mean they probably originated as like you said,
Speaker 3: like spoofing mechanisms, right, because some of these pilots when
Speaker 3: they see these UFOs, they don't see them on radar,
Speaker 3: but then they'll see them like briefly show up. And
Speaker 3: this is I think where some of this idea of
Speaker 3: always this spoofy mechanism. Well, the plasma actually will reflect radar,
Speaker 3: but if you were to change the wavelength of the
Speaker 3: plasma for a brief second, it may actually be it
Speaker 3: may show up, so it could look like it's like
Speaker 3: a ghost out there. But then you can turn it
Speaker 3: like plasma itself is a physical phenomenon. It's not just
Speaker 3: an illusion, right, It's not necessarily just a hologram. So
Speaker 3: if you can turn it into that, now you've turned
Speaker 3: into a weapon. Because once again, what is electricity. Electricity
Speaker 3: is just a separation of positive is charged.
Speaker 1: So if you can control that, if you can spin
Speaker 1: that up into a ball plasma that can shoot around,
Speaker 1: now you've got a literally lightning ball like you're zeus
Speaker 1: now like shooting lightning nut battle on people.
Speaker 2: If it's like if it's just like what we're talking
Speaker 2: about electricity, you're pulling apart the positive and the negative,
Speaker 2: so gas either you're heating it up it's or you're
Speaker 2: destroying the You're removing the pressure, so the gas expands faster.
Speaker 2: It'll be easier to get it hotter, it'll be easier
Speaker 2: to pull the proton and the electron away from it
Speaker 2: because it's less pressure or getting it hotter. So if
Speaker 2: you can in it within like the bullet of this
Speaker 2: plasma torsion, if you can reduce the pressure or enhance
Speaker 2: the temperature, you might be able to produce an electrical
Speaker 2: charge that way.
Speaker 1: And you know what the thing was that took off.
Speaker 1: It was the lasers is what allowed this to all
Speaker 1: take off.
Speaker 3: When you even look at Helium's field re verse configuration reactor,
Speaker 3: they shoot these plasmoids at each other's smok rings of
Speaker 3: plasma and then they shoot these like neutral laser beam injectors.
Speaker 3: And the thing that allowed this all take off was
Speaker 3: that they got these lasers to be super powerful. This
Speaker 3: chirped pulse amplification Nobel Prize twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: That's where they found these.
Speaker 3: They were able to come up with these atto second
Speaker 3: lasers because the smaller the time frame that you fit
Speaker 3: the energy into the more the energy density goes up.
Speaker 1: It's not just the region in the space that you
Speaker 1: want small, but the time region. The time of the
Speaker 1: laser gets smaller, the pulse gets smaller, the energy density
Speaker 1: goes up, and.
Speaker 3: That's how they're able to get these plasmas to reach
Speaker 3: these super high temperatures supposedly. So it wouldn't surprise me
Speaker 3: if like the military had this laser technology that allowed
Speaker 3: plasma and all this stuff to happen, and then of
Speaker 3: course they just classified it because it's all weapons related
Speaker 3: related nukes.
Speaker 2: You know, I would have classified it if I built
Speaker 2: it in the if I was working for the government
Speaker 2: and built that, I'd be like, all right, well for now,
Speaker 2: because they're probably all like airing on the side of caution.
Speaker 2: And then if the Chinese are like, we have it,
Speaker 2: then we'll be like, well we have it too. I
Speaker 2: guess you know, nobody wants to say it first, yeah.
Speaker 3: We had that, like they're Chinese is gonna be like
Speaker 3: we figured out whorp technology trumps something like we figured
Speaker 3: it out ten years ago. Sorry, you know, And you know,
Speaker 3: if you were like a black project engineer, you worked
Speaker 3: on this, like you know, magic technology alien technology.
Speaker 1: Call it whatever you want to call it. Would you
Speaker 1: come out as a whistleblower?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Why are we not?
Speaker 2: Not? No? Because that that it's it's it's like life,
Speaker 2: and it's like the Manhattan Project. I wouldn't have I
Speaker 2: wouldn't have blowed the whistle on that either if I
Speaker 2: was working for that. I believe in the ethos of
Speaker 2: the United States free speech, gun rights, property rights. I
Speaker 2: want to do whatever I can to uphold that. If
Speaker 2: it means giving us the best military on the planet,
Speaker 2: giving us an edge, you know, within the AI fusion race,
Speaker 2: I'm down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what I mean. I agree the same way.
Speaker 1: That's why it makes this so hard. Is it like
Speaker 1: I don't even like doing this. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: it's like people deserve to know about this science, about
Speaker 1: the technology.
Speaker 3: That's why the first question is like where is the
Speaker 3: line between this? Because I also want us to have
Speaker 3: this technology. I want America to be the number one country.
Speaker 3: But I also like, in the view of this, you're like, Okay,
Speaker 3: we've got warp drive technology, maybe wormhole technology, gravy manipulation,
Speaker 3: free energy technology. You know, I wonder, you know, how
Speaker 3: we have to be able to get some of this
Speaker 3: to the public people, you know, I mean, at some
Speaker 3: point you can't hide this forever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, relying relying on the government, or just because they're
Speaker 2: deep state and have access to the tech when they
Speaker 2: were kids and now they get to learn about it
Speaker 2: and their dads have money and now they have money.
Speaker 2: Just because they have it doesn't mean that's the best setup.
Speaker 2: It might be better for the populace to have it.
Speaker 3: So and that's the big catch twenty or that. I
Speaker 3: don't know if it's a catch twenty two, but that's
Speaker 3: a big struggle that we're in. Because I agree with you,
Speaker 3: I would I would never go whistleblower either. If I
Speaker 3: was in Black Project, I wouldn't even have a social
Speaker 3: media account. I wouldn't do any of this stuff at all,
Speaker 3: because I do think it harms national security. And I
Speaker 3: think that if certain countries, certain cultures have access to
Speaker 3: this technology, I think the planet's totally definitely doomed, no question.
Speaker 3: But you know, it's a moral conundrum because we are
Speaker 3: talking about the ability to kind of end poverty. The
Speaker 3: big thing for me is this, if America has this technology,
Speaker 3: why are we not Why we have so many homeless people.
Speaker 3: Why we have so much struggling on this plan. Why
Speaker 3: does our country not look like ancient Rome with like
Speaker 3: you know, colosseums and you know the Renaissance everywhere. You
Speaker 3: know that that to me is the struggle, is that
Speaker 3: I think that at a minimum, we should be able
Speaker 3: to leverage the fact that we have magical technology.
Speaker 2: You know. I think it's because well, one, they want
Speaker 2: to keep it secret. That's the main reason too, is
Speaker 2: because we don't have the batteries yet to capacitate the power,
Speaker 2: Like we can't run well, we have Tesla power walls.
Speaker 2: We're getting there, but like really really good batteries that
Speaker 2: you can charge once and then they run your house
Speaker 2: for sixty days or six hundred years or whatever. You know. Like,
Speaker 2: once we can build the batteries that can super like
Speaker 2: super capacitor batteries you know, graphium, cadmium, whatever the hell
Speaker 2: materials we're going to be using, probably crazy meta material
Speaker 2: cermats and stuff, then I think the fewion will be like, uh,
Speaker 2: what's the word functional, like for the common man once
Speaker 2: they can store the battery, because then you won't have
Speaker 2: to give them the fusion reactor. They'll just be able
Speaker 2: to tap it in, get the power and then benefit.
Speaker 3: See you're thinking about it pragmatically, like they're never gonna
Speaker 3: give us a fusion reactor. We're never gonna get a
Speaker 3: portable fusion reactor. Is then you could just turn it
Speaker 3: on blow somebody up. But I could see they're gonna
Speaker 3: give you a tap, right, They're gonna say here, you
Speaker 3: can tap into the energy and then you can fill
Speaker 3: up your local reserve. But it's not gonna be enough
Speaker 3: to annihilate the planet. You know, something like that where
Speaker 3: I think it was how putoff even talking about this,
Speaker 3: where it's almost as evil as, maybe even more evil
Speaker 3: than how they portrayed in the movies. Where he's like, guys,
Speaker 3: zero point energy is real, it's coming out. This is
Speaker 3: a high risk venture, but its high reward. And he's like, basically,
Speaker 3: everybody knows we can't just give everybody a you know,
Speaker 3: a zero point energy device in their home. The way
Speaker 3: to do it is like when your old generators have
Speaker 3: to be replaced, just throw the old ones out and
Speaker 3: we'll give you new, upgraded reactors and no it we'll
Speaker 3: just never have to explain where that energy is coming from. Right,
Speaker 3: And well, if you save some money on it. Well,
Speaker 3: you don't necessarily have to pass that savings on to
Speaker 3: the consumer, right, how does the consumer you even know
Speaker 3: how much you're you know how much it costs you
Speaker 3: to produce the energy. That's what I think is really
Speaker 3: going on. And that's why I look at companies like
Speaker 3: Heli in Fusion and I'm like, I've identified them as
Speaker 3: like this is a company that the DOE is backing
Speaker 3: and stuff. And then I go, well, why is Peter
Speaker 3: Teel like one of the major investors in this and
Speaker 3: he's connected to the CIA, and.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah Bolenteer too, that's a good sign for Fusion, Okay, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: And this is why I tell people like, look, this
Speaker 3: isn't stock advice, but when Helian Fusion goes IPO, just
Speaker 3: go look at Pollenteer stock price and what's happened to
Speaker 3: them as well? You know, It's like it feels like
Speaker 3: some of these companies are being kind of selected is
Speaker 3: because they know or they have the right connections. And
Speaker 3: to kind of like counter a point that Elon Musk made.
Speaker 3: Elon's like, why don't they compete with me? Well, just
Speaker 3: like you said before about like why don't they reveal
Speaker 3: this technology, lets happen, because then would be the technology, right,
Speaker 3: So that's why they can't compete with it. But they
Speaker 3: also don't care about being four hundred five hundred billion dollar,
Speaker 3: you know, richest people in the world. Give me one
Speaker 3: billion dollars and I'm good.
Speaker 1: I'll go disappear.
Speaker 3: You never have to know my name, right, So that's
Speaker 3: the way it seems to work behind the scenes. But
Speaker 3: if people pay attention, I mean, I think you can
Speaker 3: see it happening.
Speaker 2: So you're saying Elon's like, why won't they compete with
Speaker 2: my space program? Basically is where he's at. And then
Speaker 2: and they're but secretly building drones that can go underwater
Speaker 2: and fly into space exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I don't know the space part's weird, Like
Speaker 3: I want to broach this topic with you a little
Speaker 3: bit too. That, Uh, the more I research these plasma
Speaker 3: drones and stuff, I'm going like, did he even operate
Speaker 3: in outer space? Because I think they're using something called
Speaker 3: an air breathing system magneto hydrodynamic system, which means they're
Speaker 3: basically using either the air or the water is either
Speaker 3: a fuel source or is like a catalyst and the
Speaker 3: reaction so they don't have to have that stuff on board. Well,
Speaker 3: outer space doesn't have nearly as much as like the
Speaker 3: air or like water. So there's two ways to look
Speaker 3: at One would be that like, you don't need that
Speaker 3: much stuff in outer space because you're just like floating
Speaker 3: through the air, floating through space, right. But the other
Speaker 3: view of it is, well, even if you lose like
Speaker 3: a tiny bit of your matter your energy, then over
Speaker 3: a long distance you're gonna lose everything, but before you
Speaker 3: get there, right, So I don't know if they can
Speaker 3: really be used.
Speaker 2: It sounds like a local defense tool, Like I think
Speaker 2: it makes sense for planets to have local defense drones
Speaker 2: that are just plasma orbiting and protecting the atmosphere. That
Speaker 2: makes sense.
Speaker 1: That's what I thought those new Jersey drones were.
Speaker 3: Actually I was on with Clint Russell, you know him, right,
Speaker 3: That was he and I did like really great livestream
Speaker 3: where we were talking about that new Jersey drone thing
Speaker 3: back in December, and I was like, I think they're
Speaker 3: like a defense mechanism, Like what if they're just drones
Speaker 3: sit around their defense network, where like if someone shoots
Speaker 3: a hypersonic at us, our drones just intercept it.
Speaker 1: And like wormhole it to the sun or something.
Speaker 2: Or like an asteroid or something that drones.
Speaker 3: To absolutely right, like the Opofos asteroid that I think
Speaker 3: is like twenty twenty nine or something like that. I'm
Speaker 3: not afraid of that because we got plasma drones that
Speaker 3: are just flying around that can you know, intercept stuff
Speaker 3: anywhere that they that we need to.
Speaker 1: But this means too.
Speaker 3: This is something that I learned from old anime shows
Speaker 3: is that the smartest anime shows would be like the
Speaker 3: ones where the guys like trying to understand the villain
Speaker 3: and like what his power is and like what his
Speaker 3: weakness is in his power. That's how when I look
Speaker 3: at like the teleportation technology, I was like, what are
Speaker 3: the limits to this? Turns out there's a lot of
Speaker 3: limits to it. It's not just like oh I can
Speaker 3: just zapp and just now I'm on the moon and
Speaker 3: now I'm back. Turns out it's like a one way
Speaker 3: trip kind of situation, like you zapp here and now
Speaker 3: you're over here, but now you have to do it
Speaker 3: again if you want to go you know somewhere else.
Speaker 2: You know where I'm at with with wormholes, Maybe you
Speaker 2: have more to say is charged black holes. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure if you're familiar with the charged black hole. It's
Speaker 2: different than a regular black hole. It's like rotating, and
Speaker 2: I think it's been woken up. I think it's a
Speaker 2: teleportation mechanism. If you travel through a charged black hole,
Speaker 2: it will super accelerate you through that singularity. You'll go
Speaker 2: through so tight and be shot out so fast. Afterwards,
Speaker 2: you'll super accelerate towards it's the first star you hit,
Speaker 2: and then it'll slow you down and you'll stop in
Speaker 2: front of it. And I think that's literally people will
Speaker 2: aim towards stars between they'll put the charge black hole
Speaker 2: between them and the star and they'll go through it,
Speaker 2: and that will teleport them to the star. And that
Speaker 2: we can actually charge our black hole, Sagittarius B, I
Speaker 2: think is at the center of our galaxy. We have
Speaker 2: a black hole, but it's not charged up yet, So
Speaker 2: I think we can charge that thing and use it
Speaker 2: as a teleportation mechanism or whatever. It's a super accelerator
Speaker 2: basically not really teleporting, but it's at that speed, you know,
Speaker 2: it's hard to tell the difference. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Leonard Suskin and Juan Melosina they believe that the black
Speaker 3: holes are quantum entangled. But there's an interesting theory that
Speaker 3: I hadn't seen before I read it yesterday, which was
Speaker 3: that what if the black hole like doesn't have perfect
Speaker 3: entanglebl the difference between a black hole and a wormhole
Speaker 3: would be when you create a wormhole, like I'm zapping
Speaker 3: like you know, this airplane here and it's reappearing over here.
Speaker 3: But what if when the black hole pulls in matter,
Speaker 3: it like rips it out, shoots it out like a
Speaker 3: sprinkler like, so it's like creating like multiple entanglements like,
Speaker 3: but it's like they're not altogether anymore at that point.
Speaker 3: And what if that's the difference in that really a
Speaker 3: worm holes like a black hole, but it's like a stabilized,
Speaker 3: temporary black hole like this temporary rip you make, whereas
Speaker 3: a black hole is like this huge amount of mass
Speaker 3: that's just like anything comes in has wept in, shreded pieces.
Speaker 2: We have scientific community located any wormholes yet like.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know how we would even do that.
Speaker 3: That's the problem because like even if you see a
Speaker 3: black hole like okay, well where's it coming out? Because
Speaker 3: what we what have we learned from entanglement.
Speaker 1: It could be anywhere. It could be like literally anywhere.
Speaker 3: So I think we probably will find some because I
Speaker 3: personally think that these wormholes and black holes exist. But
Speaker 3: the question is are they cosmological phenomenon other than black
Speaker 3: holes or are they purely like a laboratory produced phenomenon.
Speaker 2: Right, the wormhole? What is it? Exactly? What's the difference
Speaker 2: between a worm like? What is do you know what
Speaker 2: the theoretical working definition of a wormhole is?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just a bridge between two points in space
Speaker 3: and time. And so you obviously really we have to
Speaker 3: only imagine it metaphysically because we can't see an extra dimension.
Speaker 3: But usually they represent it as like two flat surfaces
Speaker 3: and then a tunnel between the two surfaces like this, right,
Speaker 3: And so it's this conceptual view that, like I was
Speaker 3: saying before, is that that space time is flat. Like
Speaker 3: I think it's been proven that space time is actually flat.
Speaker 3: We don't really agree it, and flat earthers are probably
Speaker 3: gonna have a field day with this, but space time
Speaker 3: is flat, we just don't perceive it as flat. And
Speaker 3: if it's flat, then you can just bend it like this.
Speaker 3: And now the points that were previously not connected are connected.
Speaker 3: Now that seems super weird to us because that's not
Speaker 3: how we see observe reality around us. But that's because
Speaker 3: all of space time around us is an equilibrium. It's
Speaker 3: all perfectly equilibrium. But if we rip that out of equilibrium,
Speaker 3: then we start to see these weird effects.
Speaker 1: But if it's true, if wormholes are real, then I
Speaker 1: think it proves Ben Riches right, that all point in
Speaker 1: space and time are actually really connected. We just don't.
Speaker 1: We don't perceive them as being connected.
Speaker 2: And like motion and time and space and speed and
Speaker 2: all that. If you're in deep space with no reference
Speaker 2: point and it's black everywhere all around you, if you
Speaker 2: start going faster, you won't know it because there's no
Speaker 2: there's no perceptual inertia. I don't even think there's inertia
Speaker 2: if there's no relative space. I don't think that's I mean,
Speaker 2: they're like, yeah, good, there is technically inertia, but you
Speaker 2: wouldn't perceive it so like, and then your distance would
Speaker 2: be shorter, but you wouldn't have realized it was because
Speaker 2: you were going faster and didn't know it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it turns out like a lot of this stuff
Speaker 3: is illusion the illusion like cloaking or the illusion of distance,
Speaker 3: or when something gets smaller when it gets further away. Like,
Speaker 3: it turns out these effects, while they seem illusionary, they're
Speaker 3: also just physically real as well. So like if you
Speaker 3: contract or expand space because of relativity, you actually do
Speaker 3: change physical properties. One of the things that was being
Speaker 3: talked about, I think I Richard ban Durich, he was, uh,
Speaker 3: he was making ways because he was talking about like
Speaker 3: alien meta materials or something like that. I don't know
Speaker 3: about all his alien meta material claims, but he knows
Speaker 3: about electromagnetism and gravity, and he was saying that, well,
Speaker 3: if you have length contraction or length expansion from general
Speaker 3: relativity from you know, things moving at relative speeds, then
Speaker 3: you can have current actually increased from the perception of current.
Speaker 3: Like if I'm looking at an object, the electricity being
Speaker 3: formed will look like it's going up if you have
Speaker 3: length contraction or expansion happening. And he explains this from
Speaker 3: the perception of the electrons, and you're like, wow, okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: so general relativity actually starts to get really weird. And
Speaker 3: this could even explain like why do we have it,
Speaker 3: Like imagine this cube of space time. Like, if I
Speaker 3: squeeze this cube of space time, what's gonna happen. What
Speaker 3: I would imagine is whatever's inside this cube of space
Speaker 3: time is gonna get pushed out.
Speaker 1: It's gonna get pushed out. Squeeze that.
Speaker 3: So if I have contraction of space time, what do
Speaker 3: I think should be happening, Well, I think energy should
Speaker 3: be getting shot out, probably in the form of photons.
Speaker 3: So personally, that's how how my my view of the
Speaker 3: universe is. I think the zero point energy is filled
Speaker 3: with this invisible energy. That's an equilibrium I and if
Speaker 3: you squeeze it, you get light.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, that's son iluminescence. Then I guess you're you're
Speaker 2: squeezing on the bubble underwater. You're creating a vacuum. Well
Speaker 2: you're you're what is You're running a vibration through and
Speaker 2: creating a bubble, which then the pressure, the squeezing of
Speaker 2: the pressure, releases a photone.
Speaker 1: So sonal luminescence. You take water and you just shoot
Speaker 1: the sound, Uh, create a standing wave in the middle
Speaker 1: of your sound of your water, and the sound the
Speaker 1: sound will actually create light. Light actually gets formed, and
Speaker 1: it's because it creates a cavitation and implosive effect that
Speaker 1: produces light. Science struggles to understand why that's the case,
Speaker 1: and why how there could be so much energy that
Speaker 1: light is being released while like the glass that's containing
Speaker 1: the water doesn't break, or why the water doesn't boil.
Speaker 1: Why does the water not boil.
Speaker 3: You've got you've got light being produced in the middle
Speaker 3: of this, but the water's not boiling. Some people wonder
Speaker 3: is fusion happening in sono luminescence? And so I think
Speaker 3: that the reason why I love those experiments is that
Speaker 3: when I was digging through this, digging through the science,
Speaker 3: trying to figure out, like how are they are they
Speaker 3: really hiding gravity whatever, you find all these experiments that
Speaker 3: like have no like palatable conventional explanation. And that's why,
Speaker 3: I mean, part of the reason why I'm absolutely convinced
Speaker 3: that all this science is real is that when you
Speaker 3: look at the underlying thread of it, you find out
Speaker 3: that it goes back to Tesla, it goes back to
Speaker 3: Maxwell's original equations before.
Speaker 1: They got reduced.
Speaker 3: Is we threw out this scalar potential because we didn't
Speaker 3: see it, We didn't see it out there, kind of
Speaker 3: like how we don't see wormholes out there, but that
Speaker 3: doesn't mean they're not real. The math says that they
Speaker 3: should exist. Sure, so the scaler potential is real too.
Speaker 3: Maybe we just didn't we didn't, you know, find the
Speaker 3: right effect to see it. Maybe it's mostly a lab
Speaker 3: produced effect.
Speaker 2: And this is what the effect of what exactly that
Speaker 2: we're within.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the scalar potentials like the affe of the medium itself,
Speaker 3: so like the effect of and I believe it can be.
Speaker 3: I believe the scaler potential gets seen more when you pull,
Speaker 3: like you create an electric system and you shoot the
Speaker 3: voltage up super super high, like above thirty fifty thousand volts.
Speaker 3: Is now that scalar potential that was really really tiny before,
Speaker 3: now you can actually see measurable effects related to it.
Speaker 2: And a common example that as I was up hiking
Speaker 2: up in the clouds, I was up in the mountains,
Speaker 2: I was it was foggy. I didn't know it was
Speaker 2: foggy because I was up there. It just looked normal.
Speaker 2: And I was walking. I'm like, why am I dripping
Speaker 2: with sweat? Literally as if I'd been in the pool
Speaker 2: swimming in my clothing. I was dripping. My friend was
Speaker 2: like you're dripping like drip drip, drip drip like why
Speaker 2: because the medium I was in imperceivably wet. I didn't
Speaker 2: know because I was inside of it, I couldn't see it.
Speaker 2: Exactly the same kind of thing with fit with space time.
Speaker 2: There's so much potential energy in this medium that we
Speaker 2: don't perceive because.
Speaker 3: We're in it, and that's what allows for really all
Speaker 3: this science to be possible, of free energy, of over unity,
Speaker 3: of fusion. I think that if they're wasn't a medium,
Speaker 3: why we wouldn't even be digging it. We wouldn't even
Speaker 3: trying to do fusion. I don't think fusion would be
Speaker 3: possible if there wasn't a medium of energy. I mean,
Speaker 3: you'd have to be pumping in the you know, all
Speaker 3: your fuel source conventionally, which I don't know how that
Speaker 3: could ever achieve over unity from a conceptual viewpoint if
Speaker 3: space is empty, but you know, maybe we can do
Speaker 3: it that way.
Speaker 2: So yeah, oh, I just I appreciate that you talked
Speaker 2: about distance contracting and expanding distance and that producing an
Speaker 2: electrical charge, or even the perception of expanding and contracting
Speaker 2: distance that could produce an electrical charge. I'm going to
Speaker 2: sleep on that one. That's really right.
Speaker 3: You definitely want to check out the Paul Thibodeau graphing
Speaker 3: thermal thing, which is really cool because essentially what he's
Speaker 3: created is a battery that the batteries default state is
Speaker 3: not zero.
Speaker 1: The batteries default state is you know.
Speaker 3: Pick a voltage number, it doesn't matter, right, because what
Speaker 3: that would mean is that you can sap energy off
Speaker 3: of it and it always tries to go back to
Speaker 3: that equilibrium state.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how crazy is that? Like a battery, chadgery battery.
Speaker 1: Nice job, Paul Thibodeaux. Yeah, I saw that one.
Speaker 3: I'm just like, wow, that was a type of And
Speaker 3: so this is why I try to tell people, like
Speaker 3: there's so many different conceptual viewpoints of free energy devices.
Speaker 3: One of them is just a battery that just never
Speaker 3: runs out. And so he's created an asymmetrical system that
Speaker 3: it's equilibrium is not zero. And of course every physicist
Speaker 3: that was in the presentation is going, how is this
Speaker 3: How is this not violating the laws of thermodynamics? And
Speaker 3: he says as well, because it's basically just harnessing Brownie
Speaker 3: in motion from the thermal ambient temperature. Like it if
Speaker 3: you do the equations, the math shows that should work.
Speaker 3: They built the microchip. Microchip shows that it works.
Speaker 1: What else do you want? Right?
Speaker 2: And they've also they created nuclear batteries. They were doing
Speaker 2: with like a small they have like nuclear waste. They
Speaker 2: put in glass or diamond or something and it produces
Speaker 2: exactly the same kind of piezo electric.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: That's the stuff where I think you're talking about where
Speaker 3: they're using the word nuclear, I think a little everly,
Speaker 3: where like I think they're like doing transmutation and they're
Speaker 3: just been like, yeah, it's just nuclear.
Speaker 1: You know, because technically it is. Technically it is nuclear.
Speaker 1: But you're like, how are you doing it? How efficiently
Speaker 1: are you doing it? Right?
Speaker 3: Like, because you could theoretically be doing this super efficiently,
Speaker 3: making like tons of money and just producing stuff that
Speaker 3: would people would be saying is violating you know, the
Speaker 3: laws of physics, vitalized laws dermodynamics. But yeah, I think
Speaker 3: that there's doing it and they're doing it quietly, and
Speaker 3: then they've got contracts with other government or other entities.
Speaker 2: But breakoff. They'll break off like that little one for
Speaker 2: the public and be like, hey, look what we figured out.
Speaker 2: You can you can maybe charge your iPhone with this.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 3: And now, you know, when we talk about the companies,
Speaker 3: I think I know where your politics are. You think
Speaker 3: you're kind of more libertarian, kind of like I am,
Speaker 3: you know, free speech, uh, freedom of you know, expression,
Speaker 3: et cetera. You know, recently the United States took control
Speaker 3: part of Intel because I think they're a micro chip manufacturer.
Speaker 3: I think a lot of what I've found out about
Speaker 3: this is like we're well past the days of like
Speaker 3: magnetic motors and these like free energy devices people were
Speaker 3: making that were like as big as a room. Now
Speaker 3: we're to the point of like people are making free
Speaker 3: energy devices on little microchips.
Speaker 1: So microchips are the future.
Speaker 3: There was actually somebody floating today the idea of Locking
Speaker 3: Martin being potentially nationalized as well. Apparently ninety seven percent
Speaker 3: of their revenue comes from the government. I didn't even
Speaker 3: know that about Locking Martin until today. So where do
Speaker 3: you stand on this, like, you know, nationalization of companies
Speaker 3: under national you know, security or national defense. I mean,
Speaker 3: if the technology is that powerful, if we have this
Speaker 3: crazy you know, alien technology zero pint any tesla technology,
Speaker 3: and is it right to nationalize them or is free
Speaker 3: market went over this is.
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you. I just posted this on Twitter
Speaker 2: before we went live, and that it's that in the
Speaker 2: twentieth century was basically the war between fascism and communism,
Speaker 2: and it was one or the other, pick aside, and
Speaker 2: the Western powers chose fascism with the Federal Reserve and FDR,
Speaker 2: and it was instead. It wasn't like Mussolini fascism. It
Speaker 2: wasn't that kind of violent kicking doors in Hitler fascism.
Speaker 2: It was British fascism. It was peaceful fascism, but it
Speaker 2: was better than communism, and it fascism won. And we
Speaker 2: live in a fascist system where our government can print
Speaker 2: fake money and does so many businesses with corporations behind
Speaker 2: the scenes that is indicative of a fascist behavioral but
Speaker 2: not on paper. They don't own any of the companies
Speaker 2: because that would be fascist. Well, anyway, Trump just did
Speaker 2: it blatantly in public for the first time. He's showing
Speaker 2: our fascist nature by buying using government funds my money
Speaker 2: to print fake money to buy He basically made my
Speaker 2: money worthless to print to buy a company. And now
Speaker 2: they're talking about going full communist and owning businesses. It's insane.
Speaker 2: Like we at least need a visage of a free economy.
Speaker 2: Because Intel stock slip cook Intel stock went up seven
Speaker 2: percent after he invested eight billions or ten billion. That's
Speaker 2: playing favorites in the market. What the hell's going to
Speaker 2: happen to the other chip manufacturers?
Speaker 1: Now, how's nobody talking about this? I'm saying, you're wondering,
Speaker 1: like we just took over part of a chip manufacturer
Speaker 1: and nobody's saying a word about are one hundred.
Speaker 3: Percent playing favorites? I mean, there's no debate. We're playing favorites.
Speaker 3: Of course their stock When I'm the first thing I
Speaker 3: did was look at their stock. I'm like, this must
Speaker 3: have shot sent their stock up. It's like so and
Speaker 3: I guess I can see it from national skier perspective,
Speaker 3: But I mean the public that's not been researching this stuff,
Speaker 3: they should be all over wondering what's going on here?
Speaker 3: Like what's the justification for doing this? And how do
Speaker 3: we if now that we've set this precedent right, why
Speaker 3: aren't we taking over Locked Martin. Why aren't we taking
Speaker 3: over Sierra Nevada Corporation? Why not taking over Battel Institute?
Speaker 3: Like there's so many companies that are defense contractors that
Speaker 3: are basically all their money comes directly from the US government.
Speaker 3: Why aren't they taken over?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because that would be purely fascist or a communistic
Speaker 2: dictatorship if they were to try to do something like
Speaker 2: that and ruin the free market. And like, the thing
Speaker 2: I remember from time to time is that most people
Speaker 2: are not really smart. There are small, a very small
Speaker 2: there are people that are really smart, and they're considered
Speaker 2: really smart because there aren't that many of them, so
Speaker 2: they're putting that category of really smart. And a lot
Speaker 2: of times people in the government that you get that
Speaker 2: same percentage. Maybe you get some people in government. They're
Speaker 2: very charismatic people in government, a lot of them, especially
Speaker 2: the ones that speak for a living. Charisma and intelligence
Speaker 2: are not the same thing. Intelligence and wisdom aren't the
Speaker 2: same thing. You might be able to remember what you
Speaker 2: were told to do and do it and have high
Speaker 2: intelligence and great memory recall, with no ability to discern
Speaker 2: if what you're doing is right or wrong because you
Speaker 2: don't have any wisdom. So we have to remember that
Speaker 2: just because they're people and they're given this badge of
Speaker 2: authority doesn't mean that they're good or intelligent or wise,
Speaker 2: and we have to keep these people in check.
Speaker 1: That's a big problem.
Speaker 3: How do you keep them in check? Especially if they have,
Speaker 3: you know, magical technology. Let's just assume that these disclosure
Speaker 3: people are all telling the truth and that there's aliens
Speaker 3: here and we've got this alien technology.
Speaker 1: Well, things have gone completely off the rails if that's
Speaker 1: the case. If they've got a free energy fusion technology,
Speaker 1: wormal technology, from aliens, from anything. How do you keep
Speaker 1: someone like that in check? You can't, right, I think
Speaker 1: they let the mask slip now where it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: we just dunked on Iran. Putin just came and visited us.
Speaker 1: When was the last time Putin came to America?
Speaker 3: He just came to America basically basically bent the knee.
Speaker 3: I don't people don't want to agree that he bent
Speaker 3: the knee, but I think he did. And then now
Speaker 3: we're also just you know, nationalizing chip manufacturers. So I
Speaker 3: look at this, I go, we're letting the mass slip here,
Speaker 3: and like, this is this type of stuff I would
Speaker 3: think would need to happen to put safeguards in place
Speaker 3: so that if we did want to release any of
Speaker 3: this technology, you know, we aren't going to be able
Speaker 3: to destroy ourselves and in America will feel safe that
Speaker 3: like China is not going to get our super advanced
Speaker 3: microchips or whatever this is going on.
Speaker 2: You think this the safeguard is purchasing the private companies
Speaker 2: so that the other because I'm like, fascism isn't always evil.
Speaker 2: This is another thing I wrestle with, and it's not
Speaker 2: always evil. Sometimes fascism can be good. You know, you
Speaker 2: want to make that dumb argument.
Speaker 1: It's true.
Speaker 2: Sometimes you can use fascist tactics to create a stable,
Speaker 2: healthy system for people. Even at the behage, we're still
Speaker 2: conquering and absorb being resources from overseas. That's probably how
Speaker 2: we're able to maintain fiat fascism. But it doesn't mean
Speaker 2: it's evil just because it's fascist. So there there is
Speaker 2: the argument that in the name of you know, survival,
Speaker 2: we have to come together use our private our government
Speaker 2: funds to buy what the fuck have we not done
Speaker 2: this test? You buy ten percent? First, Oh, it's not
Speaker 2: real communism, it's only ten percent. He doesn't have a
Speaker 2: control and share. Yeah not today?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, I mean we just they can never that
Speaker 3: company can never fail now, right, because We've just bought
Speaker 3: ten percent of them, so they will obviously never fail anymore.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, that's just it's ridiculous, the whole
Speaker 3: idea that we're just buying this stuff of these companies up.
Speaker 3: But I guess the last part would be, like, well,
Speaker 3: what really is even disclosure at this point? Like if
Speaker 3: we assume that there are let's just assume that there's aliens,
Speaker 3: we've got this technology or what have you, Like, how
Speaker 3: do you even define disclosure anymore?
Speaker 1: This is why I came up with this term called woke.
Speaker 3: Disclosure, because I think the woke disclosure people look at
Speaker 3: kind of what we laid out here and they come
Speaker 3: to a similar conclusion, like we can't have all this.
Speaker 3: There's certain stuff that's got to be kept secret for
Speaker 3: national security. But they got to do something. It's like COVID, right,
Speaker 3: we have to do something. It's like a cold virus.
Speaker 3: There's nothing we can do as a cold virus man.
Speaker 3: We have to do something.
Speaker 2: Make everyone wear masks.
Speaker 1: Just make everyone wear masks.
Speaker 3: We gotta do something, right, I feel like they are
Speaker 3: doing the same thing with the aliens. Are going we
Speaker 3: have to do something, Okay, just tell everybody aliens are real.
Speaker 1: Look, we can do that.
Speaker 3: That's not gonna hurt national security. No one's gonna make
Speaker 3: a super weapon out of that, right, just tell aliens
Speaker 3: are real. The problem with that is it's so stupid, Like, Okay,
Speaker 3: if aliens are real, how are they getting here? Like
Speaker 3: where are they coming from exactly? And how are they
Speaker 3: getting here? And what is the fuel source for their
Speaker 3: magical UFOs that are flying around defying gravity?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Like those are my first three questions.
Speaker 3: So this is the part where I think that the
Speaker 3: whole woke disclosure thing is like I think they just
Speaker 3: think they're better than us, and they know better than us,
Speaker 3: and they might even be right, honestly, but I hate
Speaker 3: that viewpoint of this idea of like we just they
Speaker 3: have to control our lives because we will we will
Speaker 3: blow ourselves up if we if we do, Like, honestly,
Speaker 3: for me, and I want to know your opinion, I
Speaker 3: just say, if that's the case, if it's between us
Speaker 3: blowing ourselves up with this technology or just living a.
Speaker 1: Lie forever legends, I'm gonna roll the dice. Man, We're
Speaker 1: just gonna blow ourselves. If that's the case, then that's
Speaker 1: how we go out that's the end of our story.
Speaker 1: I guess, yeah, that's honestly, what do you think.
Speaker 2: Like honesty and deceit? I used to think like honesty
Speaker 2: is the only way and deception is a mortal sin.
Speaker 2: It's not The Catholic Church actually says honesty is not
Speaker 2: a virtue. Lying is not a sin to the Catholics.
Speaker 2: I mean, they don't care. Uh it's so. I firstly,
Speaker 2: if aliens came here, they would not discern between our
Speaker 2: governments and our people. They would just show every They
Speaker 2: would just be here and everyone would be like what
Speaker 2: it would be? You know that It wouldn't be like
Speaker 2: we secretly had a message with the guy we think
Speaker 2: might be able to tell the world, Like what the fuck?
Speaker 2: They're here for power. They're here to That's why they're here.
Speaker 2: They're here to expand that's why they came. Uh so whatever,
Speaker 2: But I I just I agonize over this. This the
Speaker 2: thing about the plays, you know, like the common man
Speaker 2: and then the elite, the royal FA the royal and
Speaker 2: their subjects. The Romans called them the plebs and then
Speaker 2: the leaders whatever that. But what it is is generations
Speaker 2: of people with good nutrition developed very powerfully capable brains,
Speaker 2: good thinking, good intelligence, good wisdom, and then their children
Speaker 2: have good intelligence, and then they give they have There
Speaker 2: are family lines and communities of people that have had
Speaker 2: excellent nutrition over generations, so they're very equipped to organize
Speaker 2: and lead and run things. I get it. But that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that other people can't. It just means that
Speaker 2: maybe they were dealt a bad hand coming in, or
Speaker 2: dealt like a non nutritious brain matter, you know, body now,
Speaker 2: But that then you gotta think, well, they're still animals.
Speaker 2: Humans are animals, and a dumb animal is a very
Speaker 2: dangerous creature. So you got to you gotta just play
Speaker 2: real cards as they're dealt, and that is a true
Speaker 2: fact of nature. So I hate the idea of keeping
Speaker 2: things from people, man, especially when I see someone that
Speaker 2: I know could be great and they haven't become great yet.
Speaker 2: But they're not great yet, and I can't treat them
Speaker 2: like they are.
Speaker 1: So oh, so what do you think? What do you pick?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 3: If if it's been choices between ignorant bliss living the
Speaker 3: world that we're in right now, you know, our twenty
Speaker 3: first century world, or taking the risk that we destroy ourselves.
Speaker 1: But we get Star Trek.
Speaker 3: Technology you know, wormholes, warp drives, even replicators, not immediately
Speaker 3: but soon.
Speaker 1: Which one are you gonna choose? Well?
Speaker 2: Which would I interested in? The risky path? But we
Speaker 2: have to discuss the risk, what's the what's the what's
Speaker 2: the calculation here? Now, let's build a system of risk
Speaker 2: management and go from there.
Speaker 1: And that's where I.
Speaker 3: Think, that's where I would I think that's a good
Speaker 3: spot to kind of leave the conversation today, because this
Speaker 3: is what I would say that I would hope that
Speaker 3: you know, you would take from this as somebody that
Speaker 3: you know is on with Tim Poole all the time
Speaker 3: talking to these congress people that are looking at disclosure
Speaker 3: and what have I think it's got. The conversation has
Speaker 3: to become bigger than just aliens, right. The conversation has
Speaker 3: to become more about, Okay, what comes with that? Is
Speaker 3: what kind of technologies come with that? And then what
Speaker 3: are those technologies mean? If they really are free energy technologies,
Speaker 3: these technologies.
Speaker 1: That are like star Trek stuff, then what is that discussion?
Speaker 3: Like, how do we put those guardrails up so that
Speaker 3: we can get these technologies to humanity in a safe
Speaker 3: way where we mitigate the risk, Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, I'm thinking of I don't know why I
Speaker 2: think of the CCP as the boogeyman. I don't like
Speaker 2: having a boogeyman on. I don't think we need to
Speaker 2: have a boogeyman. I think that's just kind of human nature.
Speaker 2: We're so used to it genetically from always fighting against
Speaker 2: this animal coming to try and eat my family. I
Speaker 2: don't think we have to live like that all the
Speaker 2: time anyway. But I just imagined like a virulent, you know,
Speaker 2: angry regime that's hell bent on destroying everyone getting access
Speaker 2: to some superpower. But like I mean, if it's going
Speaker 2: to happen, you know, living in ignorant bliss doesn't necessarily
Speaker 2: make it not happen.
Speaker 3: I'll kick the can down the road, right, That's not
Speaker 3: gonna not really solve anything in the long run. Let
Speaker 3: me ask you about the question, Yeah, does the do
Speaker 3: you remember a time when China was in our adversary?
Speaker 3: Because I feel like I'm when I was younger, even
Speaker 3: in my twenties, like China wasn't even like our adversary.
Speaker 2: They were never our adversary. They did TMMN square And
Speaker 2: it was like what the thought, like it was obvious
Speaker 2: they were completely batshit psycho when they did, when they
Speaker 2: massacred all those students for rising up in protest at
Speaker 2: TM and Square, I thought that was like, Okay, these
Speaker 2: guys are off the book evil to do that to
Speaker 2: their populace, that's that's terrifying that they would govern do
Speaker 2: that their public. That's what I took in the early
Speaker 2: nineties from the CCP and then never had a problem
Speaker 2: with them. I've always loved I mean, I know Chinese
Speaker 2: products are shitty and cheap. I don't buy them. I
Speaker 2: try to buy them. I love China, the history of China,
Speaker 2: the Han dynasty, romance of the Three Kingdom is a
Speaker 2: huge part of my childhood. I read the novel twice,
Speaker 2: the game Lou Bay South South Dong Jao and all
Speaker 2: the characters I identify with Chokulong, this ancient teature of
Speaker 2: the Chinese people who invented the repeating crossbow, and like
Speaker 2: he could control the weather, you know, as the story says,
Speaker 2: he could call lightning and things. I love China, Chinese
Speaker 2: history and the people one on one when I meet them.
Speaker 2: I'm just always concerned with communism and central governments, you know,
Speaker 2: trying to centralize authorities insane to me, which is like
Speaker 2: buying intel with our government. It's insane to me. Okay,
Speaker 2: I agree, I don't think. I don't think. I don't
Speaker 2: even think there are a villain. And you know what,
Speaker 2: but Scott Horton on Lex Freeman just did a ten
Speaker 2: hour interview with Lex Freeman talking about what caused the
Speaker 2: War of pir basically starts with like the the Iranian
Speaker 2: regime in nineteen seventy nine, goes all the way. I've
Speaker 2: only watched a couple hours, but he said in the
Speaker 2: fifties and sixties, when they were developing counter nuclear war
Speaker 2: protocols in the United States, if the Soviets go to
Speaker 2: nuclear war with the United States, the plan was, we're
Speaker 2: gonna nuke every metropolitan city in the Soviet Union, and
Speaker 2: we're gonna nuke every metropolitan city in China because if
Speaker 2: the Russians in US are going to take ourselves down,
Speaker 2: there's no way in hell we're letting those commedy bastards
Speaker 2: take this planet. And that's this protocol is basically, if
Speaker 2: anything goes down, we're wiping all of China out. And
Speaker 2: I think the Chinese know that, yeah, and.
Speaker 3: I think they all know that, and I think that's
Speaker 3: the reason why you can't have this technology comes out,
Speaker 3: because if somebody has, you know, a super black hole weapon,
Speaker 3: then everybody's gonna make it a Mexican standoff, right, And
Speaker 3: now we're back at a point where anybody does anything.
Speaker 1: The whole plants destroyed.
Speaker 3: So man, and this is where I kind of wonder
Speaker 3: about the China question, Like, yeah, they are communists, no question,
Speaker 3: they're controlled government. But it's like, if you know, if
Speaker 3: you knew about free energy technolog if you knew about
Speaker 3: the dangers that this technology, and you were one of
Speaker 3: those elites like you probably would do this. I think
Speaker 3: most of us would do the same thing. That's the
Speaker 3: scary part. And so then it's a matter of just
Speaker 3: like how do we change the incentive structures, you know,
Speaker 3: in a positive way where we can have you know,
Speaker 3: some of this stuff an actual disclosure of information technology.
Speaker 2: Reducing fuel costs is a big part of it, which
Speaker 2: is why the hydrogen revolution excites me, whether that's through
Speaker 2: fusing hydrogen into helium or using hydrogen gas as a
Speaker 2: propellant or as an excitator or heat to get propulsion.
Speaker 2: Like the hydrogen revolution, reducing the cost of fuel will
Speaker 2: reduce the real national debt from thirty six trillion. On
Speaker 2: paper too, if if fuels a tenth of the cost,
Speaker 2: then our national debt may say thirty six trillion. It's
Speaker 2: a tenth of that in reality, and that's a rough,
Speaker 2: a rough calculation, but it might. You might pay one
Speaker 2: hundred dollars, but you're the value. It's easier to get
Speaker 2: one hundred dollars because it's so much cheaper for your fuel.
Speaker 2: That's the point. And then that reduces global tension, and
Speaker 2: then as humans will be able to reinvigorate the twenty
Speaker 2: first century tech what we do.
Speaker 1: I'm until Saudi Arabia is like, wait, you don't need
Speaker 1: oil anymore. No, we hate you. We're gonna blow you
Speaker 1: all up now.
Speaker 3: But no, they're smart enough to like get on board
Speaker 3: with this before, Like they're they're investing in this technology.
Speaker 2: I think, like, and honestly, you can use that flash
Speaker 2: jewel process I was talking about where you electrocute carbon.
Speaker 2: You can do that to oil. You can put oil
Speaker 2: in a vacuum and electrocute it and turn it into
Speaker 2: graphene and get hydrogen, so it's still useful carbon, Like
Speaker 2: you don't have to burn it for fuel. You can
Speaker 2: use it to create graphing and then it's even better
Speaker 2: fuel in a lot of ways, and with col too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is an awesome conversation. Ian, go ahead. Do
Speaker 1: you want to shout out you know, any of the
Speaker 1: projects anything you're working on? Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, while I'm working on a lot of music behind
Speaker 2: the scenes. I got a movie upcoming that I'm producing
Speaker 2: right now, and obviously I'm working with Tim Pool all
Speaker 2: the time. I'll be on Friday Timcast i RL on
Speaker 2: YouTube and Rumble Timcast i r L at eight pm
Speaker 2: Eastern Standard time. You can always follow me Ian Crossland
Speaker 2: on really any social media networks that you'll find me on.
Speaker 2: I do Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, x, you know, Instagram.
Speaker 2: Those are my top I think at the moment, Top
Speaker 2: five minds. Follow me on minds. Happy to be here,
Speaker 2: ashuay Man, this is great man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this was awesome. So yeah, this is great.
Speaker 3: Let's meet up again sometime soon. Play some magic cards
Speaker 3: and let's be in touch and we'll talk more science.
Speaker 3: This is awesome conversation.
Speaker 2: Excellent, man.
Speaker 1: See I take it easy later