Speaker 1: Oh that's our.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to the show. This is the Occult
Speaker 2: of Conspiracy. And my name's Jonathan, I'm job and today
Speaker 2: we got the good cult member Luke. Welcome to the show. Brother. Hello, Hello,
Speaker 2: we are excited this one. You. Uh, you reached out
Speaker 2: to us and you were like, yo, got some ideas
Speaker 2: for a show, and one thing led to another and
Speaker 2: here we are. I know that we're gonna be talking
Speaker 2: about a bunch of wild things today, but uh, what
Speaker 2: what exactly is like your main interest on this on
Speaker 2: this evening.
Speaker 3: So one of my main things is, uh, I've I've
Speaker 3: looked at a lot of things that people from the
Speaker 3: flat Earth side has said, and yes, they do bring
Speaker 3: up a lot of interesting information, but my issue has
Speaker 3: always been that they don't ever bring a physics based
Speaker 3: side to it. So, like, if you want to argue science,
Speaker 3: you have to argue with science. You have to back
Speaker 3: up the information you're giving. You give what I'm saying, like,
Speaker 3: you're not You're not gonna have a good defense if
Speaker 3: you're just saying, well, it's flat because just look at it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've heard a lot of people in the flat
Speaker 1: earth community and again, this is not me yes, I
Speaker 1: am the resident globe card. I get that. So when
Speaker 1: I say what I'm about to say to all the
Speaker 1: flat earthers out there, please this is not throwing shade.
Speaker 1: But typically it's like, well, if you can't prove your
Speaker 1: point and I can't prove my point and they can't
Speaker 1: sell each other out, then boom I win. And it's like,
Speaker 1: that's not how like you said, it's not a good defense, right, And.
Speaker 3: I like, I'm in agreeance with mainly you when you
Speaker 3: say that, Like they they bring up good topics of debate,
Speaker 3: of things that do need to be brought, not necessarily
Speaker 3: into light, but into the conversation of well, why exactly
Speaker 3: is this? And you know, give me a decent answer,
Speaker 3: don't just like guess, show it to me with an equation.
Speaker 3: But don't show me with just an equation, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean? Physical application right, Like there there is
Speaker 3: always a observation aspect of any part of science.
Speaker 4: It's just how it is. But with that, I so.
Speaker 3: My life has always been a mechanical side along with
Speaker 3: a more questioning side of things. So like, uh, I
Speaker 3: spent my whole life working on cars. That was the
Speaker 3: first thing I ever did. I can honestly say I
Speaker 3: turned a wrench before I ever turned a coherent thought.
Speaker 1: What is your premier type of vehicle you like working on.
Speaker 3: I guess really just like high performance cars. So like
Speaker 3: we had drag raced for a long time. So we
Speaker 3: had a sixty seven ranch Era that had a four
Speaker 3: to sixty big block in it.
Speaker 4: Night just set up.
Speaker 3: All that had uh full tub in the back. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so it was, uh, it was a fun time.
Speaker 1: The only reason I'm asking is because if you were
Speaker 1: about to say, like Honda Civics, I would have been like, oh,
Speaker 1: so that's your type of autism. I feel you, But
Speaker 1: like you know what I'm saying them jackcars, you have
Speaker 1: to have a level of autism to really get into
Speaker 1: the works on that. You're talking about the big body
Speaker 1: American muscle from the mid sixties to mid seventies. I
Speaker 1: feel you. You like to be able to get to
Speaker 1: the component you're working on.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, and I'm not knocking the four cylinder stuff,
Speaker 3: like you can make power out of it. You just
Speaker 3: have to do it the right way the ways that
Speaker 3: those motors like doing, you know, like.
Speaker 1: It's impressing what they're able to make. Those rice burners do,
Speaker 1: and I'm not knocking it. I just personally hate working
Speaker 1: on hondas.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah. Like one of my favorite events to go
Speaker 3: to is it's up in Maryland. It's called Import Socialis
Speaker 3: Domestics and great time and you can see some hondas
Speaker 3: absolutely fly, absolutely fly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's just a pain of the ass to work
Speaker 1: on them.
Speaker 3: But it's all I'm saying, right, yeah, yeah, yeah, But
Speaker 3: it kind of developed my interest into learning how things worked,
Speaker 3: and it just further developed over time of like you know,
Speaker 3: going from the mechanical aspect, going more towards physics, more
Speaker 3: in depth with actual science stuff like that of just
Speaker 3: I guess, understanding how everything works, or at least trying to.
Speaker 3: And then when I ended up getting a job at
Speaker 3: the naval shipyard that we have over here, I ended
Speaker 3: up getting into NDT, which is non destructive testing, and
Speaker 3: that furthered my I guess you could say education on magnetism,
Speaker 3: on radiography, on ultrasound, on eddie current, on liquid theories.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to think.
Speaker 1: Fluid mechanics so to spraak, right, yeah, And.
Speaker 3: I would say that that helped me out a lot too,
Speaker 3: because even though it's a further in depth of the
Speaker 3: theories into these I guess branches of science. It it
Speaker 3: really lays a foundation of understanding how a lot of
Speaker 3: things work in general. But having that knowledge, having the
Speaker 3: like I don't get me wrong, I hate math. I
Speaker 3: hate math absolutely. I like whenever math is applicable. So
Speaker 3: when I can use it to figure out something that
Speaker 3: like I'm doing, and I can actually use it without
Speaker 3: having to do some stupid worksheet like in you know, school,
Speaker 3: I like it. Yeah, you know, I guess you could say,
Speaker 3: like I'm actually getting fulfillment out of it, So it
Speaker 3: just works better like that. Like I liked the chemistry
Speaker 3: even to this day, Like the car industry has a
Speaker 3: lot more aspects of it than what most people would understand.
Speaker 3: Like there is a whole lot of physics that go
Speaker 3: into it. There's a whole lot of chemistry that goes
Speaker 3: into it.
Speaker 1: So tell you what a good example of that. Have
Speaker 1: you ever seen the movie Ford versus Ferrari and how
Speaker 1: they they were or Shelby Versus Ferrari. I think it
Speaker 1: was they would build a little Shelby. Yes, the amount
Speaker 1: of physics and engineering that went into trying to build
Speaker 1: a vehicle that could beat Ferrari at their own game.
Speaker 1: It was mind blowing. In yes, Matt Damon and Christian
Speaker 1: Bale did their characters and did their roles, but when
Speaker 1: you look at the story itself and every little bit
Speaker 1: and component and how they were trying to drop weight
Speaker 1: but to increase strength and increase torque and I'm with
Speaker 1: you one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: Man and aerodynamics going into it, Like a lot of
Speaker 3: people don't understand how engineered some cars are. For for example,
Speaker 3: the Selina S seven that they have, that car actually
Speaker 3: creates so much downforce at its top speed that it
Speaker 3: can actually turnover and drive on the ceiling like upside down.
Speaker 3: That's how much downforce it creates.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 4: So there is there's physics and everything.
Speaker 3: So I decide I ended up watching the movie on
Speaker 3: or documentary on Netflix that I was telling you about
Speaker 3: the The Beyond the Curve, and I was watching it
Speaker 3: because I was told or I read that like they
Speaker 3: brought up some interesting like topics of debate for flat
Speaker 3: earthers and stuff like that. I was like, no, they
Speaker 3: After watching it, I'm gonna be honest, like, there's not
Speaker 3: really that much like core information that you can gather
Speaker 3: out of it, but looking at what the physicists were
Speaker 3: saying in there, it kind of really irked me a
Speaker 3: lot because they were basically trying to say this, you know,
Speaker 3: group which it might have developed into being this, but
Speaker 3: they were trying to say that, you know, they argue
Speaker 3: these things, they you know, group themselves together like this
Speaker 3: because they're lonely. That was basically like the basis of
Speaker 3: their whole statement.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, wait, they said the physicists were.
Speaker 3: The physicians said that the flat earthers were doing basically
Speaker 3: this whole movement because they're fucking lonely.
Speaker 1: Okay, so they were just being haters and throwing shape right.
Speaker 2: Right, And we hear that kind of jargon in the
Speaker 2: conspiracy realm altogether. I've had people that disagree with every
Speaker 2: conspiracy I'm like, how do you disagree with every single
Speaker 2: one of them? But whatever, they disagree with every single
Speaker 2: conspiracy theory, and they try and you know, almost like
Speaker 2: try and understand my mind as to why I'm so
Speaker 2: attracted to these things, and it's like, Yo, this isn't
Speaker 2: a fucking like science project. I'm telling you that there
Speaker 2: is a lot of stuff into the stuff that we
Speaker 2: look into and you know, it's just some people have
Speaker 2: they're living in different worlds. I think it's really what
Speaker 2: it is is it's like it's like they they take
Speaker 2: I don't know, like they're just sad for us in
Speaker 2: some kind of way, and I don't appreciate that. Like
Speaker 2: I'm just like, don't look down on me. You think
Speaker 2: I'm like stupid or something. That's why I believe in it. No,
Speaker 2: it's actually the opposite. I'm actually using my brain to
Speaker 2: look at a lot of these things and not just
Speaker 2: being you know, led blindly.
Speaker 1: I forget what comedian it was, but he it wasn't
Speaker 1: like a long joke, but he was like, so, y'all,
Speaker 1: they're the people that are throwing the shit on conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: You're telling me you don't believe in one conspiracy. You're
Speaker 1: telling me the government has been one hundred percent honest,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of the time. Really, like, I honestly,
Speaker 1: there's no fucking way that's a true statement. And yeah,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: And that's what As far as uh people in the
Speaker 3: science community that have the education and have the knowledge
Speaker 3: and have the access to the you know, further in
Speaker 3: depth information, I'm gonna be straight up, I think that
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna say it was the education system that
Speaker 3: gave them this point of view, but I really do
Speaker 3: feel like they have a very straight line path that
Speaker 3: they typically take, and I'm going to be straight up
Speaker 3: with calling it out on it. There's a problem with that.
Speaker 3: It's like like looking at equation as if A plus
Speaker 3: B equals C, then you know typical equation. Well, the
Speaker 3: issue is is they never look to see what D is.
Speaker 3: That's a problem if you're not checking it. If there's
Speaker 3: a variable that you don't know about but it is applicable,
Speaker 3: and say like later on down the road we find
Speaker 3: out about that variable, well, you know, your complete beginning
Speaker 3: equation doesn't equate to the same amount, even though we
Speaker 3: thought that that's how it was. I mean, science is
Speaker 3: ever evolving. But that's the issue is they unless it's
Speaker 3: somebody that has some kind of degree, they don't want
Speaker 3: to hear it. That's a big issue with me. You
Speaker 3: talk about like the beginning philosophers that we had that
Speaker 3: laid down the foundation of most of the math that
Speaker 3: we take today. They didn't have a fucking degree, Like, yeah,
Speaker 3: they had time to put into this, but we replaced
Speaker 3: that with our access to knowledge. So just because somebody
Speaker 3: doesn't have a degree, it doesn't mean they're not fucking smart.
Speaker 3: I mean we hear stories every day of people doing
Speaker 3: some crazy ass shit that they have figured out how
Speaker 3: to do, literally because of YouTube. Education isn't one hundred
Speaker 3: percent it all the time, and I will be bringing
Speaker 3: up examples of that as well. So the way I
Speaker 3: kind of tried to org excuse me, organize this was
Speaker 3: going into the history at first of like how the
Speaker 3: models developed, and then going into basically the the main
Speaker 3: idea of gravity, going into Newton's laws, going into Einstein's
Speaker 3: going into let's see things on the atomic level, going
Speaker 3: into dimensions, just dimensions a little bit. I do have
Speaker 3: some little like fun fact type of things in here, and.
Speaker 4: I did try to.
Speaker 3: Make it a little bit interactive as well, because I'm
Speaker 3: gonna be honest, and I think everybody can agree science
Speaker 3: is boring as fuck for the most part. So the
Speaker 3: it's kind of like being in class again, you know,
Speaker 3: if you want to actually pay attention, you got to
Speaker 3: make it a little bit interactive, which one of the
Speaker 3: dimensions thing is in there. So I think a lot
Speaker 3: of people, especially on the spiritual side will like this
Speaker 3: little thing I'm gonna do, but we'll see what happens.
Speaker 4: But it's starting.
Speaker 3: With history, you know, starting with the religions. It's amazing
Speaker 3: to see how many religions basically across the board originally
Speaker 3: had a not just a flat earth model, but a
Speaker 3: model that aligned with so many other different religions. Like
Speaker 3: you have Sumerians, of course, the Babylonians after them, and
Speaker 3: Assyrians after them, but the Egyptians, the Abrahamic religions, you
Speaker 3: have Greek religions, Norse, Vedic, Hindu, Chinese religions of the
Speaker 3: different types they had, and not just that, but individual
Speaker 3: indigenous tribes all across the world that had a similar
Speaker 3: flat earth model that was made of various different ways
Speaker 3: of however, like one god killed another and they fell
Speaker 3: and they became the land.
Speaker 4: I will be honest.
Speaker 3: The Babylonian one is a little bit gross because he
Speaker 3: cut the other god up to make the firmament, which
Speaker 3: is a little gross, but either way, they they have
Speaker 3: a flat earth, but with a firmament based idea. And
Speaker 3: it's just it's crazy that even back then, like people
Speaker 3: were matching with the same exact stories with basically how
Speaker 3: they how they viewed the world at that point in time.
Speaker 3: But after that, around six hundred BC, you have a
Speaker 3: guy that is named uh an ex Mander some of
Speaker 3: the names, it's going to be hard to pronounce, but
Speaker 3: sure he was the first one to start kind of
Speaker 3: trying to give it more of a shape other than
Speaker 3: being flat. He uh kind of tried to say it
Speaker 3: was a little bit cylindrical. After that, it gets more
Speaker 3: into uh Pythagoras, which he's a very interesting character to
Speaker 3: get into, like the idea that he might not have
Speaker 3: even been real to begin with, and that it was
Speaker 3: just his group that was, you know, saying that he
Speaker 3: said these things or wrote these things or whatever. But
Speaker 3: I'm sure that's a whole whole different subject you can
Speaker 3: get into with that. But he suggested his spherical earth,
Speaker 3: and then Plato he still favored the sphere, but he
Speaker 3: due to the times, he's still more aligned with more
Speaker 3: of a flat earth type thing. Aristotle favor the sphere.
Speaker 3: He also was arguing that it was spherical because of
Speaker 3: the shadows cast by the moon. Aristophanes calculated the circumference
Speaker 3: by comparing angles of the Sun at two different spots,
Speaker 3: which I mean, for that was around two hundred and
Speaker 3: seventy BC. That's kind of smart to do. Honestly.
Speaker 1: People think that because they were the ancients that they
Speaker 1: didn't have the intelligence that we have today. Absolutely not.
Speaker 1: They were figuring out algebra by drawing in the dirt
Speaker 1: with their fingers and calculating stars to figure out what
Speaker 1: we would now call calculus. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It was insane. Now, I'm not saying every single human
Speaker 1: being of the ancients was to that level the right, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, most of them couldn't read. But the ones
Speaker 1: that were, and the ones that were of that intelligence
Speaker 1: level absolutely were geniuses by any other metric.
Speaker 2: You know, Luke, just out of curiosity, are you trying
Speaker 2: to debunk flat Earth today?
Speaker 3: No, I am trying to say that both sides are wrong.
Speaker 2: Oh shit, all right, i'd say I like to hear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And when we get past the historical side, I
Speaker 3: actually I want to get I'm gonna ask both of
Speaker 3: the other question because I want to get a general
Speaker 3: idea of y'all's idea on what gravity is itself?
Speaker 2: Oh okay, you know, I actually I'm already on your side.
Speaker 2: I disagree with both of the round and the flat
Speaker 2: I've been saying this for forever. I you know, changed
Speaker 2: my models from time to time, but I've just accepted, Dude,
Speaker 2: this fucking life is nothing but a dream, bro, and
Speaker 2: so like, is there even any form to a dream?
Speaker 1: Anyway?
Speaker 2: What are we arguing about?
Speaker 3: Right right? And that's why I think, well, we'll we'll,
Speaker 3: We'll get to that in a second. So the pull
Speaker 3: me around one hundred BC came up with the epicycles
Speaker 3: for the celestial bodies, uh, suggesting that they had circular
Speaker 3: orbits as well. So it's sphircle with circular orbits of
Speaker 3: like the moon and what whatever else they could observe
Speaker 3: in the sky. At the time, that model itself lasted
Speaker 3: for a long time, all the way from one hundred
Speaker 3: BC to.
Speaker 4: Four teen seventy a d.
Speaker 3: So basically nobody at the time wanted to be like, yeah,
Speaker 3: you were wrong. So fourteen seventy is whenever Copernicus came
Speaker 3: in and decided to propose the heliocentric idea. After that
Speaker 3: you have Galilet supporting this argue by the phases of
Speaker 3: Venus at the time that they were able to deserve.
Speaker 3: And then Kepler came in with the laws of planetary motion.
Speaker 3: Then finally we get Newton coming in with the laws
Speaker 3: of motion and universal gravity. Also one interesting thing, one
Speaker 3: little fun fact, I guess you could say, so you
Speaker 3: know how the Pythagoreans just liked very neat numbers. They
Speaker 3: killed a guy because of his proposition of irrational numbers
Speaker 3: basically meaning circles. They kicked him out of their brotherhood
Speaker 3: and then they drowned him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if anybody has never heard of the Number cult
Speaker 1: of Pythagorean followers, it is a very interesting deep dive
Speaker 1: to look into. You had to go into a was it.
Speaker 1: You had to be silent for at least a year
Speaker 1: before you could even be thought of as an initiate,
Speaker 1: and then it was like a seven year process to
Speaker 1: be a part of the Number cult. They had to
Speaker 1: make sure that you were like really about that life.
Speaker 1: So to say, they kicked a guy out and then
Speaker 1: killed him because of his ideas about Circle's brother I
Speaker 1: believe that one hundred percent they were what we would
Speaker 1: call extremists.
Speaker 4: Yeah, big circles, big scary.
Speaker 2: It's all about Big Circle at least don't want you
Speaker 2: to know this, but they're trying to hold back Big.
Speaker 1: Circle from him.
Speaker 3: So the guy's name was Hipassus Hypostas. It was around
Speaker 3: five hundred BC. Either way, Yeah, they killed him because
Speaker 3: circles are scary.
Speaker 1: Then Archimedes came in and didn't he die while drawing
Speaker 1: circles as a matter of fact.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, that's not I knowing this information. Now, that
Speaker 3: sounds really suspicious.
Speaker 1: Well, his city was under siege and Archimedes had actually
Speaker 1: built a bunch of war machines and shit, and once
Speaker 1: eventually his city siege like fell and they were being conquered.
Speaker 1: He was in the middle of drawing circles and doing
Speaker 1: his stuff. The soldiers came in to take over everyone.
Speaker 1: As they did, his last words were, don't touch my circles.
Speaker 1: They were like stepping on his art in the dirt
Speaker 1: that he was making, because he, I think was also
Speaker 1: at that level of autism where like he's hyper focused
Speaker 1: on what he's doing. Dudes with swords just barged into
Speaker 1: your door. Don't touch my fucking circles. Dude, be ahead
Speaker 1: of him right off the bat. But I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: he he died by the numbers man. He was about
Speaker 1: that life.
Speaker 2: So why is it that they disagreed with the circle
Speaker 2: so much the Pythagorans.
Speaker 1: Because they were an irrational number and they were all
Speaker 1: about neat whole numbers.
Speaker 3: He could could argue, it's kind of like a numerical OCD. Yeah,
Speaker 3: even though for some reason they like were okay with
Speaker 3: imaginary numbers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but like the whole number curvature in general, Well,
Speaker 2: the whole number is three hundred and sixty is a circle, right,
Speaker 2: that's a whole number.
Speaker 1: But it's more like the like three point one four. Hi, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is an irrational number. And they did not jive
Speaker 1: with these things. Oh.
Speaker 2: They didn't like decimals and fractions and shit is what
Speaker 2: you're saying.
Speaker 1: Right, So the Pythagora theme that we all earned in
Speaker 1: school was about the triangles, right, It was about these
Speaker 1: hard angles and hard lines and these things. And they
Speaker 1: understood circles, yes, But to say that you were using
Speaker 1: some sort of irrational number to guess tomate the circumference
Speaker 1: of was like, just compute sacrilege, yes, per their religious beliefs,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you get that curvature out of here, that's right,
Speaker 3: all right. So the quick question, well not quick, depending
Speaker 3: on how far y'all want to go into it. What
Speaker 3: is both of y'all's maybe not either idea or understanding
Speaker 3: of what gravity is.
Speaker 1: Jonathan, you wanna go first, be my guess, sir. Personally,
Speaker 1: I am of the belief that gravity would be whenever
Speaker 1: an object has mass to it, it has its own
Speaker 1: form of gravity to it as well. That's kind of
Speaker 1: a property of mass. Now, how much gravity a object
Speaker 1: has has a lot to do with the mass of
Speaker 1: the object. For instance, an object that weighs one thousand
Speaker 1: tons is going to have more gravity than an object
Speaker 1: that weighs one hundred pounds. When you have something that
Speaker 1: is the size of an entire planet, it has its
Speaker 1: own gravitational pull within itself. This would be the force
Speaker 1: that holds us down. Now, weight and density are not gravity,
Speaker 1: but at the same time they are properties of right,
Speaker 1: So what tells us how much something weighs on Earth
Speaker 1: as opposed to how much something weighs on Jupiter? If
Speaker 1: we are in fact, I believe that space is not faking, Gay,
Speaker 1: I understand that I'm love the belief that it is real,
Speaker 1: But that would be because Jupiter, although it's a gas giant,
Speaker 1: it is also a massive planet, which with a heavier
Speaker 1: gravitational poll. Meanwhile, Venus, being a smaller planet, has a
Speaker 1: less gravitational poll. So on the planet that to which
Speaker 1: we live, when you have mass, it gets pulled at
Speaker 1: a certain degree if you will, or a certain weight
Speaker 1: to it, and that is what holds us down.
Speaker 2: Very well, very well. I actually used to be a
Speaker 2: lot more opinionated on opinionated on this topic than I am. Now,
Speaker 2: you know, I used to make the argument for density,
Speaker 2: and that's what was holding us down. To be honest,
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna be open. I really don't know, Like
Speaker 2: I just don't know. Like you could say it's gravity, sure,
Speaker 2: but even gravity is still a theory, like it's a
Speaker 2: working theory and people accept it to be true, but
Speaker 2: it is still a theory because it's actually if it's
Speaker 2: still a theory, that means it can't be proven, right.
Speaker 2: So that's what a theory actually is, is something that
Speaker 2: like you know, you and put it into a formula
Speaker 2: and it does make sense, but you don't know why,
Speaker 2: you don't know how, and you just accept it for
Speaker 2: what it is. You can call it gravity, you can
Speaker 2: call it butt fucking for all I care, But there's
Speaker 2: definitely something that is keeping our feet on the ground.
Speaker 2: Call it gravity, I don't care. That's that's how I
Speaker 2: look at it.
Speaker 3: Okay, So just based off of Jacobs because it's a
Speaker 3: little bit more easy to identify it. So yours would
Speaker 3: be considered a Newtonian idea of gravity. Would you agree
Speaker 3: with that?
Speaker 1: I guess. But at the same time, it's not like
Speaker 1: Newton had all the answers to it, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, Like an object is less dense and water,
Speaker 1: which is why it gets to a buoyancy point instead
Speaker 1: of going all the way down. Newton himself drank himself
Speaker 1: to death with mercury. So when like he was some
Speaker 1: sort of a you know, inherent genius, he had a
Speaker 1: couple of ideas that we would now call the basics
Speaker 1: of the laws of physics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, here's my question though, you know, I was just
Speaker 2: thinking about this because clearly there is something, there's a
Speaker 2: reason why we all go down right like our feet
Speaker 2: or we're not floating, we're not levitating, we're not flying,
Speaker 2: We're always just on the ground. And maybe that's electromagnetism,
Speaker 2: maybe that's density or or you want to call it
Speaker 2: gravity or whatever. But you know, the thing where I
Speaker 2: get hung up on? Is that all right? If gravity
Speaker 2: is such a strong and powerful force, how are we
Speaker 2: even how are we even able to jump in the air?
Speaker 2: How are planes in the helicopters not being pulled down
Speaker 2: by this extreme power that we call gravity? Why is
Speaker 2: it that gravity stops whenever our feet are on the ground.
Speaker 2: Why doesn't it keep on pulling us to the center
Speaker 2: of the Earth's core?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Like and those are kind of questions that I have.
Speaker 2: Maybe they're scientific reason, I don't know. But why does
Speaker 2: the gravity stop at the ground level? Is my question?
Speaker 2: Why doesn't it just keep pulling us?
Speaker 3: But it.
Speaker 1: Okay, if you dig a hole, you can still get
Speaker 1: into the hole. It's not like gravity stops at seal
Speaker 1: or stops at you know, the level of whatever the
Speaker 1: Earth is more dense than our.
Speaker 3: Body right here. Your body has the human body was
Speaker 3: either made or adapted at whatever you consider to be
Speaker 3: able to not necessarily overcome, but to combat the effects
Speaker 3: of gravity. Kind of like how like deep sea creatures
Speaker 3: whenever they come to the surface, they die because their
Speaker 3: body is not used to that amount.
Speaker 1: Of pressure or that lack of pressure.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, yeah, right, Or saying if most animals that
Speaker 3: die of old age in the ocean. It's actually because
Speaker 3: they can't swim that well anymore, so they kind of
Speaker 3: just start sinking and they can't control their float bladder.
Speaker 3: So it's basically the pressure kills them before they actually
Speaker 3: themselves die.
Speaker 1: Right. But then there's other fish that do live at
Speaker 1: that depth and at that pressure because their bodies have
Speaker 1: been adapt to do so I'm with you one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: I guess the light whales that can traverse both, right,
Speaker 4: I heard that.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, my thing is is that if the
Speaker 2: argument for why planets stay in our solar system due
Speaker 2: to the Sun's gravitational pull to everything whatever, it is, right,
Speaker 2: but for some reason, you know, a power that strong
Speaker 2: isn't pulling my feet down through the dirt and through
Speaker 2: the clay. Do you understand what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: That might sound stupid, but like why does it stop
Speaker 2: right there?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: I hear you, all right, So we live in a
Speaker 1: pressure of fourteen point six six ninety six, Okay, that
Speaker 1: that would be my thumb up there it is. That
Speaker 1: is the amount of pressure at atmosphere at sea level. Right,
Speaker 1: if you go up to the height of the rocky mountains,
Speaker 1: there's less atmospheric pressure. If you go down, there's more
Speaker 1: atmospheric pressure. Sure, So it's not that it's the same
Speaker 1: with like, like, how do trees grow up against gravity?
Speaker 1: It's like, because they're experiencing the exact same level of
Speaker 1: gravity that we are, they're not growing up any more difficult, uh,
Speaker 1: you know environment than we are when you know.
Speaker 2: Well, and this is why I get stuck on This
Speaker 2: is why I get stuck on the plane of inertia.
Speaker 2: That makes more sense to me whenever referring to gravity,
Speaker 2: right like, we're kind of all walking on this like board,
Speaker 2: so to say right like and that would be you know,
Speaker 2: you got the double toll roid and then you have
Speaker 2: the plane of inertia in the middle. The reason why
Speaker 2: you don't go through the Earth's crust in that uh,
Speaker 2: in that layout would be because you have equal and
Speaker 2: opposite forces that are kind of making this plane of
Speaker 2: inertia which keeps us right at level right, whereas gravity,
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, like, why are we not
Speaker 2: being pulled down farther that?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't want to stick on it too long. It's
Speaker 2: just a yeah, curious.
Speaker 3: And that idea the plane of inertia, So that actually
Speaker 3: works off of artificial gravity. What do you mean, So
Speaker 3: the whole idea of like a rotation or a spin
Speaker 3: or anything that would create some kind of centrifugal force,
Speaker 3: it's artificial gravity. That's not what our current understanding of
Speaker 3: gravity is. Even Newton's laws are not our current understanding
Speaker 3: of gravity. It it works, the math works, but it's
Speaker 3: not our full in depth understanding of gravity.
Speaker 2: Okay, can you go into what our full understanding of
Speaker 2: gravity actually is right now currently? Say again, what is
Speaker 2: our full understanding of what gravity actually is? Then if
Speaker 2: it's not.
Speaker 3: Einstein's series his theory of special and general relativity, which
Speaker 3: so again we'll do this real quick. So Newton's came
Speaker 3: up with the three laws of motion in the sixteen hundred,
Speaker 3: law of inertia, law of acceleration, law of action and
Speaker 3: reaction if y'all want to, we can get a little
Speaker 3: bit further in depth into those. But after that, that
Speaker 3: is whenever we get Einstein showing up in the nineteen hundreds,
Speaker 3: he published the four papers in one year. They like
Speaker 3: to claim it as like his miracle year or whatever.
Speaker 3: But the first one is on photo electric effect, which
Speaker 3: he actually predicted the double slit experiment before it was
Speaker 3: ever even tested.
Speaker 1: Wow, let's go.
Speaker 3: Then we get into special theory of relativity, which this is.
Speaker 3: I try to again, science is very boring, so I
Speaker 3: try to paraphrase it without taking like the actual message
Speaker 3: behind it away. But special relativity or relativeivity, I can't speak.
Speaker 1: Words are hard. I get it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, let me expand this. So argues that speed
Speaker 3: of light is a constant for all observers, regardless of
Speaker 3: their movement related to the light source. This helped us
Speaker 3: with time dilation. This helped us with length contraction. This
Speaker 3: actually also led to his equation of equals mc squared.
Speaker 3: Then after that he came out with the general theory
Speaker 3: of relativity, which states where special relativity applies to inertial
Speaker 3: reference frames basically objects in rest or objects moving with
Speaker 3: a constant velocity with no other effects on them. General
Speaker 3: relativity is in reference to non inertial reference frames where
Speaker 3: accelerate and gravity are involved. So the way this works is,
Speaker 3: instead of basically the Earth pulling us down right because
Speaker 3: of a gravity or a some people like to say
Speaker 3: attractent or whatever your word to use for it, you're
Speaker 3: actually falling and the more basically mass that object has,
Speaker 3: the more obvious gravity that it's going to have. And
Speaker 3: what that does is imagine there's something called space time right,
Speaker 3: one word. It's one word. It's not space and time,
Speaker 3: but a conjoined of the two of them. Imagine you
Speaker 3: roll out the best way to explain this, if anybody
Speaker 3: at home wants to try this, do whatever, Lay on
Speaker 3: your bed or sit in the InStyle in your bed.
Speaker 3: You know that dip that you now create in your bed,
Speaker 3: if you put anything around that, where is it going to.
Speaker 1: Go towards you? It's going to roll towards the drop right,
Speaker 1: the dip.
Speaker 3: Right, So that dip itself is called a gravity well.
Speaker 3: And of course the heavier an object, the deeper the
Speaker 3: well is going to be. And instead of necessarily a
Speaker 3: force pulling you in, it's just more of a either
Speaker 3: aggressive drop you could say that you're doing, or a
Speaker 3: fall that you're doing. The issue is that it works
Speaker 3: in a infinite direction, meaning that like instead of like
Speaker 3: your bed to where it is only one sheet, it
Speaker 3: works in all directions to where you have this kind
Speaker 3: of hard to visualize like infinite well. I think that's
Speaker 3: the issue for a lot of people. Is really hard
Speaker 3: to visualize it. I think actually if you, Jonathan, if
Speaker 3: you wanted to look up, uh gravity what good gravity
Speaker 3: well diagram and then go to the images, I think
Speaker 3: there there was one that actually moved around, so it
Speaker 3: was kind of easy to see it. It basically pulls,
Speaker 3: not necessarily pulls, but bends space time to create that
Speaker 3: gravity well in all directions, so you see like everything
Speaker 3: kind of like converging in on whatever that stingular point is.
Speaker 1: Okay, So it's kind of like those those things back
Speaker 1: in the day when you go to the mall.
Speaker 4: Yeh little coins.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There, you you drop a coin, it would spiral and
Speaker 1: spiral and go down. But if we're talking towards our universe,
Speaker 1: that spiral would be the Sun and it's not stationary
Speaker 1: and flat. It's moving and it's pulling the coins with
Speaker 1: it and they're all try trying to fall into it,
Speaker 1: but they're unable to because they're trying to hit a
Speaker 1: moving target.
Speaker 3: Yes, so if you actually those those little wells that
Speaker 3: you can put the coin in, that is a great
Speaker 3: representation of how the Earth's work with actually using the
Speaker 3: Earth's gravity, because that's what's making it go down. Now, Uh,
Speaker 3: where's it at?
Speaker 2: So if it wasn't for the sun, would we not
Speaker 2: have space time? Then no, so space time itself. So
Speaker 2: when you look it back at like the Big Bang
Speaker 2: or whatever you want to consider, happen in the beginning,
Speaker 2: there was a expansion right before everything basically got like
Speaker 2: thrown out. That expansion itself was the so to say,
Speaker 2: fabric of space time, and it's still continuing to go.
Speaker 2: So things aren't actually necessarily moving. Some things do have
Speaker 2: a increased velocity than others because of some kind of
Speaker 2: external force, like if two objects blasted into each other,
Speaker 2: if some were kind of boomeranged from another thing's gravity.
Speaker 2: So there are things that are moving faster than what
Speaker 2: they necessarily should because of another force that was acted
Speaker 2: upon it. But it's actually that space itself, space time
Speaker 2: is expanding, So not necessarily like two objects moving away
Speaker 2: from each other, but that the space themselves are the
Speaker 2: space in between them is expanding. It's very stupid to
Speaker 2: put it in those kind of words. I'm gonna be honest,
Speaker 2: because it doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3: But it's like one of those science things to where
Speaker 3: like they think it makes sense, like instead of saying
Speaker 3: these two are separating from each other.
Speaker 4: The space in between is growing, but that actual.
Speaker 1: Is not six in one hand and a half dozen
Speaker 1: in the other.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, and you'll see that a lot with science.
Speaker 3: They like to make the gray area go in their
Speaker 3: preferred direction. Okay, But that that expansion that happened, that
Speaker 3: is actually space time itself. So before every all the
Speaker 3: material actually went out, the fabric, so to say, of
Speaker 3: space time was already expanding out.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, I've heard somebody make the argument that the
Speaker 2: universe can't be all there is because it only works
Speaker 2: like in a like a in a containment system. So
Speaker 2: imagine that the universe is held within something else, like
Speaker 2: like a container, just hyperoechality. No, I mean like space planets,
Speaker 2: all the shit that is out there in space, including us,
Speaker 2: it's all held with within something almost like there's some
Speaker 2: kind of force or some kind of something that is
Speaker 2: holding it all together. And that's why you know this
Speaker 2: this image rate here. I mean, I don't know how
Speaker 2: accurate it is. It seems like it's accurate, but like it's.
Speaker 3: Accurate on a three dimensional plane instead of a four
Speaker 3: dimensional Okay, So just that that well that you see there,
Speaker 3: imagine that if you can in infinite directions.
Speaker 2: But what is the blanket that is? That is.
Speaker 3: Space time one word, and I'm actually I've got something
Speaker 3: for that that I think you're gonna enjoy a lot,
Speaker 3: all right, Uh, specifically, I guess the uh I like
Speaker 3: to say spiritual instead of woo woo.
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't know why, like people had to put some
Speaker 3: kind of negative effect on woo woo.
Speaker 2: But because they disagree with it, right, that's really it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't. I kind of I kind of
Speaker 2: wear the woo woo as a badge of honor like somebody,
Speaker 2: I don't know, Like you know, it used to be
Speaker 2: like a demeaning term to call somebody a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 2: And now you know, they like we're right, so yeah,
Speaker 2: and it's like, you know, it's just the under fortune tellers.
Speaker 2: It's just the misunderstood, you know. They they look at
Speaker 2: it like oooooooooo magic. It's you know, I don't know,
Speaker 2: it's stupid.
Speaker 3: So once he established special and general relativity, we get
Speaker 3: the space time curvature to where gravity is not a
Speaker 3: force but a curve in space time. Large objects been
Speaker 3: the fabric of space time around them that can cause
Speaker 3: other things that are going near them to affect their path.
Speaker 3: Geodesics is the straightest possible path in curve space time,
Speaker 3: So that's basically like imagine a straight line. The geodesics
Speaker 3: are where it actually starts curving because of the curvature
Speaker 3: in spacetime itself. So it's still riding a straight line,
Speaker 3: but because the material it is writing on is bent,
Speaker 3: its path is now bent.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let me ask you this. Then that hole
Speaker 2: the ship that Jacob always tries to bring up like
Speaker 2: a sniper trying to hit something from two miles.
Speaker 3: Away into that. Yeah, okay, we're going to get to that,
Speaker 3: all right.
Speaker 2: Cool.
Speaker 3: So it came up with time dilation to where Tom
Speaker 3: runs slower in their massive objects. That's why you know,
Speaker 3: I have that constant saying of like if you were
Speaker 3: to actually get sucked into a black hole, you would
Speaker 3: be able to watch the universe basically end because Tom
Speaker 3: would slow down so much for you that everything else
Speaker 3: around it would basically go and fast forward. Oh, the
Speaker 3: movie Interstellar is fucking amazing. I love that to everybody
Speaker 3: to watch that. Yeah, yeah, they say that that's like
Speaker 3: the as far as I guess astrophysics go that's one
Speaker 3: of the most accurate movies to ever be made about it.
Speaker 2: Wow. All right, yeah, I like that even more now.
Speaker 2: I kind of figured that it was, you know, on
Speaker 2: some scientific shit you know about it, Like towards the
Speaker 2: end of the movie, whenever he's trying to talk back
Speaker 2: to his daughter or whoever he was talking to, and
Speaker 2: it's like he's right there, and I kind of just
Speaker 2: imagine that's where that's like where you know, the unseen
Speaker 2: forces are whatever they are, ghosts or angels or gods
Speaker 2: or whatever probably are.
Speaker 4: And it could be.
Speaker 3: So then we end up getting into uh, of course,
Speaker 3: light ends up bending in the presence of gravity, we
Speaker 3: ate gravitational waves, we get black holes. There's further field
Speaker 3: formulas for all this stuff, but I doubt anybody wants
Speaker 3: to actually get into that, because that's whenever you get
Speaker 3: into the formulas that like when you see the classic
Speaker 3: picture of like a fucking big ass blackboard that's got
Speaker 3: chalk fucking equations all over the entire thing. Yeah, that's
Speaker 3: the equations I'm talking about with that, I'm not I
Speaker 3: don't think anybody wants to get into that.
Speaker 1: That's that good will hunting shit.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Although Oddly enough, even though this is how we
Speaker 3: understand gravity, now, that's not how it actually works at
Speaker 3: the atomic level. So like whenever you get to atoms
Speaker 3: with electrons, protons, neutrons, because they're so small, you got
Speaker 3: to think the amount of mass they have, they obviously
Speaker 3: don't have a very large impact on space time. So
Speaker 3: the electromagnetic forces are actually stronger at that point in
Speaker 3: time than gravity is. So that's basically the controlling factor
Speaker 3: for atoms themselves.
Speaker 1: Right, Electrons will be negative, protons are positive, neutrons are neutral.
Speaker 1: So basically you have the electrons repelling against the nucleus
Speaker 1: but also being withhled and close enough two because of
Speaker 1: the electromagnetic force.
Speaker 3: Right, And that's when that's whenever when he came out
Speaker 3: with with special and general relativity, that's whenever basically quantum
Speaker 3: mechanics was born, because we kind of had the foundation
Speaker 3: for atoms being you know, more electrical than they were gravitational. Okay,
Speaker 3: so actually this is going to be one of the other,
Speaker 3: uh interactive things in the spiritual community. I'm trying to remember,
Speaker 3: is it that they believe that we're it's three dimensional beings? Right?
Speaker 2: Well, the physical body is a three dimensional being.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, so I have a little exercise for everybody.
Speaker 4: So obviously.
Speaker 3: With our eyes, we can notice length, right, and we
Speaker 3: can notice height, and we can notice width. Now, if
Speaker 3: if you and if you're in a car, please don't
Speaker 3: do this, just kind of track it in your mind.
Speaker 3: But if you walked forward, right, you realize that you
Speaker 3: went from this place to this place and it took
Speaker 3: a certain amount of time. Right. And if you're in
Speaker 3: a car, obviously you you were at this spot you
Speaker 3: drove and you realize you were here. So that is
Speaker 3: actually the fourth dimension. So congratulations everybody worth fourth dimensional beings.
Speaker 2: Now, time being the fourth dimension, space time, space time
Speaker 2: being the one word one word space time. Oh okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Go a little more on that one. So you're saying
Speaker 1: that basically the time that it takes from you to
Speaker 1: get from point A to point B is the fourth dimension.
Speaker 3: Yes, so the the basically the the traversing of the
Speaker 3: space comparative to the amount of time. And that's actually
Speaker 3: how we track a lot of the things that have
Speaker 3: moved through space, like for the distance that they have,
Speaker 3: because we can measure like the speed comparative to the
Speaker 3: distance and the equations that go into that, so that
Speaker 3: however they're traveling, Yeah, some of them are traveling a
Speaker 3: lot further than like you would have other measurement speeds
Speaker 3: like light years whatever, however fast that they're traveling, So
Speaker 3: that space time itself, that fabric of time, that measurement
Speaker 3: is our fourth dimension. Okay, And obviously we experience that
Speaker 3: because we, you know, move throughout space time itself. Even
Speaker 3: when you're walking, you're traversing through space time. You yourself are
Speaker 3: putting even a very minuscule dip or gravity well into
Speaker 3: space time.
Speaker 4: Now given it, it.
Speaker 3: Definitely isn't enough to overcome you know, the building that's
Speaker 3: next to you or anything like that. It's really not
Speaker 3: even enough to you know, warp any kind of roads
Speaker 3: or anything similar to that. Like a bug can still
Speaker 3: fly by you and not get pulled in because it's
Speaker 3: our mass isn't much at all.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, like a tree is a third dimensional
Speaker 1: entity because it doesn't move through space time, it's stagnant.
Speaker 1: Any object that is able to move from point A
Speaker 1: to point B at all, movement across this Earth is
Speaker 1: what classify as somebody or something as a fourth dimensional being.
Speaker 3: In the scientific community. I guess you could say that. Yeah. Now,
Speaker 3: I guess you could also argue that the tree is
Speaker 3: on Earth, which is moving through space time.
Speaker 4: Now, maybe you.
Speaker 3: Could argue whether the tree realizes that it is traversing
Speaker 3: through space time, that's what doesn't make it a fourth
Speaker 3: dimensional being. I guess you could.
Speaker 1: Say so, the acknowledgment is what makes it a fourth
Speaker 1: man or. But see now, when you say it like that,
Speaker 1: that's true. If again, if we are to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: the Earth is flying through space and that the entire
Speaker 1: Earth is moving, by that logic, pretty much everything on
Speaker 1: Earth would be a fourth dimensional dot dot dot because
Speaker 1: it is all moving through time space, correct, right, Okay.
Speaker 3: That's why I will argue this time and time again.
Speaker 3: I think that spiritual things are directly linked to scientifical things.
Speaker 3: I think scientific things are just our understanding of how
Speaker 3: the spiritual actually works. Like I a lot of this
Speaker 3: I try to stay away from, like religious matters. But
Speaker 3: like you could argue, whoever you believe and religiously like
Speaker 3: they have a certain manipulation of matter that they know
Speaker 3: about in order to do things like, for example, Jesus
Speaker 3: turning water into water. He like obviously he didn't like
Speaker 3: snap and it changed and it just automatically. There was
Speaker 3: a actual molecular change that was there. Now, whether he
Speaker 3: commanded the atoms to change, whatever you want to consider it,
Speaker 3: there's still a science there at the end of the day.
Speaker 3: There's still something you could observe and discover there. Like
Speaker 3: if they had instrumentation at that time to observe it,
Speaker 3: you'd think they, yeah, yeah, I would say that science
Speaker 3: is kind of like the long way around it, like
Speaker 3: obviously we can't to a certain extent manipulate things at
Speaker 3: will like that.
Speaker 2: Well, they do say that science is catching up to spirituality, right,
Speaker 2: like there's that old adage, but like, you know, who
Speaker 2: was it that created Was it the Chinese that created
Speaker 2: the yin yang? Right? And the yin and yang? You know,
Speaker 2: whenever you start what was it, like uh oh, there's
Speaker 2: some kind of sell or atom or something. Whenever you
Speaker 2: zoom all the way in on it, it looks like
Speaker 2: an actual yin yang and it's like damn, all right,
Speaker 2: well that's really cool. And you know, then you start
Speaker 2: to learn of the scientific benefits of meditation for example,
Speaker 2: or the scientific benefits to fasting for example, and and
Speaker 2: you know, all the all the shit. Yeah, I agree
Speaker 2: that science is definitely catching up. I don't want to
Speaker 2: say all the way there, because there's definitely still a
Speaker 2: lot of bought science out there. Yes, and that's probably
Speaker 2: what's hindering it from allowing it to go full on
Speaker 2: like al chemical in a sense. But but yeah, I
Speaker 2: do like the direction that's going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, in some aspects I saw that I saw the
Speaker 3: picture of I don't remember either whether like what kind
Speaker 3: of material it was, whether it was an atom or
Speaker 3: whatever it was, but the amount of accuracy that that
Speaker 3: thing had comparative to the yin yang was absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, dude, Yeah, I'm gonna try and find that
Speaker 2: because there is a term that I can't think of.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna search for it. But y'all keep on talking if.
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken. That was actually as you were talking
Speaker 1: about fluid mechanics earlier. It was more like the vortices
Speaker 1: of these two components that were entwined within each other,
Speaker 1: and whenever you track those vortices and take a snapshot
Speaker 1: of it while in motion, it is in the shape
Speaker 1: of what we would call a yin yang, but it's
Speaker 1: more along with the lines of fluid mechanics.
Speaker 2: Like you said, before I even researched it, it came
Speaker 2: to me it's quantum entanglements. That's what it is. The
Speaker 2: quantum entanglement shows the yin yang.
Speaker 3: And I'm gonna be honest, whenever I actually started doing
Speaker 3: further research into the quantum world, I was kind of
Speaker 3: upset because, like, yeah, I understood that it it has
Speaker 3: more to do with the micro level than it does
Speaker 3: the macro. But so like for example, string theory, right
Speaker 3: the way, it's a perfect situation to where two particles
Speaker 3: end up becoming entangled, and when they do, there's a
Speaker 3: lot there's basically a million more different things that can
Speaker 3: happen than that one perfect situation to cause them to
Speaker 3: be not linked together anymore. Same thing with the double
Speaker 3: slit experiment. The issue is there's so many other particles
Speaker 3: that those once those light waves or light particles where
Speaker 3: they could start out at bounce off of any other particle,
Speaker 3: they now become waves because they were observed they interacted
Speaker 3: with any other thing in general, So as far as
Speaker 3: quantum mechanics go, it's really only relatable in very very controlled,
Speaker 3: perfect scenarios like quantum computing cubits stuff like that where
Speaker 3: you can absolutely control everything involved it. As far as
Speaker 3: like in nature, it really doesn't happen a lot.
Speaker 4: So it's not.
Speaker 3: Like I know a lot of people whenever they first
Speaker 3: came up with a string theory, they were like, Oh,
Speaker 3: I wonder if there's another Earth, like somewhere, you know,
Speaker 3: across the universe, because you know, our atoms could be
Speaker 3: entangled and you know, basically representing each other across vast instances.
Speaker 3: And it just it sucked because I was like, that's
Speaker 3: there's no way, because there's way too many things that
Speaker 3: would cause it to become untangled. I guess you could say.
Speaker 1: There is a possibilility though there is a greater than
Speaker 1: zero percent chance that that sentence is accurate. However, I
Speaker 1: agree with you that it's like the chances of that
Speaker 1: are so minuscule I would personally call them negligible. But
Speaker 1: there there is still that slight chance for sure.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's there's a slight chance of a sentient
Speaker 2: fart in the universe that's greater than zero. Right like,
Speaker 2: in an infinite universe, anything's possible at that point, rightthing's
Speaker 2: in space.
Speaker 3: I fucking I love that show.
Speaker 4: Suh. They got a.
Speaker 3: Little bit wild for a little bit, especially like in
Speaker 3: the first season, but they.
Speaker 4: Pulled it back.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So I got a another little fun fact that I
Speaker 3: hope everybody will like. So there was a statement that
Speaker 3: was made. The statement was, according to general theory of relativity,
Speaker 3: space without ether is unthinkable, or in such space there
Speaker 3: would be no propagation of light and hence no possibility
Speaker 3: of existence. Do you want to know who made that statement?
Speaker 2: Sounds like an Einstein thing.
Speaker 3: It was indeed Einstein, and that was him basically coming
Speaker 3: out and saying that space time as one word, is ether.
Speaker 2: Ah, there we go. That's the fabric of you know,
Speaker 2: that's the bedsheet, right.
Speaker 3: It's not the same spiritual understanding as ether like originally was,
Speaker 3: but it you could argue it's a more precise definition
Speaker 3: or precise like example of what ether is. So the
Speaker 3: light waves are able to travel across space time because
Speaker 3: there's there's something actually there. There is space there, not
Speaker 3: as in like you know, you look up in the
Speaker 3: sky and you know you see space, but it's like
Speaker 3: there is a area for it to travel through.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like that idea.
Speaker 3: Nothing is very hard for us to grasp just in general.
Speaker 3: So there's obviously not nothing in between all of space.
Speaker 2: Right, it can't be emptiness like in the old the
Speaker 2: old adage that like nothing has never existed. It can't
Speaker 2: mean like it's never existed, So how can it be nothing?
Speaker 2: There's no such thing as nothing.
Speaker 3: And that's what they're actually working on a theory right
Speaker 3: now as to what was going on before the Big Bang.
Speaker 3: They have a name for it, but I can't remember
Speaker 3: off the top of my head, but it was basically
Speaker 3: like a just very very hot area. M yeah, they
Speaker 3: from what I was reading, they it's really not anything
Speaker 3: worth looking into yet.
Speaker 1: But it depends on the source too, because now we're
Speaker 1: talking about allegedly four point six to four point eight
Speaker 1: billion years ago or something like that, or even further back.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's like, where are you even getting
Speaker 1: the test to give you an age gap for that?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean. It's like you said, it's
Speaker 1: not worth committing a lot of thought to. However, it
Speaker 1: is an interesting thing to ponder. Well.
Speaker 2: A lot of those images that are coming from that
Speaker 2: that web telescope, James web telescope, dude, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know what to make of it. I mean, sometimes, yes,
Speaker 2: sometimes I think that space could be fake and gay,
Speaker 2: but then you look at those pictures and it's like,
Speaker 2: all right, that's that's interesting because it takes pictures of
Speaker 2: what our area of the universe looked like before it
Speaker 2: got here, and it's like, how are you even able
Speaker 2: to get that kind of information? But space is a
Speaker 2: fucking weird play student, and there's a lot of answers
Speaker 2: out there. You just gotta know how to get the answers,
Speaker 2: and I guess the James James Webb Telescope is one way.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know what to do with that information.
Speaker 2: You know, is that admitting big Bang? Or you know,
Speaker 2: is it admitting that there was a beginning? Some people
Speaker 2: say that there wasn't even ever a beginning, so whatever
Speaker 2: that is, I mean.
Speaker 1: I forget where I heard it said, but it was like,
Speaker 1: science makes a lot of sense, even even the most
Speaker 1: atheistic scientists out there. It all can make sense, but
Speaker 1: you have to account for at least one miracle in
Speaker 1: order for everything to make sense. Some may call it
Speaker 1: the Big Bang, and that's an overarching theme. But basically,
Speaker 1: like you said, nothing has ever not been right, Like
Speaker 1: all of this didn't come from just the nothingness. There
Speaker 1: had to have been something in the beginning at least
Speaker 1: in all measures of scientific academic name your fancy wordage,
Speaker 1: you have to at least account for the one miracle
Speaker 1: of the beginning of existence happening in some way, shape
Speaker 1: or form.
Speaker 2: If the beginning thing though, but if there ever was
Speaker 2: a beginning, you know, And there's an argument to be
Speaker 2: made on the other half or on the other side
Speaker 2: that like why are we to assume that there is
Speaker 2: a beginning and an end? You know, Like that's just
Speaker 2: the way our minds work. We watch a movie from
Speaker 2: beginning to end, we do our jobs from beginning to end,
Speaker 2: you know, and like all the different ways that you
Speaker 2: experience beginning and ending, and so that's kind of how
Speaker 2: our minds work. But like, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: that it has always been something has always been right, Like,
Speaker 2: there's no way that there was nothing and then there
Speaker 2: was something without something existing outside of that something or
Speaker 2: nothing in the first place. You can call that God,
Speaker 2: you can call that whatever the case may be. But
Speaker 2: it's either something existed outside of the nothing that allowed
Speaker 2: the something to happen, or the something has always existed,
Speaker 2: like that's the only two reasonable explanations, right.
Speaker 1: It's both at the same time, honestly, but I mean
Speaker 1: me with the religious side of it, it's very easy
Speaker 1: to see where I'm going next. But toance your point, yes,
Speaker 1: there had to be something existing outside of it, and
Speaker 1: something that has always existed. I'm with you one hundred percent, man.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and so not even speaking about like the beginning
Speaker 3: or the creation of the universe. When you're talking about miracles,
Speaker 3: we're going to talk about literally life starting on Earth itself.
Speaker 3: Like I still to this day, I don't believe in
Speaker 3: the evolution theory because the the statistical improbability alone of again,
Speaker 3: not even the universe itself starting, but life starting and
Speaker 3: not getting constantly destroyed over and over and over again
Speaker 3: on a repreditive cycle. Because of how many different things
Speaker 3: could take us out. It's almost insane to think that
Speaker 3: there's not a actual purpose.
Speaker 1: So you say evolution that you disagree with. You're not
Speaker 1: talking about adaptation slowly over. You're talking about complete species
Speaker 1: jumps from things like this, okay, making.
Speaker 3: Sure, Yeah, Now, adaptations are are natural, and you can
Speaker 3: have some that develop very quickly, you can have some
Speaker 3: that are more exaggerated that take a longer time, Like
Speaker 3: the tribes for example, that can you know, hold their
Speaker 3: breath for twenty minutes underwater because their whole you know,
Speaker 3: tribe has been diving for food and uh right whatever
Speaker 3: for you know, a thousand years. Meanwhile, they're going to
Speaker 3: get better over time.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, most of humanity, if your brain doesn't get oxygen
Speaker 1: for four minutes, you start to suffer irreputable brain damage. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: that tribe can go free diving for twenty minutes at
Speaker 1: a time. I'm with you one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: Now right, And fuck I lost my train of thought
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 1: Tom species jumping in evolution. How it's statistically impossible.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, like I'm not even talking about just like
Speaker 3: black holes, because like we can talk about quasars, which
Speaker 3: are absolutely fucking terrifying. Like you that, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 3: that to this day is the most destructive thing that
Speaker 3: we have observed in the universe. You're talking about a massive,
Speaker 3: massive load of energy literally getting shot out of a
Speaker 3: black hole like a plasma cannon, and it travels at
Speaker 3: the speed of light or right at it. I would
Speaker 3: argue that if we were going to get hit by
Speaker 3: one they probably wouldn't see it until it was too late.
Speaker 3: I don't I don't care what anybody says, like for
Speaker 3: I still have a problem with them trying to estimate
Speaker 3: how we might get hit with electrical storms from the sun,
Speaker 3: right like the solar winds from solar flares all that,
Speaker 3: because you're talking about Earth rotates at thousand miles per hour,
Speaker 3: orbits the Sun at sixty seven thousand miles an hour,
Speaker 3: solar system moving at four hundred and fifty thousand miles
Speaker 3: an hour, along with the galaxy moving at one point
Speaker 3: three million miles per hour. The there's just too much
Speaker 3: improbability there for you to tell me that, Like, you know,
Speaker 3: you can predict every single flare that we're going to
Speaker 3: come into contact with. I mean, not to mention some
Speaker 3: other flair that might be coming in from acause it
Speaker 3: continues to move if it doesn't have anything, you know,
Speaker 3: either absorbing it or impacting it or anything, because law
Speaker 3: of inertia continues to move, it'll it'll never stop until
Speaker 3: something interacts with it, So you can predict everything coming
Speaker 3: in like and it really bothers me whenever they try
Speaker 3: to talk about, you know, materials that are like a
Speaker 3: planet that's made out of a material or a meteor
Speaker 3: common or whatever that is so far away, or they can,
Speaker 3: you know, monitor what all these other planets are made
Speaker 3: out of. They literally still don't know if Saturn has
Speaker 3: a solid core or not, right, haven't. They haven't decided yet,
Speaker 3: So you have You can't decide that, but you can
Speaker 3: decide all these other things. Now, get the fuck out
Speaker 3: of here.
Speaker 1: They still don't know of Jupiter, like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: as a gas giant, we don't like as we know
Speaker 1: it has a core now, right, yes, yes, now. The
Speaker 1: only reason for the longest time we thought that it
Speaker 1: was just a giant ball of gas is because the
Speaker 1: hurricane that's on it, which by the way, has been
Speaker 1: changing shape for the past few years. It's pretty wild.
Speaker 1: It went from an oval to more of a solid
Speaker 1: circle form and we still have no fucking clue why
Speaker 1: that is. But that's pretty much on the surface, and
Speaker 1: we just thought that since that is a swirling ball
Speaker 1: of gas, the rest of it must be a swirling
Speaker 1: ball of gas. No, it absolutely has a solid form,
Speaker 1: at least in the center of it, and we have
Speaker 1: no idea what that's made of, right, absolutely, man.
Speaker 3: So now we're gonna get into a part that I
Speaker 3: would say is going to be Jacob's least favorite part.
Speaker 2: Oh, so that means it's gonna be my favorite part.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I like I like how I like how you
Speaker 4: scooed it out.
Speaker 2: You're like, all, let's go, Yeah, let's go.
Speaker 3: So numbers, okay, so we we know what variables are, right, So,
Speaker 3: like in an equation, a square plus b squared equals
Speaker 3: ce squared. Obviously A, b and C are variables. The
Speaker 3: issue is most people don't understand that numbers are also variables.
Speaker 3: So if you have the number two, right, two feet
Speaker 3: is different than two meters. Right, a meter is different
Speaker 3: than a foot. The two is the variable that is
Speaker 3: what can change. Right, And when we don't know all
Speaker 3: of the variables, the equation can looked correct, but it
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that it is so. Like for example, what
Speaker 3: is one plus one two? So if I have one
Speaker 3: pair of pants plus one pair of pants, I have
Speaker 3: two legholes at the bottom.
Speaker 1: You have two pairs of pants, but.
Speaker 3: I was looking for the amount of legholes at the bottom.
Speaker 3: But it can still be shown as one pair of
Speaker 3: pants plus one pair of pants. What you're saying is
Speaker 3: two one is a variable? Yes, contacts matters one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: And when we're in this kind of you know, universe,
Speaker 3: where there's so much context that we don't we still
Speaker 3: don't know about, you can't just simply say one plus
Speaker 3: one equals too, like in its simplest form, when we
Speaker 3: know what one and one represent, then yes, we can
Speaker 3: say that one plus one is two. But numbers are
Speaker 3: still a variable, same as A is a variable, B
Speaker 3: is a variable. And I think a lot of it
Speaker 3: is that science doesn't want to admit that. They want
Speaker 3: to admit that numbers are numbers instead of them being
Speaker 3: actual variables. They want to argue that they're very concrete. So,
Speaker 3: like a good example of this of a physicist, because
Speaker 3: numbers are variables, that means that they can be I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna say, manipulated, but misinterpreted. So in nineteen seventeen,
Speaker 3: Einstein was working on his general relativity equation, and his
Speaker 3: issue that he was running into was the equation was
Speaker 3: showing that the universe as it was moving would either
Speaker 3: collapse or expand. Because at the current time they thought
Speaker 3: the universe was static, they didn't think that it was
Speaker 3: still expanding. So he ended up having to force a
Speaker 3: constant lambdau, which is like the upside down the into
Speaker 3: the equation and it worked, and to a dramatic effect,
Speaker 3: he literally made the universe stop moving and the math worked.
Speaker 4: The issue is that later on.
Speaker 3: Edward Hubble made another test experiment that proved that Einstein
Speaker 3: was wrong and that the universe was continuing to move. Now,
Speaker 3: to further go into that issue, that constant now is
Speaker 3: being used in dark energy equations. Right when you don't
Speaker 3: know all the variables, you can't say the math is
Speaker 3: one hundred percent. And it's not like I say, it's
Speaker 3: not Einstein's fault because at the current time, the understanding
Speaker 3: was the universe was static, it wasn't moving. He didn't
Speaker 3: have all the variables. So he ended up making the
Speaker 3: numbers work, which you can do because again, numbers are variables.
Speaker 4: They're not concrete.
Speaker 2: Fudging the numbers so to say.
Speaker 3: And maybe not even that, because I would say that
Speaker 3: that adds a a malicious or yeah, a deceptive tone
Speaker 3: behind it. I think that science just like say straight
Speaker 3: line instead of oh well back to the pythagon pythagoreans.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 3: Ignorance, right, and yeah, it could be yeah, per definition, Yes,
Speaker 3: it could be ignorance of them just not knowing that,
Speaker 3: you know, the universe is moving. But the main issue
Speaker 3: is that it worked. So how many other equations, especially
Speaker 3: the physicists that we got going and now that you
Speaker 3: know they I'm not going to necessarily say that they
Speaker 3: haven't taken another look at like older equations, just to
Speaker 3: you know, rework them, see if there's different ways to
Speaker 3: work them, if there's things that we know about now
Speaker 3: that might be applicable to, you know, an equation that
Speaker 3: we had three hundred years ago. They may not be
Speaker 3: checking old math, so they may just be moving their
Speaker 3: ideas with flawed ideas. So it may not be them
Speaker 3: like just literally you know, being deceptive. It could just
Speaker 3: be them thinking they know what they're doing.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Science is ever changing and ever evolving in that regard,
Speaker 1: but usually when a new theory replaces an old one,
Speaker 1: it can explain why the old theory was accepted for
Speaker 1: the time and show why this now replaces it.
Speaker 3: Right, right, So like that's literally what general and special
Speaker 3: relativity did to Newtonian gravity. So it it like Newtonian gravity,
Speaker 3: the math still works, but relativity explains it in a
Speaker 3: more detailed and perfect, so to speak.
Speaker 4: Away, so it just matched better.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, So basically the scientists they're doing their best.
Speaker 2: They're not necessarily trying to deceive anybody. Some might not,
Speaker 2: some might not. For sure, yeah we can't. We can't
Speaker 2: you know, tie everybody into the same thing. But you know,
Speaker 2: we might think, okay, well this is what science has discovered,
Speaker 2: and so we're like, all right, well the science is
Speaker 2: they clearly figured it out. They understand you know, certain
Speaker 2: formulas and they and they know all of that. But
Speaker 2: it's like that's what they know for our time. It
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily mean that it's the truth. It's just the
Speaker 2: closest we were able to get to the truth in
Speaker 2: our allotted time of existence.
Speaker 3: Right, So, like, for example, we know that a majority
Speaker 3: of what we view as empty space is now mainly
Speaker 3: filled with dark energy, and dark energy is a newer
Speaker 3: concept that we still don't know a lot about, well,
Speaker 3: how many of the older equations worked because there was
Speaker 3: a dark energy variable in there that they didn't know about, right,
Speaker 3: you know, it is further expanding and further you know,
Speaker 3: it's mainly just about not necessarily like so for the
Speaker 3: flat Earth people, of saying like, oh, you're fucking stupid
Speaker 3: and lonely. Don't have that kind of attitude towards it
Speaker 3: and actually look at the work itself. See what you
Speaker 3: what knowledge we have now that might have changed our
Speaker 3: understanding of how things work, And a lot of it
Speaker 3: could be that, like there's so much stacked up that
Speaker 3: that would be too much rebuilding, Like they don't want
Speaker 3: to go back that far because for example, again like
Speaker 3: even though Newton's theories worked and relativity worked better, you know,
Speaker 3: maybe these old equations do work, but maybe there is
Speaker 3: a better understanding that we could have of it that
Speaker 3: could cause other things that you know, equation wise didn't work,
Speaker 3: they could not work.
Speaker 4: Sure, it's it's ever changing.
Speaker 3: That's what's really amazing about science and about physics. But
Speaker 3: I think a lot of them are just too resistant
Speaker 3: to change.
Speaker 2: Well, everybody wants to say trust the science, and it's like, dude,
Speaker 2: science isn't even necessarily looking to trust itself, Like that's
Speaker 2: not the goal of you know, trying to get to absolutes.
Speaker 2: It's not that, oh we trust it. So it's true,
Speaker 2: and that's why you know a lot of the people,
Speaker 2: especially within the flat Earth realm cannot fucking stand Neil
Speaker 2: de grass Tyson. I'm not even a flat earther, and
Speaker 2: I can't stand that asshole because it's just the the
Speaker 2: cockiness of I represent science and whatever you say is putrid.
Speaker 2: It's like your science is ever changing, so therefore you can't.
Speaker 2: How are you going to represent something that is constantly moving?
Speaker 2: You know, like it makes it's silly to me anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think I think a lot of why
Speaker 3: they put him on the front is because he does
Speaker 3: have a nice voice. He does have a a good
Speaker 3: show that he puts on to like keep people attracted,
Speaker 3: keep them entertained. But yes, his his such matter of
Speaker 3: fact way of speaking is really really annoying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get that. I mean Bill Nye was the
Speaker 1: same way for a while, wasn't he. He still is
Speaker 1: that guy back in the day, back when we were
Speaker 1: kids watching Bill and Iy the science guy. Right, he
Speaker 1: was entertaining and it was fun and it was this
Speaker 1: type of thing. You listen to him now saying that
Speaker 1: gender is something that's on a spectrum and it's like, oh, okay, bro.
Speaker 2: He's not even And the thing is is that he's
Speaker 2: not even a scientist. That's the crazy thing about Bill Knight.
Speaker 2: You're a fucking actor, bro. You know what I'm saying, Like,
Speaker 2: you know, stay in your lane.
Speaker 3: I just I can't stand back to what I said before,
Speaker 3: Like I can't use the example of him not being
Speaker 3: a scientist, because, like we talked about, you know, the beginning,
Speaker 3: people weren't and there are still people today. Like I
Speaker 3: was gonna suggest y'all did a possibly an episode about
Speaker 3: this one guy. But he ended up making his own
Speaker 3: time machine. He was like this not gonna say isolated guy,
Speaker 3: but he he was very smart. He ended up, you know,
Speaker 3: looking up a bunch of information, stole a couple what
Speaker 3: are the things on the pull of the power line's
Speaker 3: called transformers. Yeah, he stole a couple of transformers to
Speaker 3: try to create his own maybe time machine, maybe teleporter.
Speaker 3: From report, he got arrested, got put in jail, got out,
Speaker 3: did it again.
Speaker 1: I would love to know, as a former electrician, what
Speaker 1: he was trying to do with step down transformers to
Speaker 1: try to make a time machine. I'm not saying he's crazy.
Speaker 1: I just want to know where his mind was at.
Speaker 3: He shut off the power to the entire city at
Speaker 3: one point in time, that's how much power he was pulling.
Speaker 2: Did he have to get that bad boy up to
Speaker 2: eighty eight miles an hour?
Speaker 3: That's what ee, My guy was going way faster than that.
Speaker 3: He apparently like teleported a hamster and then he ended
Speaker 3: up disappearing himself after his final experiment he did or
Speaker 3: whatever he vanished. They don't know where he went.
Speaker 1: Not trying to be a dick, but do we know
Speaker 1: for sure vapor right right, I would say, the transport
Speaker 1: a hamster or fucking vaporize it. Yeah, he then did
Speaker 1: the same thing to himself. I don't know.
Speaker 4: He very well could have, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay, because I mean there is a certain level of
Speaker 1: electrical power that literally if you touch it, like I
Speaker 1: don't even know if there's math to know what the
Speaker 1: calorie output to your body would be. But it's more
Speaker 1: like they may find a pinky nail, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean? Like that's real shit.
Speaker 3: It's like no, it's like a lot of people don't
Speaker 3: understand like how powerful some of the.
Speaker 4: Materials that we have are.
Speaker 3: Like for example, we had a X ray machine there
Speaker 3: at the shipyard that we would h X ray castings,
Speaker 3: and uh, these castings are like six foot thick, and
Speaker 3: when it shot it it could do a X ray
Speaker 3: shot in about five seconds. The entire walls of this
Speaker 3: room were lined with ropes because once it was turned on,
Speaker 3: you had three seconds to go to a wall pull
Speaker 3: that rope to shut it all down. If not, you
Speaker 3: would actually get blasted with so much radiation that you
Speaker 3: will have molecular death before your cells ever even have
Speaker 3: a chance to mutate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and people don't understand that that's that is real science.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's if I'm not mistaken, it might be
Speaker 3: the strongest X ray machine in the world.
Speaker 1: I believe it, ma'am.
Speaker 2: So just out of cure. Is this the data that
Speaker 2: you're talking about, Mike Markham, Yeah, okay, so it's a
Speaker 2: tiny article. I just want to understand a little bit more.
Speaker 2: But it says Mike market in.
Speaker 1: His face, he looks like he's bugging out of his
Speaker 1: mind right now. But at the same time, when you're
Speaker 1: operating this high of a level, I mean, what is
Speaker 1: normal at that point?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, bro, if you're teleporting yourself, you've probably seen
Speaker 2: some shit, you know what I'm saying. But bro, he
Speaker 2: looks like.
Speaker 1: He's seen that.
Speaker 3: There's also probably a lot of static in that room.
Speaker 2: Probably yeah, no doubt, so, it says Mike Markham, the
Speaker 2: man who worked on a time machine and then mysteriously disappeared.
Speaker 2: There are many stories in the world about very ingenious
Speaker 2: people who have tried to create incredible technological devices capable
Speaker 2: of achieving what the scientific community tells us is impossible.
Speaker 2: This is the case of Mike Markham, a man who
Speaker 2: tried to create a time machine in his backyard, but
Speaker 2: it mysteriously disappeared in early nineteen ninety five. Mike Madman Markham,
Speaker 2: he looks like the Madman. He attempted to build a
Speaker 2: time machine and in the backyard of his home in Stanbury, Missouri.
Speaker 2: He began creating a device called the Jacob's Ladder and
Speaker 2: then it gets into the strained mechanism. He used a
Speaker 2: modified compact disc laser to reduce the air resistance between
Speaker 2: two poles. This would produce a continuous arc. You saw
Speaker 2: an unusual result when you turned the device on. There
Speaker 2: was a heat mark like you would see on hot pavement,
Speaker 2: but it was circular in shape, like a vortex. So
Speaker 2: he decided to throw a sheet metal bolt through the
Speaker 2: vortex to see what the effect would be and what
Speaker 2: would happen. He claims that it disappeared for about a
Speaker 2: half a second and reappeared a few feet away a
Speaker 2: second later. At the time, he was only twenty one
Speaker 2: years old and a student studying electrical engineering. Compared to
Speaker 2: his friends, you could say that Markham was quite intelligent. Apparently,
Speaker 2: Markham tried to build a time machine because he wanted
Speaker 2: to get future winning lottery numbers, as they all do. However,
Speaker 2: it had one problem. It needed a lot of energy
Speaker 2: to work. After some more testing, the CD laser caught fire.
Speaker 2: He figured that if he were to rebuild the machine again,
Speaker 2: he might as well use larger transformers. His original plan
Speaker 2: was to buy the transformers, but they were quite expensive.
Speaker 2: He resorted to the alternative. The local power plant had
Speaker 2: six old transformers, so Markham stole six transformers weighing over
Speaker 2: three hundred pounds at a Saint Joseph Lytton power generating
Speaker 2: station in King City, Missouri. While testing his experience, he
Speaker 2: caused a massive blackout in several blocks of his neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Moments later, Gentry County Sheriff Eugene Loopfer arrested him on
Speaker 2: a warrant at his home on January twenty ninth, nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety five, for stealing the transformers. His purpose is revealed.
Speaker 2: After several months in prison, Markham was released and then
Speaker 2: he was invited to be Art Bell's guest on Coast
Speaker 2: to Coast, Oh Shit. Another Art Bel guest there, Mike
Speaker 2: told the story of the screw and his plans to
Speaker 2: build a time machine. He promised that from now on
Speaker 2: he would do it legally. Markham told Art that he
Speaker 2: still had plans to do another experiment, but he had
Speaker 2: no money or spare parts. During the interview, he gave
Speaker 2: out his phone number in received NonStop calls for three days.
Speaker 2: The show really helped mark him a lot because many
Speaker 2: listeners shared ideas, funding, and spare parts needed to build
Speaker 2: his long awaited device. With this help and donations from
Speaker 2: his listeners, his next time machine project was more powerful
Speaker 2: and much larger than the last. Although the original engine
Speaker 2: ran at a kilowatt rate, this time it was designed
Speaker 2: for three megawatts because he wanted to test the machine himself. Additionally,
Speaker 2: Markham instaught a rotating magnetic field similar to the one
Speaker 2: used by the US military in the Philadelphia experiment. He said,
Speaker 2: rotating magnetic fields are more effective and efficient. Art Bell
Speaker 2: had Mike Markham as a guest again a year later.
Speaker 2: Markham claimed to be experimenting with a more sophisticated time machine.
Speaker 2: The electromagnetic vortex was large enough for a man to enter.
Speaker 2: The interview ended with Markham stating that he was about
Speaker 2: to generate the desired amount of voltage to make the
Speaker 2: machine work. When asked what he would what he would
Speaker 2: take with him if he were able to travel back
Speaker 2: in time, Mike said that he would take his cell phone,
Speaker 2: and at the end of the show, Mike decided to
Speaker 2: give his address instead of his phone number. During Markham's
Speaker 2: second and final appearance on The Art Bell Show in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety six, he said that he had thirty days
Speaker 2: to complete his cool time machine. Since then, nothing has
Speaker 2: been heard from Mike Markham. There are many rumors about
Speaker 2: him on various forums, theorizing about his possible fate. Shortly
Speaker 2: after Markham's disappearance, a listener called into The Art Bell
Speaker 2: Show to tell him about a strange story. A strange
Speaker 2: story that he had come across. In the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 2: police found a dead man on a California beach. He
Speaker 2: was crushed to death in a strange metal tube. The
Speaker 2: man was unrecognizable and the mysterious device was found near
Speaker 2: his body. The caller said the device looked like a
Speaker 2: cell phone. Was this man's corpse Markham himself, It's impossible
Speaker 2: to determine.
Speaker 1: Holy shit, my god here. In two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: Mike resurfaced on the Coast to Coast, claiming he was
Speaker 1: alive and well, but his house in equipment were destroyed
Speaker 1: in the fire. And then in twenty sixteen he moved
Speaker 1: to Hawaii and launched a GoFundMe campaign to try to
Speaker 1: recreate his experiment. And he's not been heard from since.
Speaker 3: And maybe he started the fires.
Speaker 1: Oh shit, the Maui fires were started by Mike Markham
Speaker 1: trying to jump into the future again. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, he's gone silent since twenty sixteen, So is
Speaker 1: it possible that he was able to complete the experiment
Speaker 1: and make the time.
Speaker 3: Jump at a It could also be because of maybe
Speaker 3: some kind of gravitational force. Maybe he died but also lived.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's in that uh, in that Matthew McConaughey dimension.
Speaker 3: It could be my guy literally went to Mike. My
Speaker 3: guy literally went to jail and said, when y'all let
Speaker 3: me out, I'm just gonna do it again.
Speaker 1: Fucking fucking do it again. And I mean, dude, if
Speaker 1: you look at the picture of this guy, I mean
Speaker 1: he clearly if he was going to school for electrical engineering,
Speaker 1: he was trying to do this. He had some sort
Speaker 1: of brain power. He he he looks.
Speaker 3: All he needed that all he needed was white hair
Speaker 3: and some hair gel and literally Doc Jones.
Speaker 1: Give him a lab coat and let him be an
Speaker 1: alcohol like that motherfucker is rick.
Speaker 4: There we go.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I love it people that don't have the
Speaker 3: title of scientists like they they do crazy shit all
Speaker 3: the time, and a lot of time it works.
Speaker 1: So there's also a lot of times in those experiments,
Speaker 1: not just with electricity, but there's a lot of times
Speaker 1: when shit really goes south when people fuck around like that.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, absolutely was that one.
Speaker 1: It was like a middle school kid that accidentally created
Speaker 1: a nuclear reactor in his backyard.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was another guy that created one on purpose.
Speaker 3: And then oddly enough, in shop classes, people accidentally create
Speaker 3: hydrogen bombs like pretty often, like just small, but they
Speaker 3: still have a pretty good destructive force. And I was
Speaker 3: I was very upset when I first started getting into
Speaker 3: the conspiracy community and I found out about the Philadelphia experiment.
Speaker 3: So my grandfather was working at the shipyard at the time,
Speaker 3: which the one he was working out is actually right
Speaker 3: across the river from the one that the ship teleported too.
Speaker 3: And then went back and I asked him. You know,
Speaker 3: first of all, I'm I waited a little bit because
Speaker 3: I was a little bit sketched out about asking my
Speaker 3: very very Christian grandfather if he heard anything about the
Speaker 3: ship that teleported. So finally, once I got the balls
Speaker 3: to ask him about it, he sadly he didn't remember
Speaker 3: hearing anything about it.
Speaker 1: Why Christianity doesn't have a dog in the fight on transportation.
Speaker 3: Old old Christianity views like Bible thumper, like to the
Speaker 3: max of uh that is dinner table or you're gonna
Speaker 3: get possibly backhanded.
Speaker 2: Yeah it must be the devil, Yeah, gotcha, those types.
Speaker 3: Yeah. He I mean, everybody gets older better with age,
Speaker 3: and he he mellowed out. And I think a lot
Speaker 3: of it too, was not necessarily him actually being like that,
Speaker 3: but me being a young kid and seeing like a
Speaker 3: stern man, it just gave me that vibe kind of
Speaker 3: like you you know, you don't want to bring any
Speaker 3: dumb shit to your grandpa, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel that.
Speaker 3: So going on to the Coriolis effect, So there's a
Speaker 3: lot of aspects that go into this, Like you could
Speaker 3: talk about weather patterns, you could talk about how the
Speaker 3: rotation might go into affecting a projectile's path. I really
Speaker 3: wish that they would actually separate these two things because like, yes,
Speaker 3: it's caused by the same thing to say, but it
Speaker 3: I feel like there really is a separation between weather
Speaker 3: patterns and projectiles.
Speaker 1: There is. Wait, I've never heard this be equated to
Speaker 1: equal things.
Speaker 3: Right, and it's a I guess like the effect can
Speaker 3: cause them both and that's why they lope it into
Speaker 3: the same thing. But I'm gonna be honest. As far
Speaker 3: as the weather patterns, I think it is pretty easy
Speaker 3: to say that it could be temperature differences along with
Speaker 3: pressure differences that cause storms in different areas to rotate
Speaker 3: in different directions with cooler errors coming up. So as
Speaker 3: far as the flat earth thing goes, I feel like
Speaker 3: they might have accidentally fell into like an easy one there.
Speaker 1: You've seen the experiment with the water on one side
Speaker 1: of the equator, versus the other. And then on the
Speaker 1: equator right.
Speaker 3: Where it goes down like how it actually rotates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you like stops the water and you see it stagnant.
Speaker 1: He pulls the plug out the bottom, and on one
Speaker 1: side of the line it goes one way, he stops
Speaker 1: it and does it. On the other side it goes
Speaker 1: the other way. And if you go on the equator,
Speaker 1: there's no spin. It just goes straight down.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So that's been proven to be fake. It doesn't.
Speaker 3: It has to do with the actual shapes and where
Speaker 3: the water is poured in at and how the angles
Speaker 3: and directions of the drains work. Same thing with the toilets.
Speaker 3: So that's actually not the Coriolis effect whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I'm not No, not the way he pours it in
Speaker 1: and then hits it, like he puts a little thing
Speaker 1: in the middle of divider and stops it and he
Speaker 1: like waits for him to get completely stagnant and then
Speaker 1: pulls it from the bottom. That's been proven false. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 4: And then as far as the projectile.
Speaker 3: I I will admit that projectiles definitely do have a
Speaker 3: Magnus effect to him, maybe not as much as some
Speaker 3: of the more spherical things. Like whenever you throw like
Speaker 3: a curveball. I guess that would be the easiest way
Speaker 3: to uh describe it. Magnus effect to where there's a
Speaker 3: pressure difference on the other side which causes it to curve.
Speaker 3: I would say that projectiles do have a Magnus effect,
Speaker 3: but because of their actual like streamline, I'm going to
Speaker 3: say it's probably not a lot so that I would
Speaker 3: find it hard to believe that they would prove the
Speaker 3: projectile thing as not being caused by rotation. Now, whether
Speaker 3: they want to say the flat disc itself is rotating,
Speaker 3: I mean, however they want to say it, because like
Speaker 3: I said, I'm I'm pointing out holes on both sides.
Speaker 1: My thing with the Coriolis effect with as far as
Speaker 1: projectiles go, take away rifles, any kind of those shots
Speaker 1: look at like artillery, right, look at like naval batteries,
Speaker 1: things like this. They absolutely have to account for the
Speaker 1: rotation of the earth. When it's a long shot like
Speaker 1: over my not you know, a couple thousand meters even
Speaker 1: like it has to be a very long shot to
Speaker 1: even make that worth it.
Speaker 3: But at that point in time, you're talking about, oh,
Speaker 3: we we can get into it after this, because I'm
Speaker 3: gonna end up getting into curvature after this.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is from JOHNS Hopkins, Yeah, Johns Hopkins newsletter.
Speaker 2: But it says water does indeed indeed drain clockwise clockwise
Speaker 2: fuck me, in the Southern hemisphere. It also drains counterclockwise
Speaker 2: in the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, it drains whichever way
Speaker 2: it desires, it desires, regardless of geographical locale. M So
Speaker 2: there you go, debummed.
Speaker 3: Right, So what we know about curvature is that it's
Speaker 3: eight inches per miles squares right, allegedly.
Speaker 4: Allegedly. Fuck.
Speaker 3: I always try to remember what the the ancient alien
Speaker 3: guys say.
Speaker 4: But aliens, yeah, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 3: I love that guy.
Speaker 1: I love like he became a meme and then found
Speaker 1: a way to capitalize on that and now he just
Speaker 1: goes around to comic cons and just does the thing
Speaker 1: and like makes the money. I am not mad at
Speaker 1: him for that, Like.
Speaker 3: Good for him, you know, no, absolutely not. So one
Speaker 3: thing that I find interesting about this I remember was
Speaker 3: it was it Dave that brought up that picture that
Speaker 3: he had to where the city skyline was like so
Speaker 3: far of a distance away from him, and they would
Speaker 3: say like it was because of a superior mirage. That
Speaker 3: was the reason why you could see it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I remember him saying it for sure.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's the first to come up
Speaker 1: with this, but we definitely had that conversation for sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So if anybody has a picture that they actually want
Speaker 3: to test this on and they can know the distance
Speaker 3: between like where you took the picture and where that
Speaker 3: you know building is, so of course we have the
Speaker 3: equation for curvature to determine like how far down it
Speaker 3: will be. We actually have two different equations for the
Speaker 3: superior mirage. We have a simplified one which can be
Speaker 3: used for everyday typical weather like where you have just
Speaker 3: your standard sunny day, not really high humidity or not
Speaker 3: really high like you know, moisture in the air, storms
Speaker 3: coming in, whatever. And then we have the complicated equation
Speaker 3: where you start factoring and the different things that can reflect,
Speaker 3: refract light, all of that stuff. In your typical fashion
Speaker 3: of having the simplified equation, it really only increases the
Speaker 3: mirage that you see by a couple feet, like if
Speaker 3: you have like a eighty foot building that you're seeing,
Speaker 3: and it should be like say, for instance, ten ten
Speaker 3: feet below the curvature on your typical day, you're not
Speaker 3: going to see that. It would have to be the
Speaker 3: weather would actually have to be almost so bad that
Speaker 3: you weren't going to see it to begin with because
Speaker 3: of the amount of shit in the air. So I
Speaker 3: wish I could actually like get all of that information.
Speaker 3: I tried to find it, but I didn't remember how
Speaker 3: long ago it was. But then again you would have
Speaker 3: to go through what kind of humidity they had at
Speaker 3: the time. So if you're someone like in you know
Speaker 3: that time to where you take that picture, you want
Speaker 3: to see whether you should be able to see that
Speaker 3: or not because of a superior mirage. There's a simple
Speaker 3: equation for it, and I can tell you that a
Speaker 3: lot of the time you shouldn't see it because, like
Speaker 3: I said, it to the max it could It could
Speaker 3: double the height of the building. Like if you had
Speaker 3: an eighty foot building and the weather was that bad
Speaker 3: to where it is refracting that much, Yeah, it could
Speaker 3: now be a one hundred and fifty foot building, like
Speaker 3: meaning that you see, you know, sixty feet going above
Speaker 3: the horizon. But for a typical day, yeah, it's only
Speaker 3: going to go up maybe a foot and I so
Speaker 3: I remembered one of the situations you were talking about,
Speaker 3: was what was that admiral that was associating Corrielist effect
Speaker 3: with him hitting his shots?
Speaker 1: Chung Lee. Yeah, so I I should say that. And
Speaker 1: that's not his real name. It was a nickname because
Speaker 1: he kind of had the squinty eyes and ya, but
Speaker 1: he wrote with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So that actually made me go into a whole
Speaker 3: entire investigation of that situation itself. So oh yeah, and
Speaker 3: at I couldn't find where he was attributing the Coriolis
Speaker 3: effect to like him hitting the shots. But I was like,
Speaker 3: I know for a fact that Jacob has probably seen
Speaker 3: and read an immeasurable amount more than me on military shit.
Speaker 3: So I got no doubt in my mind that's somewhere
Speaker 3: like they have him saying that, because he probably did.
Speaker 3: But I actually started doing the distance that they were
Speaker 3: taking the shots, the radar effects at the time, all
Speaker 3: of that stuff, because World War two was actually a
Speaker 3: revolutionary time as far as naval battles, because that was
Speaker 3: the war that we had the most battles at night,
Speaker 3: meaning that we relied more on radar for those situations.
Speaker 3: We had like all of the US battleships had new
Speaker 3: guns put on them that were completely like a whole
Speaker 3: new grade above what we had before. Yeah, so I
Speaker 3: ended up looking at a list of all of the
Speaker 3: different naval battles that they had at the time. So
Speaker 3: because of nighttime battles, because of new armament, they of
Speaker 3: course were taking way longer shots than what they typically would.
Speaker 3: So for example, the longest shot confirmed shot that anybody
Speaker 3: had it was thirty two thousand yards, So that ends
Speaker 3: up being two hundred and twenty feet.
Speaker 4: Below the horizon.
Speaker 3: You could say that maybe they just accidentally fired, but
Speaker 3: I'm gonna tell you now there there's no way in
Speaker 3: hell that you knew that that boat was there to
Speaker 3: begin with. Because the thing is, and like I told
Speaker 3: you before, yes, all of the people that try to
Speaker 3: measure curvature with light, that doesn't fucking work because we
Speaker 3: know for a fact light bends with gravity. Sonar bounces
Speaker 3: all around, and it also will get affected by gravity
Speaker 3: to some extent. Radar itself working off of microwaves, those
Speaker 3: do not get affected by gravity, you could say, either
Speaker 3: at all or barely whatsoever. That's why we can calculate
Speaker 3: like solar rays and stuff like that to the extent
Speaker 3: that we can. The issue is is that the radar
Speaker 3: that they had mounted to the top of the ship
Speaker 3: that they had that is also not going to see
Speaker 3: two hundred and twenty feet over the curvature. So there's
Speaker 3: no fucking way you knew that what was there.
Speaker 1: He was using it. The example I was talking about
Speaker 1: was him using it to hit land buildings and things
Speaker 1: like that. So he started he revolutionized the way that
Speaker 1: naval artillery is used to affect the ground troops. And
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, he also won a slew of
Speaker 1: naval battles ship to ship warfare. But he was basically
Speaker 1: using the long guns on the naval ship to be
Speaker 1: artillery from the sea. So he was hitting a stagnant
Speaker 1: target by using the measurements, and he didn't he didn't
Speaker 1: attribute his success strictly to the Coriolis effect. The thing
Speaker 1: was that he was so far away from this target
Speaker 1: that if he was just shooting it like it was stagnant,
Speaker 1: he was missing when he started accounting for and leading
Speaker 1: the target based off of where it would be when
Speaker 1: you account for the hangtime with the projectile, which we
Speaker 1: would now call the Coriolis effect, where it's going to
Speaker 1: be that's where that came from.
Speaker 3: Right, and yeah, and that makes sense. This is the
Speaker 3: ones that I was looking at. These were all like
Speaker 3: naval battles ship versus ship.
Speaker 4: So a ship that.
Speaker 3: Is two hundred and twenty feet below curvature, your radar
Speaker 3: is not seeing it. You're not seeing it because obviously
Speaker 3: even with a sphear of mirage, like you're not gonna
Speaker 3: it's not gonna be going up that high.
Speaker 1: Would my planes be able to radio back and give
Speaker 1: you the exact location on those though?
Speaker 3: That could be possible, but that was not in the reports.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair, and it's it's not an aircraft carry
Speaker 1: he was only destroyer.
Speaker 4: Ya.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I figured there would be communication
Speaker 1: throughout it's like a long ship.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there could be, but it's it's not just
Speaker 3: this was the longest one. The average was about twenty
Speaker 3: thousand yards where they were getting confirmed hits. That leaves
Speaker 3: curvature to about eighty to one hundred feet, which is
Speaker 3: still higher than the tallest ship during the during World
Speaker 3: War Two was the Yamamoto, which was about seventy feet
Speaker 3: without antennas, and antennas are too small with the rounded
Speaker 3: bars and all of that to accurately reflect back radar.
Speaker 2: So the eighty to one hundred feet or the two
Speaker 2: hundred feet that you're talking about, that would be the
Speaker 2: height at which it wouldn't be you know, wide eighty
Speaker 2: two one hundred feetorwo hundred feet you're talking about. They
Speaker 2: would have to angle that bullet or whatever they're shooting
Speaker 2: almost downward, or have some kind of peace of mind
Speaker 2: that would say, all right, I'm gonna arch this bullet
Speaker 2: up so high to account for the two hundred feet
Speaker 2: of curvature of where they're at.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and.
Speaker 3: So I was watching a video of this guy. He
Speaker 3: ended up writing a long range shooting like book. Basically
Speaker 3: whenever he was going into like using the Coriolis effect,
Speaker 3: it the Corellils effect itself, even whether you have a
Speaker 3: small round or something as large as what they were
Speaker 3: using on the ships at the time, the effects of
Speaker 3: the Coriolis effect on these actual rounds going through the air. Yes,
Speaker 3: if the earth is rotating, it does have an effect
Speaker 3: on it. But you're talking about a very minuscule effect
Speaker 3: comparative to wind patterns, comparative to you know, air pressures,
Speaker 3: comparative to any other thing affecting those So like the
Speaker 3: classic examples of the guys that were that have like
Speaker 3: the longest like actual rifle shots, like you know, of
Speaker 3: course American, I'm bringing up Chris Kyle. All of their
Speaker 3: shots one, none of them ever hit the person on
Speaker 3: the first shot.
Speaker 4: Two.
Speaker 3: Never once were they actually accounting for Coriolis effect. They
Speaker 3: were actually measuring wind speeds, measuring where their other shot hit.
Speaker 3: Because it it literally was like like you remember whenever
Speaker 3: we were younger and we were fucking playing tanks on computer,
Speaker 3: you know, in fucking school and shit, and you shoot
Speaker 3: your first shot and you see where it was, and
Speaker 3: then you're adjusting it.
Speaker 4: You know, that's what.
Speaker 3: Them and their spotter are doing. It's you're not going
Speaker 3: to hit that shot on the first try, obviously if
Speaker 3: you're shooting at you know, two thousand yards, because there's
Speaker 3: so much there's so many other variables that are affecting
Speaker 3: it other than the Coriolis effect itself. Now, if you're
Speaker 3: shooting at a target like what Jacob was talking about,
Speaker 3: to where one they are not only stationary, but you
Speaker 3: obviously can can You're going a lot lot longer distance
Speaker 3: of like thirty thousand yards, yeah, obviously at that point
Speaker 3: in time, you want to do Coriolis effect type equations
Speaker 3: to figure out where it can go. But there's so
Speaker 3: many other factors that go into it. But my main
Speaker 3: issue is the curvature itself, not even talking about the
Speaker 3: Coriolist effect, but the curvature of like, you know, you
Speaker 3: taking a thirty to twenty thousand yard shot, you know
Speaker 3: you're talking about one hundred to two hundred feet of
Speaker 3: curvature of you not seeing that ship whatsoever, of most
Speaker 3: of the things being at nighttime, I'm just none of
Speaker 3: the information was there about maybe you know, aerial assistance
Speaker 3: or another ship being in the area. So I will
Speaker 3: look further into it to see if they have anything
Speaker 3: in there about it, but as of right now, I
Speaker 3: did not see anything in there about that.
Speaker 1: So he actually had to get with the Naval Ordinance
Speaker 1: Group and tell them that their charts were incorrect because
Speaker 1: he was able to accurately make shots at ten miles
Speaker 1: away and they were saying that can't be because these
Speaker 1: charts show this, and he was like, Okay, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm fucking wrong. Hey, let me know what's about to happen,
Speaker 1: and this, you know, I'm telling you the man was
Speaker 1: another level of weaponized autism.
Speaker 3: And I'm not gonna lie to you. I also thought
Speaker 3: of the idea of is this science being wrong or
Speaker 3: is this military pledging numbers? Yeah, you know, kind of like, oh,
Speaker 3: look at how big this fucking fish I caught.
Speaker 1: Uh huh, Look I'll tell you what. Go check out
Speaker 1: the fat electrician. He did a video on ching Lee
Speaker 1: and he talked about how this happened over the course
Speaker 1: of time where basically the Navy had to decide, look,
Speaker 1: if the man said he's doing this, let him fucking go.
Speaker 1: Because he had a lot of haters. He had a
Speaker 1: lot of people that were saying like, oh, that can't
Speaker 1: be well, that's why do you need those types of
Speaker 1: guns on that ship. He's like, cause I fucking said, so,
Speaker 1: now give me what I asked for. And then he
Speaker 1: kept getting w's So they were like, hey, hey, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna let your man rock because in that time, yeah,
Speaker 1: you still had the old school military ways of things
Speaker 1: where they wanted to structure in the order and you
Speaker 1: have to do this and get it approved by these
Speaker 1: people and do And then there was the guys that
Speaker 1: were like, hey, listen, listen, is he winning, then let
Speaker 1: him fucking ride. So it was I highly advise people
Speaker 1: to go check him out. Also, I'll shamelessly plug him
Speaker 1: the Fat Electrician on YouTube. Go subscribe. He's fucking great
Speaker 1: and he's hilarious. But anyway, yeah, no, you go, that's
Speaker 1: a it.
Speaker 3: It's kind of an up, up and down of like
Speaker 3: figuring out, you know, when you're looking at documents like this,
Speaker 3: because I mean, obviously we know that history may not
Speaker 3: all be alive, but there's definitely lies in there. So
Speaker 3: what does it matter if you know they confirmed a
Speaker 3: shot that you know, wasn't as far as they actually
Speaker 3: said it was, especially because I think the longest one
Speaker 3: actually wasn't a American ship if I'm not mistaken, It
Speaker 3: was a Japanese ship that actually hit that distance.
Speaker 1: Damn.
Speaker 2: I mean, there is a lot of factors that would
Speaker 2: go into that, like you know, obviously the weight of
Speaker 2: the bullet, the force in whenever that force starts to die,
Speaker 2: there's gonna you know, you have to add that kind
Speaker 2: of math into it. And then there's also like the
Speaker 2: atmosphere and you're dealing with mist off the oceans and
Speaker 2: the winds that are all coming in. So for this
Speaker 2: guy just to say, oh yeah, I was. I was
Speaker 2: calculating the Coriolis effect, and every time I was pinpoint
Speaker 2: spot on, it's like, all right there, gipper, I'm just
Speaker 2: gonna take a word for it at that point.
Speaker 1: But at the same time it hits a hit.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, sure.
Speaker 3: And I interestingly enough, a lot of the time back then,
Speaker 3: with it being more nighttime battles, there was a lot
Speaker 3: more friendly fire. M So who's to say who was
Speaker 3: claiming shots that they didn't even shoot. So this is
Speaker 3: one part that I was actually I started doing and
Speaker 3: more investigating in because I'm not gonna say that I
Speaker 3: want to.
Speaker 4: Encourage the Flat Earth.
Speaker 3: Group, but I do want to try to point them
Speaker 3: in more physics directions. So like, for example, through the
Speaker 3: theory of general relativity, we understand that the Earth doesn't
Speaker 3: have to be spinning to have gravity. It doesn't necessarily
Speaker 3: have to be a certain shape to have gravity.
Speaker 4: It just needs to be heavy as fuck.
Speaker 3: So you know, you could have whatever type of shape
Speaker 3: that you could argue that if it does have corners,
Speaker 3: then it could create some kind of gravitational anomalies to
Speaker 3: where you would have a you know, a spike of
Speaker 3: gravity in this area because of the shape or indent
Speaker 3: that it is leaving in space time itself. But we know,
Speaker 3: I don't understand how they can confirm this one hundred
Speaker 3: percent still this day, because we've been what twelve I
Speaker 3: think it's twelve miles into the crust. That's the furthest
Speaker 3: we've actually physically gone. But we know our core is
Speaker 3: mainly made up of iron and nickel, right, and these two,
Speaker 3: along with the other things that are in there being
Speaker 3: heated up at a large fucking amount. They're hot of shit,
Speaker 3: creating currents inside of more dense things you know, of
Speaker 3: course going to the bottom or to the center. I
Speaker 3: guess you could say lighter things going to the top.
Speaker 3: It creates convection currents which interacts with the outer core,
Speaker 3: which then causes a dynamo effect, and that effect causes
Speaker 3: the actual elector magnetic field that we get, right, which
Speaker 3: actually the the Earth is considered to be a dipole magnet. Yeah,
Speaker 3: the field itself is actually called a longitudinal field. The
Speaker 3: way it goes is magnetism on the outside flows from
Speaker 3: north to south, and then on the inside flows south
Speaker 3: to north.
Speaker 4: The issue like.
Speaker 1: A double toroid image Jonathan, do you pull up all
Speaker 1: the time if you were to equate that to the
Speaker 1: magnetism of the Earth. I think that's kind of what
Speaker 1: you're going with here.
Speaker 3: And that's what can you can you pull that up
Speaker 3: real quick because I'm trying to remember what it looked like.
Speaker 1: Like a donut basically with the Earth not at the center,
Speaker 1: but kind of it's like a doughnut that is within
Speaker 1: and eating the Earth at the same time. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I've always and that's the thing too, Like you said,
Speaker 1: the whole if the Earth had corners like it could
Speaker 1: have its own gravity, and if it was big enough,
Speaker 1: which is true. But if this was the Earth and
Speaker 1: gravity being what we know now, and mass and these
Speaker 1: things being what it is, the heaviest point of it
Speaker 1: would be at the center. And if that was the case,
Speaker 1: the gravity from all sides would collapse itself to this essentially.
Speaker 3: And we are actually about to get into that because
Speaker 3: there is an issue that I have with modern science.
Speaker 4: So the issue with the.
Speaker 3: Toy, I'm gonna fuck up saying it to tor Rope,
Speaker 3: please thank you, all right, got you, Doug. So I'm
Speaker 3: curious as to what is causing the separation there of
Speaker 3: the negative and positive field, because through magnetism, we know
Speaker 3: that those two would actually flow together.
Speaker 1: Would that be the same as saying, what's causing the
Speaker 1: separation between a north pole and a south pole on
Speaker 1: a magnet.
Speaker 3: Well, that's basically what that's the So the field right
Speaker 3: here is exactly what we have, except of the separation
Speaker 3: through the middle.
Speaker 1: But a magnet has a middle point, right that is
Speaker 1: not north or south. Now it's like that very line
Speaker 1: that we would maybe think of maybe the equator or
Speaker 1: am I completely off base here?
Speaker 3: No, So there there is a even flow. So there
Speaker 3: is no like literal, no magnetism part at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess that's true. When you put a magnet
Speaker 1: in the middle of some iron shavings, they create the toroids,
Speaker 1: but there's no line in the middle.
Speaker 3: I'm with you, right, So this, this field itself would
Speaker 3: actually flow into itself and it would go if you
Speaker 3: flip it upside down. That's actually what we would have
Speaker 3: because we know that the poles have switched whatever. That's
Speaker 3: why the so our geographic north pole is actually our
Speaker 3: magnetic south pole. Mm. That's why you see like the
Speaker 3: flow actually goes from the bottom up. It's because it
Speaker 3: flows from north to south on the outside and south
Speaker 3: to north on the inside.
Speaker 1: I'm with you.
Speaker 2: It's actually the same as the like the human energy field.
Speaker 2: Not to get too woo woo here, but I know
Speaker 2: that like during like if you do like some certain
Speaker 2: kind of guided meditations and you imagine that there is
Speaker 2: some kind of energy that is going from the top
Speaker 2: of your head down through your body down to your feet,
Speaker 2: and then you're supposed to picture that that energy is
Speaker 2: going through you and around you and then back up
Speaker 2: through the top again. And you know that's just like
Speaker 2: I don't know, I like that kind of shit.
Speaker 4: That's so yeah.
Speaker 3: So scientifically, that's how we know magnetism itself works. That's
Speaker 3: literally how it works, which is weird.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And it's another fun fact. Did you know that literally
Speaker 3: everything can be magnetized.
Speaker 1: I did not.
Speaker 4: Yeah, everything.
Speaker 3: So magnetism all it is is a organization of particles.
Speaker 3: That's why if you smack something that's magnetic super fucking
Speaker 3: hard with like a hammer or whatever, it actually will
Speaker 3: reduce the magnetism because you're shaking up the particles. If
Speaker 3: you heat it up, then it completely right, right, because
Speaker 3: the particles start moving around because heat is energy. Particles
Speaker 3: have energy, they move around more so they become unorganized.
Speaker 3: So magnetism is only all it is is the particles
Speaker 3: becoming aligned and orientated. So you can magnetize a piece
Speaker 3: of wood anything. You just have to have a strong
Speaker 3: enough magnetizing force. So like for example, when you do
Speaker 3: magnetic are electromagnetic testing with like empty to test welds
Speaker 3: for like defects, cracks, whatever. So the Earth itself has
Speaker 3: a at the poles a sixty microtesla's magnetic force, Like
Speaker 3: that's how strong the magnetic field is at the equator.
Speaker 3: It's about thirty. That is relatively weak for a magnetic
Speaker 3: field like something we hold in our hand can easily
Speaker 3: put out like one hundred, two hundred, seven hundred microteslas.
Speaker 3: We have things that put out mega teslas. So actually,
Speaker 3: if the another odd fact, if the Earth's magnetic field
Speaker 3: was strong enough, it would actually start collecting iron inside
Speaker 3: of the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 4: Because that gap.
Speaker 3: So magnetism flows across the surface first and then it
Speaker 3: starts bas clee bowing out. So we have magnetism all
Speaker 3: across the surface of the planet that actually will create
Speaker 3: a new there and there is a new north and
Speaker 3: south pole inside of gaps. So for example, the Grand Canyon,
Speaker 3: so there is actually another north and south pole inside
Speaker 3: of that. But the issue is that the magnetic field
Speaker 3: is so weak that it's it's not going to be
Speaker 3: strong enough to pull anything to it.
Speaker 1: Wow, I've never heard that before. You're talking about like
Speaker 1: when you bring a compass down there starts going to
Speaker 1: a different direction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so it because of you. So if you go
Speaker 4: to the.
Speaker 3: I think it's the north side, because of how our
Speaker 3: magnetic field works. If the magnetic field inside of wherever
Speaker 3: you're at is stronger, yes, it could end up showing
Speaker 3: north as being south.
Speaker 1: Wow. That is insane.
Speaker 3: So yeah, there you go. Anything can be magnetized. You
Speaker 3: can take a piece of plastic and you know, put
Speaker 3: it up. The issue is, so we have something called
Speaker 3: a Hysteresis sloop, which is an equation that involves like
Speaker 3: how easily something can be magnetized, how long it'll stay magnetized,
Speaker 3: how easy does it give up. Magnetism can be associated
Speaker 3: with time, It could be associated with outside forces, some
Speaker 3: things like just magnetic elements that we have themselves. They
Speaker 3: absolutely fucking love being magnetized so much that they align
Speaker 3: and orientate their own molecules to become magnetized.
Speaker 1: In general, you're teaching me new stuff here, bro, I've
Speaker 1: only heard of haystoricity being talked about with like an instrumentation.
Speaker 1: You have certain metals that will give and bend and
Speaker 1: give and bend, and after a while, because of historicity,
Speaker 1: the metal will crack and the instrument will need to
Speaker 1: be changed out more or less a fancy term for
Speaker 1: the wear and tear, correct, right, right?
Speaker 3: So, yeah, so we have a it's a loop that
Speaker 3: I think the beginning part is the ease at which
Speaker 3: it can be magnetized. The second part is how well
Speaker 3: it holds that magnetism, and then the third part is
Speaker 3: how quickly it will release that magnetism. So, yes, you
Speaker 3: can magnetize a for example, a piece of wood. It's
Speaker 3: just once you get rid of that magnetizing force, it'll
Speaker 3: probably get rid of the magnetism so fast that you
Speaker 3: wouldn't be able to use it as a magnet.
Speaker 1: And if I'm not mistaken, conductivity and magnetism aren't necessarily related,
Speaker 1: but they are kind of connected in some way.
Speaker 3: Right. There's there's so many fields across science that are
Speaker 3: so closely related that like yeah, they could easily go
Speaker 3: hand in hand like those two, or like sound waves
Speaker 3: comparative to light waves comparative to electromagnetic waves, Like yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean you're talking about three things that we all
Speaker 3: measure with frequency, right.
Speaker 1: I guess that's true. When we start talking about things
Speaker 1: that are measured or at least observed in wave form,
Speaker 1: it can start to like Jonathan says, it may not
Speaker 1: be the same, but it rhymes if you will.
Speaker 3: Right, And I would argue that they are the same
Speaker 3: for different purposes. So like, for example, we know that
Speaker 3: light travels really well and it bounces around really well,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't penetrate really well. We know that sound
Speaker 3: doesn't travel all that well unless it's through a really
Speaker 3: good medium, but it penetrates really well. We also know
Speaker 3: that electromagnetism is kind of really the best of everything.
Speaker 3: It goes through where they well, it penetrates really well.
Speaker 3: I would say that there's there's different purposes of it,
Speaker 3: like we talked about before with them doing laser therapy,
Speaker 3: and then you know you're using a light source measured
Speaker 3: in frequency not given there are different other like you know,
Speaker 3: things that go into it with pulse rates and focus
Speaker 3: beams and shit like that. But you're you're still using
Speaker 3: light waves to heal. But we have matt rife using
Speaker 3: sound waves to heal. One of them goes through your skin,
Speaker 3: one of them doesn't, right, I mean, we could have
Speaker 3: different different things that do the same for different reasons.
Speaker 1: Heat is another one, right, that's also measured in waves,
Speaker 1: and it transfers very differently depending on the medium that
Speaker 1: you're talking about with it.
Speaker 3: So I'm with you, harm or And then that's another
Speaker 3: fun fact, y'all. I don't know if I've ever heard
Speaker 3: I'll talk about this before, but did you know that
Speaker 3: cold doesn't exist?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just the absence of heat. Yeah, it's kind
Speaker 1: of doesn't exist. It's the absence of light, or even
Speaker 1: it doesn't exist, it's the absence of good yea.
Speaker 3: So it's it's literally the so as far as cold,
Speaker 3: as far as darkness, both of them are the absence
Speaker 3: of energy. Wow. Yes, indeed, So back to what we
Speaker 3: were talking about with the core, and so we know
Speaker 3: it's iron and nickel. It creates the electromagnetic field. Uh,
Speaker 3: this is a very interesting thing. So as you go
Speaker 3: deeper into the Earth, the less gravity gets, meaning that
Speaker 3: once you get to the core, gravity is actually very
Speaker 3: minimal because the majority of the mass is above you,
Speaker 3: and as you get to the actual center there is
Speaker 3: absolutely no gravity whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So real quick, you're talking about on land, correct, because
Speaker 1: in the water, the deeper you go down, we're talking
Speaker 1: more of pressure on all sides.
Speaker 4: Two different things, right right.
Speaker 1: I'm just making sure we're on the same conversation. You're
Speaker 1: talking about if you were too, hypothetically try to dig
Speaker 1: a hole of China. Yes, I understand some possible, but
Speaker 1: for the example, bear with me talking about if we
Speaker 1: were to dig a ten mile deep hole. You're saying
Speaker 1: that at the bottom of that ten miles into the
Speaker 1: Earth's crust, there would be a least or excuse me,
Speaker 1: less gravitational pull on you than if you were at
Speaker 1: sea level.
Speaker 4: Yes, wow, yeah, so I actually heard that before.
Speaker 3: They I don't, I don't necessarily think it is one
Speaker 3: hundred percent true, but they say that like where we are,
Speaker 3: like right at the edge of the crust is where
Speaker 3: gravity is the strongest, and the further we go up,
Speaker 3: the weak Here it gets because I understand there they're saying,
Speaker 3: because obviously there is no actual solid mass above us,
Speaker 3: and as you go further down, there is less mass
Speaker 3: causing a gravitational well. So like that well, the further
Speaker 3: you go down, the less the well is actually affecting you.
Speaker 1: Do we actually know how different that is? I assume
Speaker 1: it's like negligible but also measurable, similar to atmosphere pressure
Speaker 1: at sea level versus atmosphere pressure at the peak of
Speaker 1: a mountain. It's noticeable on a like with an instrument
Speaker 1: or something calibrated to register it. But it's not like
Speaker 1: we as human beings, if you were at one point
Speaker 1: versus the other, it wouldn't be something you would really
Speaker 1: feel that.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I know there are some very
Speaker 3: deep underground installments that we have across the world to
Speaker 3: where I would be very interested to see if there
Speaker 3: are measurable effects of that.
Speaker 1: That is interesting.
Speaker 3: But wow, one of my issues with this is so
Speaker 3: theory relativity. We understand core the Earth, there's no gravity,
Speaker 3: so you no longer have denser materials sinking to the bottom,
Speaker 3: but you still have a centrifical force. So how are
Speaker 3: we actually creating convection currents caused by sinking of more
Speaker 3: denser materials and hotter materials moving around to interact with
Speaker 3: the outer core to create the dynamo effect to create
Speaker 3: the magnetic field. If density doesn't matter. Density doesn't matter
Speaker 3: without gravity, right, Like density is a part of gravity.
Speaker 3: Density and mass are the same, like I, I don't
Speaker 3: care what anybody says, the same thing. So mass doesn't
Speaker 3: matter without like actually having a force there. So how
Speaker 3: is there that convection current whenever there's no gravity in there?
Speaker 1: So? Could it be because they are so hot? It's
Speaker 1: more or less like they're boiling unto themselves and creating
Speaker 1: their own current, creating their own spin, so to speak.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that, like I know this is
Speaker 1: purely hypothetical.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that could be.
Speaker 3: But the issue is is that they've actually So this
Speaker 3: is one of the I think flat earth arguments about rotation,
Speaker 3: because rotation does have a little bit to do with
Speaker 3: the gravitational pull and the density of the materials to
Speaker 3: where it Without the rotation, you can't have the magnetic
Speaker 3: field because that outer core rotating again, because obviously there's
Speaker 3: a liquid underneath it, whether it is incredibly fucking dense
Speaker 3: because of pressure, that interaction between the liquid and the
Speaker 3: solid rotating. That is what's causing the actual dynamo effect
Speaker 3: and the electrical current to be created.
Speaker 1: So think about it like a.
Speaker 3: I don't want to say, like the same thing as
Speaker 3: us having static through the atmosphere, because the atmosphere is
Speaker 3: creating friction comparative to the surface of the Earth. Yes,
Speaker 3: it's the same action, but inside of there, but with
Speaker 3: no gravity.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I guess, like, uh shit, have yo seen
Speaker 1: those as a kid? Do you remember seeing those little
Speaker 1: plastic eyeballs that like you could roll across the ground,
Speaker 1: but the eyeball inside of it was liked in oil,
Speaker 1: and the eyeball didn't move, but you were able to
Speaker 1: slide across the ground. So it's something more akin to this.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say so, because you're you're still talking about
Speaker 3: two metals. So the the density of the iron compared
Speaker 3: to the nickel. Nickel helps go up, iron helps go down.
Speaker 3: Without gravity, you don't have that sinking or rising, and
Speaker 3: you actually only have the it. So the centrifugal force
Speaker 3: is very small because it being so far in. You know,
Speaker 3: we bulge out at the equator because of that, because
Speaker 3: the further you go out, the more of a force
Speaker 3: you experience from it. But on the inside. It's still there,
Speaker 3: it's just not as strong. But now, when you're talking
Speaker 3: about in a zero gravity environment, it doesn't have to
Speaker 3: be strong to create a you know, force to push
Speaker 3: everything out to the outside. Okay, So I'm actually I
Speaker 3: find an issue with this, and I'm trying, like I said,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to give not necessarily flat Earth, there's a
Speaker 3: a motive, but like maybe kind of push them more
Speaker 3: into a physics based understanding of things to where they
Speaker 3: can actually fight fire with fire, because I want them
Speaker 3: to explain this to me. I haven't seen anything about this.
Speaker 3: So we know that there's no gravity. We know that
Speaker 3: centrifugal force acts without gravity no matter what, so that
Speaker 3: force is easy to overcome the minimal gravity there, so
Speaker 3: that there's no current created. All of the dense materials
Speaker 3: are going to be scattered to the outside wall of
Speaker 3: the inner core, so there's not going to be any
Speaker 3: convection currents.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest. I don't think I've heard any
Speaker 1: flat earthers say that they believe that there's iron and
Speaker 1: nickel inside of the Earth. And again I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's a throw shade to all the flat earthers, most
Speaker 1: of them, from what we have had conversations about and everything,
Speaker 1: don't believe that there's molten metal anywhere beneath our feet.
Speaker 2: They don't think that it's paper thin or anything like
Speaker 2: that either, Like no, no, no, I don't want to make
Speaker 2: assumptions as to what they believe is underneath, you know.
Speaker 3: And I think that's what issue a lot of physicists
Speaker 3: have is like they look at the disc model instead
Speaker 3: of just understanding that they're talking about the surface being
Speaker 3: flat or even just flat ish. Maybe it doesn't have
Speaker 3: to be completely level, but they can keep looking at
Speaker 3: it as a just a fucking CD disc flying through space.
Speaker 2: It's like the argument of like which one's better Republican
Speaker 2: or Democrat, like you know, like the flat earth versus
Speaker 2: the globe eirth. And it's like so many people are
Speaker 2: so caught up in these two dichotomies that they will
Speaker 2: argue on behalf of whatever their belief is to the
Speaker 2: day they die. And I don't think that it's I mean,
Speaker 2: I if you look at a lot of the math
Speaker 2: that the globe eirth says is the reason why we
Speaker 2: are on a globe, like a lot of it doesn't
Speaker 2: really make sense, you know, like, and that's something that
Speaker 2: the flat earthers are always thrown out. And I think
Speaker 2: personally that's why a lot of flat earthers kind of
Speaker 2: conversations get censored or shadow band and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: because they might not be right, but they are nitpicking
Speaker 2: enough at the globe model that people don't want that
Speaker 2: kind of stuff to even be looked into, you know,
Speaker 2: like for example, like the whole eight inches per mile
Speaker 2: squared thing, Okay, you know, maybe that's just wrong. It
Speaker 2: could still be a globe model and the math behind
Speaker 2: the eight inches per miled squared could just be wrong.
Speaker 2: Like that's also possible. And what about the idea of
Speaker 2: like could it still be a globe but just way
Speaker 2: bigger than we thought it would be?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: Is that disproving the globe? Not disproving a globe, but
Speaker 2: it's disproving the model that we have of the globe.
Speaker 2: So I think that there's shit like that as to
Speaker 2: why you know that there are going to people be
Speaker 2: people that disagree on both sides because there are a
Speaker 2: lot of things that do make sense on a flat
Speaker 2: earth and there are a lot of things that make
Speaker 2: sense on a globe Earth. And it's just, you know,
Speaker 2: you got to get rid of a lot of the verbiage.
Speaker 2: I think you know, whenever you start.
Speaker 3: Naming that's pointed in their direction, right right.
Speaker 1: Right, shadow banning flat Earthers. Their content is all over
Speaker 1: the place, certainly.
Speaker 4: Not gonna lie to flatter earth.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, go ahead, No, I was gonna say, search
Speaker 2: flat earth on Google, and every single one there's not
Speaker 2: a pro flat earth website anywhere, Like you have to
Speaker 2: go on the tenth page to find a pro flat
Speaker 2: earth website. So that's shadow banning.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm matter of fact, I've never gone to Google
Speaker 1: for that. Usually if you go to YouTube and type
Speaker 1: in flat earth, like it pops right the fuck up.
Speaker 2: But I got you on No, No, and even on
Speaker 2: on YouTube, it'll be the same thing. It's debunking flat Earth.
Speaker 2: It's like, no, I didn't ask for you to debunk
Speaker 2: flat Earth. I'm just looking for flat earth videos.
Speaker 1: Wait right, Okay, so you should I look up flat
Speaker 1: earth or like proven flat Earth or like you know
Speaker 1: what I mean? Because if I was to look up
Speaker 1: uh something else that is by the vast majority of
Speaker 1: people seen to be false on Google, I would find
Speaker 1: debunkings before actual So like, how should I search this up?
Speaker 1: Because so if the flat Earthers are being shadow band like,
Speaker 1: I want to know about it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's the algorithms. So it used to be you'd
Speaker 2: be able to go on Google or you'd be able
Speaker 2: to go on YouTube and you type in flat earth
Speaker 2: and you're gonna see Eric Dubay, You're gonna see all
Speaker 2: of the big names that are within like the flat
Speaker 2: earth kind of community, David Weiss and shit like that.
Speaker 2: Right now, let me just share this. So I just
Speaker 2: typed in. I didn't move anything. All I did was
Speaker 2: type flat earth on YouTube. Look at this smiling friends
Speaker 2: flat Earth. It's an adult swim thing. Flat Earth Guru
Speaker 2: debunked ten things all flat Earth are, say.
Speaker 1: Yessor Dave. He Professor Dave's kind of a dick, Actually
Speaker 1: not kind of he is a.
Speaker 2: Dick, right, But basically it's like a lot of it.
Speaker 2: See Neil deGrasse Tyson demonstrates absurdity of flat Earth, and
Speaker 2: so everything is kind of pointing you in the direction
Speaker 2: of if you research this and you believe this, the
Speaker 2: majority of the masses are going to make fun of
Speaker 2: you and disagree with you. Well, that's not what I researched.
Speaker 2: I researched flat Earth, like I'm not looking for debunking
Speaker 2: things and the same thing, like let's check out Google
Speaker 2: right flat Earth.
Speaker 1: But it's also because, like you said, the algorithm, most
Speaker 1: people when they search flat Earth don't believe. Most people
Speaker 1: on Earth don't believe flat Earth, So the algorithm would
Speaker 1: of course put it in the direction of showing debunking
Speaker 1: versus proving.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm telling you something right now, dude, Like it
Speaker 2: was like twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, maybe twenty six I
Speaker 2: want to say probably twenty sixteen is whenever I really
Speaker 2: started looking deep into flat Earth. It wasn't hard to
Speaker 2: find any information on it. Like it's not. It wasn't
Speaker 2: hard on the main platforms, Google, on YouTube. All I
Speaker 2: did was type in flat earth on Google. Flat earthers?
Speaker 2: Why they believe what they believe? The flat earth theory
Speaker 2: is evidence? Is it evidence based? Why are there flat earthers?
Speaker 2: You know, like the flat earth conspiracy on CNN and
Speaker 2: BBC flat Earth? How did YouTube help spread a conspiracy?
Speaker 2: And it's like everything is debunking it. And that's the point.
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily that, Oh, there's more globbers that are
Speaker 2: out there looking to debunk flat Earth. It's that if
Speaker 2: that's what I wanted, I would to type that in,
Speaker 2: you know. And so that's the algorithm. It's it's the
Speaker 2: algorithm of teaching you almost like a it's a suggestion,
Speaker 2: you know, like I do the hypnosis. I could give
Speaker 2: you a suggestion and you might see something, right, But
Speaker 2: this is saying that the suggestion is that flat earth
Speaker 2: is fake and it's been debunked already on the first setive.
Speaker 3: Instead of you looking at information as to why flat
Speaker 3: Earth could exist, I'm going to show you information as
Speaker 3: to why they're wrong.
Speaker 2: That's right, right, So I that's that's the whole debacle
Speaker 2: behind the shadow banning kind of situation, you know. And
Speaker 2: the same thing goes, it's not just flat earth. You
Speaker 2: type in conspiracy, bro, it's going to be a bunch
Speaker 2: of articles that are anti conspiracy. And that's well for sure,
Speaker 2: And that's the thing, like that's the shadow banding.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough, But I mean the point of conspiracy
Speaker 1: is because it's not believed by the main population.
Speaker 2: I mean maybe it used to be, but more and
Speaker 2: more people are coming around to it, are you are
Speaker 2: you suggesting that there's going to be an algorithmic flop
Speaker 2: because more people are starting to pay attention to conspiracies.
Speaker 2: I doubt it.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not really saying that. But it's like
Speaker 1: more or less because conspiracies are not Uh it depends
Speaker 1: on the conspiracy too, right, Like I mean, not everyone
Speaker 1: is widely known or widely discussed. Like if you were
Speaker 1: to type in JFK assassination, you'll find more conspiracy based
Speaker 1: things rather than official narrative things at this time, even
Speaker 1: though fifteen years ago that was not the case.
Speaker 2: Uh well, I mean, I mean we can test it.
Speaker 1: I mean, please do. I could be totally wrong in that,
Speaker 1: and like I'm not trying to like be that you know,
Speaker 1: contrarian guy right now, I'm I'm this is genuinely me asking, right.
Speaker 2: So all I did was type in JFK assassination on Google,
Speaker 2: and you'll see how was JFK assassinated? Well, he was
Speaker 2: wading riding in a motor k with his wife Da
Speaker 2: Da Da the whole story. Uh, what were JFK's These
Speaker 2: are like certain things that people may ask. The assassination
Speaker 2: of JFK. It's gonna be the Wikipedia article. You think
Speaker 2: they're getting into conspiracies. Probably not. The White House, Well,
Speaker 2: they're declassifying a lot of it, so that's a little
Speaker 2: bit different. Now, the National Archives, the JFK assassination from
Speaker 2: the FBI, the JFK Library, AXEOS and And that's the
Speaker 2: point that I'm trying to make is is that they
Speaker 2: like to stick to main narrative on these platforms. That's
Speaker 2: the way that they they They they view like plat
Speaker 2: forms like YouTube and Google as tools for not only
Speaker 2: research but also manipulation. Sure, and that's inflection, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: so you got a.
Speaker 3: Main science does a disagrees with flat earth. But you
Speaker 3: know what one weird thing is that they claim Earth
Speaker 3: may not be flat, but the universes.
Speaker 4: There we go.
Speaker 1: Verse is flat.
Speaker 3: Scientifically, the universe is flat.
Speaker 1: Let's discuss.
Speaker 2: I mean, if it's that bedsheet, right, I mean a
Speaker 2: bed sheet would be flat.
Speaker 3: Right, So if its size wise, like if you were
Speaker 3: able to shrink it down to a measurable size, like
Speaker 3: comparative to something we could actually like observe and measure,
Speaker 3: it's gonna be basically flatter than a piece of paper.
Speaker 2: So there's no depth.
Speaker 3: If you zoom in on a piece of paper. I
Speaker 3: mean you can see the thickness of it, right, Yeah,
Speaker 3: like you're you zoomed in far enough, so basically like
Speaker 3: that idea, like, yes, it does have height, but on
Speaker 3: a large scale it's flat.
Speaker 1: Now when you say this, just from my own clarification here,
Speaker 1: Now we all remember the models we had to make
Speaker 1: in school of our solar system, right, and for the example,
Speaker 1: you always had the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and
Speaker 1: all of them were like in a straight line away
Speaker 1: from the Sun, and they all rotate in all these things.
Speaker 1: I've actually never looked into this. This is completely out
Speaker 1: of my own ignorance on this. Do they all actually
Speaker 1: rotate on a flat plane like the rings of Saturn
Speaker 1: all rotate on that level, or do they have some
Speaker 1: variation where they're kind of some are spinning this way,
Speaker 1: some are spinning this way kind of thing, or is
Speaker 1: that what you mean why it's all flat.
Speaker 3: It's kind of hard to tell because of the fact
Speaker 3: that the we're basically all following the Sun and its motions,
Speaker 3: so it actually gives more of a corkscrew effect. So
Speaker 3: we were even though we're rotating around the Sun, it's
Speaker 3: not a perfect rotation because we're trailing it a little bit.
Speaker 3: So I don't know if you could, like you would
Speaker 3: basically have to stop the sun and track the then
Speaker 3: rotations of the objects around it, because I think, no
Speaker 3: matter what, they're always going to have like a corkscrewish
Speaker 3: type rotation.
Speaker 1: Like the coin well example from earlier. They're all spinning
Speaker 1: trying to go down, but they're also trying to go
Speaker 1: down and hit a moving target, so they're basically consistently
Speaker 1: staying in rotation, right, got you, huh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's right here have I'll go Oh no, I
Speaker 2: just typed in on Doug. Doug go as the universe flat,
Speaker 2: you know, they all have like their AI things, but
Speaker 2: it says yes. Current evidence suggests that the universe is
Speaker 2: nearly flat, meaning that parallel lines will remain parallel, and
Speaker 2: it has a GeoMed tree similar to Euclidean space. I
Speaker 2: don't know Euclidean space is though.
Speaker 3: So basically, like you remember how we were talking about
Speaker 3: space times, instead of two objects moving away from each other,
Speaker 3: the gap in between them is increasing. Basically, the universe
Speaker 3: is not increasing up.
Speaker 2: Oh, just out. It's expanding outward, but not in all directions.
Speaker 3: Right And my opinion, that's very weird considering you think
Speaker 3: about the Big Bang, right, like that is going to
Speaker 3: be I mean, yes, you could have a cone of
Speaker 3: wherever that central point is of either it pointing in
Speaker 3: one direction or it being a three hundred and sixty
Speaker 3: degree like expansion. Uh. To me, it sounds like, no
Speaker 3: matter what, it should be expanding at least in all directions, right,
Speaker 3: But it's not. That is fascinating, so you can use it, actually, yeah,
Speaker 3: and you could actually take that to like, for example,
Speaker 3: I've tried to I try to keep biblical stuff out
Speaker 3: of this because yes I am a Christian. I of
Speaker 3: course I look at what is said in Genesis and
Speaker 3: see how it could be attributed. So you know, in
Speaker 3: the beginning he says, you know, looking at the universe,
Speaker 3: it was chaotic, said let there be light that first time.
Speaker 3: I've envisioned that as being energy, the expansion the Big Bang.
Speaker 3: That statement is the development of the Big Bang.
Speaker 1: Agreed.
Speaker 3: The question is, you know, when he's talking about rolling
Speaker 3: out the I forgot what the Hebrew word is, But
Speaker 3: could that be a explanation of space time itself using
Speaker 3: this you know, lateral expansion and the electromagnetic energy that
Speaker 3: we have that was originally released before the Big Bang
Speaker 3: that we can use to measure well that is domed,
Speaker 3: even though space time itself is not.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: So could that could that basically an electromagnetic pulse that
Speaker 3: went out. Could that possibly be some type of firmament
Speaker 3: you know, idea? I don't know. I do tell you
Speaker 3: one thing is going back to the Earth model with
Speaker 3: the Einstein you know, relativity theory with it. Oddly enough,
Speaker 3: so if you have a flat disc, obviously the gravity
Speaker 3: is going to be really fucking weird there. You're probably
Speaker 3: not going to have enough mass to have an equal
Speaker 3: gravitational pull across the entire plane. The issue with the
Speaker 3: I think one of the ones that you were showing
Speaker 3: where it had the Doughnut model. As far as what
Speaker 3: we know with relativity, like the the gravitational pull is
Speaker 3: going to be in really weird directions there. There's a
Speaker 3: possibility of you know, something maybe being in in a
Speaker 3: lock in the middle because it's got so many different
Speaker 3: you know, gravitational angles pulling from any directions. So if
Speaker 3: something got caught in the middle of it, it may
Speaker 3: never be able to escape. But if you take a
Speaker 3: like biblical Earth right to where you have the Earth,
Speaker 3: you have the firmament above it. You know, gravity actually
Speaker 3: evens out if you put Shiel underneath it. And I
Speaker 3: always I thought that was really strange that if you did,
Speaker 3: the biblical flat Earth actually matches, you know, relativity better
Speaker 3: than the disc flatter earth.
Speaker 2: Right. Well, the idea of of shield or the underworld
Speaker 2: or whatever, that that graphic and I could be wrong,
Speaker 2: but that graphic would only apply to the Earth. It
Speaker 2: wouldn't apply to the universe, right.
Speaker 3: I would assume so because earthwise it makes sense, but
Speaker 3: universal wise no, because if the universe is not expanding up,
Speaker 3: then obviously it would not be expanding down and it
Speaker 3: would just be expanding in a lateral motion.
Speaker 2: So it makes me think of like this, like whenever
Speaker 2: you shoot a gun. Let's say you're shooting a gun
Speaker 2: at some kind of rubber wall. Let's just throw it
Speaker 2: out there, like a pretty thin rubber wall, and you
Speaker 2: shoot a gun and that bullet goes through. You know,
Speaker 2: it's going through space time or whatever it is, right like,
Speaker 2: it's it is traveling at a speed and eventually it
Speaker 2: will hit that rubber wall. Well, that rubber wall is
Speaker 2: only going to expand in one direction, it's not going
Speaker 2: to go in all directions. So if the Big Bang
Speaker 2: was something that was constantly outwardly penetrating, it wouldn't necessarily
Speaker 2: have to go up and down.
Speaker 3: Right like it would because it does not have any
Speaker 3: law of inertia. It doesn't have any outside effects on it.
Speaker 3: So with you shooting into the rubber, you know you
Speaker 3: have air density involved with it, you have the actual
Speaker 3: thickness of that. When we're talking about space time, as
Speaker 3: far as we have right now, we can't physically measure it.
Speaker 3: So like you talk about either he originally when it
Speaker 3: was you know, theorized it was something that had no mass,
Speaker 3: it was before helium, so kind of the same idea
Speaker 3: to where you there's a lot more physical things involved
Speaker 3: with that comparative to the law of inertia being able
Speaker 3: to just go wild, because at that time nothing was
Speaker 3: actually collected enough to create very high gravitational forces or
Speaker 3: polls or whatever you want to consider it. So if
Speaker 3: anything was shooting up, it would have been going up.
Speaker 3: So that would mean that whatever the Big Bang was,
Speaker 3: there was something focusing it in a certain direction, and
Speaker 3: a you know, lateral direction.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you this, and this could be a
Speaker 2: really stupid question. I'm not very well versed in the
Speaker 2: whole Big Bang ideology, but so the idea is is
Speaker 2: that basically everything that was ever created compressed into a
Speaker 2: tiny little thing. Let's just say, like a seed, right,
Speaker 2: and then that seed exploded.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Is that seed that is exploding or that little atom
Speaker 2: or whatever the fuck it is that seed that was exploding?
Speaker 2: Where was that? Like, was it already in space? And
Speaker 2: if that's the case, then space was already here before
Speaker 2: the Big Bang, like it had to be somewhere.
Speaker 3: So you you could have a biblical standpoint of it
Speaker 3: or a scientifical standpoint of it. You could argue that
Speaker 3: if like space, time itself did have some kind of
Speaker 3: measurable amount. See, atoms are like legos. Everything can be
Speaker 3: added on to itself to create something else, to create
Speaker 3: something else. That's how we you know, create new elements.
Speaker 3: We end up combining more electrons, more protons, whatever, to
Speaker 3: you know, create non natural occurring elements like we're doing
Speaker 3: with the hydron collider and shit like that. So it
Speaker 3: literally is a whole lego system. The issue is you
Speaker 3: have to sometimes find you know, if this lego really
Speaker 3: really doesn't want this other part taken off of it.
Speaker 3: You have to find something that will ease the ability
Speaker 3: for them to separate, so now you can put this
Speaker 3: other lego on it. And that's honestly the secret to
Speaker 3: like Philosopher's Stone of like making gold or whatever. It's
Speaker 3: just nobody's found what is able to be combined into
Speaker 3: what to make gold. I mean, I would definitely argue
Speaker 3: that if we can figure out what's in a fucking
Speaker 3: planet a light year away, they definitely fucking know how
Speaker 3: to make gold out of other ailments. They know what
Speaker 3: kind of compounds you can do to create it. But
Speaker 3: if you have a very compressed source of like say
Speaker 3: space time, that friction actually caused an explosion. That heat
Speaker 3: started allowing things to combine together to then create other
Speaker 3: elements and to continue the process because originally it was
Speaker 3: just really helium, and then helium started combining into other things,
Speaker 3: and then things started combining in other things, and eventually
Speaker 3: you get this whole big ass, you know, lego block
Speaker 3: of whatever a fucking planet is made out of. So
Speaker 3: it could have just been that eventually all of that
Speaker 3: space time or ether or whatever you want to consider heat,
Speaker 3: it up so much that finally allowed that reaction to start.
Speaker 3: Or biblically, you could look at it as like, you know,
Speaker 3: God said, let there be energy, and however he got
Speaker 3: it here, whether he opened it up from some other
Speaker 3: place or whether he created it himself, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm one to believe that, you know, we
Speaker 3: we have the laws of physics. Do I believe that
Speaker 3: God can intervene outside of those, Yes, because I believe
Speaker 3: that he created them. But I think that there will
Speaker 3: be causes and effects if he doesn't, so he would
Speaker 3: have to work through the laws of physics. But you're
Speaker 3: talking about somebody that you know, it's it's like somebody
Speaker 3: that does coding that has made a program. They know
Speaker 3: ways around the fucking program that other people don't. So
Speaker 3: they might know, you know, better ways to do the physics.
Speaker 2: Access to back doors and whatnot.
Speaker 4: Right, and it could still So like one thing, I
Speaker 4: love using.
Speaker 3: GTA for like a lot of exhalation. Yeah, So, like
Speaker 3: imagine you put like a cheat end to get like
Speaker 3: one of the fucking nice ass cars, right, you know
Speaker 3: that slight amount of lag that it puts in before
Speaker 3: the car shows up. Yeah, that would literally you could
Speaker 3: imagine that as God going outside of the laws of physics,
Speaker 3: there is something that's going to happen because there is
Speaker 3: now a different amount of material creating some kind of
Speaker 3: different effect that could easily create a domino effect comparative
Speaker 3: to where if he just took it from somewhere else
Speaker 3: and brought it here and combined it.
Speaker 2: A little bit of L one, L two, R one,
Speaker 2: R two left down right up, left down right up.
Speaker 3: Action absolutely.
Speaker 1: Okay, And I could see that. The scientific or at
Speaker 1: least some of the scientific explanations that I've heard as
Speaker 1: far as the Big Bang goes is that, like you said,
Speaker 1: it all was helium at one point. I've heard others
Speaker 1: say that it was just random elements and one day
Speaker 1: two of them accidentally touched which caused essentially a intergalactic
Speaker 1: atomic explosion, and everything spun off of that. My thing
Speaker 1: with that is that goes against the laws of physics, right,
Speaker 1: that you can't have something come from nothing, right. Energy
Speaker 1: cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. So if you
Speaker 1: go back all the way to and we say the
Speaker 1: Big Bang colloquially, who's to say it was an actual explosion? Right?
Speaker 1: Who's to say it was any of these things. But
Speaker 1: just for the sense of saying the starting point the
Speaker 1: spawn point of everything, if you will, I'm with you.
Speaker 1: I think that even if taking religion out of it
Speaker 1: for two seconds, it had to have started from a source.
Speaker 1: A thing had to have put that spark into existence.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I could see that one hundred percent. Now
Speaker 1: this is the first time I'm hearing that the Big
Speaker 1: Bang only goes in a lateral direction, or that the
Speaker 1: universal expansion. And that's the reason why I believe more
Speaker 1: than the Big Bang than any other example that's been proposed,
Speaker 1: strictly because we can track it, and I do not
Speaker 1: know if they have tracted to its origin point. Maybe
Speaker 1: somebody out there has theorized the spot where it all happened,
Speaker 1: where the Big Bang took place. But the only reason
Speaker 1: why I say that is because you can look up
Speaker 1: at the stars over a course of time and see
Speaker 1: that the universe is expanding, right, That is something that
Speaker 1: we can actually observe, So to say it's expanding from
Speaker 1: an origin point makes sense, which is why I would
Speaker 1: say that the Big Bang makes more sense than any
Speaker 1: other theory proposed thus far. But I had no idea
Speaker 1: that it was all on a flat plane. That is fascinating.
Speaker 3: I just looked it up to it. So before the
Speaker 3: Big Bang, it was called inflation.
Speaker 1: Imagine that inflation, meaning again it came from a point
Speaker 1: and has expanded outwards. See that even the ancients knew.
Speaker 3: You can't have something go into a space that didn't
Speaker 3: have space before.
Speaker 2: Fair right, Yeah, that was my point, you know, like,
Speaker 2: all right, let's say that it was compressed into one
Speaker 2: tiny little thing, and then you know the amount of
Speaker 2: pressure that was putting onto it. What the question is, like,
Speaker 2: where's that pressure coming from? If everything within our known
Speaker 2: universe is already compressed into this tiny little space to
Speaker 2: begin with, you know, like, how could there be pressure
Speaker 2: outside of space?
Speaker 1: Where I heard it say that there was pressure though,
Speaker 1: or that things were condensed and then the Big Bang happened,
Speaker 1: I've I've never actually heard that.
Speaker 3: So if if everything originated from a singular point like
Speaker 3: the Big Bank suggests, even though you have like a
Speaker 3: bunch of material like helium, obviously helium is very it
Speaker 3: doesn't have a lot of uh mass to it to
Speaker 3: begin with. But if you have a metric fuck ton
Speaker 3: of it in one singular area such as like like
Speaker 3: think of like black holes. For example, black holes are
Speaker 3: a lot of material basically shrinking in to a very
Speaker 3: small spot, creating such a gravitational force that it you know,
Speaker 3: at that point in time, you're sucking in light like
Speaker 3: light can't even escape it. You're looking at a situation
Speaker 3: like that, but maybe not a black hole type situation
Speaker 3: because possibly space time didn't expand yet, so you're talking
Speaker 3: about just a honestly, maybe a bubble of a bunch
Speaker 3: of helium or a bunch of space time that is
Speaker 3: heating up until the point that it finally has that reaction.
Speaker 4: Okay, because it's it again.
Speaker 3: You have that large amount of mass just reacting with
Speaker 3: each other, bouncing off of each other, compressing even more
Speaker 3: but trying to expand because of the heat created.
Speaker 4: Eventually you just get a boom.
Speaker 1: And that you use the term for this earlier when
Speaker 1: the black hole basically like pukes out of plasma cannon.
Speaker 1: What's that called?
Speaker 3: Quasar?
Speaker 1: Quasar?
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're fuck they're fucking terrifying.
Speaker 1: I mean, black holes in and of themselves are terrifying.
Speaker 1: Like so the fact that light can't even escape the
Speaker 1: gravitational pull of it, that in and of itself is
Speaker 1: terrifying to me. Then when it gets so full that
Speaker 1: it basically jizzes out a plasma cannon that we couldn't
Speaker 1: even see coming if our lives depending on it, until
Speaker 1: we're already fried by it. Yeah, that's also pretty fucking terrifying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and especially when you think about, like at the
Speaker 3: center of the Milky Week galaxy, there's a super massive
Speaker 3: black hole that eventually is going to get to a
Speaker 3: point to where it's going to turn into a quasar,
Speaker 3: and that blast of energy is so much that like, yes,
Speaker 3: we have black holes, they are moving through our space,
Speaker 3: they have a velocity that blast from the quasar can
Speaker 3: actually affect their trajectory. That's how much energy is being
Speaker 3: shot out of them.
Speaker 4: Jesus Christ, you're talking.
Speaker 3: And that's what like getting into the whole wormhole theory.
Speaker 3: That's why I don't really know if I believe in
Speaker 3: it that much, because we do get expulsions of energy,
Speaker 3: so it obviously the matter is being held in there
Speaker 3: and not going to some other place.
Speaker 1: Is it possible that some of it's going somewhere else
Speaker 1: and some of it's maintaining and staying there.
Speaker 4: Because of the gravitational force of the black hole.
Speaker 3: I think whatever goes in there, I mean, could you
Speaker 3: would have to say that the velocity of it being
Speaker 3: pulled in would be able to escape the exit velocity
Speaker 3: through the other side, which it would. I don't think
Speaker 3: it would be able to do that.
Speaker 1: I see what you mean.
Speaker 2: Okay, dude, you know what's crazy. I just looked this up.
Speaker 2: Energy cannot exist outside of time.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is falking wild, right.
Speaker 3: And everything is losing mass and energy at a steady rate.
Speaker 1: As we as humans are also running out of time
Speaker 1: by the second.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well that's what equals empty squared energy masks are
Speaker 3: the same. You can look at space time as being
Speaker 3: a ether. It is a materialistic thing, which means it
Speaker 3: has mass, it has energy. It will be done eventually.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, this is probably the most third eye opening
Speaker 1: conversation we've had in Quie.
Speaker 3: Right, I'm about to We're about to go deep in
Speaker 3: a second because I have a I have an idea
Speaker 3: if y'all want to do it to where we fix
Speaker 3: the flat Earth model.
Speaker 1: Let's go, dude.
Speaker 3: So from what I what I what I've seen so far,
Speaker 3: I mean, we can do the Coriolis effect from you know,
Speaker 3: pressure different and says, you can argue how maybe the
Speaker 3: magnetic field might affect projectile trajectory. At that point in time,
Speaker 3: we know if we put some kind of mass underneath
Speaker 3: the flat earth and don't have a fucking CD rom
Speaker 3: flying through the universe, then we're able to have gravity.
Speaker 3: The only thing that basically like what part just got,
Speaker 3: proved to be correct over the past couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: All right, I guess it's probably been over a month now, right,
Speaker 3: twenty four hour sun right right right, So let me
Speaker 3: introduce you to a very interesting thing that I not
Speaker 3: only I discovered, but I started like digging into more. So,
Speaker 3: this kind of goes along with spiritual, religious, and scientific.
Speaker 3: The moon itself. We know that it reflex light, right obviously,
Speaker 3: that's why we have a little bit of light at nighttime.
Speaker 3: That's why it glows like it does. So. Scientifically, you
Speaker 3: could say that it reflects light. Spiritually, you could say
Speaker 3: that it could be some kind of crystalline structure that
Speaker 3: absorbs some light, reflects some light. And then if you
Speaker 3: look at it biblically, we have the greater light to
Speaker 3: rule the day, the smaller light to rule the night.
Speaker 3: So we have two different lights at that point in time,
Speaker 3: if you look at the words for what they are.
Speaker 3: Have you ever heard of destructive interference?
Speaker 1: I have a theory of what you might mean, but
Speaker 1: I'm probably off base, Jonathan. Your thoughts, no idea. So
Speaker 1: I think it's more like if you drop a pebble
Speaker 1: in a pond and you see the ripple effect off
Speaker 1: of that. That's one way, but if you drop two
Speaker 1: of them back to back, the waves will actually inflict
Speaker 1: and break each other apart. Am I on track here?
Speaker 1: Completely off base?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so that works with light as well.
Speaker 3: Okay, so if you have a as a LightWave, you
Speaker 3: know you have a high and a low. If you
Speaker 3: have another light wave interact with that one from any angle.
Speaker 3: It doesn't have to be like straight onto each other.
Speaker 3: But if you have a high react with the low
Speaker 3: of a either reflected light source or another light source,
Speaker 3: it will actually cancel that light out and have darkness.
Speaker 1: I've never heard this before.
Speaker 3: But the Moon does reflect some just a little bit
Speaker 3: of infrared light right which crystals will actually do the
Speaker 3: same as well. And obviously if the Moon is a
Speaker 3: smaller light source it will reflec it'll create infra red
Speaker 3: light as well. Infrared light does a really good job
Speaker 3: of cooling things down, such as the observation we can
Speaker 3: make of things in moonlight being cooler than things that
Speaker 3: are not correct causes radiative cooling.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if it's a full moon light, it's actually warmer
Speaker 1: in the shade than it is in the direct moonlight.
Speaker 1: Because the Moon's understood to be a cold source radiator.
Speaker 3: So that scientifically that doesn't exist. A cold source radiator
Speaker 3: isn't a thing, right, So the infrared light itself helps
Speaker 3: create a radiating effect to where it helps things cool
Speaker 3: down because it is removing the infrared energy light whatever,
Speaker 3: that the object still has the heat that it has,
Speaker 3: which could also be an example as to why when
Speaker 3: whoever it was, did the shot of the moon and
Speaker 3: saw like waves, you're seeing infrared light. You know, when
Speaker 3: you're looking down the road and you see like the
Speaker 3: waves coming off of the road, that's infrared.
Speaker 1: Right, the heat waves off the road, like in the
Speaker 1: middle of the day. You're saying that the wave that
Speaker 1: goes across the moon that your boy crow triples seven
Speaker 1: that he observed with a camera that was more or
Speaker 1: less infrared heat waves that he observed.
Speaker 3: Yes, which causes cooling. Doesn't reflect as well, so as
Speaker 3: there's not going to be as much destructive interference, whether
Speaker 3: it's reflecting, whether it's a crystal absorbing it, or whether
Speaker 3: it is a light source emitting it itself. So now
Speaker 3: that we know that, no, the Sun or the Moon
Speaker 3: does not block out physically sunlight, but it cancels it out.
Speaker 3: Now we can have twenty four hours in Antarctica twenty
Speaker 3: four hours of sunlight.
Speaker 1: Wait, you're talking about the moon reflecting or at least
Speaker 1: breaking up the Sun's heat waves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, saying that like visible light, it will if destructive
Speaker 3: interference will actually create a dark circle around the Moon,
Speaker 3: like wherever it is underneath it, it negates the light.
Speaker 1: How does that equate to the Sun's position in the sky,
Speaker 1: and how for at least a section of time, we
Speaker 1: have a twenty four hour sun in an article, that's
Speaker 1: not a year round phenomenon.
Speaker 3: That's right, all right, because we have yeah, we have
Speaker 3: a you'll have a twenty four hour darkness in the
Speaker 3: north while you have a twenty four hour light in
Speaker 3: the south. Same vice versa. They both have a twenty
Speaker 3: four hour light. So the issue was that obviously, in
Speaker 3: order to create a shade on the Earth, the moon
Speaker 3: has to be in some kind of position to physically
Speaker 3: block the sunlight from reaching that part of the Earth.
Speaker 3: It no longer has to do that now if it
Speaker 3: is absorbing or negating the sunlight from a distance.
Speaker 1: Where are you at with this, Jonathan?
Speaker 2: A little confused?
Speaker 1: Same same, Like, I'm making sure that you know how
Speaker 1: I'm like a way logical and analytical person. I'm like, okay,
Speaker 1: maybe i'm like over autisming this right now, and that's
Speaker 1: why it's just not computing. I'm okay, Yeah.
Speaker 3: So imagine, imagine like you just have the sun right,
Speaker 3: no moon whatsoever. Okay, everything is going to get a
Speaker 3: twenty four hour light right because the sun, the Sun
Speaker 3: is sending out light. Light is going to continue to
Speaker 3: keep traveling, so everything will get light.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to sit and you're talking about on a
Speaker 1: flat earth model. I'm trying to make sure that we're
Speaker 1: still speaking in that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't get wrong, anybody listening, like I'm not. I'm
Speaker 3: not again, I'm not for the flat Earth, and I'm
Speaker 3: also not for the round Earth. I think they're lying
Speaker 3: about a lot of stuff as well. I'm just trying
Speaker 3: to throw out scientific based hypotheticals, because we know destructive
Speaker 3: interference is a thing. It happens with light waves. You
Speaker 3: can you can simulate it with water like what we
Speaker 3: were talking about.
Speaker 4: We can.
Speaker 3: There there are only certain devices that can actually measure
Speaker 3: destructive interference.
Speaker 4: They don't really talk about it a lot.
Speaker 1: So we're not saying you're saying that the moon is
Speaker 1: a light source in and of itself, or are you
Speaker 1: saying it's reflecting the Sun's light.
Speaker 3: It could be seen either way. That's why I was like,
Speaker 3: you know, you could have in a scientific approach, it
Speaker 3: could be reflecting light in a destructive interference, meaning that
Speaker 3: the area around the moon is going to be dark,
Speaker 3: but it will still have infrared which would cause the
Speaker 3: cooling effect. Now, if it was a a crystal, it
Speaker 3: could still we we have literally we have a stone
Speaker 3: called a moonstone, and it does that with light exactly.
Speaker 3: So who's to say it could have been fucking called
Speaker 3: that because you know, back in the day, we knew
Speaker 3: what the moon actually did, and it could be a
Speaker 3: crystal instead of whatever they say it is to where
Speaker 3: it could cause destructive interference and it will create a
Speaker 3: you know, dark circle around where the moon is and
Speaker 3: if it is a you know, a lesser light, it
Speaker 3: could still be creating a destructive interference and still create
Speaker 3: a biblical Wise, it could still create uh infrared to
Speaker 3: cause the cooling. I no longer have to have the
Speaker 3: sun sunlight being blocked out with the Moon. It can
Speaker 3: now create a more darkening radiative effect.
Speaker 1: But how much light would the Moon have to either
Speaker 1: a be emitting or be reflecting back at the Sun
Speaker 1: for it to offset it to such a degree to
Speaker 1: where it only shines on one section of the map
Speaker 1: for twenty four hours, Like we're talking basically a second sun.
Speaker 3: I mean, well, no, I'm saying that it so across
Speaker 3: the flat plane, sunlight's going to reach the entire thing.
Speaker 3: With the flat earth model. The only thing that's getting
Speaker 3: shaded is what is you know, basically on the other
Speaker 3: side of the Moon. With this, it is it things
Speaker 3: that are in front of the Moon will also be darkened.
Speaker 1: But the flight I see what you get, right, Actually
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't really understand where you're going with this. Man. Well,
Speaker 1: I know a flat earth model, the Sun goes down
Speaker 1: to one section like a flashlight and it kind of
Speaker 1: rotates around it. Right, that's why, I'm how would the
Speaker 1: moon offset that based off of infrared light.
Speaker 3: But it's still emitting the infrared light, but the actual
Speaker 3: visible light, the sunlight that you see that it is
Speaker 3: what it is negating, so you would have just the darkness.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know about all of the flat earth models,
Speaker 2: but the one that I'm most familiar with in they
Speaker 2: say that the sun and the moon are local light sources.
Speaker 2: So not necessarily saying that the sun is so powerful
Speaker 2: that it would like the sunlight would shine everywhere, It's
Speaker 2: that it's a local kind of thing, like a flashlight.
Speaker 2: Eventually that light is just going You're not going to
Speaker 2: see it, you know, the farther you're out, the farther
Speaker 2: out that you shine the sun or the flash light.
Speaker 3: And the issue with that is, like what we do
Speaker 3: know about the way light works is from the normal
Speaker 3: flat earth model, it seems like there could be some
Speaker 3: like dimmer areas. What we know about light that it's
Speaker 3: not if you have the sun there, everything is going
Speaker 3: to be lit up unless it is being physically blocked
Speaker 3: by the moon or unless something is creating a destructive interference.
Speaker 2: It's a deep one. It's a deep cut.
Speaker 3: It is like I said, I'm just trying to point
Speaker 3: them in a physics based direction because like I looked
Speaker 3: at the you know, the stuff about Einstein's theory and
Speaker 3: basing stuff off of that. Like I said, we don't
Speaker 3: have to have necessarily a certain shape. We just have
Speaker 3: to have mass. And like I was thinking, not because
Speaker 3: of the stuff that happened with Dave, but I was like,
Speaker 3: there is there's got to be somebody on the possibly
Speaker 3: inside that is leading them in a weird direction to
Speaker 3: not use science to argue their points.
Speaker 1: Well, usually it's because they say that we can't trust
Speaker 1: science and we can't trust the education system because it's
Speaker 1: all you know, filtered through and we've only got and
Speaker 1: what they've allowed us to receive in this type of thing.
Speaker 2: So which is true to it?
Speaker 1: A natural in a sense? I mean you and I
Speaker 1: differ greatly on this point, Arnathan, but it's like it's
Speaker 1: a it's a distrust of academia at that point.
Speaker 3: Right, So they just go all the way instead of
Speaker 3: just trying to argue it, they just go to there's
Speaker 3: no point in arguing with you because everything you say
Speaker 3: is wrong.
Speaker 1: Essentially.
Speaker 2: For example, I if it wasn't for the covid vaccines.
Speaker 2: I probably never would have questioned vaccines. I would have
Speaker 2: never even looked that way.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: I would still be vaccinated my kids, I'd still be
Speaker 2: vaccinated myself whatever. Not that I was ever real big
Speaker 2: on like flu shot or whatever, but your initial shots
Speaker 2: whenever you're born. Sure, But whenever I saw the shenanigans
Speaker 2: with the covid vaccine, it made me lose all trust
Speaker 2: in all vaccines. Now you could say that's that's an
Speaker 2: extremist point of view, but then it you know, whenever
Speaker 2: you see that there's crazy shit going on with this vaccine,
Speaker 2: it's gonna open up doors to allow you to investigate
Speaker 2: what other kind of sleight of hand kind of shit
Speaker 2: is going on with other vaccines. And so I get
Speaker 2: the idea of like, all right, well science has lied
Speaker 2: to us about so many things, let's just throw it
Speaker 2: all out. I understand that's an extremist point of view,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong, But I think that that's a
Speaker 2: lot of times where some people are coming from.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I think that's usually where they're
Speaker 1: coming from. And some take it to an extreme level.
Speaker 1: Some pick and choose which science they accept, in which
Speaker 1: science they don't. There are certain people of a political
Speaker 1: ideology that believe that finding bacteria on Mars is completely
Speaker 1: confirmation of life, but an eight month pregnancy is not
Speaker 1: life somehow that equates in their minds as well, and
Speaker 1: it makes no sense to me.
Speaker 3: But I mean, yeah, and I'm also I'm very confused
Speaker 3: about the whole life on Mars saying because and I'm
Speaker 3: not mistaken yet, Mars has like a barely minimal atmosphere, right,
Speaker 3: m So that means that a majority of like everything
Speaker 3: is banging the fuck out of the surface, right which.
Speaker 1: There was a bunch of craters and shit. Have y'all
Speaker 1: seen the square they found like a building foundation on Mars?
Speaker 2: Yeah, dude, that is now.
Speaker 1: Again, if we are to believe that space is not
Speaker 1: faking gay to people listening, Okay, but that could potentially
Speaker 1: mean that someone or something at one point in time
Speaker 1: had structures built on the surface of Mars, which is
Speaker 1: crazy as fuck.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, it there there was some kind of
Speaker 2: proof allegedly that there used to be at some point
Speaker 2: in the far distant history water on Mars, and I
Speaker 2: think that's one of the arguments about around like life
Speaker 2: on Mars.
Speaker 1: Well, they found ice on it?
Speaker 2: Ice? Well ice water yah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm a point though, like I'm And now we
Speaker 1: get into the hypotheticals of if there was ice, that
Speaker 1: means that at one point that was water. And if
Speaker 1: that's the case, did mares at one time have an
Speaker 1: atmosphere right and the whole surface being rust, meaning that
Speaker 1: there had to be you know, iron oxide, There had
Speaker 1: to be oxygen there at some point c oxygen. Now, like,
Speaker 1: what what happened? Was it a giant explosion that completely
Speaker 1: vaporized the atmosphere or something like that. There's so many
Speaker 1: theories and then how far back is that? It's wild shit, man.
Speaker 3: I think it wasn't one of their theories that the
Speaker 3: core like ran out, ran out of energy, because I
Speaker 3: think Tony was talking about it one time like our
Speaker 3: core mainly being powered by radioactive sources, which is true.
Speaker 3: A majority of it is like radioactive sources. So if
Speaker 3: we lose that, you know, no more dynamo effects and
Speaker 3: no more magnu magnetic field to protect us. So I remember,
Speaker 3: I don't remember if it was a a night episode
Speaker 3: or if it was a cult episode, but you were
Speaker 3: talking about the different types of radiation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think Tony actually brought that up on an
Speaker 1: occasion night episode. He has done a lot of work
Speaker 1: in that field similar to you, not with NDAT but
Speaker 1: some other type of like looking at radioactive isotopes and
Speaker 1: things like that. And to that point, Yeah, they can
Speaker 1: run out, they have a half life, they have a
Speaker 1: full life, and then they eventually die off. Now that's
Speaker 1: you know, depending on the isotope and depending on how
Speaker 1: long and how it's charging all these things, but eventually
Speaker 1: that is a theory is that Mars's core ran out
Speaker 1: of the radioactive isotopes that were operating it, so to speak,
Speaker 1: basically the battery ran out of juice.
Speaker 3: Right, So do you know about the alpha, beta, and
Speaker 3: gamma particles? So do you know how they differ?
Speaker 1: I used to know that off top, isn't it the
Speaker 1: waveforms that they take.
Speaker 3: Well, basically like how they themselves work. So like alpha,
Speaker 3: like you can imagine it, it just hits your skin
Speaker 3: and bounces off. It can cause like skin cancer and
Speaker 3: stuff like that. Beta is typically only harmful if you
Speaker 3: ingest it and then it kind of bounces around like
Speaker 3: a crackhead sonic inside and then gamma. Gamma is the
Speaker 3: real issue. Gamma is like taking a twenty two but
Speaker 3: firing it at mock fuck at your body.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it penetrates to your bones.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it'll it'll really fuck you up. That's why
Speaker 3: I don't if they find life on Mars of even
Speaker 3: a bacterial like whatever, I don't necessarily believe it because
Speaker 3: it's getting blasted by so much radiation that I really
Speaker 3: don't believe that there's anything that's going to be living there.
Speaker 1: But cockroaches can live through all of the radiation on
Speaker 1: this planet correct.
Speaker 3: To a certain extent. So is it when we're talking
Speaker 3: about getting blasted like that, I don't believe that they would.
Speaker 3: I mean, you're talking about an actual molecular change. At
Speaker 3: that point, you have gamma particles can literally hit your helix,
Speaker 3: your DNA strand and tear it apart. That cockroa changed
Speaker 3: about not shit.
Speaker 1: Which I also think is that if and I'm not
Speaker 1: even saying that I believe the whole bacteria on Mars thing,
Speaker 1: you know, hypothetically speaking, if it was to be some
Speaker 1: sort of life on Mars, I think that a molecular
Speaker 1: bacteria type structure would be the only type of life
Speaker 1: that could exist. But then again, I'm looking at it
Speaker 1: and thinking about it through a human lens. Right, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about carbon based life forms, and I'm thinking about
Speaker 1: what we would consider it to be life, living, breathing,
Speaker 1: or whatever the case is. I have no idea the
Speaker 1: molecular structure of the alleged bacteria on another planet, or
Speaker 1: how it's configured, or what the cell structures look like.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean, If I remember right, we
Speaker 3: actually finally discovered something that technically wasn't a carbon based
Speaker 3: life form, and it was down at the bottom of
Speaker 3: the ocean around the thermal tubes and we found some
Speaker 3: I don't know whether it was a bacteria or whether
Speaker 3: it was an actual organism or what, but it it
Speaker 3: was similar to a carbon structure, but it wasn't exactly it.
Speaker 1: I remember hearing about them finding some sort of life
Speaker 1: in those volcanic tubes, but I don't remember what it
Speaker 1: was because I whenever I found that, I then found
Speaker 1: out that we have something called a volcanic snail, and
Speaker 1: that kind of completely took my attention in that direction.
Speaker 1: Their shell is made of iron, they look like a
Speaker 1: real fucking dragon, and they just live next to lava.
Speaker 1: Because Pokemon, fucking Pokemon in real life right, But like, yeah,
Speaker 1: so I know they found something in the underwater back
Speaker 1: volcanic tubes, couldn't tell you what it was. But if
Speaker 1: it's not carbon based, I'm you know what, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: look that up. What the hell is that? Huh?
Speaker 2: And so, so what is your overarching theme here? You're
Speaker 2: saying flat Earth not not necessarily correct, round Earth not
Speaker 2: necessarily correct? What is the model that you are proposing
Speaker 2: for the people who may be in between?
Speaker 3: If I'm if I'm thrown out a realistic view of
Speaker 3: what science says it more than likely is going to
Speaker 3: be a spherical model, but it is I think it's
Speaker 3: going to be larger than what they say it is
Speaker 3: if the numbers are swayed. And you know, we don't
Speaker 3: have a complete understanding because again we're just getting into
Speaker 3: dark energy. I mean, the stuff that I was talking
Speaker 3: about could very well be possible. I mean, we we
Speaker 3: are just discovering different demention and to say that they
Speaker 3: don't have an effect on our you know, fabric of
Speaker 3: space time would be incredibly irresponsible to say.
Speaker 4: So who's to say what a.
Speaker 3: Different even if like, for instance, like say we couldn't
Speaker 3: interact with a fifth dimensional thing, a fifth dimensional thing
Speaker 3: could easily interact with us.
Speaker 4: You know, you.
Speaker 3: A figure on a piece of paper wouldn't really affect
Speaker 3: you all that much, but you can obviously affect it.
Speaker 3: So what kind of effect that that is creating in
Speaker 3: our didn't like dimension that we don't know about, and
Speaker 3: that we're just throwing numbers at and making it work.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: That is at some point in time.
Speaker 3: It's it's literally infinite possibilities.
Speaker 1: So it says hot mineral rich flow would supply nutrient chemicals. Microbes,
Speaker 1: some of which eat these chemicals, form the base of
Speaker 1: the food chain for a diverse community of organisms. These
Speaker 1: vents are the only places on Earth where the ultimate
Speaker 1: source of energy for life is not sunlight but the
Speaker 1: inorganic earth itself. Wow, I can't find anything about their
Speaker 1: carbon based or not. I will be doing more digging
Speaker 1: on that later though. Good God.
Speaker 4: Strange and that that's wild as hell.
Speaker 2: So the your proposal is is that the Earth is
Speaker 2: probably a lot bigger, and that's why a lot of
Speaker 2: the math the flat earthers are attacking the globe Earth
Speaker 2: are about that. It's actually more it's more correct to
Speaker 2: just say that the Earth is a lot larger, which
Speaker 2: which does make sense too, you know, like they I
Speaker 2: saw this old woman whipping out like maps and shit.
Speaker 2: It's like a little video. I think it's couple years old,
Speaker 2: but she was basically trying to prove you know, whenever
Speaker 2: you're looking at a map, the idea that Greenland is
Speaker 2: bigger than South America, it doesn't make any sense, right,
Speaker 2: But if you look at a map, Greenland is like
Speaker 2: way bigger than than South America. And she goes, no, actually,
Speaker 2: South America, I think it was like, is like eight
Speaker 2: times bigger than Greenland or SMIs right now, So why
Speaker 2: would they lie about that? Like, what is the point
Speaker 2: in lying about that? If if you're not trying to
Speaker 2: I mean, throw a little veil over the people's eyes
Speaker 2: and say, well, this is all we got, no need
Speaker 2: to go searching for any more, you know. And that's
Speaker 2: the thing. You know what, in this day and age
Speaker 2: where we think that everything has already all been discovered,
Speaker 2: if the earth is bigger than what we're led to believe,
Speaker 2: like you would have more people going out there and
Speaker 2: trying to discover, like you would try And I mean
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna say I would. I mean I'm not
Speaker 2: going to get in a fucking boat and like go
Speaker 2: around icebergs and sit like that. But there definitely would
Speaker 2: be people that didn't want to do that. And then
Speaker 2: you know, it's like, you know, Antarctica is actually a
Speaker 2: lot bigger than what they say, Africa is actually a
Speaker 2: lot bigger than what they say. And I mean, who's
Speaker 2: to say that the entire ball, if it is a ball,
Speaker 2: Who's to say the entire ball itself wouldn't then be
Speaker 2: a lot bigger.
Speaker 3: So I like, and one of the problems I have
Speaker 3: with that is, like you think about the time that
Speaker 3: a majority of those maps were made. You're talking about
Speaker 3: where art was king Like you look at things whenever
Speaker 3: we first started doing cartography, and we were looking at
Speaker 3: maps and trying to, you know, show how everything was.
Speaker 3: You're talking about you know, buildings with how beautiful they
Speaker 3: were being built, with how just everything in general. I mean, arguably,
Speaker 3: I would say, like nowadays us looking at the clothes, like, yeah,
Speaker 3: they're kind of excessive, but back then they even designed
Speaker 3: the clothes to be beautiful. Right, For something that would
Speaker 3: involve that much art, I find it hard to believe
Speaker 3: that the artists would not try to achieve perfection.
Speaker 1: Maybe, but then there's also creative liberties that are taken, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at if a map of the
Speaker 1: world was made in the mid seventeen hundreds by a
Speaker 1: British cartographer, he makes the island of England look significantly
Speaker 1: bigger off the coast of Europe than what it actually
Speaker 1: is by modern satellite imagery. I mean there's something to
Speaker 1: be said for that as well. Right, I've seen maps
Speaker 1: where it makes America look like or North America look massive,
Speaker 1: in South America look much smaller in textbooks in reality
Speaker 1: that's not exactly the case. Or Australia looks like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's just an island out there. It's like, no, that's
Speaker 1: a fucking continent island out there. You see what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's there are creative liberties that come out there, and
Speaker 1: then you have to look at the quality of the
Speaker 1: artists and what their biases might have been. And I
Speaker 1: mean there is definitely some of that to go around,
Speaker 1: for sure, right.
Speaker 2: But it shouldn't be like we're talking about why would
Speaker 2: we care about creative liberties, We're talking about land masses.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like the same thing with NASA. It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is a picture and then you find out no,
Speaker 2: it's actually like a million pictures onto one picture. And
Speaker 2: I don't know. It's just like it's very deceiving in
Speaker 2: that sense. And so I mean I I vibe with it.
Speaker 2: I mean I could definitely buy that the Earth is
Speaker 2: a lot bigger than what we're told. I mean, why
Speaker 2: wouldn't it be like they fucking lied about everything else?
Speaker 1: Could it also be that it's changed shape over time? Right?
Speaker 1: Like we know that the equator and it's wider at
Speaker 1: that surface. I would possibly say that maybe three thousand
Speaker 1: years ago, perhaps it wasn't as wide and slowly, but
Speaker 1: surely it's gotten wider.
Speaker 4: So there's there's a possibility of.
Speaker 3: Maybe not land mass changes due to tectonic plates. But
Speaker 3: this is a is it going to be a controversial one?
Speaker 1: Oh, we're super hypothetical here, bro, So I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is the actual belief that I have,
Speaker 1: like a legit one.
Speaker 4: So get Do I think that climate change is a thing?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: Do I think that sea levels are rising?
Speaker 3: No? I do not think that they are really. So
Speaker 3: for example, where you live at what's the major issue.
Speaker 1: Where I live? Coastal erosion due to neutrarats eating the
Speaker 1: fuck out of it all. And we're losing like a
Speaker 1: football field a day of land.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: The water is not getting higher, the land is getting lower.
Speaker 1: You think we're sinking into the sea Atlantis style.
Speaker 3: Bro, Yes, it happens to all coastal shorelines no matter
Speaker 3: no matter how much vegetation you have there to hold
Speaker 3: onto the soil, it all eventually gets brought back out
Speaker 3: into the ocean.
Speaker 1: Because eros is the thing.
Speaker 3: That is the that is the dominant force. Water will
Speaker 3: always be the ultimate solvent. It will always erode anything away.
Speaker 3: So could land masses have changed and had major effects
Speaker 3: over time because of that, Yeah, there's a possibility of that.
Speaker 3: So maybe at one point in time the maps did
Speaker 3: look more correct.
Speaker 2: Right, well, and water would be more of a constant
Speaker 2: than any land mass exactly.
Speaker 3: And I mean like liquiefication is a thing, like the
Speaker 3: even whole solid land masses could literally just turn into
Speaker 3: a liquid and flow away.
Speaker 2: Damn the Atlanteans are down there, bro.
Speaker 1: Or up there?
Speaker 2: I mean, if they're in the water.
Speaker 3: Who's to say that? So even our rotation slows down
Speaker 3: over time. So if we're looking at depending on maybe
Speaker 3: how old of a situation like Atlantis, Like centrifical force
Speaker 3: does have a thing like we have neutron stars that
Speaker 3: have a incredibly high gravitational pull of course because they're
Speaker 3: neutron stars, but they're spinning at seventy thousand rotations per second.
Speaker 4: So literally, as.
Speaker 3: Soon as something gets pulled into its gravity, it flings
Speaker 3: it the fuck away, just slingshots based off of its
Speaker 3: own gravity, repelling against its own gravity. Right, So we
Speaker 3: who's to say what could have been done by centrifugal
Speaker 3: forces back in the day when the Earth was rotating
Speaker 3: at a faster speed.
Speaker 1: Damn.
Speaker 3: I mean, as of right now, it can't overcome the
Speaker 3: gravitational force, but it wasn't always like that.
Speaker 1: Huh.
Speaker 2: Interesting concepts, sir, No, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Oh, and we have so many things that are creating
Speaker 3: gravity wells across the entire space time itself, that the
Speaker 3: amount of different things interacting with just one thing, like
Speaker 3: you could have, for example, the Andromeda galaxy, like the
Speaker 3: gravitational wave that it create or a gravitational well that
Speaker 3: it creates.
Speaker 4: We're writing in that.
Speaker 3: Everything is writing inside of everything's gravitational well.
Speaker 1: It all flows to well. And now I will say
Speaker 1: together but it all sort of feeds off of each
Speaker 1: other if you will.
Speaker 3: As of right now, the velocity is able to basically
Speaker 3: overcome the gravitational pull until we run out of energy,
Speaker 3: and then that's whenever they're talking about eventually everything could
Speaker 3: possibly come back to origin.
Speaker 2: Wow, so you're quite literally fighting fire with fire in
Speaker 2: this episode because you are essentially debunking the science with science.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, And that's honestly, that's you're gonna If you
Speaker 3: want to argue with somebody that only speaks French, why
Speaker 3: the fuck are you going to argue with them in English?
Speaker 2: Good point?
Speaker 1: I can't argue with that logic, Bro, That's brilliant.
Speaker 4: I mean, don't get me wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't have a degree, I don't have anything
Speaker 3: like this, but you know how many different fucking conspiracies
Speaker 3: do we look up every day to where we could
Speaker 3: literally think about something, look up the equations on it,
Speaker 3: test the theory. You don't have to do an actual experiment.
Speaker 3: Just like I said, if you take a photo and
Speaker 3: you're like, yeah, whatever is that the horizon should be
Speaker 3: below it, and you know that the air is basically
Speaker 3: in a favorable like condition, you know what superior mirage
Speaker 3: equation to use for it. You know how far it
Speaker 3: is away from you, you can tell you'll be able
Speaker 3: to tell whether this is bullshit or not.
Speaker 2: Wow, I like it. I like it. I like these
Speaker 2: third eye open kind of conversations. This is using your
Speaker 2: third eye to try and figure out some kind of shit. Yes,
Speaker 2: I mean we all want to question everything like that
Speaker 2: is always going to be the point of this show
Speaker 2: is just questioning the main narrative at every wherever, I mean,
Speaker 2: at every single nook and cranny, you should be questioning it.
Speaker 2: And I like the way that you came at it.
Speaker 2: And it's not just some hair brain theories. Not to
Speaker 2: say there's anything wrong with those. I mean we get
Speaker 2: enjoyment out of that kind of shit too, But this
Speaker 2: way kind of looking at it, in this sense, I
Speaker 2: appreciate that that way of thinking. It's it's very logical based,
Speaker 2: and I think, you know, there's a room for that.
Speaker 2: There has to be more room for that, I think
Speaker 2: for the most whenever you know you're getting into the
Speaker 2: physical location of certain things and how big is something
Speaker 2: and how does physics work and all that other kind
Speaker 2: of shit.
Speaker 1: So so.
Speaker 2: I love this show. Luke, could you tell the good
Speaker 2: cult members where they can find you if they want
Speaker 2: to research you.
Speaker 3: Sir. Yeah, So I have a Twitter page that is
Speaker 3: at l ukyyp. You can find me on Facebook or
Speaker 3: in the Lives if you catch me in there and
Speaker 3: you want to hit me up with anything, I'm down for.
Speaker 2: So hell yeah, Well the lives that he was just
Speaker 2: speaking of. If you want to become a part of
Speaker 2: those live shows every Tuesday night at nine pm Central,
Speaker 2: you can join us on patreon dot com slash Cultive
Speaker 2: Conspiracy Podcast. That link is down on the show notes below.
Speaker 2: If you get over there and you sign up for
Speaker 2: the Third Eye all the way Open tier or hire,
Speaker 2: you will have access to that. But not only that,
Speaker 2: there is way more. You get completely commercial free shows.
Speaker 2: You get the shows a couple of days in advance,
Speaker 2: and you get to see video of our faces, our
Speaker 2: guest faces, and all the videos and you know, websites
Speaker 2: and everything that we pull up, all the pictures. We
Speaker 2: pulled up a fair amount of pictures and read from
Speaker 2: all of articles in this episode. So if that's something
Speaker 2: do you like and you want to dive down in
Speaker 2: that rabbit hole a little bit deeper, The best way
Speaker 2: to be able to support us is to go to
Speaker 2: Patreon dot com slash cultivate Conspiracy Podcast.
Speaker 1: Indeed indeed, And if you would like to support the
Speaker 1: show in another way but also support your own financial future,
Speaker 1: you can come check out COC dot com. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: cocsilver dot com link in the description below. If you
Speaker 1: would like to get your start in the buying and
Speaker 1: selling and trading and whatever else of silver and gold,
Speaker 1: buoyant coins, mintage, all of the things, and all the stuff. Listen.
Speaker 1: We're not saying put all your eggs in this basket,
Speaker 1: but if you would like to diversify your portfolio and
Speaker 1: get into the precious metal game, coocsilver dot com again
Speaker 1: link in the description below. But if you would like
Speaker 1: to support the show in another way that is in
Speaker 1: fact free, what you could do is please at this
Speaker 1: time hit the five stars, hit the shares of like,
Speaker 1: subscribe to comments, leave a postly review, and shares, hit
Speaker 1: their friends of family, share its everywhere. Here's the deal.
Speaker 1: The more activity our algorithm se across all of our
Speaker 1: listening platforms, the more we get promoted to more potential listeners.
Speaker 1: Who could that be come potential cults like the rest
Speaker 1: few final ladies and gentlemen, why you're ready to go
Speaker 1: check out Metamisteries Jonathan's other show and getting the five
Speaker 1: star reviews, positivity, the comments and the likes and the
Speaker 1: the shares and the subscribes. Go check out kate to
Speaker 1: not YouTube channel and give me the subscribes and the
Speaker 1: follows over there as well. And we thank you for
Speaker 1: everybody's already gone and done so.
Speaker 2: And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 2: of the Cults of Conspiracy. And my name's Jonathan, I'm Jacob,
Speaker 2: and there's one very important exture, the vital piece of
Speaker 2: information we need you to learn just as soon as
Speaker 2: humanly possible.
Speaker 1: Hey, cult members, Jacob here just want to ask who
Speaker 1: wants better sex? The best way to get started is
Speaker 1: to go to Adam and Eve dot com Right now.
Speaker 1: Amieve is offering fifty percent off just about any item,
Speaker 1: but that's not all. When you get one item, they
Speaker 1: will also send three bonus sexy items and six free movies.
Speaker 1: They offered a screech shipping as your privacy is a priority.
Speaker 1: Plus free shipping on your entire order doesn't matter and
Speaker 1: how much you spend or what you buy. All we
Speaker 1: packaged and sent discreetly for free. That's fifty percent off
Speaker 1: one item and ten free gifts to boot bring more
Speaker 1: pleasure and satisfaction into your bedroom. Just go to Adam
Speaker 1: and Eve dot com and select any one item. It
Speaker 1: could be an adventurous new toy or anything you desire.
Speaker 1: Just enter the offer code cult at checkout and you'll
Speaker 1: get fifty percent off almost any item, plus ten free gifts,
Speaker 1: three bonus items, six free movies, and free shipping. Use
Speaker 1: the offer code cult that Cult at Adam and Eve
Speaker 1: dot com. Now, this is an exclusive offer specific to
Speaker 1: this podcast, so be sure to use this code to
Speaker 1: get you not just the discount and the free goodies,
Speaker 1: but also the one hundred percent free shipping with the
Speaker 1: code cult