Speaker 1: What if the very numbers we use, you know, the
fundamental laws of physics, we've built our whole understanding on,
even the building blocks of matter itself. What if it
was all based on a kind of cosmic misunderstanding. Wow,
imagine the universe not as like a collection of fixed
little particles, but more like a dynamic dance of intercepting
motions with hidden dimensions maybe and unseen elements shaping everything
around us. What if our entire perception are science was
basically built on an approximation, like a foundational lie we've
just held onto for ages.
Speaker 2: That's a really audacious thought, isn't it? And honestly kind
of thrilling. It sort of makes you want to shed
those ingrained conventions, you know, Yeah, open your mind to
something radically different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 2: It's asking us to look at the world, the whole cosmos, really, Yeah,
to a completely new lens.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And that's exactly what we're doing today. We're embarking
on a well, a truly unique deep dive. We're going
to plunge headfirst into this collection of really bold, almost
revolutionary claims, claims that promise to utterly transform how we
understand existence, itself. Now, our mission here isn't really to
validate or you know, disprove these ideas outright. It's more
about unpacking them, thoroughly exploring the often mind bending implications,
and just trying to understand the journey of a perspective
that directly challenges the established scientific way of thinking. We'll
be looking at concepts that really push the boundaries of
what's considered you know, conventional wisdom. We're diving into the
assertions of someone who claims to have uncovered nothing less
than the best kept secret in the entire world.
Speaker 2: And what's so fascinating, I think, is how these assertions
fundamentally question the very foundations we usually just take for granted,
you know, from basic arithmetic all the way up to
the nature of life exactly. It's like this explicit invitation
to consider a radically different framework for understanding reality. It's
really urging us to step beyond our comfortable assumptions.
Speaker 1: And it's not just theory, is it. That's the key
thing here. We're talking about challenging the absolute bedrock of
basic arithmetic, like one times one, reimagining what elements truly are,
redefining the actual nature of light and matter and even
revisiting this ancient symbol that might just hold the key
to universal truths.
Speaker 2: Right, And the way they're presented is crucial.
Speaker 1: To Yeah, because here's the most compelling part. These claims
aren't presented as just you know, theories that need to
be proven eventually. Know. They're put forward as geometric proofs
like visual and logical derivations that, according to the Sores.
Speaker 2: Just stand on their own self evident in a way.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this because what we're about to explore
is nothing short of mind bending and it might just
change the way you look at the universe. So let's
start with the really audacious provocation. At the heart of
all this. We're talking about a figure who is very
publicly stated they are quote risking their entire career and
possibly their life to bring this truth out.
Speaker 3: That's a huge claim.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: They say they've discovered something that may revolutionize our entire existence,
and their conviction seems absolute. I don't care what happens.
I'm here to bring the truth at whatever cost.
Speaker 2: That's an incredibly rare stance to take, isn't it. To
stand up against everything that's widely accepted and declare something
so monumental.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really makes you ask what could be so
profound that someone would risk everything to reveal it?
Speaker 2: And the sheer scale of the challenge they're issuing is
just remarkable. This isn't some tentative hypothesis being whispered in
an academic conference room.
Speaker 1: No, not at all.
Speaker 2: It's a direct, unambiguous challenge thrown down. I challenge any chemist,
any physicists, any astrophysicist, any cosmologists, any biologists, anyone within
the fields of science to come and challenge me.
Speaker 1: Right, And the emphasis, like you mentioned before, is on proofs,
not theories exactly.
Speaker 2: In conventional science, a theory is a well supported explanation,
but it's still open to being refined or even rejected
if new evidence comes along. But here the source is
saying that theories are written out and need to be proven,
implying that what they're presenting is already self evident, Like
it's a direct logical step from some new foundational ideas,
almost like a geometry.
Speaker 1: Proof, which raises a really big question for us. Right
in this context, what exactly does it mean to call
something a proof, especially when it seems to fly in
the face of centuries of science.
Speaker 2: Is it maybe a different kind of proof, operating under
different rules, different assumptions, And what's.
Speaker 1: Really fascinating And you see this pattern throughout history. When
truly groundbreaking or challenging ideas pop up is the predictable
way they're received. It almost always kicks off with ridicule.
Like imagine presenting an idea that questions the very structure
of reality, something as basic as how numbers work, and
the first reaction you get is just mockery, Yeah, dismissal.
This source talks about how those initial statements are just
met with derision, making it incredibly hard for the person
to even be taken seriously. Right, they give the specific
exam a dismissive comment platonic solids. Aren't you getting a
star rebuilding universe? You're getting a star ou? Yeah, it's
a jeb right. It immediately tries to make the idea
seem simplistic or maybe naive, just a misunderstanding of established stuff,
and that.
Speaker 2: Initial phase of just outright dismissal it can be incredibly
isolating for anyone trying to introduce a real paradigm shift.
It often just casts them as a fringe thinker, not
a visionary and then if the ideas stick around, if
they don't just disappear, the pattern often shifts into phase
two outright opposition.
Speaker 1: Ah, yes, the pushback.
Speaker 2: This is where the established logic, the conventional wisdom, the
accepted frameworks get mobilized to kind of counter the new ideas.
The Source talks about this, referencing how this scientific establishment
might respond, saying something like, if you go by your
logic and if you define beforehand, that's something like it. Logically,
it makes the most sense the one time one. And
then that's where the mathematical convention comes in. Yeah, that's
the most like large part of that at this convention.
Speaker 1: So highlighting that tension, the claim that a lot of
our current math and science is based on just definition
and convention.
Speaker 2: Agreed upon rules, right, rather than inherent universal truths that
maybe are only now being truly uncovered.
Speaker 1: It sets up this fundamental clash, doesn't it, between an
established system built on these agreed upon axioms and this
completely new proposed system built on what the Source claims
are like directly observable inherent geometric truth in the universe.
Speaker 2: It really becomes a debate about whether our foundation describes
reality or just prescribes rules.
Speaker 1: But then if the ideas are really resilient, you know,
if they resonate with enough people, sometimes you see that
third stage potential acceptance or at least widespread interest, and
we've definitely seen significant signs of that here. These concepts
have been getting a lot of attention and numerous views
on YouTube. The numbers are kind of staggering for topics
this complex and unconventional. We're talking millions of views, three million,
two point eight million, one point four one point three million.
Speaker 2: Huge engagement, it really is.
Speaker 1: And beyond just the public interest, there's even been some
external validation mentioned. The source quotes a Rolling Stone reporter
saying that the person behind these claims is a legitimate genius,
adding talk to the guy. The guy is absolutely brilliant.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: And then there's the mention of what Joe Rogan said, which,
you know, whatever your personal feelings about that platform, it
undeniably gives ideas massive visibility.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a clear shift from that initial dismissal to
this rapidly growing public interest and even some level of
mainstream acknowledgment. Yeah, and if we step back and look
at the bigger picture, this whole pattern. It encourages us
to think critically, not just about the ideas themselves, but
about how new information, especially really challenging stuff, gets integrated
or resisted by society, regardless of whether it's ultimately proven
right or wrong scientifically.
Speaker 1: That's a great point.
Speaker 2: The public's obvious willingness to engage with these ideas, those
massive views counts. It suggests a real hunger for alternative explanations.
Isn't it a deep curiosity about what might lie beyond
the standard narrative, maybe even some frustration with the perceived
limits of conventional science.
Speaker 1: So it raises that question. Does popular attention automatically mean
something is scientifically valid?
Speaker 2: Probably not automatically, no, but it definitely indicates a willingness
to consider alternatives and openness to challenging the status quo. Right,
the two aren't the same, but that rapid acceleration of
public interest is itself a social phenomenon worth looking at.
Speaker 1: And at the absolute core of all this, the central
argument is just it's truly ground bracing. The assertion is
that all of our math is based upon approximation unrealistic things.
Speaker 2: Not just minor flaws, but fundamentally unrealistic exactly.
Speaker 1: It's not about tiny errors and calculations or subtle issues
in a theorem. It's this claim of a fundamental, pervasive flaw,
a lie that we have to abandon, no matter how
attached to it we are, if humanity wants to advance
to what the Source calls a level one society.
Speaker 2: A level one society that implies more than just tech.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, it seems to suggest a fundamental shift in
our collective consciousness. How we interact at the universe, maybe
more harmoniously or efficiently, presumably by aligning our understanding with
these supposed universal truths. And the language used is so urgent,
so vivid, it paints this almost apocalyptic picture if we
don't fix it. Listen to this analogy. If you find
out that the foundation of your house is about to crack,
and you've got many, many stories of generations on top
of it, you've pulled all those people out, and you
fix that foundation. They don't want to do that with
our math. They would rather let us die.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's intense.
Speaker 1: It really hits hard.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It paints this picture an establishment that's just stubbornly resistant
to vital foundational change, even if it means jeopardizing humanity's
progress or even survival.
Speaker 2: And expanding on the implications. Yeah, this isn't just a
minor tweak. It's a claim that the very fundamentals are off.
The source suggests this truth provokes real anger in the
scientific establishment because it would upset their card, meaning it
directly challenges their established authority, the bedrock of their knowledge,
maybe decades or centuries.
Speaker 3: Of academic work.
Speaker 1: It basically says the language we use to describe the universe,
our math is built on shaky ground, fundamentally flawed from
the start.
Speaker 2: And to back this up, to show conviction and encourage
people to look for themselves, the individual has made a
book detailing these concepts available for free at day nine
is tlse dot dot com.
Speaker 1: Right, so anyone can go look at the alleged geometric
purse firsthand see if they also see this foundation off flat.
Speaker 2: It's an open invitation to inspect the evidence directly.
Speaker 1: Okay, now, let's really dive into some of the specifics
of this radical re evaluation, starting with what might be
the most shocking plan right on the first page of them.
So one by one equals one paradox.
Speaker 3: It seems so basic, doesn't it?
Speaker 1: It does something we learned like day one of school.
But the argument it made is well to follow the
logical If four divided by two is the inverse operation
of two times two one four.
Speaker 3: That makes sense, right, yeah, inverse operations.
Speaker 1: Then it would naturally follow that two divided by one
should be the inverse operation of one times one. Equally
well two.
Speaker 3: Uh, okay, I see where this is going.
Speaker 1: Let's pause for a second. I'll let that sink in.
If you apply that same logical inverse relationship consistently, then
one by one, according to this logic, should not equal one.
Speaker 2: So what does your common sense tell you there?
Speaker 3: What's similar? What's different?
Speaker 2: When you look at it through that specific lens of
inverse operations.
Speaker 1: It forces you to question the consistency and.
Speaker 2: The comparison presented in the source. It walks through the
basic operations systematically to highlight this perceived inconsistency. For addition
two plus two to four, okakay, and one plus one
two it seems consistent, right, It's attraction four two two
and two to one one Again, the inverse relationships look
perfectly logical. Then you get to multiplication two two four,
But eleven one, and this is exactly where the Source
identifies the mistake.
Speaker 3: So the argument is the core argument is.
Speaker 2: How can one one equaling one be part of the
multiplication table to satisfy the term multiply.
Speaker 3: It doesn't multiply.
Speaker 1: Ah, So it's about the definition.
Speaker 3: Of multiplying exactly.
Speaker 2: The Source redefines multiplication to fundamentally mean to make more
or increasing in number. So if multiplying by one doesn't
increase the original number, if it just maintains it, then
by this new definition, it fundamentally breaks the very essence
of what multiplication is supposed to do.
Speaker 1: It's not just a weird number thing. It's like a
conceptual mislabeling.
Speaker 2: Precisely, a conceptual miscategorization that supposedly exposes a foundational definitional
flaw and our arithmetic. The real insight here is how
it challenges the very purpose we assigned in numbers and operations.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like thinking about a fundamental law of
interaction in physics, maybe Newton's third law. Every action has
an equal and opposite reaction. Okay, yeah, when one thing
pushes on another, the second thing pushes back, you see
a clear reciprocal effect. An interaction that changes or affects
both sides.
Speaker 3: Right, there's a dynamic exchange, or.
Speaker 1: Think about pressure. One object applies pressure, the other response
of pressure back. In both cases there's this active interaction
that implies a change or an increase in the system's
dynamic state. So the core idea from the source is
that an operation called multiplication should consistently lead to more
to an expansion or an increase when one by one
just stay is one. It's presented as this anomaly that
undermines the whole.
Speaker 2: System, suggesting it's not truly an act of multiplying in
this purer, more expansive sense they're proposing.
Speaker 1: It suggests our mathematical definition of multiplication has been fundamentally
misaligned with how the universe actually works, maybe with its
principles of expansion and interaction.
Speaker 2: And this redefinition of operations leads us directly into another
really profound and startling claim that the square root of
two is, according to the source of mathematical fallacy, another
example of this fundamental brokenness.
Speaker 1: Okay, how does that work?
Speaker 2: The source advice is to do a simple calculator experiment.
You take the number two, find it square root, which
as we know is an irrational number an approximation in
our system, right, yeah, well one point four one four
lots of digits, right.
Speaker 1: One point four one four, two one three five sixty
two three seven.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, take that exact result and do two different things
of the first, multiply by two.
Speaker 3: Second, raise it to the power of three.
Speaker 1: Okay, multiply by two and cubit.
Speaker 2: And remarkably, both actions give you the exact same value
two point eight two eight four two seven one two
one seven four sixty one nine.
Speaker 1: Ere Wait, really, multiplying the square root of two by
two gives the same result as cubing the square root
of two according.
Speaker 3: To the calculator. Yes, that's the claim.
Speaker 1: Huh, okay, that's weird. And the experiment continues.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it continues to highlight this strange consistency. Now, if
you take that result, that two point eight two eight
number and divided by two, then cube it again.
Speaker 1: You get the same value again, You get the.
Speaker 2: Same value again. It's this continuous, repetitive loop. Wow. This
demonstrates as a points out how different mathematical operations on
the same number can yield these unexpected yet consistently identical results,
almost as if they're secretly connected in the way our
standard math doesn't really acknowledge.
Speaker 1: It creates this fascinating cycle where you just keep landing
back on the same number through different operations.
Speaker 2: That's precisely the loop of the source highlights, and it
points to what it calls an unnatural equation. X cube
is equal to two x, which is also equal to
x plus x.
Speaker 1: X cube equals two x equals x plus x based
on the smurve of two.
Speaker 2: Right, And the profound conclusion drawn from this isn't just oh,
that's need It's that this is a mathematical fallacy described
as the beginning of your math where a quote someone
programmed that lie in there and lie to you, and
you and everyone and all your fundamentals are off.
Speaker 1: WHOA, Okay, so it's not a quirk. It's evidence of
a fundamental flaw.
Speaker 2: That's the assertion, a direct, uncompromising challenge to the very
integrity of our foundational math concepts. It suggests a systemic
flaw right the start.
Speaker 1: And that rhetorical question they posed, well, am I crazy
or is the calculator broke?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It's designed to force you, the listener, to confront this
apparent inconsistency and question the very tools you rely on.
Speaker 3: For mathematical truth.
Speaker 1: It implies maybe a deliberate flaw, or at least a
systemic one that runs through our entire numerical system.
Speaker 2: And this sweeping critique doesn't stop that arithmetic. It extends
even to Euclidean geometry.
Speaker 1: A good old Euclid, the bedrock of how we think
about space and shapes.
Speaker 2: The old time Greek math expert who wrote down important
rules about shapes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, his work the Elements, It's been foundational for over
two thousand years, influencing everything architecture, maps.
Speaker 2: Even his deep study of the dodecahedron, that twelve sided
solid shows how deep his thinking worked. His ideas had
immense power, considered universal truths for so long.
Speaker 1: So what's the critique here, Well.
Speaker 2: What's truly fascinating is the sources critique that over time
some people changed his idea or said he did things
he didn't. But the crucial point being made is that
Euclid's ideas, specifically citing the cube where we get category
and theorem from A plus B plus acc is an average,
it's an approximation.
Speaker 1: The thagorusis theorem an approximation.
Speaker 3: How the argument is.
Speaker 2: That this problem starts when we try to make all
shapes follow the same rules, like when we can't get
the right lengths for the longest side of a triangle.
It suggests that even the most perfect shapes we define
the ideal geometric forms like squares and triangles, are really
just average forms, not exact representations of some inherent universal geometry.
Speaker 1: So there's a fundamental imprecision baked into our geometry from
the start and necessary simplification made way.
Speaker 3: Back when that's the claim.
Speaker 2: It questions whether our geometry truly reflects the dynamic, maybe
curving nature of reality.
Speaker 1: And this connects right back to that one by one
one thing we talked about, doesn't it. It creates this
kind of interlocking argument exactly. The source suggests that if
you truly made each side of those geometric links one
in some pure conceptual form, then you couldn't get the
proper hypot news with conventional math and its Pythagorean theorem.
If that theorem itself is based on an approximation, right,
If the.
Speaker 2: Very concept of a straight line or a perfect square
in Euclidean geometry is an approximation, then the numerical result
you derive from it will also be approximate.
Speaker 1: It highlights this core inconsistency, suggesting these foundational approximations in
geometry directly relate to that perceived fallacy in basic multiplication.
Speaker 2: It's all presented as part of the same interwoven fabric
of a supposedly flawed mathematical system.
Speaker 1: Man, it makes you reconsider every single number and equation
you've ever learned, doesn't it, from the simplest stuff to
the most.
Speaker 2: Complex, suggesting they might all be rooted in this kind
of cosmic simplification rather than a direct reflection of universal truth.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we've thoroughly challenged our fundamental understanding of numbers.
Let's shift gears now to something maybe even more audacious,
the source's radical redefinition of the very fabric of the
universe itself.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Imagine if chemicals are essentially nothing more than the motion
of either electricity or magnetism.
Speaker 2: Wow, okay, so matter isn't stuff, it's motion.
Speaker 1: That's the idea, A complete redefinition of matter from solid
fixed particles to these dynamic, unseen forces just move in.
It makes you wonder what our world would actually look
like if we perceived it that way.
Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is that core assertion matter is just motion.
This concept just utterly breaks down physical things, atoms, galaxies, everything,
into their fundamental dynamic processes.
Speaker 1: So what are the processes?
Speaker 2: Applies that there are two primary foundational motions. First electricity,
a manifestation of centripal force, a preceding motion, and second magnetism,
which arises from centrifical motion or moving away from the center.
Speaker 1: Okay, centriptal is inward pulling. Centrifugal is outward pushing exactly.
Speaker 2: Think of centripical force like an inward pull, drawing things
towards the center, creating density. Sure, the source equates this
to what we perceived as electricity, the force that builds
up and magnetism that's linked to centripical force the hour
push expanding away from the center. The source equates this
to magnetism, the force that discharges the beels.
Speaker 1: Well, crucially, these aren't tangible entities, right, They are effects
of specific motions precisive.
Speaker 2: So what we conventionally see as solid tangible matter in
the chair you're sitting on, the area you breathe, the
ground is supposedly just the observable result of these underlying
unseen energetic movements of constant interplay of contracting on the
spanning process.
Speaker 1: That's truly mine. Then it implies that everything in the
universe is fitting through the right left contracting or expanding.
So it's not just that matter moves, it's very existence
and its identity are defined by these pertetual dances.
Speaker 2: It paints this dynamic, ever shifting picture of reality where
solidity is just an illusion created by these forces, like
a snapshot of continuous energetic process.
Speaker 1: It's like watching a whirlpool in water. Right, it looks
like a distinct thing, but it's fundamentally just the motion
of the water itself.
Speaker 3: That's a great analogy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this dynamism extends profoundly to how elements are understood.
It basically throws out our conventional periodic table. The claim
is that an element is just a pressure condition, specifically
a periodic pressure, because it repeats itself something predictable. Okay.
The source outlines a process with three steps to folding
an element, where different pressure conditions lead to different crystallizations.
Speaker 3: Essentially, we call each of.
Speaker 2: Those crystallizations a different element, but it's a substance under
different motion and pressure conditions.
Speaker 1: So elements aren't fixed things with a set number of protons.
They're more like temporary.
Speaker 2: States, manifestations of a fundamental substance, Yeah, determined by the
specific pressure in motion they're experiencing at that moment. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen,
they're just different energetic states at the same underlying universal stuff.
Speaker 3: According to this.
Speaker 1: View, that's a huge departure from chemistry class. They even
give the example of hydrogen sharing similarities in tonal conditions
the carbon silicon cobalt, and rodeom tonal conditions like musical notes,
not literally music.
Speaker 2: I don't think it seems to imply a deeper maybe
vibrational or energetic resonance, like a fundamental frequency or tone
that dictates in element's property.
Speaker 1: Ah okay, like a harmonic system underlying the elements.
Speaker 2: Yeah, something more interconnected than just the periodic table we know.
And they introduce this pattern where certain elements have three
elements preceding them and three elements exceeding them in the periodic.
Speaker 1: Table, suggesting a deeper structure, a resonance right.
Speaker 2: Almost musical, beyond just their atomic number. And this raises
a really interesting question especially about hydrogen, right, the simplest
element we know. If that pattern of three preceding and
three exceeding holds true, you'd expect some kind of logical consistency.
If A relates to B B two C, then A
should relate to C similarly.
Speaker 1: Makes sense.
Speaker 2: So how is it that hydrogen doesn't have three elements
that come before it and also three elements that come
after it before you get to helium.
Speaker 1: What's the explanation.
Speaker 2: It's described as an entire octave within itself, suggesting it's
like a self contained.
Speaker 3: Vibrational an octave. Okay, but what's.
Speaker 2: Even more astonishing is the claim that twenty one other
elements occur before it.
Speaker 1: Twenty one elements before hydrogen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, twenty one elements that exist in some state or
form that we simply cannot perceive with our current science
our instruments are understanding.
Speaker 1: So our periodic table is radically incomplete, missing entire foundational
layers of existence.
Speaker 2: That's the implication, which means elements are not as permanent entities,
but as conditions or conditional facts.
Speaker 1: Conditional facts. I like that term.
Speaker 2: It implies that altering the conditions under which an element
exists can result in a different manifestation. For instance, they
claim changing the pressure condition of carbon can transform it
into nitrogen and oxygen. Yet the fundamental nature of the
element remains the same, it's just expressed differently.
Speaker 1: Okay. To give you a concrete example that might make
this idea of elemental transformation a bit more tangible, let's
think about lab grown diamonds.
Speaker 2: Ah, right, real world example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's fascinating.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We take carbon in one form graphite, which is soft
and dark, and turn it into another form, diamond, which
is incredibly hard, transparent, valuable.
Speaker 3: How do they do it again?
Speaker 1: Scientists start with a tiny diamond seed and some graphite.
They put them in a machine that creates intense heat
and pressure, mimicking the conditions deep inside the earth. Okay,
and this extreme environment causes the carbon atoms to rearrange themselves,
growing layer by layer onto the seed, and after just
a few weeks you get a sparkling lab grown diamond. Chemically, structurally,
it's identical to a natural one, but made by humans.
Speaker 2: So it really makes you wonder if we can turn soft,
dark carbon into a hard, shimmering diamond just by changing
pressure and heat. What does that imply about the definition
of an element. Are they really fixed identities or.
Speaker 1: Are they more like fluid states, conditional facts based on
the forces they experience. It certainly makes you think.
Speaker 2: And this radical redefinition of matter and elements that leads
directly to some profound claims about our own perception.
Speaker 3: Specifically, it's severe limitations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this part is wild. The source states that we
only perceive less than one half of one percent of the.
Speaker 2: Total spectrum, less than half a percent.
Speaker 1: Yet we base our judgments on this limited perception. We
are essentially cosmically blind on a conscious and cosmic level.
Speaker 2: It suggests our entire understanding of reality, our whole scientific
framework is just severely constrained by our biology. The narrow
band of energy and matter we can actually interact with.
Speaker 1: It's like trying to understand the entire ocean by looking
for a tiny people just.
Speaker 2: Of the surface.
Speaker 3: That's a good way to put it. We're missing so much.
Speaker 1: Vast swathes of reality just escape our senses, our instruments.
Our perception is described as minimum when understanding higher states
of matter or more dense conditions, and.
Speaker 2: The argument is that these differences hinder our ability to
proceed these states into temporal dimensions between us and these states.
Speaker 1: Temporal dimensions like different rates of time.
Speaker 2: That seems to be the implication, not just different frequencies,
but different states of existence and maybe different flows of time.
Speaker 1: Wow, it makes you wonder about this whole universe we're
simply unable to access or even acknowledge because we're stuck
in this narrow band of perception.
Speaker 2: And this limited perception leads to some really provocative assertions
that fundamentally challenge our ideas.
Speaker 3: About life and death.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, this one's a big one.
Speaker 2: The source claims there's no death on Mars, there's no
death on any planet. Everything is alive and just in
a different state of distance based on the motion and
pressure conditions.
Speaker 1: Everything is alive, just in different states.
Speaker 2: It completely redefines being alive and dying. Death isn't described
as an end, but as comparable to sleeping, where life
is being awake.
Speaker 1: Life is awake, death is asleep. On a cosmic scale.
Speaker 2: It expands the concept of life way beyond our usual
biological understanding tied to carbon based stuff on Earth. It
suggests maybe a universal consciousness or a state of being
that just transitions between different energetic.
Speaker 1: States, like a really slow cosmic inhale and exhale rather
than just stop it exactly.
Speaker 2: A planet, a star, a seemingly inert rock. Maybe they're
all alive in some fundamental sense, just sleeping or existing
in a state our senses can't grasp.
Speaker 1: And it all ties into this profound idea of the
eternal cycle of existence, where all things participate in the
processes of inhaling.
Speaker 2: And exhaling, not just breathing like us.
Speaker 1: No, it's presented as a universal rhythm, a fundamental principle
of creation and dissolution. It's about the exchange of gases
in living organisms, and the cycling of matter and energy
and ecosystems in universe.
Speaker 2: At large, and universal heartbeat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where everything is in constant flux, moving between expansion
and contraction, being drawn in and then pushed out in
this unending, self sustaining loop.
Speaker 2: And this continuous cycle also fundamentally challenges how we understand
electric charge, especially the idea of something being solely negatively charged.
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 2: The source describes a process of discharge.
Speaker 3: When an entity loses.
Speaker 2: Its electric charge, it discharges its electricity, and this loss
occurs when it seeks a high pressure condition where centrifugal
force dominates.
Speaker 1: Okay, centrifugal that's the outward pushing force again, right.
Speaker 2: So as something loses its electrical charge, it expands away
from a center seeking this high pressure state. This is
directly contrasted with magnetism, which acts to push away from
this high pressure condition, implying an opposing inward pulling force.
Speaker 1: Is involved to and these forces relate to what was it?
A fluid?
Speaker 2: These behaviors are attributed to the motion of a fluid
like substant maybe hinting at the old concept of ether,
which spins either to the right or the left, dictating
these forces.
Speaker 1: So it suggests a more dynamic fluid understanding of fundamental forces,
not just static plus and minus charges exactly.
Speaker 2: And this dynamic interplay between electric charge and magnetism is
deeply connected to Newton's third law. Every action has an
equal and opposite reaction. Okay, it's described as this constant
dynamic dance within these pressure conditions, driven by the motion
of this fluid like.
Speaker 1: Substance, a universe and constant of fluid motion, not just
a collection of static objects.
Speaker 2: Every push has a pull, every expansion a contraction, all
balancing out in this grand cosmic.
Speaker 1: Ballet, which brings us to maybe one of the most
mind bending concepts. The source introduces the very nature of
light itself.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, this one's wild.
Speaker 1: The source makes the astonishing claim that light doesn't.
Speaker 2: Travel, doesn't travel, but speed of light.
Speaker 1: I know, every physics book says light travels at a
finite speed crosses galic. But here the assertion is that
light reproduces itself with interactive growth.
Speaker 3: Reproduces itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like it has a full life cycle of birth,
growing up, maturing, mating, and then reproducing into the next octave.
Every wave of light itself is an entire family.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: Okay, so light isn't a particle or wave traveling.
Speaker 1: For me to be, but more like a self reproducing,
almost living entity with its own life cycle.
Speaker 2: Imagine light as this series of interconnected, self generating bursts
of existence, each wave basically.
Speaker 3: Giving birth to the next one, like a chain reaction
of creation.
Speaker 1: It's such a radical shift from our current understanding. It
implies this deeper, almost biological nature to even the most
fundamental forces in the others.
Speaker 2: So, given all these radical ideas about numbers, matter, perception,
It kind of makes sense that the flower of life
and what would come into play as a central keep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it fits the pattern, that intriguing ancient geometric symbol,
those overlapping circles and that made of flower pattern. What's
really striking is how it's found everywhere. Cloically, it's undeniable. Yeah, paradoxically,
it's often just overlooked in history books and academic discussions.
It stays relatively unknown to most people.
Speaker 3: It's almost like this secret language.
Speaker 2: Isn't it a universal truth hidden in plain sight, just
waiting to be properly understood or rediscovered exactly. And what's
truly fascinating is its undeniable historical footprint.
Speaker 3: It's just pervasive.
Speaker 2: This symbol has been seen in ancient ruins and on
megalithic pillars at the Temple of Osiris in Egypt, often
depicted and read, which sparks these debates about its age
because there's Greek graffiti nearby, right. The dating is tricky,
but its presence spans this incredible timeline in geography, from
a twenty six hundred year old Assyrian stone in a
rock to Leonardo da Vinci's meticulous drawings in Italy, da
Vinci drew it too, yep, and from Roman mosaics and
Turkey to a statue guarding the forbidden City.
Speaker 1: In Beijing, Wow, Assyria, Egypt, Italy, Turkey, China.
Speaker 2: And despite this huge geographical and time spread across totally
different cultures, it kept a consistent name on every continent
was found in whatever language, it was always called the
flower of Life.
Speaker 1: Always the flower of life. That consistency is amazing.
Speaker 2: It strongly suggests some kind of universal understanding or a
shared ancient discovery that just transcended language and borders.
Speaker 1: So it begs the question, how did this knowledge get
so widespread but then become so obscure kind of in
modern times?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the mystery.
Speaker 1: So if this symbol holds such ancient universal significance, what
was the old interpretation of it? And how does that
connect back to the critique of our map.
Speaker 2: Well, the source explains that, say, six thousand years ago
or however long ago, someone had the clever idea of saying,
you know what, why don't I draw straight lines where
circles overlap them?
Speaker 1: Okay, simplifying the curves into lines of the overlaps.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: This initial seemingly harmless step. This old interpretation, it talks
about finding an average, a simplification in those spaces where
the perfect circles come together.
Speaker 1: According to the source, this is precisely where that alleged
approximation that supposedly plagues our modern map actually began.
Speaker 2: It was a simplification that then became a foundation.
Speaker 1: And how does this relate to magnetism?
Speaker 2: This old interpretation, according to the source, directly relates to
magnetism and how it behaves. It says that one of
these circles you have to see as a magnetic field.
That's how magnetism behaves. Everything expands from this way.
Speaker 1: So the circles aren't static drawings, they're expanding magnetic fields exactly.
Speaker 2: And from this expansion a fundamental geometric form emerges, a
shape called a tetrahedron, which is that four sided pyramid.
And the source uses this to demonstrate a crucial point.
Real life doesn't have perfectly straight lines.
Speaker 1: Right. We touched on this earlier.
Speaker 2: The core idea is that all energy moves, all movement
creates waves, and all waves bend, So making a straight
line is impossible because every action has a reaction that
balances it out.
Speaker 1: So the curves are fundamental.
Speaker 2: This bend we see is just everything balancing itself within
a system. And the greater the resistance and the greater
that curvature, which represents.
Speaker 3: The equinity of all the interactions within a.
Speaker 1: Particular system, equinity like equilibrium or balance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, essentially everything is in this state of dynamic equilibrium,
constantly curving, adjusting, perpetually balancing itself out.
Speaker 1: So it's this constant dynamic curvature, this continuous balancing act
of forces, that's the true underlying reality of the universe.
Straight lines are just an artificial construct and approximation of
this bending dynamic flow.
Speaker 2: And precisely, and yet this is exactly where that profound
mathematical critique we discussed earlier comes back in tying it
all together.
Speaker 1: How does it link back?
Speaker 2: Well, these perfect spheres, which are magnetic fields around each other,
which is a discharging aspect, they're the fundamental building blocks.
And where these magnetic fields interact where they overlap, and
this is where electricity begins.
Speaker 3: Where they overlap their force to create spin.
Speaker 1: Okay, overlap creates spin electricity.
Speaker 2: However, the source claims that six thousand years ago they
said they're going to average the spin and they generated
straight lines.
Speaker 1: Ah, the simplification.
Speaker 2: Ay go, And now you can clearly see that even
the cube where we get Patagoryan theorem from a bos
PFS or core is an average.
Speaker 3: It's an approximation.
Speaker 1: There it is again Pythagoras based on an approximation.
Speaker 2: This is the absolute crux of the matter. Most of
our math, our algebra are calculus.
Speaker 3: All of those things are generated through.
Speaker 2: This circumstance, this initial simplification of averaging the dynamic curving
interactions into static straight lines.
Speaker 1: So this fundamental averaging, this initial simplification, is presented as
the root cause of all the perceived inaccuracies and lies
in our entire mathematical frame link.
Speaker 2: It suggests that our mathematical language just doesn't truly capture
the universe's inherent curvey.
Speaker 1: Reality, which also led right back into why one times
one couldn't possibly equal one in this un framework exactly
because if you made each side of those geometrical conceptually
one unit, but those units are fundamentally curved or approximate.
Speaker 2: In reality, then you couldn't get the proper hypotenus using
the Fagorean theorem. If it's based on an approximation of
straight lines. It doesn't compute consistent.
Speaker 1: It's a complete interlocking argument. Our math is built on
these foundational inaccuracies, starting from an ancient decision to simplify
complex dynamic curves into static, averaged straight lines.
Speaker 2: It forces you to reconsider every number, every shape, every
equation you've.
Speaker 1: Ever learned, suggesting they might all be rooted in a
cosmic simplification rather than a direct reflection of universal truth.
Speaker 2: So to really help people grasp this comprehensive rethinking of
the universe, numbers matter, perception, everything, the source claims, an.
Speaker 3: App was created.
Speaker 2: An app okay yeah, designed to visually represent these profound concepts.
The creators said they were quote instructed to do to
take the same flower of life and basically bring its
principles to life digitally.
Speaker 1: So it's not just animations. It's meant to be like
a tool.
Speaker 2: A direct visual tool for a deeper understanding of the
entire concept. It lets you see these geometric proofs in
their dynamic implications in action, almost like peering to the
blueprint of existence itself.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what is this show? What's the first big
visual the.
Speaker 2: First major demonstration is what happens when four bubbles representing
those fundamental expanding spheres or magnetic fields meet and interact.
The app shows an icon moving left to right illustrating this.
Speaker 1: Convergence bubbles coming together right.
Speaker 2: The process involves taking the actual curved triangular pieces formed
by the overlap of these spheres and putting four of
them together based on universal ratios, and.
Speaker 1: The visual result is crucial.
Speaker 2: This is the point four bubbles meet. This is the
negative space that they cannot.
Speaker 1: Compress, the space between the bubbles.
Speaker 2: And then comes the really astonishing claim. This is what
we would call dark matter. This is the proton, the
geometry of hydrogen itself.
Speaker 1: Wait, that empty space is dark matter, and the proton
and hydrogen's geometry all from four bubbles meeting.
Speaker 2: That's the assertion. According to this framework, dark matter, the proton,
the fundamental geometry of hydrogen, they're all manifestations of this
specific geometric configuration, that uncompressed void created by four fundamental
spheres interacting.
Speaker 1: So this is the very blueprint of hydrogen and maybe
dark matter. What about its structure?
Speaker 2: The structure itself, the Force describes it as having eight poles.
These include four contractive poles, those concave inward curving areas
where the spheres meet, and that's where electricity seeking a
higher pressure condition would cause a cap.
Speaker 1: Okay, four electricals and the other.
Speaker 2: Four, and then there's magnetism unable to maintain its electrical potential,
ends up spinning off of the vortices. These are the
points where energy spins off. These false spheres occupying this
specific space create that crucial negative area between.
Speaker 1: Them, and it fundamentally argues that everything expands as a
sphere like those initial bubbles, and then country tracks in
geometric patterns. These contractions forming structures like hydrogen and the
proton are due to the impact of expanding waves reaching
the edge of the universe and rebounding back, creating these
periodic geometric structures.
Speaker 2: So it's a universe that breathe, expands out, then folds
back on itself to create matter.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's four bubbles. What about more?
Speaker 2: Moving to the next configuration, the app visually represents what
happens when.
Speaker 3: Eight bubbles meet. A more complex interaction.
Speaker 1: Eight bubbles meeting what shape forms.
Speaker 3: The resulting structure.
Speaker 2: A negative space where eight bubbles have met is revealed
to be a tetrahedron shape. That four sided pyramid again,
and when you rotate this image in the app, you
supposedly see it has eight contracted poles those inward points
four around one side and another four on the opposite side.
That totals eight contracted electric poles.
Speaker 1: Eight electric poles again, what about magnetic ah.
Speaker 2: But crucially, despite eight electrical poles, there are only six
men magnetic poles indicated by points where discharge occurs, meaning
only six points where it's discharging.
Speaker 1: Eight electric, six magnetic asymmetrical exactly. Each vortic or spiraling
energy pointy is identified as a magnetic fol a discharging pole.
It highlights the specific maybe unbalanced, energetic signature within this
fundamental structure.
Speaker 2: Who does this structure do anything different?
Speaker 1: This structure shows a significant change from the four level
one that's more complex, capable of attracting other components. The
central component has attracted two smaller components or something a
photo partner of life. So light particles are attracted to
this eight level structure, seems so.
Speaker 2: And those distinct swipes or fast moving levels you see
in the visualization represent a combination of eles.
Speaker 1: So it's showing how progressively, more complex things like light
and combination developments start to form from these basic geometric.
Speaker 2: Interactions, exactly building blocks and if we connect us to
the bigger picture. This eight level structure is set to
function as a step.
Speaker 1: Up transformer, like on a power line.
Speaker 3: It's just like that.
Speaker 2: It's capable of transitioning from three sides to a higher
electrical potential indicated by the patrons of the ends. Then
it steps back down to a lower potential.
Speaker 1: Elsewhere, so it manages energy flow.
Speaker 2: The analogy is directly drawn to those electrical transformers installed
on power lines that step up and down energy. This principle,
derived from these fundamental geometric interactions is proposed to apply universally,
explaining how energy and matter transform and interact at foundational
levels everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's like a universal energetic architecture built on geometry, precisely,
four bubbles, eight bubbles plus.
Speaker 2: Next, finally, the app demonstrates what happens when twelve bubbles meet.
This is the ultimate convergence presented, forming an even more
intricate and apparently stable structure.
Speaker 1: Twelve bubbles meeting. What's the outcome there?
Speaker 2: It results in another stable structure emerging, but what's particularly
intriguing here is an anomaly. Four electrical potentials remain unaccounted
for during the hunting.
Speaker 1: Hunting, maybe counting or accounting could be accounting.
Speaker 2: Despite this, the structure remains stable while attracting other components.
Speaker 1: So it's stable but still attracting things and has four
unexplained energy potentials.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it still is attracting, but it's a stable structure,
a fascinating paradox stability coexisting with continued attraction.
Speaker 1: And the profound implication is that.
Speaker 2: These structures derived directly from the flower of life, and
these bubble interactions are built based on robust mathematical principles,
and all their electrical potential has been allocated in a
way that's understood except for these four remaining potentials.
Speaker 1: Huh.
Speaker 2: And this resembles this phenomenon where an object becomes virtually
indistinguishable from the fabric of the universe is said to
resemble the.
Speaker 3: Concept of a Bose Einstein condensate. Ah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that state of matter where particles act as one
quantum way of losing their individual identities.
Speaker 2: Exactly, This state of indistinguishability where merges with the very
fabric of space time poses significant challenges to our conventional
understanding of discrete things and the boundaries between them.
Speaker 1: It pushes physics into a realm where matter is truly
one with the universe. Hashtag tashag outro. So wow, we've
taken quite a journey today, haven't we.
Speaker 3: We really have covered a lot of.
Speaker 1: Ground, from that audacious challenge to fundamental math like one
by one, to the dynamic nature of elements being just
pressure conditions, the startling limitations of our own perception, and
that deep ancient wisdom supposedly embedded in universal geometric patterns
like the flower of life. We've explored claims that light
doesn't travel, it reproduces, that matter is merely motion, and
that the very foundation of our numbers is built on
some ancient approximation.
Speaker 2: It really forces you to reconsider not just physics or math,
but your very.
Speaker 3: Definition of reality.
Speaker 2: It really does, and the broader implication here is just immense.
These claims challenge us to question what we just accept
as fact, to be open the possibility that there are
fundamental truth about our universe that are well yet to
be widely understood or accepted by conventional science. We saw
how these radical ideas can move from ridicule to opposition
and maybe towards acceptance, and how much of our current
understanding is argued to be based on convention and approximation,
not inherent geometric truths.
Speaker 1: It's a call to reevaluate our most basic assumptions about
existence itself. Absolutely, it's been an absolutely mind bending deep
dive pulling out these nuggets of insight from a perspective
that is truly radical, maybe even revolutionary. Our mission was
to provide you with a shortcut, really to being well
informed about this extraordinary alternative viewpoint, delving into the nuances
and implications.
Speaker 2: Of these ways, and I think we've certainly covered the
core ideas presented.
Speaker 1: Left no stone unturned in this fascinating exploration.
Speaker 2: I hope indeed it definitely prompts a reevaluation or most
basic assumptions about the cosmos in our place in it.
Speaker 1: So as you go about your day, maybe looking at
a simple calculation or even just a shape, ask yourself
what stands out to us about these geometric proofs, and
if our basic understanding of numbers in reality truly is
an approximation, a simplified version of a more complex, dynamic,
interconnected universe. What other fundamental truths might we need to
re examine in the pursuit of a deeper understanding of existence?
Speaker 2: What else might be hidden in plain sight, just waiting
for us to see beyond the Convention