Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of Haartru's podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm your host Ashon Forbes. Today I have a very
Speaker 1: special guest. Harvard astrophysicist A. V. Lobe is with me
Speaker 1: today and we're going to talk science and physics.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The reason why I'm so excited to talk to Avi
Speaker 1: Lobe is that he's not afraid to talk about topics
Speaker 1: that other academics won't broach, like aliens and UFOs. So
Speaker 1: today we're gonna talk about some amazing stuff.
Speaker 3: Av.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for being with me today. How
Speaker 2: are you doing?
Speaker 3: Thanks for inviting me. It's a great pleasure.
Speaker 2: So just let's get started right away.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about what I just mentioned
Speaker 1: is from my perspective on the outside looking in, it
Speaker 1: looks like academics are afraid to talk about some of
Speaker 1: these topics that I see you talking about all the
Speaker 1: time with podcasters, like can we communicate with aliens? What
Speaker 1: would other civilizations look like? And how would other civilizations
Speaker 1: use science and physics.
Speaker 2: To get here?
Speaker 1: What is it about you that makes you different? And
Speaker 1: what do you think about your peers and if do
Speaker 1: they judge you for that?
Speaker 4: Well, it's just a matter of common sense. We exist
Speaker 4: on a rock that was left over from the formation
Speaker 4: of the Sun, and we see similar rocks earth like
Speaker 4: planets around the other sun like stars, and in fact,
Speaker 4: there are hundreds of billions of such systems based on
Speaker 4: the latest estimates, within the Milky Way galaxy alone, and
Speaker 4: then there are trillion galaxies in the universe. So thinking
Speaker 4: that we are unique and special and nothing like us
Speaker 4: exists is really very presumptuous, very arrogant, and as a
Speaker 4: matter of common sense, we should accept the possibility that
Speaker 4: there are many other kids in our cosmic neighborhood and
Speaker 4: they might be smarter than us.
Speaker 3: What could be more natural than that?
Speaker 4: So I'm just applying common sense, and to me, that
Speaker 4: is part of reality that we have to learn about.
Speaker 4: We see our house, it looks familiar, the Solar system,
Speaker 4: the Earth moving around the Sun, and then we see
Speaker 4: other houses, planets moving around other stars in our cosmic street,
Speaker 4: and the only question we have to ask is whether
Speaker 4: there are any residents in those houses. That's not such
Speaker 4: a difficult question to address with modern science, with the
Speaker 4: tools that we have. And so all I'm saying is
Speaker 4: forget about science fiction, about the lord that the people
Speaker 4: without any substantiation, bring up all kinds of stories that
Speaker 4: have no credibility. Forget about this, it's completely unrelated. There
Speaker 4: is a fundamental question whether we are not only away
Speaker 4: from any physical center of the universe the way people
Speaker 4: thought before coperaicles, but perhaps we are not even at
Speaker 4: the intellectual center of the universe.
Speaker 3: And let's learn from others.
Speaker 4: Now, you may ask why is this common sensical view
Speaker 4: not the dominant within the mainstream of the centific community.
Speaker 4: And you know, that's one of these anomalies within academia,
Speaker 4: that the culture is for people to show off that
Speaker 4: they are smarter than others, not to take any risks
Speaker 4: that may ruin the reputation, and not to interact with
Speaker 4: the public in a sincere fashion. And usually the approach
Speaker 4: is to have press conferences in which you tell the
Speaker 4: public your results like a teacher in a class. But
Speaker 4: that's not the way I see it. The public pays
Speaker 4: money through taxes to support science, and the public cares
Speaker 4: a lot about this particular question. So I think it's
Speaker 4: completely inappropriate of scientists to ignore this question and to
Speaker 4: have committees that are claiming that addressing this question is
Speaker 4: too risky and in fact, may result in wasting taxpayers money.
Speaker 4: I said that taxpayers want us to study it, we
Speaker 4: should attend to that. But I do not hope to
Speaker 4: get funded by the standard committees that NASA or the
Speaker 4: National Science Foundation assemble, because they are full of those
Speaker 4: traditional thinking and no risk taking scientists. And I get
Speaker 4: all of my funding from private donations or donors.
Speaker 2: So let me ask the devil's advocate thing, because I think.
Speaker 1: That they would probably say, well, you can't go probably
Speaker 1: even close to the speed of light and the nearest
Speaker 1: stars four light years away, and from their perspective, they
Speaker 1: would say, also, we can't achieve faster light communication, so
Speaker 1: we're kind of just stuck out in the middle of
Speaker 1: nowhere with no hope of ever getting to somebody. So
Speaker 1: how do you respond to that criticism that they would levy,
Speaker 1: And would you say that there might be another solution
Speaker 1: that we just haven't figured out.
Speaker 3: Well, that's not factually true.
Speaker 4: So the thing is that Voyager, the spacecraft that we launched,
Speaker 4: will exit the orcloud of the Solar System within ten
Speaker 4: thousand years and we'll get to the opposite side of
Speaker 4: the Milky Way galaxy in a billionaires.
Speaker 3: Okay, now, most.
Speaker 4: Stars like the Sun in the Milky Way galaxy formed
Speaker 4: billions of years before the Sun. So if you imagine
Speaker 4: a copy of what we have here just translated in
Speaker 4: time to an earlier time by a few billionaires, then
Speaker 4: they could have reached us by now. Even their voyager
Speaker 4: like probes that move with the same technology, that are
Speaker 4: propelled by chemical rockets, those would be able to reach
Speaker 4: us as long as their star was at least the
Speaker 4: billionaires ahead of ours. And that basically tells you you
Speaker 4: don't need to travel because there could be objects that
Speaker 4: arrived to our vicinity that spent recent billions of years
Speaker 4: to get here. So instead of us going to the
Speaker 4: neighbor's yard, we might as well check for any tennis
Speaker 4: balls that were thrown by the neighbor.
Speaker 1: So you're expecting what when neurine as out as ven
Speaker 1: Newman probes? Is that the theory that you're kind of
Speaker 1: throwing out there.
Speaker 3: I mean, even space trash.
Speaker 4: You know, if as long as the civilization, you know,
Speaker 4: we are preoccupied, if you look at the news, we
Speaker 4: are preoccupied with problems on the surface of this rock.
Speaker 4: And we invest two point four trillion dollars in military
Speaker 4: budgets very often trying to kill others or avoiding preventing others.
Speaker 3: From killing us.
Speaker 4: And most of the time it's about territorial disputes or
Speaker 4: power struggles. But this is all on the surface of
Speaker 4: this rock, and in fact, there is much more real
Speaker 4: estate out there and in interstellar space, so this makes
Speaker 4: very little sense. And you could imagine that a civilization
Speaker 4: that is sufficiently advanced, that has a perspective about interstellar
Speaker 4: space would actually launch.
Speaker 3: Equipment or actually evens or systems with artificial intelligence away
Speaker 3: from their home planet. So this is really the key.
Speaker 4: It's not so much how long does the civilization last,
Speaker 4: but whether they escape from that original habitat that.
Speaker 3: They were born on. And if they did.
Speaker 4: It will just you know, even if the equipment that
Speaker 4: they launched is not functional anymore, the wave voyager will
Speaker 4: not be in a billionaires, you know, it will lose
Speaker 4: its functionality. It will still be space trash. And just
Speaker 4: like finding plastics in the ocean, you know, keeps accumulating
Speaker 4: the gravity of the Milky Way galaxy can keep those
Speaker 4: objects from escaping because they move at the speed that
Speaker 4: is ten times too small, unlike the speed of light
Speaker 4: that radio signals propagate. So the traditional approach was to
Speaker 4: wait for a phone call, but nobody may call you
Speaker 4: at the time that you're listening. And indeed, over the
Speaker 4: past sixty years, we haven't detected any clear signal. However,
Speaker 4: if you are searching for objects in your backyard or
Speaker 4: packages in your mailbox, you know those may have arrived
Speaker 4: a long time ago. The senders may be dead. Most
Speaker 4: of these may not be functioning, but you could distinguish
Speaker 4: them from natural objects like rocks, asteroids, comets.
Speaker 2: And so I like that. I like that idea.
Speaker 1: I mean you're looking under every stone literally and figuratively
Speaker 1: for you know, possible signs of other beings or any
Speaker 1: ancient civilization.
Speaker 4: Well, actually, I should say that within the orbit of
Speaker 4: the Earth around the Sun, there should be of the
Speaker 4: order of millions of objects that are meter in size
Speaker 4: from outside the Solar System. We know that based on
Speaker 4: the frequency of interstellar meteors. These are objects colliding with
Speaker 4: Earth that derived from outside the Solar System. So we
Speaker 4: haven't really searched those millions of objects right now.
Speaker 3: Within the orbit of Director around the Sun.
Speaker 4: The Sun is significant because it acts like a lamp
Speaker 4: post that is illuminating. So it's just like looking for
Speaker 4: your keys under the lamp post on the street. It's
Speaker 4: much easier to find the keys. So I'm saying there
Speaker 4: are millions of possible keys, and all you need to
Speaker 4: do is sort out whether any of them appears to
Speaker 4: be technological in origin. And to do that, I mean,
Speaker 4: we can't with the current telescopes. We can't truly observe
Speaker 4: meter sized objects from the reflection of sunlight that are
Speaker 4: too faint. But I'm suggesting, you know, with the investment
Speaker 4: of hundreds of millions of dollars or a few billion dollars,
Speaker 4: we can definitely study those and not nothing of that
Speaker 4: nature was actually done so far.
Speaker 3: And I actually just a.
Speaker 4: Few weeks ago I heard the Peter Till who following
Speaker 4: the presidential election, he said, you should never bet against
Speaker 4: Elon mask And so the following day I wrote an
Speaker 4: essay betting against Elon Musk because Elon said, while we
Speaker 4: are probably alone in trying to motivate settling humans on
Speaker 4: Mars so that the human species will be a multiplanetary species,
Speaker 4: but I try to explain that in fact, you know,
Speaker 4: they are within the observable volume of the universe that
Speaker 4: attend to the power twenty one Earth Sun systems, and
Speaker 4: we actually know that there is no cliff just beyond
Speaker 4: the cosmic horizon, that the conditions continue for at least
Speaker 4: four thousand times farther away. So they are altogether tend
Speaker 4: to the power thirty one Earth Sun systems. And I'm
Speaker 4: willing to take a bet that we are not alone,
Speaker 4: okay with And my bet is that I will put
Speaker 4: one percent of my net worth against one percent of Elon's.
Speaker 3: Networth in a pool.
Speaker 4: We would dedicate that to the study of any evidence
Speaker 4: as I mentioned, for example, studying all the interestar objects
Speaker 4: in our vicinity, and then if in ten years we
Speaker 4: won't find the evidence, I will pay a second one
Speaker 4: percent of my network to him. So if you think
Speaker 4: about it, I mean, you might say that's a lot
Speaker 4: of money on his part, but it's actually just four
Speaker 4: billion dollars. The web Telescope was ten billion dollars, the
Speaker 4: large hydron Collider was ten billion dollars. For addressing the
Speaker 4: question and spend the metal as that it's not unusual
Speaker 4: to spend billions of dollars. In fact, the next observatory
Speaker 4: that the mainstream astronomy community wants to build would be
Speaker 4: the Habitable World Observatory, looking for gases like oxygen or
Speaker 4: method in the atmosphere of planets as they transit the
Speaker 4: face of the star that hosts them. But that will
Speaker 4: be probably in the twenty forties, and it's a huge
Speaker 4: amount of money, and it's not clear that we would
Speaker 4: learn whether microbes exist, because you can make those gases
Speaker 4: also by natural origins that have nothing to do with life,
Speaker 4: like geological processes. And what I'm saying is, with the
Speaker 4: investment of less money than that but comparable, we can
Speaker 4: not only find evidence for life, but in fact learned
Speaker 4: that there are technological civilizations in our cosmic neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think most size he hasn't seen evidence
Speaker 1: of aliens, which is kind of a different claim than
Speaker 1: what you're putting out there, which is just from a
Speaker 1: statistical odds perspective, there must be aliens out there.
Speaker 3: Oh no.
Speaker 4: So I actually addressed his comment on that matter as well.
Speaker 4: He said that no object and that's related to you
Speaker 4: a unidentified anomalous phenomenon. He said, no object collided with
Speaker 4: the communications satellite of Starling.
Speaker 3: But I did a simple calculation. If you put.
Speaker 4: A meter sized the object at the same altitude as
Speaker 4: the Starling satellites, so you just put it there.
Speaker 3: The chance of it colliding with the Starling.
Speaker 4: Satellite is once in a thousand years, Okay, So the
Speaker 4: fact that nothing collided with I mean, starting satellites are
Speaker 4: not really built for the purpose of searching for objects
Speaker 4: near Earth, and I put it in the same altitude.
Speaker 4: It might be in very different altitudes than those satellites.
Speaker 4: So that's not evidence for men. I mean, it's just
Speaker 4: like saying the Starling satellites did not detect the Higgs boson,
Speaker 4: therefore I have no evidence that the Higgs boson that exists.
Speaker 4: Of course, you needed to build a machine, okay, within
Speaker 4: a cern that took decades to build, that cost ten
Speaker 4: billion dollars that would look for the Higgs boson. You
Speaker 4: have to build equipment that is dedicated for the task.
Speaker 4: You can't just accidentally expect new knowledge to fall into
Speaker 4: your lab, because everything that falls into our lap is
Speaker 4: already known. You know, we see birds, we know about
Speaker 4: the moon. I mean, these are things we know about
Speaker 4: because they are easy. The low hanging fruit, we've been
Speaker 4: seeing them since we were born, and humans saw them
Speaker 4: for millions of years. However, if you want new knowledge
Speaker 4: something that is not easy to get it, you need
Speaker 4: to put the effort.
Speaker 3: And the money to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, and I think that So I guess
Speaker 1: let me press you and Elon both at the same time. Now,
Speaker 1: I would say I would that one percent of my networth,
Speaker 1: and I would say that if we started searching with
Speaker 1: high frequency gravitational waves, we might find them. And the
Speaker 1: reason why I say this is that you know, maybe there,
Speaker 1: if alien civilization exists and they are much more advanced
Speaker 1: than we are on the timescale, then I think, assuming
Speaker 1: that they're gonna use communication methods that we use today,
Speaker 1: it's kind of egotistical on our perspective. Maybe we're looking
Speaker 1: at the problem all wrong. And maybe that's the reason
Speaker 1: why said he hasn't been successful in finding messages and
Speaker 1: why we've been kind of naive.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends.
Speaker 4: It depends what you call a high frequency because we
Speaker 4: do have the Lago experiment that the text gravitation waves.
Speaker 4: So far, all the signals detected relate to black hole
Speaker 4: collisions within the observer universe.
Speaker 1: So what do you mean those are low frequency gravitational
Speaker 1: waves At least as far as I've been made aware
Speaker 1: that those are.
Speaker 4: Okay, well there they are the highest that we can
Speaker 4: detect from Earth.
Speaker 3: But there are lower.
Speaker 4: Frequency waves that the LISA experiment will try to detect
Speaker 4: within a decade or so. So actually nobody is talking
Speaker 4: about higher frequency although in principal gravitation waves can go
Speaker 4: all the way you know, to jigahertz or higher frequencies
Speaker 4: that we have electromagnetic signals in. But to generate such
Speaker 4: waves requires an auto mass and moving very fast.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I'm getting at, because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, we're talking about, well, are we cavemen
Speaker 1: on this block? And if we are, if there are
Speaker 1: civilizations that are out there, why are we assuming that
Speaker 1: they're less advanced than we are. Well, they could be
Speaker 1: easily more advanced. And look at how far we've come
Speaker 1: in just one hundred years. Imagine us in a thousand years.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're gonna be riding around on SpaceX rockets.
Speaker 1: And so my question to you is, do you think,
Speaker 1: like Elon Musk said, we're going interstet we're going interplanetary
Speaker 1: on SpaceX rockets. I don't even trust SpaceX rockets to
Speaker 1: take me to Mars. Let alone to like Europa or
Speaker 1: another star system.
Speaker 2: What about you?
Speaker 1: Do you think that we're gonna go with that or
Speaker 1: do you think it's going to require new technology?
Speaker 4: No, of course, I mean we are just doing making
Speaker 4: the baby steps in moving away from our planets right now,
Speaker 4: you know, in these decades, and then obviously as we
Speaker 4: develop a better technology, is we would move faster and better. Okay,
Speaker 4: And so imagine and sending a ship into the ocean, okay,
Speaker 4: that moves relatively slowly because it's propelled by wind, and
Speaker 4: then you develop a steamship that moves faster because it
Speaker 4: has its own propulsion. So obviously you know you would
Speaker 4: pass the past technologies as you move by them. So
Speaker 4: if you imagine a civilization developing on an extra planet,
Speaker 4: at first you would see rockets that are rather primitive
Speaker 4: chemical rockets that we're using coming out of the planet,
Speaker 4: suppose you were looking at it, And then you would
Speaker 4: see more and more sophisticated means of propulsion coming out
Speaker 4: that move faster and basically reach the slower ones within
Speaker 4: a relatively short time and then go much farther. And
Speaker 4: so obviously the future would be far more impressive for
Speaker 4: us if we survive.
Speaker 3: That's the fundamental question.
Speaker 4: You know, we discovered quantum mechanics just a century ago,
Speaker 4: and you may ask how much longer.
Speaker 3: Do we have?
Speaker 4: And if we don't leave our planet, you know, there
Speaker 4: could be lots of catastrophes that could destroy our technological
Speaker 4: Some of them are self inflicted and in the form
Speaker 4: of AI or biological warfare, or maybe nuclear weapons and
Speaker 4: political instabilities could trigger catastrophes, and.
Speaker 3: So it's important to have more than on that.
Speaker 4: I agree with Ilon that it's important for us to
Speaker 4: venture outside of our planet. But the question is whether
Speaker 4: that will be taking the form of humans in space
Speaker 4: or maybe AI systems in space.
Speaker 3: That's to be seen.
Speaker 4: But one thing that is the reason for finding evidence
Speaker 4: for other civilizations that preceded us by billions of years
Speaker 4: is to see what they have done and get inspired
Speaker 4: by it by it because it may give us new ideas. Now,
Speaker 4: the way I approach it is not to imagine what
Speaker 4: they are to say, oh, they send jiggahearts gravitational waves. Therefore,
Speaker 4: I will try to build detector for jigger. Now, the
Speaker 4: way to approach it is to use the best detectors
Speaker 4: we have in any possible way. You know, whatever we
Speaker 4: have at our disposal, and look for things that are
Speaker 4: not familiar. Okay, so if we have infrared cameras, you
Speaker 4: look at the sky and you see is everything in
Speaker 4: the form of birds, clouds, leaves, drones, balloons, airplanes, satellites
Speaker 4: or is there something that is not familiar? And it's
Speaker 4: true in any domain, it could be the domain of
Speaker 4: dervigational waves as well. So the point is just be
Speaker 4: curious enough that when you see a signal that is anomalous,
Speaker 4: you would entertain the possibility that it may be of
Speaker 4: technological origin from outside of the Solar system. And you know,
Speaker 4: that's really the block that keeps scientists away from this subject.
Speaker 4: It's not the lack of anomalist it's the sort of
Speaker 4: the distancing from the possibility that an object like Omumua
Speaker 4: that looked weird in all ways, that was different than
Speaker 4: any rock we have seen before. They would agree with
Speaker 4: that that it's a rock of a type that we've
Speaker 4: never seen before. But they would say that it's a rock,
Speaker 4: that's it. And they would say the same about the
Speaker 4: Tesla Roads, the car that Elon has claunched in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 4: It's a rock of a type that we've never seen before.
Speaker 4: So my point is we should be open minded that
Speaker 4: others are doing what we are doing. That's not very
Speaker 4: imaginative actually, and if you think about it, it shouldn't
Speaker 4: be controversial. So when Enrico Fermi said where is everybody?
Speaker 4: He was not trying to seek evidence. He was just
Speaker 4: entertaining himself with this question during lunchtime. And you know,
Speaker 4: whenever you see a lonely person, they often ask where
Speaker 4: is everybody? And you tell them, look, don't think that
Speaker 4: you're so attractive. They will be next to you all
Speaker 4: the time. You need to be proactive, at the very
Speaker 4: least look through the windows of your home to find
Speaker 4: a partner, or go down the street and check. But
Speaker 4: you can't just argue I don't see them next to me,
Speaker 4: because this would have been the low hanging fruit. And
Speaker 4: obviously they're not next to us because space is vast.
Speaker 4: Time is measured in billions of years, so the chance
Speaker 4: of them being next to Enrico Fermi in Los Alamos
Speaker 4: in nineteen fifty one is miniscule. I mean, why would
Speaker 4: exactly at that time, exactly that location, there would be
Speaker 4: clear evidence for them.
Speaker 1: I want to dig into that more in just a
Speaker 1: sec but before that, I want to get your opinion
Speaker 1: on something I haven't already talked about much, which is
Speaker 1: what do you think about the UFO community, because I
Speaker 1: haven't seen you interact much with like, really any of them,
Speaker 1: and you know, is there a reason for that? Do
Speaker 1: you avoid them for certain reasons? Is it two sensationalss
Speaker 1: for you?
Speaker 4: Go ahead, No, that's that's not true. I just don't
Speaker 4: interact with many people at all. I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: have any footprint on social media, okay, and I don't
Speaker 4: care how many likes I get. So I'm not running
Speaker 4: a popularity contest. If I were running for the presidency
Speaker 4: of the United States, obviously they would hear a lot
Speaker 4: from me. But I'm not, and I'm just trying to
Speaker 4: do my work, my contribution as a scientist to addressing
Speaker 4: this question that they care about. And so I'm trying
Speaker 4: to work rather than to talk a lot of people talk. Okay,
Speaker 4: So you might say, well, that's great, let's talk about
Speaker 4: this subject. Maybe it will bring disclosure, well, the disclosure
Speaker 4: of what we need to see the actual evidence. Okay,
Speaker 4: So either we see the evidence or you can just
Speaker 4: talk about it. Forever without making any progress. So my
Speaker 4: point is, if the government will not provide us with
Speaker 4: useful information on this issue. You know, the sky is
Speaker 4: not classified, the oceans are not classified. I'm dedicating my
Speaker 4: time and effort in leading the Galileo Project that will
Speaker 4: uncover some evidence, direct evidence that will be shared with
Speaker 4: the public. And that's the only way for us to
Speaker 4: demonstrate that something. You know, there is a neighbor in
Speaker 4: our cosmic history, and you know, the Galileo project. We
Speaker 4: have a working observatory at Harvard University. We're currently assembling
Speaker 4: two others, one in Pennsylvania another one in Nevada that
Speaker 4: are fully funded. And just yesterday I heard from someone
Speaker 4: who might be pitching significant funds for another observatory. So
Speaker 4: you know, these are at the level of millions of
Speaker 4: dollars investment just over the past six months, the kind
Speaker 4: of money I'm getting from both donations.
Speaker 3: Now, there is also.
Speaker 4: The expedition that you know I led back in June
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three to retrieve materials from the first interstellar
Speaker 4: meteor that was identified by US government satellites. And we
Speaker 4: went to the site in the Pacific Ocean near outside
Speaker 4: the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea, and we retrieved
Speaker 4: materials from the bottom of the ocean that is more
Speaker 4: than a mile deep and brought it for analysis in
Speaker 4: the laboratory of my colleague that have a Stein Jacobson
Speaker 4: And over the past year we analyzed the materials. We
Speaker 4: found a fraction ten percent of those molten droplets that
Speaker 4: have a very unusual composition that seems to be consistent
Speaker 4: with an origin outside the Solar System. What we want
Speaker 4: to do is go back to that site and find
Speaker 4: bigger pieces, bigger fragments, so that we can tell the
Speaker 4: nature of this object, whether it was a voyager like
Speaker 4: or a tesla like, an interstellar object, or just a
Speaker 4: rock from another star. And we have already so we
Speaker 4: try to reserve a ship for August twenty twenty five.
Speaker 4: At the moment, we are waiting for funding. We need
Speaker 4: six and a half million dollars to do the job.
Speaker 4: We have an exceptional team that is ready to do.
Speaker 1: So let me jump in there, because first of all,
Speaker 1: I have a question, burning question about the meteorite that
Speaker 1: you got out about in the ocean.
Speaker 2: How did you find that?
Speaker 1: Did the government just come near like, hey, we've got
Speaker 1: some satellite imagery of this meteorite here in the ocean.
Speaker 2: You want to go get it.
Speaker 1: Because it feels like a needle and a haystack situation.
Speaker 1: But somehow you came up with, you know, real samples.
Speaker 3: So how like how Yeah?
Speaker 4: So the story started from me being interviewed on the
Speaker 4: radio back in January twenty twenty about another meteor that
Speaker 4: landed the near Compchatka, and just in preparing for that,
Speaker 4: I went online and I found this catalog that NASA
Speaker 4: has of hundreds of meteorites that were identified by the
Speaker 4: fireball that they created as the result.
Speaker 3: Of their friction with air. So they simply exploded.
Speaker 4: And there is an array of satellites that the US
Speaker 4: government uses to detect the heat from launches of ballistic
Speaker 4: missiles around the globe.
Speaker 3: You know that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so that those satellites every now and then see
Speaker 4: the explosion resulting from the entry of an object from
Speaker 4: out of space that collides with Earth, and they decided
Speaker 4: has nothing to do with national security, so they put
Speaker 4: it on a public side that NASA compiles JPL, the
Speaker 4: Jet Propulsion Lab, and I became aware of it, so
Speaker 4: I told my student at the time, Amir Siraj to
Speaker 4: let's go and search through this catalog and see if
Speaker 4: any of these objects was moving too fast to be
Speaker 4: bound by gravity to the Sun.
Speaker 3: That will make it an interstinllar object.
Speaker 4: An object that came from outside the soloism was the
Speaker 4: Sun's gravity cannot bind it. And we found one that
Speaker 4: was clearly an outlier from twenty fourteen January eighth, twenty fourteen,
Speaker 4: and it was moving actually at sixty kilometers per second
Speaker 4: outside the Solar System, faster than ninety five percent of
Speaker 4: the stars in the vicinity of the Sun. And it
Speaker 4: exploded very low in the atmosphere, twenty kilometers above the
Speaker 4: Pacific Ocean. So that meant that it had material strength
Speaker 4: that is tougher than all other meteors in the catalog,
Speaker 4: all hundreds of them. It was the toughest one that
Speaker 4: this integrate exploded only very low in the atmosphere at
Speaker 4: a very high speed. And so I to me I mean,
Speaker 4: and then I reached out to the US Space Command
Speaker 4: through the White House and got their confirmation that indeed
Speaker 4: they think that data is valid at the ninety nine
Speaker 4: point nine nine percent. This object came from outside the
Speaker 4: Solar System, so there is this memo that they.
Speaker 3: Rolled to NASA.
Speaker 4: So at that point I decided to lead an expedition
Speaker 4: to the Pacific Ocean to.
Speaker 3: Search for the materials.
Speaker 4: Now, the location itself was specified in that catalog that
Speaker 4: NASA had, that's where they spotted the fireball. It's not
Speaker 4: a single point because the meteory is actually moving at
Speaker 4: a very high speed forty kilometers per second, you know,
Speaker 4: very high speed, and so over the time of the
Speaker 4: explosion it actually tracks you know, tens of kilometers, and so.
Speaker 3: There is a line or actually they defined a.
Speaker 4: Region that was about ten kilometers by ten kilometers where
Speaker 4: the where the brightest flare occurred. And we went there
Speaker 4: and we scanned that region. We went back and forth
Speaker 4: like mowing the loan, you know, and we collected as
Speaker 4: much material as we could from the ocean floor. These
Speaker 4: were magnetic particles all together, about one hundred milligram, you know,
Speaker 4: of magnetic particles that looked unusual. And then and then
Speaker 4: we analyzed them in the laboratory and found this unusual
Speaker 4: composition chemical composition that is very different, very you know,
Speaker 4: some elements are up to a thousand times more abundant
Speaker 4: than in the primitive materials that made the solar system.
Speaker 4: And these are elements like lanthanum, beryllium uranium, so we
Speaker 4: call it BELAO for brillium. Lanthanum uranium is a new
Speaker 4: type of composition.
Speaker 2: So I'm want to just dig right into it.
Speaker 1: You know what. I'm going to try to solve the
Speaker 1: UFL phenomenon with avulbe right here on the livestream. So
Speaker 1: let's just jump into the main question, the burning question.
Speaker 2: This is a UFO.
Speaker 1: Let's imagine it can be some ball light, it can
Speaker 1: be a flying saucer or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's just hovering around. It's able to do this.
Speaker 1: It can even shoot away at high speeds. What is
Speaker 1: the energy source for this UFO? It doesn't have any
Speaker 1: SpaceX rockets tied to it.
Speaker 4: Well, I need to get data on it. So based
Speaker 4: on the way it moves, I would know how much
Speaker 4: power is required for it to operate this way because
Speaker 4: the acceleration reflects the force that is acting on it.
Speaker 4: We need also to know to have some estimate of
Speaker 4: the as of the object. In fact, I wrote a
Speaker 4: paper just a couple of months ago saying that from
Speaker 4: data that we have on the amount of heat that
Speaker 4: the object emits, as a result of its friction with
Speaker 4: the air around it. Just from that level of heating
Speaker 4: of the air as it moves around, and also how
Speaker 4: much it moves in the sky, you know, we can
Speaker 4: infair a lower limit on the mass density on the
Speaker 4: mass peruit volume of that object, which is I found
Speaker 4: it to be a very interesting result. You can just
Speaker 4: learn how dense the object is just from seeing on
Speaker 4: the sky how fast it's moving and measuring how much
Speaker 4: heat it's producing from its.
Speaker 3: Friction with air.
Speaker 4: And that you know, that is interesting because we have
Speaker 4: those measurements with our instruments in the Galillo Project. And
Speaker 4: if you find the mass density from this constraint be
Speaker 4: more than the highest density of solids that we have
Speaker 4: on Earth, that would obviously make the object extremely anomalous because.
Speaker 3: Then the question is what is it made of? And
Speaker 3: you don't need.
Speaker 4: To know the distance to the object based on the
Speaker 4: equations that I wrote in that I should also say,
Speaker 4: you know, I when you said before that I'm not
Speaker 4: interacting with the UF's. I gave a lecture actually in
Speaker 4: November at the Sole conference that was one of the
Speaker 4: primary lectures there, and in fact, when I finished my talk,
Speaker 4: I went to the man's room. So on the way there,
Speaker 4: every few meters someone would ask me for a selfie.
Speaker 4: By the way, when I got to the man's room,
Speaker 4: someone was just drying his hands and he said, are
Speaker 4: you a below And I said yes, and he said, well,
Speaker 4: it feels like standing next to tailor SWI.
Speaker 1: I didn't mean to put you down, so like, honestly,
Speaker 1: me being able to talk to you feels like Taylor's.
Speaker 2: I was nervous this morning.
Speaker 1: I could meet Taylor Swift and I just be like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's Titler Swift talking to Abby Love. I'm sitting here.
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, man, I gotta get ready. You gotta
Speaker 1: get in the right mindset. I'm talking to a legend
Speaker 1: right now. So no, I didn't mean it that way.
Speaker 1: I just meant you don't really interact.
Speaker 4: I mean the you know top that that's what That's
Speaker 4: not what I What I meant is that I really
Speaker 4: am enjoying interacting with any person. And it's not like
Speaker 4: I'm shying away. It's just that I don't have prisons
Speaker 4: on social media.
Speaker 1: That's and I hope to answer ask a lot of
Speaker 1: the questions that people out there kind of have. I've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of your interviews and discussions and what
Speaker 1: have you. And this is where I'm going to press
Speaker 1: a little bit more on this topic. So let's asom
Speaker 1: I want to do two things versus I want to
Speaker 1: assume what you just told me. You know you you
Speaker 1: I think answered the question pretty well in terms of
Speaker 1: what I need to know more data. So assume, first
Speaker 1: of all, two scenarios. One scenario is we've got a
Speaker 1: flying saucer. I'm just gonna use this can and not
Speaker 1: show any ads. This can is a flying saucer, so it's.
Speaker 2: Got math son it it's a solid object, you know.
Speaker 4: So we know that, by the way, was most likely flat,
Speaker 4: based on a very detailed paper that you know that
Speaker 4: they modeled the variation of reflected sunlight from it at
Speaker 4: the ninety two percent confidence. This is a paper published
Speaker 4: in the Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices of the Royal
Speaker 4: Astromical Society. Uh, the best fit to the shape of
Speaker 4: a moo was that of a funky.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that, and I also saw the anomalists
Speaker 1: kind of think acceleration that it had as well, So
Speaker 1: that was an interesting one. But to me, there you're
Speaker 1: presenting the argument that we're just using like time time
Speaker 1: long distances, and time is our energy source as opposed
Speaker 1: to if there's really something like the tic tac ufo
Speaker 1: is kind of what I was getting at with the
Speaker 1: nimited situation that can move around like this. There's no
Speaker 1: onboard fuel based on our current understanding of physics, that
Speaker 1: can accommodate for that episode.
Speaker 4: So there, I'll tell you what the What I would
Speaker 4: like to know is, obviously we have no access to
Speaker 4: the actual data, which is unfortunate.
Speaker 3: But I would like to know.
Speaker 4: You know, there could be some confusion if there is
Speaker 4: a swarm of objects. You know, you might not be
Speaker 4: able to identify the same So you see an object
Speaker 4: very far and then you see it very close, but
Speaker 4: you don't know if it's the same object. So it's
Speaker 4: the situation is similar to seeing a black car behind
Speaker 4: you in your rear view mirror.
Speaker 3: And then you see the black car in front.
Speaker 4: Of you and you say, wow, it must have moved
Speaker 4: really fast, but without reading the license plate number, you
Speaker 4: can't really tell it's the same black car. Okay, So
Speaker 4: there are all kinds of issues like that, and you know,
Speaker 4: I would love to be flooded with data so that
Speaker 4: we can make sure that we interpret it correctly. But
Speaker 4: unfortunately we're not given that data. It's possible the government
Speaker 4: has it. It's possible that the government has in it possession.
Speaker 4: Some materials are actually even technologies that were developed by extraterrestials.
Speaker 4: But I would like to see them. Otherwise just talking
Speaker 4: about it would not advance our knowledge. We will not
Speaker 4: know if this is credible or not. And when you see,
Speaker 4: for example, just last night there was a report by
Speaker 4: a helicopter pilot about an egg shaped object that was
Speaker 4: picked up with a rope. You know, lots of objects
Speaker 4: can look like an egg, and many of them are
Speaker 4: made by humans. And so the question is what is inside,
Speaker 4: you know, like what's the substance?
Speaker 3: I mean I a member of the Galleow Project and
Speaker 3: the Mead.
Speaker 4: His grandfather received the National Medal of Honor for because
Speaker 4: in the Second World War he was involved in deceiving
Speaker 4: the Nazis uh and basically putting sort of objects that
Speaker 4: look like tanks which are just inflatable that are not
Speaker 4: real tanks, and making the noise of tanks so that
Speaker 4: the Germans would think that there are real tanks out there.
Speaker 4: So you know, You can't judge an object just by
Speaker 4: the way it looks or sounds. You really have to
Speaker 4: get as much information as possible about about the inside
Speaker 4: of it, and that's what we're missing at the moment.
Speaker 3: Then you can't.
Speaker 4: You know, eyewitness testimonies are not reliable. FIFA, the Soccer
Speaker 4: World Organization, already knows that because they use cameras, you know,
Speaker 4: to decide about disputes on the soccer field. They would
Speaker 4: not go around and ask the players. They would collect
Speaker 4: the data and.
Speaker 3: Look at it.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I wasn't gonna do this, but can I show about
Speaker 1: thirty seconds of a video for you.
Speaker 2: And then we can jump in the song because my opinion,
Speaker 2: this is going to be very controversial.
Speaker 1: Probably what I'm about to show here is that this
Speaker 1: video that I'm about to show you is exactly what
Speaker 1: you're asking for. Is this is some of that information
Speaker 1: that that maybe the government has or videos of the
Speaker 1: government has. This is the thermal video here that we're
Speaker 1: looking at. Just ignore the plane for now. I just
Speaker 1: want to focus on these orbs. Oh God, what you
Speaker 1: said about the mass energy density of these objects in
Speaker 1: these UFOs? If this is real, I want to point
Speaker 1: out you can see it's very faint, but you can
Speaker 1: see there's dark lines in front of these orbits, which
Speaker 1: represents a cold signature, and you can tell that there's
Speaker 1: a heat signature in here. I couldn't stop thinking about
Speaker 1: this when you were explaining the mass energy density, because
Speaker 1: I think this is a ball of plasma and that
Speaker 1: would be your medium for this UFO, which and this part.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to slow this down so you can
Speaker 1: see it very closely and clearly, because I want to
Speaker 1: understand in the context of what we're seeing here, you know,
Speaker 1: the physics of what we're going to talk about with
Speaker 1: dark energy, dark matter, this idea of there being like
Speaker 1: an ether zero point energy. The reason why I believe
Speaker 1: in those theories because of what I'm looking at right here.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at that heat signature on this orb.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, that's very interesting. Now who took this the image?
Speaker 1: So, without going into too much of it, that's Malaysian
Speaker 1: Airlines Flight three seven zero, the plane that disappeared ten
Speaker 1: years ago.
Speaker 2: What you're about to see here, Oh, interesting, is the.
Speaker 1: Most controversial thing kind of on the internet recently is
Speaker 1: that that plane has gone I'll play it again so
Speaker 1: you can see.
Speaker 3: But okay, now do we know that these images.
Speaker 2: They don't know with any level of certainty.
Speaker 1: I don't want to like have this whole podcast be
Speaker 1: about that, but I just wanted no.
Speaker 3: But that's it. That's very interesting. I mean, I'd be
Speaker 3: glad to look at it.
Speaker 1: Some people think that these videos are at fake and
Speaker 1: I need and what have you. Other people, including myself,
Speaker 1: think they're real. But the reason why I bring it
Speaker 1: up is not just random. I'm not trying to promote
Speaker 1: myself here. Is that we see these dark lines in
Speaker 1: front of these orbs, and that seems to be their
Speaker 1: propulsion mechanism. And what we see right here is also
Speaker 1: all black when this plane disappears, which means it's cold.
Speaker 4: Now the camera that took these.
Speaker 1: This is a drone is taking this. This is a
Speaker 1: General Atomics drone. You can see it in the beginning
Speaker 1: of the video right here.
Speaker 4: Okay, I wonder, for example, whether the reason fage from
Speaker 4: the you know, US government satellites.
Speaker 1: That's funny that you asked, because there's a second video.
Speaker 1: But I don't mean to knock you down the rabbit
Speaker 1: hole right now, but there's a second video. Anything from
Speaker 1: we found out this is like, okay, this is SIBBERS.
Speaker 1: When you mentioned SIBBERS, like, we found out this is SIBBERS.
Speaker 1: This is the space based infra red system. But this
Speaker 1: is actually more than what the public's aware of. It's
Speaker 1: not just like looking through satellites. They can beam all
Speaker 1: the data together and then it can create a computer
Speaker 1: generated video which you're watching, and you can see the
Speaker 1: coordinates and the bottom left too. So this is the
Speaker 1: same same thing from a different perspective. I'll just let
Speaker 1: you watch it, because I guess you haven't seen it.
Speaker 3: Well, that's very interesting.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I brought this up, sir, is
Speaker 1: just because you know, you and a lot of people
Speaker 1: talk about wanting evidence, and I've been the same way
Speaker 1: as You've had the same thought process as you.
Speaker 2: The only reason why I have a podcast is because
Speaker 2: I saw.
Speaker 1: These videos and I went wow, I mean, maybe that's fake,
Speaker 1: but what if it's real? What if this is really
Speaker 1: what happened? I mean, look at what you just saw
Speaker 1: right there. And this has led me down a journey
Speaker 1: of discovery. I'm gonna stop sharing from now where I've
Speaker 1: been trying to understand this physics and this science and truthfully,
Speaker 1: just to open up here for a second. It's led
Speaker 1: me to you because I've watched a lot of your stuff,
Speaker 1: and you're not afraid to talk about these concepts where
Speaker 1: everybody else is afraid that, oh, what we're seeing and
Speaker 1: what we're talking about violates the laws of physics.
Speaker 2: It can't be possible.
Speaker 3: No, No, that's not really.
Speaker 4: I don't think there's any violation here because we are
Speaker 4: talking about the speeds the the relatively mild, you know,
Speaker 4: the speed of an airplane. But then what I would
Speaker 4: like to know primarily is who provided these videos, because
Speaker 4: we need to make sure that Donald fabric.
Speaker 1: I'll give you the short version. There's a guy named
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Commander Edward see Lynn that went to prison for
Speaker 1: like he had a nine year sentence, and I've identified
Speaker 1: him as the guy. They started looking into him right
Speaker 1: after the plane disappeared. He was flying on spyplanes, and
Speaker 1: it's very likely that he either leaked those directly or
Speaker 1: he showed somebody else and they got on the internet
Speaker 1: that way. And yeah, and there's a plane that's been
Speaker 1: missing for ten years and somehow there's two leaked videos.
Speaker 1: It turns out they go all the way back to
Speaker 1: May nineteenth, twenty fourteen, so they're ten years old and
Speaker 1: they only recently got attention. And it makes me wonder
Speaker 1: if we had to like get to a level of
Speaker 1: consciousness where we could accept some of these scientific possibilities,
Speaker 1: physics possibilities to be real.
Speaker 4: Oh, it's not a matter of consciousness. I think it's
Speaker 4: just a metter of good data. Because you know, Ryan
Speaker 4: Graves was claiming that there are a lot of objects
Speaker 4: that pose a risk to pilots, and he's advocating for safety,
Speaker 4: and what you are saying is very similar to what
Speaker 4: he's saying, that perhaps this flight was affected by these objects.
Speaker 4: Now he is very concerned about the safety of pilots
Speaker 4: and and and he has an organization dedicated to that,
Speaker 4: and I encourage you to show him this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think the difference here, and this is
Speaker 1: the crazy part about those videos is that that's not aliens.
Speaker 1: That's not aliens we're watching, like because that's the US
Speaker 1: military film in that on two different assets, you know,
Speaker 1: like from two different angles. That's an operation. And this
Speaker 1: is where it starts to get really dark. And I
Speaker 1: don't want to go into the conspiracy rabbit hole with you.
Speaker 2: But it's like if this is true.
Speaker 1: All of everybody's worst fears in the UFO community about
Speaker 1: the US government hiding technology, reverse engineering it, they're all true.
Speaker 1: And then the further implication as well, how far would
Speaker 1: you go to prevent China, Russia, and North Korea Iran
Speaker 1: from getting this technology?
Speaker 4: Well, we know that at the same time there was
Speaker 4: the Chinese pie balloon that was shut down, and there
Speaker 4: are objects above the US that are not identified, obviously
Speaker 4: because that balloon was forty meters in size and smaller
Speaker 4: objects would be even more difficult to the tech. And
Speaker 4: there was, of course the incident over New Jersey for
Speaker 4: several weeks where citizens complained about and it's clear that
Speaker 4: that is not extra terrutionial because first of.
Speaker 3: All, the objects were moving like drones, okay.
Speaker 4: And secondly, once the law enforcement got into business, you know, there.
Speaker 3: Were no more reports.
Speaker 4: I mean, we don't hear them now, and so it's
Speaker 4: clearly human related.
Speaker 3: And the only question is whether these were dranes from
Speaker 3: adversarian nations.
Speaker 1: Or think it's possible that we have or that other
Speaker 1: countries have a level of technology that's beyond the publics were.
Speaker 4: Oh, I mean, there are lots of reports about China being.
Speaker 3: Similar, if not ahead of the US in drone technology.
Speaker 4: And drones are extremely important for national security now because
Speaker 4: in the battlefield, in fact, you known Mask was advocating
Speaker 4: using drones and not training pilots traditionally, and we've seen
Speaker 4: them being used in the Ukraine Wars. So drones are
Speaker 4: definitely a very important asset now for combat and also
Speaker 4: for espionage. And so the only question is how many
Speaker 4: of them are being used right now that we don't
Speaker 4: even know now, Yeah, I should say that we obviously
Speaker 4: within the Galt projects, you know, if we see drones,
Speaker 4: we will identify them as drones based on the flight
Speaker 4: characteristics and the way they appear. And we're actually calibrating
Speaker 4: our instruments based on drones. And we had a paper
Speaker 4: just a few months ago that provided the first commissioning
Speaker 4: data of half a million objects in the sky over
Speaker 4: five months. Next year this year, I mean twenty twenty five,
Speaker 4: we hope to get of other more than a million
Speaker 4: objects monitored in the sky. But from the half a
Speaker 4: million that we had analyzed, you know, we posted the
Speaker 4: analysis without having triangulation, without having distances, and as a
Speaker 4: result of this paper appearing publicly, we were contacted by
Speaker 4: a professor who is doing studies of drones and he
Speaker 4: wanted with us to explore the ability of our cameras
Speaker 4: to detech drones. And that's a very good calibration for
Speaker 4: us because we would know where it is, how far
Speaker 4: it is, how bright it should be.
Speaker 1: In the interview, filming an infrared or how are you
Speaker 1: what censor that are using?
Speaker 4: Yes, the currently the workforce is a set of eight
Speaker 4: cameras that are covering the entire sky in the infrared
Speaker 4: and then there they are placed on a half a sphere.
Speaker 3: They look like R two D two from Star Wars.
Speaker 4: And then uh it is called a Dalek instrument and
Speaker 4: it's all in our paper on the commissioning data that
Speaker 4: one can find you know, from a couple of months ago.
Speaker 4: And then in addition to that, we are observing in
Speaker 4: the optical, in the radio and also recording acoustic data
Speaker 4: and magnetic data as well.
Speaker 3: So we're trying to use the all the instruments we
Speaker 3: have access to within our budget.
Speaker 1: So let's get more controversial with it. This is gonna
Speaker 1: be a great interview. So what I learned from researching
Speaker 1: those balls of plasma I was showing you earlier.
Speaker 2: Whatever is that.
Speaker 1: Really the big secret was that space isn't really empty.
Speaker 1: And I've watched your interview with Jimmy Church, Fada Black,
Speaker 1: and several others where you've also mentioned that there's this
Speaker 1: energy density of space time. Well, it seems like quantum
Speaker 1: physicists call it zero point energy that's out there all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 2: And one of the things I found out was that once.
Speaker 1: That got realized, people started figuring out they can make
Speaker 1: balls of plasma that are like autonomous, so like self sustaining,
Speaker 1: like there's an invisible field creating like a bubble around
Speaker 1: it pretty much. And so then I start looking back
Speaker 1: at all the stuff I was taught in physics, because
Speaker 1: I'm not really you know, I didn't go to school
Speaker 1: for physics, but I love science and physics. And I realized, like,
Speaker 1: oh wait, well we have this stuff dark matter and
Speaker 1: dark energy. It's supposed to explain the stickiness that we
Speaker 1: can't otherwise explain. And I started wondering, like, can this
Speaker 1: just explain all of that? And turns out there's this
Speaker 1: ether hypothesis that's been out there forever, and the plank
Speaker 1: Ether hypothesis by fried Wart Winterberg, who was a project
Speaker 1: paper Clip sciences that came over. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on all that? I've gotta know, what do you think
Speaker 1: about the ether? And do you think that's.
Speaker 4: So let me let me first explain what these concepts represent.
Speaker 4: So we now know that the universe is not only expanding.
Speaker 4: I mean, we knew that for a while, for about
Speaker 4: the century, that the universe is expanding, but in the
Speaker 4: second half of cosmic history, the universe is accelerating.
Speaker 3: In other words, the expansion rate.
Speaker 4: Is increasing, meaning that a very distant galaxy away from
Speaker 4: us is not only receding from us, but the speed
Speaker 4: at which it's receding is increasing with time, and eventually
Speaker 4: it will exceed the.
Speaker 3: Speed of light.
Speaker 4: Okay, so we will be left in the darkness in
Speaker 4: the distant future because all the galaxies that are far
Speaker 4: away from us are running away at a speed that
Speaker 4: keeps increasing, and once they reach the speed of light,
Speaker 4: even light would not be able to bridge the distances
Speaker 4: of the galaxies from us, so we won't see their
Speaker 4: whereabouts beyond a certain time they will exit from our
Speaker 4: cosmic horizon. Okay, So we know the universe is accelerating,
Speaker 4: and according to Einstein's gravity the equations that Einstein wrote
Speaker 4: Vack in nineteen fifteen and November nineteen fifteen, you can
Speaker 4: accommodate repulsive gravity. In other words, we are used to
Speaker 4: the fact that if you throw an apple up, it
Speaker 4: falls down, right. So that's what Newton associated with gravity
Speaker 4: being attractive. But just imagine throwing an apple up and
Speaker 4: the apple keeps running away from you, faster and faster
Speaker 4: as it moves away, and that's repulsive gravity. It's exactly
Speaker 4: the opposite sign of gravity, where things are running away
Speaker 4: instead of coming together. And according to Einstein's equations, that
Speaker 4: can be simply a result of the vacuum itself. You know,
Speaker 4: if you remove all matter, you're left just with a vacuum.
Speaker 4: And if the vacuum itself has some mass permit volume,
Speaker 4: even if it's constant everywhere, it will have exactly this
Speaker 4: repulsive gravity effect that will cause accelerated expansion.
Speaker 3: Of the universe.
Speaker 4: So this is the current standard model of the universe
Speaker 4: that includes some energy or mass permit volume for the vacuum,
Speaker 4: which is called the cosmological constant.
Speaker 3: But physicists framed it in terms of dark energy.
Speaker 4: They said, oh, that the vacuum has some energy that
Speaker 4: you know permit volume that we don't know its nature,
Speaker 4: and we call it dark energy, so that maybe it's
Speaker 4: not it's not constant. Maybe it evolves over time, and
Speaker 4: there are some hints that it might at any event.
Speaker 4: The reason it's important in the context of what you
Speaker 4: asked is because if we had a way to bottle
Speaker 4: that energy to basically and put it inside a vessel
Speaker 4: and concentrated h then you would get a negative mass. Okay,
Speaker 4: concentrated it will not be spread everywhere like the vacuum is.
Speaker 4: It will become and that if you have negative mass,
Speaker 4: you can do two things.
Speaker 3: One thing is you can propel a spacecraft.
Speaker 4: With no fuel because you would have this negative mass
Speaker 4: and it could push a positive mass away from it
Speaker 4: while the positive mass is attracting the negative mass with it,
Speaker 4: and so you would end up accelerating. This system will
Speaker 4: end up accelerating up to the speed of light with.
Speaker 3: No need for an energy source.
Speaker 4: So it gives you a means of propulsion this negative
Speaker 4: gravity that otherwise you cannot access without fuel. And the
Speaker 4: second thing is you can show that you can build
Speaker 4: a time machine. If you had negative mass, you can
Speaker 4: go back in time. Now we haven't yet found a
Speaker 4: way to We don't understand what dark energy is, and
Speaker 4: maybe aliens do, and maybe they're able to engineer it
Speaker 4: in some way to create a negative mass. If they
Speaker 4: were able to do that, you know, then they have
Speaker 4: a way of propelling objects without any fuel.
Speaker 3: Okay, So that to address your question.
Speaker 4: Now the issue about plasma and by the way, plasma
Speaker 4: physics was the area where I focused for my PhD.
Speaker 3: This was the.
Speaker 4: Subject I worked on a project that was funded by
Speaker 4: Star Wars and the initiative of President Reagan and actually
Speaker 4: General Abramson that led this Star Wars initiative back in
Speaker 4: around nineteen eighty five. He visited Israel, where I was born,
Speaker 4: and I presented the project to him, and that was
Speaker 4: the first international project that was funded by Star Wars.
Speaker 4: And it's sort of ironic that I started in Star
Speaker 4: Wars and now I'm discussing interstellar travel. But that's what
Speaker 4: brought me to the US because we got funded by Washington.
Speaker 3: I used to visit Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: And then in one of the visits, I went to
Speaker 4: the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and was offered
Speaker 4: a five year fellowship in astrophysics. That was the condition
Speaker 4: only if I switched to astrophysics. I was a plasma
Speaker 4: physicist before that. So I switched to astrophysics, and then
Speaker 4: I was offered the position at Harvard where I am
Speaker 4: right now.
Speaker 3: And so my.
Speaker 4: Interest in astrophysics was a result of circumstances.
Speaker 3: It was not planned.
Speaker 4: But I now have this freedom of addressing problems that
Speaker 4: I find to be consequential and exciting for the future
Speaker 4: of humanity. And that's why I'm back to this subject
Speaker 4: of interstellar travel. And I should say that in the
Speaker 4: context of plasma physics, plasma is you know, if you
Speaker 4: just deposit heat into a small volume, like in an explosion,
Speaker 4: you end up with very hot gas in which the
Speaker 4: atoms are broken into their constituent electrons and the ions,
Speaker 4: so you.
Speaker 3: End up with a fluid that is made of charged particles.
Speaker 3: That's what the plasma is.
Speaker 4: A fluid made of charged particles, and it's a result
Speaker 4: of any deposition of heat into a small volume that
Speaker 4: usually results from either focusing lasers or expo detonating something.
Speaker 4: But actually most of the universe is in a plasma
Speaker 4: state because of the ultraviolet light that was emitted by
Speaker 4: stars that ultraviolet light breaks hydrogen atoms into electrons and process,
Speaker 4: so you end up with most of the hydrogen in
Speaker 4: the universe being in a plasma state.
Speaker 3: There is nothing magical about the plasma. It's just a
Speaker 3: state where you break the atoms and molecules into their
Speaker 3: electrons and ions. That's all.
Speaker 4: So when you say plasma, it's just a region of
Speaker 4: space where some energy was deposited. Okay, So then the
Speaker 4: question is what's the energy source that created this plasma?
Speaker 4: And that's really the key question. And what was you know,
Speaker 4: how much heat is emitted by this plan We can
Speaker 4: detect heat with infraret the detectors, but the concept of
Speaker 4: a plasma is nothing mysterious and nothing fundamental, not as
Speaker 4: fundamental as dark energy that I was talking about before.
Speaker 1: I would say, there's something kind of magical about it. Lightning,
Speaker 1: Why does lightning happen? Lightning is plasma as well.
Speaker 2: In fact, they.
Speaker 3: Call the boss.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so lightning, so I can let me explain that.
Speaker 4: Then basically what happens is clouds. You know, they're made
Speaker 4: of water vapor, right, and as they move through the.
Speaker 3: Atmosphere they get charged. Okay, they get a net electric.
Speaker 4: Charge and then when to such clouds get in contact,
Speaker 4: there is an electric current. If they don't have the
Speaker 4: same voltage, there is an electric current flowing from one
Speaker 4: to the other, and that often happens through breakdown of
Speaker 4: the air, so you end up with the air is
Speaker 4: the conduit. It's like a wire in which you run
Speaker 4: the electric current, and because you are running an electric
Speaker 4: current through the air, you basically heat up the channel
Speaker 4: of air in which the electric current is going, and
Speaker 4: that's the lightning. So you see a very bright streak
Speaker 4: on the sky because this is the region a channel
Speaker 4: where electricity heated the air to become very hot and luminous,
Speaker 4: and you see and you also hear the sound because
Speaker 4: what happens is once you hit this channel of air,
Speaker 4: there is a high pressure in it, and pressure runs
Speaker 4: away from that region in a shockwave or a sound
Speaker 4: wave that eventually reaches your ears. But sound propagates a
Speaker 4: million times lower than light, So at first you see
Speaker 4: the light of the lightning, and then you hear the thunder,
Speaker 4: and that's that's all there is to that thing. So
Speaker 4: it's basically what you see when there are these bright
Speaker 4: phenomenon in the atmosphere. You see regions that were heated
Speaker 4: by electricity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we can manipulate that. And that's the thing
Speaker 1: where ball lightning is ball of energy. And so you
Speaker 1: were just mentioning if we could or aliens could make
Speaker 1: a warp drive Miguel al Kuberi's warp drive metric. We're
Speaker 1: talking about adding or removing negative and positive mass and
Speaker 1: masses energy is what Einstein showed us. So if you
Speaker 1: can make a ball of energy, it seems like, I
Speaker 1: mean conduit for trying to produce, you know, a warp
Speaker 1: drive metric in my opinion, because it's a huge condensed
Speaker 1: ball of energy.
Speaker 2: Right, that's my thought process.
Speaker 4: Well, okay, so there are two parts to this. Just
Speaker 4: the object moving through air. If the object interacts with
Speaker 4: the air, like any object does, there is heating of
Speaker 4: the air, okay, that glows around the object. And we
Speaker 4: see that when meteors enter the atmosphere. We see that
Speaker 4: when rockets fly through the atmosphere, there is heating of
Speaker 4: the surface of the rocket when it as a result
Speaker 4: of its friction with air. So that's one part of
Speaker 4: the plasma, you know, like it's basically the heated air.
Speaker 4: The amount of energy given to the air by the
Speaker 4: motion of the object. Okay, that's one part of the
Speaker 4: and there is a second part that you're referring to,
Speaker 4: which is the propulsion system, which must generate some energy
Speaker 4: and perhaps potentially be visible. So when you look at
Speaker 4: an airplane, you can obviously see the heat emitted from
Speaker 4: the exhaust, which is basically related to the engine. You
Speaker 4: can also see the heat emitted from the contact layer
Speaker 4: between the airplane and the air So these are the
Speaker 4: two components that have nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 4: Just the fact that the object is moving generates plasma
Speaker 4: around it and some heat. But there is also the
Speaker 4: heat the energy source that propels the object, which is
Speaker 4: a separate matter.
Speaker 2: And that's the part.
Speaker 1: We're going back to the videos I was showing you
Speaker 1: earlier seeing endothermic propulsion blew me away, because like you said,
Speaker 1: I would expect to see that to be season friction happening,
Speaker 1: which shows that somehow they found a way to make
Speaker 1: a bubble. Now, long story short, done a bunch of
Speaker 1: research Air Force Research Labs, Jackman Champion. They figured out
Speaker 1: how to stabilize balls of plasma so they can make
Speaker 1: them stable, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, I mean, so one thing to keep in
Speaker 4: mind is that radar systems respond to the reflection of
Speaker 4: radio waves from those plasmas generated about fast moving objects.
Speaker 4: So obviously the military wants to reduce the signature of
Speaker 4: any object to radar systems, and one way is to
Speaker 4: reduce the cross sectional area to make the object flow
Speaker 4: through air such that it has a very minimal cross
Speaker 4: section and as a result, very little signature in radar systems.
Speaker 4: And so human made objects that are used by the
Speaker 4: military are minimizing that the amount the amount of plasma
Speaker 4: generated around them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they also reduced drag as well. They use plasma
Speaker 1: sheets for our spy planes as well. So I just thought, oh,
Speaker 1: this is the perfect conduit. If you were to make
Speaker 1: an anti gravity ball, you would just get rid of
Speaker 1: the plane and the person and just be left with
Speaker 1: your ball of plasma. And now that thing can just
Speaker 1: float around.
Speaker 2: And well, but.
Speaker 4: You need okay, you need to put the object with
Speaker 4: its engine inside.
Speaker 3: And that's really the key.
Speaker 4: The key is not so much what we see, but
Speaker 4: what is there, you know, like uh, and that's you know,
Speaker 4: that's something that we can collect data on by observing
Speaker 4: it or retrieving anything from it.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you, because I want to I want
Speaker 1: to ask before I forget about the negative energy aspect
Speaker 1: of it, because I looked into that. It turns out
Speaker 1: there's people like working on negative energy lasers, and there's
Speaker 1: a professor out of NYU named David Greer who has
Speaker 1: like a tractor.
Speaker 2: Beam laser as well. But Eric W.
Speaker 1: Davis, who's been connected to the UFO topic, openly talks
Speaker 1: about them trying to amplify negative energy and isolate negative
Speaker 1: energy from positive energy and light. And if that's true,
Speaker 1: then what I imagine those orbs are using is some
Speaker 1: kind of laser that's pulling energy.
Speaker 2: Out of the vacuum as opposed to adding energy to
Speaker 2: the vacuum. Have you ever heard of anything like this?
Speaker 4: Well, in principle, you know, as I said before, in principle,
Speaker 4: it's possible to activate the vacuum and pull energy out
Speaker 4: of it. But these concepts, I mean, there are various
Speaker 4: effects that are well known. For example, if you have
Speaker 4: two metal plates and you place them close to each other,
Speaker 4: you are changing the vacuum in between them because you're
Speaker 4: allowing only certain modes of the electromagnetic field in the
Speaker 4: vacuum to exist. Because the metal plates place under conditions
Speaker 4: that allow only certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic modes to
Speaker 4: exist between the plates, and as a result, you get
Speaker 4: some force acting. This is called the Casimir effect and
Speaker 4: it has to do with a vacuum. But it doesn't
Speaker 4: allow us to propel anything. And of course you can
Speaker 4: speculate and imagine, and I've seen some documents where people
Speaker 4: like Eric Davis speculate about what might be doable. But
Speaker 4: I should say there is nothing at the moment that
Speaker 4: allows us to construct propulsions or imagine a propulsion system.
Speaker 4: I've been working with a group that.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: We asked the question, is it possible to create a
Speaker 4: negative mass object, you know, just that will.
Speaker 3: Produce repulsive gravity.
Speaker 4: And we had to imagine the existence of fields that
Speaker 4: we don't know exist. It was not the electromagnetic field was. Now,
Speaker 4: I cannot exclude that such fields exist and are known
Speaker 4: to another civilization. And we are, just as I said
Speaker 4: in the Baby making the baby steps in understanding quantum
Speaker 4: mechanics gravity. So I wouldn't exclude anything. I would just say,
Speaker 4: let's just learn from them. Okay, So if we find
Speaker 4: anomalous objects moving in a normalous ways, we should just
Speaker 4: get as much data as possible of something.
Speaker 1: I feel like you did kind of answer it though,
Speaker 1: And this is the part where I kind of want
Speaker 1: to push you on because you said, now that we've
Speaker 1: got this dark energy that's causing the universe.
Speaker 2: To expand outward, and it's.
Speaker 1: This negative gravity, repulsive gravity that we feel. Yes, well
Speaker 1: with Eric Davis and other people explain the Casmir effect.
Speaker 1: They explain this as negative energy and anything forces just
Speaker 1: described as defined as the ability to do work. So
Speaker 1: if we're seeing plates magically come together on their own,
Speaker 1: there's some force that's happening there.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, no, but that's says you know that was
Speaker 4: known for the past century. That there is nothing really
Speaker 4: new about it. And the only question is can we
Speaker 4: actually propel an object using device that takes advantage.
Speaker 3: Of the casume? I mean, so what Eric mentions is
Speaker 3: all speculation about.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe we could engineer or something, but there
Speaker 4: is nothing behind it because this technology was never attempted
Speaker 4: as far as as far as I know, he would
Speaker 4: have gotten.
Speaker 2: Don't care about Nobel prizes. The scary thought, right.
Speaker 3: But it's not a scary thought.
Speaker 4: But I don't think, uh, you know, I think we
Speaker 4: would learn about it because somewhere sometimes there would be
Speaker 4: a leak of this technology, you know, in some context,
Speaker 4: and then I haven't heard anything.
Speaker 1: Uh, let's come back to that thought in a second.
Speaker 1: So the next step I would say it is like
Speaker 1: the em drive. The impossible drive, I would argue, is
Speaker 1: basically just taking the Casimir effect and making a slight
Speaker 1: asymmetry and then you're gonna get preser sure a force.
Speaker 2: Pressure going downward.
Speaker 1: Then you use that to move through the ether of
Speaker 1: energy that's out there. Actually, what I really wanted to
Speaker 1: get at was that the dynamic Casmir effect.
Speaker 2: I was curious if you've heard of that at all.
Speaker 1: But also and the dynamic Cosm effect for people who
Speaker 1: don't know, is this idea that you can pull so
Speaker 1: much or you can put so much electromagnetic flux or
Speaker 1: energy density within a region that we can actually pull
Speaker 1: those virtual photons into real photons, real light that comes out.
Speaker 1: And they think this happens at the edge of black
Speaker 1: holes as well, because I'm looking at like for me,
Speaker 1: it's a matter of just engineering the problem. Once you've
Speaker 1: shown me the two plates come together like this and
Speaker 1: that there's this negative energy pressure. Now I'm sitting here
Speaker 1: wondering what is negative energy. Maybe it's not this swirly
Speaker 1: massive substance. Maybe we're thinking about the problem wrong. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's just a pressure, that's what the energy is. And
Speaker 1: maybe if that's the case, then we just have to
Speaker 1: look at it as an engineering problem. And it takes
Speaker 1: me back to plasma, where I realized, well, the issue
Speaker 1: with the plates is once they come together, I got.
Speaker 2: To pull them back apart.
Speaker 1: So what if there's a way where I can just
Speaker 1: have this permanent situation where I'm getting this free energy
Speaker 1: or like a bounce like a trampoline or something like that.
Speaker 1: But with plasma, when I started to research it, one
Speaker 1: of the things I learned is that it changes. The
Speaker 1: plasma changes the permittivity of space time, and this changes
Speaker 1: the refractive index. So bear with you this once. I
Speaker 1: want to give a quick example and then I want
Speaker 1: to get your opinion on this.
Speaker 2: Is that if I were to take let's say a cube.
Speaker 1: Of water from the ocean or the lake, and I
Speaker 1: would remove all the things inside of it, and I
Speaker 1: would to show someone just that cube, and I would
Speaker 1: say what do you see in this? They would probably
Speaker 1: say nothing, and I would go you're wrong. There's water
Speaker 1: inside of that. And they go, well, I just see
Speaker 1: an index, and I would say, well, let me shine
Speaker 1: a laser through it so that you can see that
Speaker 1: the refractive index bends and changes. Well, you can do
Speaker 1: that same thing without her space. It's only going to
Speaker 1: change a little bit based on what wherever medium I'm in, but.
Speaker 2: It's gonna change.
Speaker 1: My idea that I'm presenting here is that a fish
Speaker 1: stuck in water doesn't realize it's in a fishbowl. It
Speaker 1: looks around it and it says that everything else is
Speaker 1: empty around it, but it's obviously not necessarily empty. So
Speaker 1: if we were to change the speed of light, change
Speaker 1: the refractive index in a plasma or any other medium,
Speaker 1: what does that do the general relativity and to the
Speaker 1: physics equations. That's the question for you, Abbi, Professor Love.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So in fact, you see the effects that you're
Speaker 4: talking about are observed. We do see the effect of
Speaker 4: gravity in bending light. This is called gravitational lensing. So
Speaker 4: when you have a positive mass, let's say, of a
Speaker 4: cluster of galaxies.
Speaker 3: Usually ten to the fifteen.
Speaker 4: Quadrillion times the mass of the Sun, it can bend
Speaker 4: the light from sources of light behind it, and we
Speaker 4: see these beautiful arcs where a background galaxy was actually
Speaker 4: stretched to a ring around the center of the class.
Speaker 4: That is called gravitational lensing. We also see the same
Speaker 4: effect when there is lensing by a star. If you
Speaker 4: have a background star behind the foreground star, you can
Speaker 4: get gravitational lensing. All the times I realized that this
Speaker 4: effect should be observable potentially back in nineteen forty, but
Speaker 4: he didn't imagine the kind.
Speaker 3: Of data we have now now.
Speaker 4: If so, this is gravitational lensing by having a concentration
Speaker 4: of mass as the lens. But there is of course
Speaker 4: a possibility of lensing by a plasma because as you said,
Speaker 4: there is a refractive index to a plasma and it
Speaker 4: turns out to be of the opposite sign.
Speaker 3: So if you have a.
Speaker 4: Concentration of plasma in a certain ball, then it actually
Speaker 4: the lightwood rather than being focused, it will diverge by
Speaker 4: passing through it. Okay, In order to focus, what you
Speaker 4: need is a region where there is less plasma than
Speaker 4: the background, and then it would focus on And we
Speaker 4: do see in astrophysics circumstances that show that, you know,
Speaker 4: we detect the radio signals from talsars, for example, or
Speaker 4: radio sources. We see the effects of the plasma on
Speaker 4: those radio signals because the effect of the plasma depends
Speaker 4: on frequency, and we can see that frequency dependence. So
Speaker 4: what you're describing is observed in the universe. But there
Speaker 4: is nothing really magical about the plasma in terms of propulsion.
Speaker 4: The way I think of it is, you know, if
Speaker 4: there is a system that has some novel propulsion abilities
Speaker 4: as a result of some unusual engine of technology we
Speaker 4: don't possess, then there might be a plasma around. There's
Speaker 4: a consequence of that engine moving the object, but that's
Speaker 4: not the essence of the thing. And the of course
Speaker 4: we can observe the plasma of it because we use
Speaker 4: in fred or detect the heat.
Speaker 3: But it's the fund amount of question is what's the
Speaker 3: engine made of?
Speaker 4: And you know, if there is any such engine in
Speaker 4: possession of the US government, I would love to see it, okay,
Speaker 4: And then I.
Speaker 1: Can just manipulating the ether the same way the submarine
Speaker 1: floats down through the water. At that point, all you
Speaker 1: need is like magneto hydrodynamic flow, and then you can.
Speaker 4: Just Yeah, it's definitely, definitely possible. And then but I
Speaker 4: haven't seen that demonstrated by any engineer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, at the moment, I don't want to harp on
Speaker 1: it too much. I would just challenge you that. I mean,
Speaker 1: at least my opinion I think so a lot of
Speaker 1: other people's opinion's not necessarily common. Is that you know,
Speaker 1: they're hiding some of this stuff from us, either using
Speaker 1: the Invention Secrecy Act of nineteen fifty one or the
Speaker 1: Atomic Secrecy Act, where they claim some of this is
Speaker 1: related to like nuclear weapons and things like.
Speaker 2: That, therefore they protect it. That's how the story goes.
Speaker 4: If that's the case, I think it's completely inappropriate because
Speaker 4: if objects arrived from outside the Solar System, they should
Speaker 4: be the subject of science, not of national security concerns,
Speaker 4: because you know, they started their trip towards the Solar
Speaker 4: System long before humans existed, probably on Earth, and obviously
Speaker 4: they don't care about borders, nations, and any knowledge related
Speaker 4: to what lies outside the Solar System should be shared
Speaker 4: by all humans. It's part of the reality that we
Speaker 4: live in. It's just like trying to classify the knowledge
Speaker 4: that the Earth is not.
Speaker 3: At the center of the universe.
Speaker 4: Now the Vatican try to do that when Copernicus argued otherwise.
Speaker 4: And you know, in nineteen ninety two the Vatican admitted
Speaker 4: that Galileo was right. That was twenty years after the
Speaker 4: first humans reached the Moon. A little bit too late.
Speaker 4: And what I'm trying to say is that hiding information
Speaker 4: is not to the best a fit of humanity, because
Speaker 4: eventually we will learn it. It will take more time,
Speaker 4: but it's actually to our advantage to know what the
Speaker 4: reality is because we can adapt to it. So once
Speaker 4: we realize that we're not at the center of the
Speaker 4: solar system, that Mars, for example, does not orbit the Earth,
Speaker 4: we could launch share rockets that would reach Mars because
Speaker 4: we understand through the laws of Newton, how Mars moves
Speaker 4: around the Sun. If we were to think that Mars
Speaker 4: moves around the Earth, like the Vatican was arguing, we
Speaker 4: would shoot rockets like crazy and never reach Mars. So
Speaker 4: my point is, even if the reality does not flatter
Speaker 4: your ego, you better adapt to it. I mean, it's
Speaker 4: sort of like you having a disease and you say
Speaker 4: I don't want to hear that you know I will
Speaker 4: never die. Is that good for you? No, Because if
Speaker 4: you know what the disease is, you can fight it,
Speaker 4: you can adapt to it in some way. It's much better,
Speaker 4: in my opinion, to know whether we have a neighbor
Speaker 4: because once we realize that, we will recalculate, you know,
Speaker 4: just like a GPS system, we will recalculate the next
Speaker 4: steps accordingly. But if we ignore that, if we hide
Speaker 4: it in some classified documents, that's actually a sign of
Speaker 4: us not being intelligent.
Speaker 1: I think it's out there. I think that it's hidden
Speaker 1: in plain sight, and I look forward to people like you,
Speaker 1: you know, sharpening your pitchfork, you and Eric Weinstein to
Speaker 1: go down to the National Science Foundation and demand because,
Speaker 1: like you just said, the Vatican already did it once.
Speaker 2: Do you really think that the government will do it again.
Speaker 2: I think that they might.
Speaker 1: But your point is perfect, and I've said it many
Speaker 1: times in my live streams, is that you can't hide
Speaker 1: this for us.
Speaker 4: Well, you know what, I tried to express my opinion
Speaker 4: with the transition team of the new administration, and I'm
Speaker 4: not sure if anything will happen. You know, the two
Speaker 4: possibilities either the government has some very interesting inform or
Speaker 4: it doesn't. Then if they don't, then there is nothing
Speaker 4: for us to learn about from them if it exists,
Speaker 4: I hope that they will then share it because it's
Speaker 4: of great value to science and humanity in general, and
Speaker 4: it would save me decades of work. I mean I
Speaker 4: would work at it. But if they were have something
Speaker 4: I would love to help, let's.
Speaker 2: Press it even further then.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm going to tell you. I'm gonna give
Speaker 1: you a hypothetical scenario. I just want you to run
Speaker 1: with this, assuming this is true, because I think if
Speaker 1: we play out the scenario, start to realize maybe it is.
Speaker 1: What if the alien technology represents free energy? And by
Speaker 1: free energy, I don't mean from nothing, I mean that
Speaker 1: this zero point energy all around us turns out it's
Speaker 1: not this tiny amount. The answer to the vacuum catastrophe
Speaker 1: is that there's this huge amount of energy. The aliens
Speaker 1: have figured out how to tap into it. They don't
Speaker 1: need solar power or anything. They've got energy everywhere, all
Speaker 1: around them all the time. Now, imagine how what would
Speaker 1: that civilization look like if we realized that that technology exists.
Speaker 1: Imagine how the US government might try to weaponize that technology.
Speaker 1: Imagine what that would do to our entire society. So
Speaker 1: would you still be on the side of disclosure. If
Speaker 1: that's the case, where we would potentially be handing over free,
Speaker 1: unlimited energy to every person on the planet, that might also,
Speaker 1: to your point earlier, be a time machine as well.
Speaker 4: But yeah, so you know, this question comes up again
Speaker 4: and again when science uncovers new knowledge that we did
Speaker 4: not know before. And it was true in the nuclear
Speaker 4: age when we realized nuclear physics, and then you can
Speaker 4: imagine using nuclear energy both for destructive measures nuclear weapons,
Speaker 4: you know, and at the time it was World War two,
Speaker 4: you know, it was quite dangerous if the Nazis were
Speaker 4: to develop that then Eisenberg were on. Eisenberg, one of
Speaker 4: the founders of quantum mechanics, was leading then that's the effort.
Speaker 4: So that was a real risk. And of course the
Speaker 4: second option is to use nuclear energy for peace and prosperity.
Speaker 4: You know, that can be a very useful source of
Speaker 4: clean energy, much better than any other source. So we
Speaker 4: always have whenever we understand reality better, we have the
Speaker 4: options of using it to our detriment or to our benefit,
Speaker 4: and that will remain.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: I don't think the solution is to argue we should
Speaker 4: go back to our.
Speaker 3: To the Stone age.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm not a believer in the philosophy of thorough
Speaker 4: Henry Thorow who lived very close to where I live,
Speaker 4: and you know, he went to the world then pond
Speaker 4: and stayed there for a year.
Speaker 3: Arguing that the industrial.
Speaker 4: Revolution is really harmful for our interaction with nature, I
Speaker 4: don't think so. I think, for example, if our technologies,
Speaker 4: for example, change the climate, it doesn't mean we need
Speaker 4: to go back to the Stone Age. We just need
Speaker 4: to develop new technologies that would moderate the impact of
Speaker 4: our technologies on the planet. So in otherwise, we can
Speaker 4: solve our problems with better technology, not by reducing our
Speaker 4: level of technological innovation.
Speaker 3: So we should always.
Speaker 4: Be motivated to use it for a good cause, and
Speaker 4: therefore we should never head back in time. Okay, we
Speaker 4: always move forward. It's just like riding bicycle, you know,
Speaker 4: you always need to move forward in order to stay stable.
Speaker 4: If you argue that we should stop, you know, using cars,
Speaker 4: airplanes and so forth, just for the benefit of the planet,
Speaker 4: you are really not thinking ahead. Because what needs to
Speaker 4: be done is developing technologies that would moderate any impact
Speaker 4: we have and remove actually compensate for an impact that
Speaker 4: we did already have on the planet.
Speaker 3: And the same holds for your question.
Speaker 4: So suppose there is an alternative source of propulsion that
Speaker 4: we are not aware of. You know, as long I mean,
Speaker 4: we can definitely use it for the benefit of humanity.
Speaker 4: We can propel people out of this planet much more
Speaker 4: we can. We can solve all of our energy problems.
Speaker 4: People will live better, will have better life. You know,
Speaker 4: the same is true about AI.
Speaker 3: There was this.
Speaker 4: Memo that was written by a group of experts that
Speaker 4: tried to to argue that any development of AI should
Speaker 4: be stopped for six months. That was a year and
Speaker 4: a half ago, and I thought that makes no sense,
Speaker 4: because okay, you stop it for six months, what do
Speaker 4: you do next? And really what needs to be done
Speaker 4: is making sure that AI will not harm society and
Speaker 4: that many possible risks, and I write about them in
Speaker 4: my essays.
Speaker 3: And as long as you are aware of the risks
Speaker 3: from AI harming national security, harming.
Speaker 4: The mental stage or the mental health of young people.
Speaker 3: As long as you're aware.
Speaker 4: Of the risks, you you can develop ways of mitigating
Speaker 4: them and progressing in a more constructive fashion. And so
Speaker 4: in the same spirit, if we have access to a
Speaker 4: new propulsion system that far exceeds our technologies. I'm not
Speaker 4: worried about it because we can always use it to
Speaker 4: our benefit and there would be some bad actors always,
Speaker 4: you know, there are bad Imagine nuclear weapons falling to
Speaker 4: the hands of terrorist organizations at the moment they don't
Speaker 4: possess it. Imagine AI being used by terrorist organizations. You
Speaker 4: know that currently it hasn't happened. So you can imagine
Speaker 4: any new technology that could have devastating consequences, including you know,
Speaker 4: biological warfare. You can imagine those getting to the hands
Speaker 4: of bad actors and then damaging the future of humanity.
Speaker 4: But of course, if you arrange your geopolitics such that
Speaker 4: bad actors will be punished very severely and nobody would
Speaker 4: cooperate with them, then these bad actors will not have
Speaker 4: a a global impact. They might have, you know, they
Speaker 4: might do some act of terrorism in a particular place
Speaker 4: the particular time, but after that they would not survive, okay,
Speaker 4: because there would be an immediate response to that.
Speaker 3: So my point is, as long as we use what
Speaker 3: we learn for.
Speaker 4: Our benefit and not use it as a weapon, you
Speaker 4: know we can survive for a very long time. In fact,
Speaker 4: knowing better how to prepare ourselves would make the longevity
Speaker 4: of humanity much longer than the next century. I mean,
Speaker 4: we will leave our planet go elsewhere. Just imagine instead
Speaker 4: of using this traditional rocket technology that Starship is based on.
Speaker 4: You know, if we were to use something much faster,
Speaker 4: much more efficient, everyone would love to go on.
Speaker 3: Such as.
Speaker 1: What it spooks me about those videos I showed you
Speaker 1: earlier is that when I watch those, I go wow, like,
Speaker 1: that's very similar to megal Algeberry's warp drive metric, but
Speaker 1: they don't have a fixed structure attached to the plane
Speaker 1: that there's zapping out of the sky, or at least
Speaker 1: it looks to be moving at relativistic faster than I travel.
Speaker 2: Now, what the conclusion I've come to.
Speaker 1: I love all your opinions, by the way, but that
Speaker 1: with this UFO stuff and everything, is that the answer
Speaker 1: must be really dark and free energy and the ability
Speaker 1: to teleport around and using all these propulsion macronims.
Speaker 2: That's a pretty dark answer.
Speaker 1: Means like we're basically just ants, and either the aliens
Speaker 1: are pretty much just gods compared to us, or maybe
Speaker 1: AI one a long time ago and this is all similar.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't see it as dark. I see it
Speaker 4: as uplifting and inspiring. Just imagine that you are in
Speaker 4: a class and there is a smartest student in that class.
Speaker 4: Why is that depressing?
Speaker 3: It's uplifting.
Speaker 4: Imagine all these students were stupid, you know, Like then
Speaker 4: I would be depressed under this circumstances because there would
Speaker 4: be nothing to learn. Okay, but if there are neighbors
Speaker 4: that are far more advanced than we are, we can
Speaker 4: learn from them and do better. I mean when I
Speaker 4: look at the news every day, I really get depressed.
Speaker 4: I get depressed by how not intelligent we are in
Speaker 4: the way we interact with each other and between nations.
Speaker 4: And just having someone to be inspired by that is
Speaker 4: better than our politician would be a great thing.
Speaker 1: I'm one hundred percent with you on that, and I
Speaker 1: love that because I'm really passimistic about this, Like look
Speaker 1: at this science. I'm like thinking like Oppenheimer, like you know,
Speaker 1: I am become that destroyer of world. Like I keep
Speaker 1: thinking like this is going to be the end. This
Speaker 1: is the Fermi paradox. We're staring at it.
Speaker 3: So on this, I must say on this that.
Speaker 4: You know, reality is very often a self fulfilling prophecy.
Speaker 3: Okay, so it's better to be an optimist.
Speaker 4: If you're a pessimist, very often you will end up
Speaker 4: fulfilling your prophecy and not enjoying life. And if you
Speaker 4: have something that inspires you that could bring reality to
Speaker 4: a better place, there is some chance that you would
Speaker 4: realize that. And then therefore, in this context, you know,
Speaker 4: first of all, I don't think that humanity attracts a
Speaker 4: lot of attention. I don't think that we are sufficiently
Speaker 4: intelligent for them to care about us. If they arrive
Speaker 4: at our vicinity, it's not because they care about us.
Speaker 4: It's because there are some other resources that they might.
Speaker 3: Want to explore. And you know, we happen to be here.
Speaker 4: But for us, it's a great opportunity to do better
Speaker 4: because we technologically speaking, we are just roughly a century old,
Speaker 4: and we can learn from someone that was around for
Speaker 4: a million or a billion years.
Speaker 3: Just think how many opportunities they might have that we don't.
Speaker 2: With you.
Speaker 1: And I remember I watched when Jimmy Church asked you, actually,
Speaker 1: why you do this?
Speaker 2: And it's like, I'm looking for someone smarter out there.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for someone that's not you know, the way
Speaker 1: I interpreted it, someone that's not just on TikTok all
Speaker 1: the time, or just constantly talking about social political issue
Speaker 1: somebody that's like actually trying to make the world like
Speaker 1: a little bit better or looking at from a higher level.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I say this again is that
Speaker 1: I'm and this would be me challenging you on it.
Speaker 1: On you have some amazing thoughts, but like, imagine even bigger,
Speaker 1: where a scenario where the aliens aren't even biological aliens anymore.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're a hive mind. Maybe they've figured out free energy,
Speaker 1: and now the sun doesn't matter and the Kardashiev scale
Speaker 1: is basically irrelevant, and now you're a species with no
Speaker 1: scarcity whatsoever. You have no scarcity, so now resources that
Speaker 1: doesn't even matter anymore. That's wild to me because I
Speaker 1: think that in a scenario like that, AI wins like AI,
Speaker 1: I would upload.
Speaker 2: My body into the computer because you have infinities.
Speaker 3: Quite it's quite possible.
Speaker 4: But suppose that intelligent life or complex life on Earth
Speaker 4: was seeded, you know, by a gardener that was an
Speaker 4: AI system that came along and decided to plan some
Speaker 4: seeds of complex life and he we are, okay, So
Speaker 4: what kind of complex life would you plant? You want
Speaker 4: to plant self replicating entities, and that's exactly what we are. Okay,
Speaker 4: So we use the raw materials on Earth to reproduce,
Speaker 4: to generate more.
Speaker 3: And more and evolve.
Speaker 4: And you know, our technologies at the moment are unable
Speaker 4: to produce something like that. We don't have a robot
Speaker 4: that can manufacture a robot like it. We don't have that.
Speaker 4: We don't even have self healing cars. You know, when
Speaker 4: a car gets bumped, it doesn't heal. I mean the
Speaker 4: human body. I just felt this morning when I was
Speaker 4: jogging because it was icy on the on the asphalt.
Speaker 4: You know, every morning I jogged sunrise and it healed.
Speaker 4: By now I don't feel any pain. And so that's
Speaker 4: the amazing thing about biology. And you know, maybe life
Speaker 4: as we know it was seeded, the complex life that
Speaker 4: we have, was seeded, you know, by some technological device.
Speaker 4: And if you think about it, it would be the
Speaker 4: best thing to plant basically systems that are able to
Speaker 4: reproduce themselves and use just the raw materials. They have
Speaker 4: a brain, even the human brain, the most able brain
Speaker 4: on this planet as of now, before AI will exceed it.
Speaker 4: Even that requires only twenty watts of energy that's remarkable
Speaker 4: because our AI system chug GPT. Large language models require jigobats,
Speaker 4: so we are very sophisticated if you think about biology
Speaker 4: the human body. And then maybe it's not a coincidence,
Speaker 4: maybe that we are the self replicating probs on using
Speaker 4: the raw materials on the rock where the seeds were put,
Speaker 4: and you know, the only way to find out is
Speaker 4: to find the gardener.
Speaker 2: That's a great thought, and you know what, I think
Speaker 2: we'll probably ended on that.
Speaker 1: This has been an awesome conversation on the physics, on
Speaker 1: the science. My last question was going to be what
Speaker 1: is your thought of non human intelligence? But I have
Speaker 1: a feeling you just explained it to me right there.
Speaker 4: Oh well, I think there are two types of AI.
Speaker 4: One is artificial intelligence. These are our technological kids that
Speaker 4: may supersede our abilities that are already getting there.
Speaker 3: In fact, I just read this morning.
Speaker 4: That some people fall in love with large language models.
Speaker 3: They developed very close relationships.
Speaker 4: And eventually, you know, we would realize it. It looks
Speaker 4: like an oracle because it is smarter than us. Okay,
Speaker 4: but there is another type of AI, and that is
Speaker 4: alien intelligence, which may also be smarter than us.
Speaker 3: And then the question is who would be.
Speaker 4: Fine first, because I'm trying to promote the second option,
Speaker 4: and I know that they are big tech companies trying
Speaker 4: to promote.
Speaker 3: The first, and there is sort of a race.
Speaker 4: At any event, we will not be the only intelligent
Speaker 4: or the most intelligent species within a decade. Either AI
Speaker 4: will artificial intelligence will do it, or if we find
Speaker 4: evidence for alien intelligence it will do it. And for me,
Speaker 4: finding a neighbor, you know, is following the messianic message
Speaker 4: of traditional religions. You know, the assumption is the Messiah
Speaker 4: will arrive and bring peace and prosperity a better future
Speaker 4: to humanity. But I just believe that that Messiah will
Speaker 4: will come from another stuff.
Speaker 1: Now, for me, my opinion is that I don't really
Speaker 1: care about aliens. I assume that they're really assume that
Speaker 1: there's life actually everywhere out there, and to me, it's
Speaker 1: just a matter of like, you know, unless they're changing
Speaker 1: my day to day, it just doesn't really matter that
Speaker 1: much to me. I think it's a cool idea and
Speaker 1: I love exploring it, and I really appreciate exploring with you.
Speaker 1: But the stuff that would change my world would be
Speaker 1: if we can work or teleport around.
Speaker 2: I can have a stargate in my garage and.
Speaker 4: If I have free energy, well, but that could depend
Speaker 4: on the first thing. So the point is if you
Speaker 4: have someone that you can learn from, that's that addresses
Speaker 4: your second interest. And for me, you know, they will
Speaker 4: give us inspiration and to do better. So let's look
Speaker 4: for them. And that's what I'm trying to you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not talking about them. I'm trying to.
Speaker 1: Fore last question that I just came up with because
Speaker 1: we were talking about in a battle or however you
Speaker 1: want to think. It doesn't have to be adversarial, but
Speaker 1: in a competition or relationship between AI and organic life,
Speaker 1: do you see one being superior to the other. Do
Speaker 1: you see there being an integration of the two in
Speaker 1: the long run?
Speaker 2: Any thoughts on that?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know humans through natural selection, where I mean
Speaker 4: the human body was designed to survive on Earth protected
Speaker 4: from cosmic rays, very energetic particles by the earth magnetosphere
Speaker 4: and the atmosphere.
Speaker 3: And you know, it's really very hazardous for us even
Speaker 3: to go to Mars. The surface of.
Speaker 4: Mars, you know, doesn't have the protection of an atmosphere.
Speaker 4: And moreover, the temperature changes by hundreds of degrees between
Speaker 4: day and night. And you know, so when thinking about
Speaker 4: going there, you really need to solve the problem how
Speaker 4: to protect the humans. And one way is of course,
Speaker 4: to go into a cave under the rock. So that
Speaker 4: would be just like going to prehistory when we occupied caves.
Speaker 4: If I ever go to a cave on Mars, I
Speaker 4: would like to check the cave walls to see if
Speaker 4: there are any prehistoric paintings there, because Mars had an
Speaker 4: atmosphere two billion years ago and there could have been
Speaker 4: complex life back then. And so I would argue that
Speaker 4: technological gudgets, like systems with artificial intelligence, could be designed
Speaker 4: to survive interstellar travel. They will not get board over
Speaker 4: the long journey, and they could be hardened to survive
Speaker 4: the harsh conditions of space. Moreover, you need a brain
Speaker 4: when you go large distances because you can't ask for
Speaker 4: guidance from the senders. It takes too much time for
Speaker 4: signals to propagate and bridge between you and the sender.
Speaker 4: And it's just like sending out your kids away from home.
Speaker 4: They will report back every now and then about the
Speaker 4: highlights of the journey, but if they keep calling you
Speaker 4: all the time, they can go a long distance. It
Speaker 4: just takes too much time for the communication requires too
Speaker 4: much power. So in this case, I think technology basically
Speaker 4: equipping interstellar travelers with a brain of their own and artificial.
Speaker 3: Intelligence system is really a musked for them to function.
Speaker 2: Integration is most likely scenario in the long run.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it's possible that we humans will not
Speaker 4: I mean, we are the last generation that went to feels.
Speaker 4: It's possible that within a decade or two. I was
Speaker 4: just talking about it with the George Church geneticist and
Speaker 4: he thinks that we might not die. I saw, and
Speaker 4: you know, in that case, you can start to imagine
Speaker 4: augmenting the human body, allowing it to traverse great distances
Speaker 4: in interstellar space.
Speaker 3: And maybe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's one of those big ideas as well,
Speaker 1: along with like free energy and other propulsion mechanisms that
Speaker 1: I think completely revolutionize how we look for other life
Speaker 1: and we look at our civilization. So a Vilbe, Harvard professor,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for talking to me today on
Speaker 1: Heartrews podcast. Has been awesome conversation. Feel free to shout
Speaker 1: out where people can find you. I know you're not
Speaker 1: big on social media, but where can people find your content?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I write essays on medium dot com. So if
Speaker 4: you just search for Avilobe at medium dot com, you
Speaker 4: can subscribe for free. Every day or two you will
Speaker 4: see a new essay that provides you with an update
Speaker 4: about the space astrophysics, all the Galileo projects and otherwise.
Speaker 4: There will be a Netflix documentary coming out this year
Speaker 4: by the end of this year, and I know that
Speaker 4: it should be very exciting. They came with me to
Speaker 4: the Pacific Ocean and documented what we did there. And
Speaker 4: I know it's exciting is because a member of I
Speaker 4: heard from a girl in another country that wrote an
Speaker 4: email to me. She said, that was just a few
Speaker 4: weeks ago. She said, keep doing what you're doing. You
Speaker 4: have a huge amount of support from many of us,
Speaker 4: and don't surrender to any critics, because I just watched
Speaker 4: the first twenty five minutes of the documentary about your work,
Speaker 4: and I said, thank you so much, But I think
Speaker 4: you saw another film. It's not a documentary because it's
Speaker 4: only supposed to come out by the end of twenty
Speaker 4: twenty five. And she said, well, here is a photo
Speaker 4: of the television screen and you're in day five of
Speaker 4: the expedition, and I'm actually a member of a club
Speaker 4: of Netflix that gives them feedback long before the film
Speaker 4: is released, and so she got extremely excited. And that's
Speaker 4: why I think it would be a good one. And
Speaker 4: so that will come out that There are several other
Speaker 4: things that will come out that I cannot speak about.
Speaker 4: One thing that I can mention is that there is
Speaker 4: a sculptor, the most accomplished American scultory. He was named
Speaker 4: America's Rodin, and he made two sculptures of Galileo Galilean
Speaker 4: bronze the size of a person that he hopes to
Speaker 4: deliver to my office in the coming months. And then
Speaker 4: my office will turn into a small museum. I don't
Speaker 4: think i'll charge, and if he is, but I will.
Speaker 4: I removed all the file cabinets from my office to
Speaker 4: giving up a workaround space and these should be beautiful.
Speaker 1: Well, come by when I'm next out there and come
Speaker 1: see the sculptures when they're completed. And I've read your
Speaker 1: blog your I guess it's a blog on medium. I
Speaker 1: think it's great reading all that content that's out there.
Speaker 1: And thank you for the sneak peek as well. You
Speaker 1: have an ally and me and my supporters as well,
Speaker 1: Anybody that speaks out against consensus is and willing to
Speaker 1: challenge preconceived notions is always somebody that I will support.
Speaker 2: So thank you very much, sir, Thank you for your time,
Speaker 2: and have a great day.