Speaker 1: Malaysian three zero contact went to zero dismal nine. Breaking
Speaker 1: news tonight, a Malaysia Airlines flight with two hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty nine people on board, including four Americans, has gone missing.
Speaker 2: I remember the line from the Indo scripture of the
Speaker 2: Bagavad Gita thish New.
Speaker 1: I was trying to persuade the prince.
Speaker 2: He should do his duty, and to impressed him takes
Speaker 2: on multi armed form. It says, now I am become death,
Speaker 2: the destroyer of worlds.
Speaker 3: Thank you everybody for being here, Thank you for waiting
Speaker 3: those who are waiting patiently. I'm Ashon Forbes. This is
Speaker 3: Hard Trews Podcast. Guys. Today, I once again have probably
Speaker 3: our most esteemed guest ever on the show, US Navy
Speaker 3: engineer Salvator Pais. I hope you guys enjoy the conversation.
Speaker 3: Here we go, sal brother, welcome to the podcast once again.
Speaker 3: How are you doing rather?
Speaker 1: Thank you very much and my apologies again. I tried
Speaker 1: something new and new my new camera whatever, nothing worked,
Speaker 1: so go with old. Remember this is just a quick tip.
Speaker 1: Go with what you know works, especially when things get hot.
Speaker 1: But anyway, let me give the let me give the disclaimer.
Speaker 1: Right of the bat so I don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: I come on your Hard Troops podcast for the third time. Congratulations. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's see uh as a private citizen. My opinions, my
Speaker 1: statements on my own. They have absolutely nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the United States Navy nor the United States Space Force.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for being such a kind host,
Speaker 1: and I truly love being in your presence. Just one
Speaker 1: more thing I would like to throw out there, since
Speaker 1: we already tried the challenge to elan Moscow and the
Speaker 1: alternative the the propulsion methodology not using advanced rocketry. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, possibly you can substantiate on your
Speaker 1: x platform. You can give the link again as to
Speaker 1: our our challenge. You're the one who post did it
Speaker 1: for me on your ex platform. Thank you very much. Sure,
Speaker 1: and anytime any place, I would like to engage with
Speaker 1: mister Musk and explain to him the alternatives to advanced rocketry.
Speaker 1: It is a one hundred and twenty year old technology
Speaker 1: not worthy of let's say, the genius of the third millennium,
Speaker 1: as he has been dubbed on the several shows.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you what. Let's go about it like this.
Speaker 3: I'll ask you questions and we'll try to use this
Speaker 3: podcast as a way to convince him that he should
Speaker 3: be paying attention. Because just one more.
Speaker 1: Thing, and I promised that after that the floors can
Speaker 1: I would just answer the questions that you post. I
Speaker 1: promise you this, But I must say that this has
Speaker 1: been on the tip of my mind for some time
Speaker 1: and given the situation, let's say, not just in the
Speaker 1: world everywhere. Let me just say this, mister Musk, I
Speaker 1: make an appeal to you, as a federal employee, on
Speaker 1: behalf of my brothers and sisters in federal government. Please
Speaker 1: do not longer fire federal employees. Think and think again
Speaker 1: before you undergo such acts. We have taken a pledge
Speaker 1: to the United States Constitution. We protect and serve the
Speaker 1: people of the United States of America, and I implore
Speaker 1: you considerate will before you decide to fire us. We
Speaker 1: actually fulfill a very important row in science and technology
Speaker 1: and engineering. As a matter of fact, everything I've done,
Speaker 1: the price effect, the super force, anything that's linked even
Speaker 1: to the room temperature superconductor, which I am one hundred
Speaker 1: percent one day will be proven correct. Even that any
Speaker 1: one of us could have come up with these ideas,
Speaker 1: there are minds among us that should not be discarded. Please,
Speaker 1: if you must use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much, sir. I hope that you hear this.
Speaker 1: I hope Ashton, that your followers make this viral. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: So then let's start with the beginning. Why do you
Speaker 3: work for the US Navy.
Speaker 1: I work for the United States Navy because number one,
Speaker 1: I believe it is the strongest arm of the armed forces.
Speaker 1: It is, as a matter of fact, by constitution, by
Speaker 1: Act of Congress, the first of the armed forces. It
Speaker 1: is it it's extremely diverse, from the point of view
Speaker 1: that it encompasses every aspect of science and technology and engineering.
Speaker 1: It has an aviation wing, the United States Marines, you
Speaker 1: can say, those are its foot soldiers, and of course
Speaker 1: the Navy itself, so.
Speaker 3: Every private company. Though I work for.
Speaker 1: The United States government to protect and serve the people
Speaker 1: of the United States of America. I believe in that wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: And to me, the greatest, one of the greatest achievements
Speaker 1: in my life was to become a federal employee. My
Speaker 1: brother's insistents know this well. We do this not to
Speaker 1: make money, but to serve and protect the interests and
Speaker 1: the country itself, because the country must prosper, the country
Speaker 1: must be there forever. This is a nation of divine
Speaker 1: right and laws.
Speaker 3: Well, then let me ask you based on your what
Speaker 3: you just said about Elon Musk, and even if you
Speaker 3: can't say what it is that you do, that's fine.
Speaker 3: But why is it that Elon Musk should not fire
Speaker 3: you if you're concerned about that happening. What is it
Speaker 3: that you're providing to that to advance what you just
Speaker 3: said to the people.
Speaker 1: It is not I, It is my brothers and sisters
Speaker 1: as a collective again, a force of unification within the
Speaker 1: government itself. We are providing again the brain, the brain matter,
Speaker 1: that the the absolute knowledge that comes with every one
Speaker 1: of us. Again, there's nothing special about me. Forget about
Speaker 1: the price effective, forget about the super force, forget about
Speaker 1: room temperature, super conductivity. All those can actually be achieved
Speaker 1: by anyone else in the United States government that has
Speaker 1: that works in these domains. Every one of us has
Speaker 1: that capability, that level of knowledge. A lot of us
Speaker 1: have thattoral level knowledge. It is thattoral qualifier PhD qualifier.
Speaker 3: So then why do they need you.
Speaker 1: They do not need me, they can take anyone else,
Speaker 1: and I'm pretty sure that they can fulfill that raw.
Speaker 1: I just bring to the table certain ideas. I do
Speaker 1: have one thing. I don't believe in boxes. I've done
Speaker 1: away with the boxes. I completely think boxes are not needed. Therefore,
Speaker 1: the whole idea of thinking outside the box, to me
Speaker 1: is a misnomer to begin with, because I do not
Speaker 1: believe in boxes.
Speaker 3: See so let me ask you this thing, because I disagree.
Speaker 3: I don't think you're that replaceable. Why did the US
Speaker 3: Navy support and approve get your patents approved? Because the
Speaker 3: truth of the story is, if you if you guys
Speaker 3: haven't caught up watched Hart Trood's podcast number one and two.
Speaker 3: I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but basically,
Speaker 3: only three of five of the five patents by Salvag
Speaker 3: or Pace in the US Navy were approved, and they
Speaker 3: had to fight for them, and they had like the
Speaker 3: chief technology guy like basically Sala's boss or his boss
Speaker 3: and boss. However, it worked out and one of the
Speaker 3: lawyers sending letters saying the stuff was you know, operable
Speaker 3: or you know, depending on the exact wordplay, that the
Speaker 3: stuff was legit. So why was the Navy fighting so
Speaker 3: hard for those patents.
Speaker 1: First of all, let me name the name. His name
Speaker 1: is doctor James Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer of Naval Aviation Enterprises.
Speaker 1: A great man, a man that shall be remembered by history,
Speaker 1: for he deserves to be remembered by history. He is
Speaker 1: a man of great integrity. I was able to present.
Speaker 1: I went to the blackboard, I would you know, forget
Speaker 1: this dryer race board, and stopped through the blackboard the
Speaker 1: piece of chalk in my mouth, in my mouth. Yeah,
Speaker 1: actually I held it in my mouth for a little while,
Speaker 1: but anyway, in my hand. I actually went to the blackboard,
Speaker 1: put down Maxwell's equations, the four equations four known so
Speaker 1: again heavy side version of Maxwell's equations, and from there
Speaker 1: I was able to derive what is understood as the
Speaker 1: police effect. Once he saw the fundamental, the fundamental behind it.
Speaker 1: When he understood exactly how I was going to put
Speaker 1: it in practice and what the applications would be. Doctor
Speaker 1: Shihi was not only intelligent enough, but a visionary. He
Speaker 1: was able to foresee the possibilities, and five patent applications
Speaker 1: came out of it. They went through the invention evaluation board.
Speaker 1: Now you must understand the Invention Evaluation Board is made
Speaker 1: of the kreme de la creme of Navire. We're talking
Speaker 1: about highly technical skilled, many of them having we had
Speaker 1: quantum physicists, with quantum chemists with doctorates with the mechanical,
Speaker 1: aerospace engineering, electrical engineering as well. So, and there's one
Speaker 1: thing that I will disclose because I never signed an NDA,
Speaker 1: so why not in the sum of twenty nineteen, a
Speaker 1: technical committee, a technical staffing committee, highly placed. We talked
Speaker 1: about gs fifteens and higher and the s yes. But
Speaker 1: these are people of extreme importance within the government because
Speaker 1: everyone in government listens to these individuals. They are the
Speaker 1: kreme de la creme of the technical and science community
Speaker 1: within the staffing officer, staffing office for the Senate, the
Speaker 1: Senate Armed Service Committee we're talking about anyway, these are
Speaker 1: the guys that prevented Hitler from taking over the world.
Speaker 1: But anyway, uh so, the bottom line is this, four
Speaker 1: of them, I will not name names. They know who
Speaker 1: they are. Four of them went to Navit Pattason River
Speaker 1: and spoke to all to certain members, certain key members
Speaker 1: of the Invention Evaluation Board, including doctor James Sheety, and
Speaker 1: at the end of the day they were convinced that
Speaker 1: the pace of effect had future. One of them, the
Speaker 1: person that led the technical staffing committee, called me at
Speaker 1: six point thirty that night to let me know that
Speaker 1: things are coming my way. Possibility of a team and
Speaker 1: a laboratory would be in motion. Certain things were done,
Speaker 1: certain things were said, Politics intervened, and I never got
Speaker 1: my lab in my team. But that's another story, so interesting.
Speaker 3: So just to rehash that twenty nineteen, some technical committee
Speaker 3: was formed and supposedly this has to do with it,
Speaker 3: sounds like because this was after the patents already approved, right,
Speaker 3: So this was then to get you a team to review,
Speaker 3: to take this science the next level, to take yourself
Speaker 3: in next level? Is that what I'm here?
Speaker 1: But as a matter of fact, the third pattern had
Speaker 1: just been approved, The high frequency gravitation way generator had
Speaker 1: just been approved as a first action, unheard of, unheard of,
Speaker 1: such controversial pattern. You know that one well, because you
Speaker 1: were the one who was great enough to put it
Speaker 1: on your X platform. As a matter of fact, it
Speaker 1: got like over a million views. It was the biggest
Speaker 1: of the papers. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Ash. Now you think, let me ask, because people are
Speaker 3: gonna ask me, and I don't want to wait for
Speaker 3: heart Trews number four for the answer is was hal
Speaker 3: put Off? I'm part of that committee, that group of scientists.
Speaker 1: As far as I know, No, sir, these were all
Speaker 1: part of the Senate Technical Committee. They were highly placed staffers.
Speaker 1: So we talked about GS. Fifteen and above.
Speaker 3: Do you believe that? Yeah? Do you believe the US
Speaker 3: Navy already has the technology and those patents available even
Speaker 3: if you didn't make it, maybe by somebody else.
Speaker 1: Sir, I have no idea. However, you have to understand
Speaker 1: when I saw the M three seven, the videos when
Speaker 1: we had our first My god, it seems like such
Speaker 1: a long time ago, and yet it seems like yesterday.
Speaker 1: It's amazing what you've been able to achieve in such
Speaker 1: a short period of time. Congratulations, brother, kudos to you.
Speaker 1: You deserve it. Look, the bottom line is this, I
Speaker 1: do not believe those videos are false. I think they're
Speaker 1: not only are they the real thing, but it's amazing
Speaker 1: whoever did it, it's truly should be regarded as a
Speaker 1: national hero.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, the thing is like like you know
Speaker 3: who I'm blaming though, right, Like everything points the US Navy.
Speaker 3: So it turns out you you work for them, you know.
Speaker 3: So I'm kind of going like in my head.
Speaker 1: As a ravage citizen, since I'm coming.
Speaker 3: As a citizen. Absolutely I choose and I don't want Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't want you to disclose anything that's inappropriate in
Speaker 3: any way, shape or form. I say that as somebody
Speaker 3: else's at American.
Speaker 1: But that is my own. It is based on science
Speaker 1: and technology that I developed on my own from papers
Speaker 1: that I've read. It is true that the most influential
Speaker 1: book I've read from which all the policies affect ideas
Speaker 1: truly stem from, are Frontiers and Propulsion Science, the one
Speaker 1: that's edited by Mark Millis and Eric W. Davis. And
Speaker 1: that's why I hold back to Davis and such high esteem. However,
Speaker 1: I must say he was one person, let's just say,
Speaker 1: highly placed, that was asked at the time by someone
Speaker 1: in the aforementioned committee via another individual at the Office
Speaker 1: of Naval Intelligence who shall remain unnamed. Even though he's
Speaker 1: retired now there's no point in rehashing these things. However,
Speaker 1: Eric W. Davis is one of the key people that
Speaker 1: basically said no to me getting a theme, And yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense.
Speaker 3: I mean he was the gatekeeper right that blocked your stuff,
Speaker 3: and it seems like he's a gatekeeper in general for
Speaker 3: some of this technology. But I mean the story you
Speaker 3: just told though, is that you said doctor she he
Speaker 3: is you know the way you said it to me.
Speaker 3: In my head, I'm going, oh, well, doctor she He
Speaker 3: knew something was going on because when you say, oh,
Speaker 3: I was just able to convince doctor Shehy to see
Speaker 3: the light about anti gravity technology. I'm going, nah, that's
Speaker 3: never how it's worked out when I've interacted with people.
Speaker 3: The only time that worked out is that they already
Speaker 3: know that it's real ahead of time.
Speaker 1: The notion, the notion of gravity control. You and I
Speaker 1: don't use words like anti gravity anymore. You and I
Speaker 1: know better. The notion of gravity control never came up.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it the one application that
Speaker 1: I stressed was against the room temperature super conductivity because
Speaker 1: it speaks directly to the London equint. There's a paper
Speaker 1: out there, an AI double, A paper twenty nineteen A double.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, some of its finding were
Speaker 1: presented at the side Tech twenty nineteen conference. Now I
Speaker 1: send you those slides. Please please post them to your
Speaker 1: ex and in this chat, so everybody has them that
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen AI Double a Side Tech conference presentation is
Speaker 1: extremely important. Slides four two slides nine of slides four, five, six, seven,
Speaker 1: eight nine are incredibly foundational to disruptive technology. One of them,
Speaker 1: I believe slight four speaks to actually solving the vacuum catastrophe.
Speaker 1: And you and I can go further into this if
Speaker 1: you choose to whereby it by a simple equivalence, and
Speaker 1: you now know this physics of the Boltzmann energy with
Speaker 1: a Plank energy, you can say that the space h
Speaker 1: I it's one down, Try one down?
Speaker 3: Which slide slide for they don't have numbers on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, start from the beginning, go all the way up
Speaker 1: to the like the.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, yeah, I was too far. So this is
Speaker 3: probably a slide like somewhere in here is where you are.
Speaker 1: Talking about it's solving the vacuum catastrophe? Is this one?
Speaker 1: You almost have it there? All right? Look carefully at it.
Speaker 1: It talks about the equivalents of the Boltzmann energy with
Speaker 1: a Plank energy, and from it you can get a
Speaker 1: space a space cell configuration with the attributes. Do you
Speaker 1: see the attributes? Its characteristic length and the order of
Speaker 1: ten to the minus four meters, and what does it
Speaker 1: speak to vibrational frequencies and the terror herds order? Now
Speaker 1: do you see remember the third by by Eric W. Davis.
Speaker 1: He mentioned a macroscopic dimension on the order of ten
Speaker 1: to the minus four meters, and who mentioned the terror
Speaker 1: herds frequencies. I believe it was back to how futo?
Speaker 3: So are you saying here, though, because I remember I
Speaker 3: reviewed that on stream. I think I'm pretty sure I
Speaker 3: reviewed this on stream a few weeks ago. And the
Speaker 3: part here is interesting is that the Boltzmann distribution has
Speaker 3: to do with thermal energy. But here when we're talking
Speaker 3: about plank scale, we're really dealing about like the vibrational
Speaker 3: energy of space time itself. Right.
Speaker 1: This incredible because this is the first time a classical
Speaker 1: expression K sabbt is equivalent equals a quantum energy formalism,
Speaker 1: namely the plank energy, and you don't get infinities. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it speaks to I believe that
Speaker 1: the problem resides everybody thinks of the plank scale, and
Speaker 1: it's true, certain very important things happen at the plank scale.
Speaker 1: For example, the existence of the super force. However, to
Speaker 1: be able to blend the classical realm into the quantum realm,
Speaker 1: you see, it is that it's a the difference. A
Speaker 1: difference reference length must be used, and this comes out
Speaker 1: of this equivalence. It is tend to the minus four meters,
Speaker 1: which happens to be the size of a macroscopic other dimension,
Speaker 1: a fifth dimension, And it's interesting that that frequency should
Speaker 1: be related to it. Anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you want a little bit over my head, but
Speaker 3: I understand the context here, you know. So for the viewers,
Speaker 3: if you're not initiated, the vacuum catastrophe is we're trying
Speaker 3: to decide why the energy that we see is the
Speaker 3: cosmic microwave background, Why that's one hundred and something orders
Speaker 3: of magnitude less than what we get when we calculate
Speaker 3: the energy based on quantum mechanics that should exist. So
Speaker 3: here cells basically trying to figure out how these two
Speaker 3: things can relate. So the relationship between the thermal energy
Speaker 3: versus the vibrational energy at the plank scale, and the
Speaker 3: part I understand.
Speaker 1: Is that that's the whole thing. It's not at the
Speaker 1: planks heat, it's at the space cell.
Speaker 3: Ah when you make a cell of space, and you
Speaker 3: take that amount of energy in a cell of space. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but let me ask one more question here, because then
Speaker 3: you say this is the part that didn't fully understand.
Speaker 3: I'm glad we're talking about this. You say, simple calculation
Speaker 3: results in vacuum mass density of ten to the minus
Speaker 3: twenty seven kilograms per meter cube, in good agreement with
Speaker 3: eric experimental data obtained from the Plank's satellite.
Speaker 1: Correct. I don't know, and Plank have shown those mass densities.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about very low energy density compared to
Speaker 1: what they think is inside. You know, the whole idea
Speaker 1: that inside a coup of tea or cop of whatever,
Speaker 1: you can boil entire Earth oceans?
Speaker 3: Are you saying that that's correct?
Speaker 1: Again, I believe the error resides in them using the
Speaker 1: Plank scale. I believe the two the classical realm and
Speaker 1: the quantum realm actually meet at this other reference scale.
Speaker 1: Let's call it a space cell for want of a
Speaker 1: better idea, some sort of spatial temporal metric structure within
Speaker 1: space time itself. But at that point that reference a
Speaker 1: characteristic size, the classical and the quantum regimes fuse. They
Speaker 1: melt into one another. That's why I think it's so important.
Speaker 3: Okay, So that's the conceptual viewpoint, is that they mesh
Speaker 3: into one another in an extra spatial dimension similar to
Speaker 3: clusive cliente. Is that what you're getting.
Speaker 1: At quite possible?
Speaker 3: Yes, okay, okay, uh, you know I agree with that already.
Speaker 3: I'm a big clusive client supporter. So I'll leave this
Speaker 3: up in the background for your condis I have a
Speaker 3: few more questions that I want to ask you, just
Speaker 3: like about it and what have you and your and
Speaker 3: of course isn't just your opinion as a private citizen.
Speaker 3: Of course, yes, absolutely, And then and then of course
Speaker 3: we can geek out on the physics and the science.
Speaker 3: So would you testify to Congress at one of these
Speaker 3: hearings or all of these task forces that anapoline a
Speaker 3: Luna is doing if you were asked?
Speaker 1: Of course, I mean this is Congress. I would be
Speaker 1: in contempt of Congress if I would not do so
Speaker 1: if asked. It'd be great if I could get a
Speaker 1: right there, because there's certain issues that you know, things
Speaker 1: that have occurred that I'd rather not go into. So yeah,
Speaker 1: i'd appreciate it, right rather than that, absolutely, And what.
Speaker 3: Would be your main message, what would you be wanting
Speaker 3: to disclose to people.
Speaker 1: That we don't need to reverse engineer let's say, things
Speaker 1: that we're found in the desert, subterranean, under the pyramids, whatnot.
Speaker 1: We don't need these things. The human ingenuity, human mind
Speaker 1: can uncover, can discover these things on our own. We
Speaker 1: do not need et tech. We should rely man made technologies.
Speaker 1: That all.
Speaker 3: I love it. That's that's my favorite. I don't think
Speaker 3: a lot of people would expected you to say that,
Speaker 3: but truthfully, like that's a narrative that does not get
Speaker 3: promoted enough. And I do hope that the next UFO
Speaker 3: hearing is more about what what have we as humanity
Speaker 3: human have been able to figure out in the last
Speaker 3: seventy years. So there's a few more questions that are
Speaker 3: going to get to that here in a minute, but
Speaker 3: I want to ask them more.
Speaker 1: Physics speaks to eighteen ninety five all of a heavy
Speaker 1: sized version of Maxwell's equation because the harmonic iscillator was
Speaker 1: already no way prior to that. Maxwell's equations are based
Speaker 1: on a cellular vertical formula formation within the e quote
Speaker 1: unquote ether. So you know that I prefer quantum vacuum
Speaker 1: of vacuum energy state. But that's my Yeah, it's a right.
Speaker 3: It's just a matter of semantics. I think as long
Speaker 3: as everybody understands what we're conceptually talking about the same things,
Speaker 3: and people can call it whatever they want to call it,
Speaker 3: in my opinion. So your point there is that if
Speaker 3: you were to testify, you would want to tell people that, hey,
Speaker 3: we have this my patents, your patents, that your UFO patents.
Speaker 3: Actually you're not those patents aren't because you want to
Speaker 3: prove that Roswell happened or whatever. You're trying to explain
Speaker 3: that the equations in math have been out there since
Speaker 3: the early nineteen hund depends on if you're going with
Speaker 3: general relativity, if you're going all the way back to
Speaker 3: quaternions and you know Maxwell's equations, right, Yes, Okay, great,
Speaker 3: I mean that's awesome. I hope that you do it
Speaker 3: and get a chance. Now. I have a few more
Speaker 3: questions just about your opinions on like military capabilities in
Speaker 3: the Navy. So one is, do you think it's possible
Speaker 3: to hide from the Navy anywhere on Earth, in the
Speaker 3: air or in the water, even.
Speaker 1: As a private citizen because of EQ I could not
Speaker 1: answer that. We're not question nor enlighten the enemy. Okay, Kashten,
Speaker 1: You and I have seen certain papers, have understood certain things.
Speaker 1: Just because we have not seen levitating craft and some
Speaker 1: unknown unforeseen hangar does not mean we do not understand
Speaker 1: this physics correct.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Look, I'm just an investigator on a journalist. You
Speaker 3: gotta respect that I'm just playing the game here. I'm
Speaker 3: just doing what I gotta do. Like you are the
Speaker 3: respected Navy engineer, you should not say anything that would
Speaker 3: you know, harm your NDA. And my job is to
Speaker 3: come up with questions that push the boundary to the limit.
Speaker 3: So a couple more. How many years behind the military
Speaker 3: do you think the public is technologically right now? People say, oh,
Speaker 3: the military is secretly advanced beyond the public. What is
Speaker 3: your opinion? How if you had to give it, like
Speaker 3: a number of decades, what would you say?
Speaker 1: Put it this way, if any enemy out there's some
Speaker 1: crazy notion to invade, to attack, to come out of
Speaker 1: the blue sky and do something harmful to us, I'll
Speaker 1: please ask them, for their own sake and that of
Speaker 1: their mothers, to please do not take such steps. It'll
Speaker 1: be quick, it'll be very dirty, and you'll never do
Speaker 1: it again.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly what I wanted to hear and pretty
Speaker 3: much what I expected. So let me ask a slightly
Speaker 3: different question back on the patents. I already kind of
Speaker 3: asked about the Navy part, So this one you can
Speaker 3: you can ease up a little bit. Do you think
Speaker 3: defense contractors or maybe even adversaries have developed stuff similar
Speaker 3: to your patents, similar to the science and technology that
Speaker 3: you've put out there.
Speaker 1: Again, these ideas have been around since eighteen ninety five,
Speaker 1: I doubt even though I do have my state of hubers,
Speaker 1: there are days that I have such delusion to grant
Speaker 1: you that not even anyway names would dare to even
Speaker 1: think such things. Yeah, I would say other people have
Speaker 1: thought of these way, possibly even before I was a
Speaker 1: glimmer of light in my biological father's.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, so you do think that other people have
Speaker 3: figured it out there? I mean, just saying that it's
Speaker 3: been out there is one thing, right, But it took
Speaker 3: you to come up with these pads, and nobody put
Speaker 3: these patents out before you. And I was in the
Speaker 3: twenty tens.
Speaker 1: So again, all my brothers and sisters in federal government
Speaker 1: could have come up with these ideas if given a chance.
Speaker 1: I was given a chance to partake of the nice
Speaker 1: of the Naval Innovative Science and Engineering Program, and I
Speaker 1: was extremely fortunate to be given a lab and the
Speaker 1: team to make the high energy of eclemindented field generator
Speaker 1: experiments a reality. So given that any one else in
Speaker 1: the federal government, I believe they could have come up
Speaker 1: with these ideas. That's why my appeal, my imploration to
Speaker 1: mister Mosque to stop the doose cuts of the federal
Speaker 1: government capable of great things, use us.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, I think I only have a couple more
Speaker 3: tough ones for you, and then we can start to
Speaker 3: get into the more fun ones. Let's see what do
Speaker 3: we got. Do you think that we as in the military, Actually,
Speaker 3: you know what, let me change the wording of this.
Speaker 3: Do you think it's possible to intercept a hypersonic missile
Speaker 3: or aircraft?
Speaker 1: Am ah? Let me just give you a conceptual idea.
Speaker 1: You must have heard of the what's it called hop
Speaker 1: You know angels don't play this instrument?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that one?
Speaker 3: Yeah? So rare? Uh.
Speaker 1: What's to say that something portable can be arranged to
Speaker 1: act as a direct electronic war for the device, that's all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, directed energy weapon. Yeah, that's a pretty COM's it's
Speaker 3: less controversial nowadays, I think that it has been in
Speaker 3: previous years. I mean, Lockeed Martin has a whole page
Speaker 3: on their website dedicated to it. So I'm not really
Speaker 3: sure if it's even controversial anymore. So, Okay, that's a
Speaker 3: smart way to answer the question. Yeah, you could intercept anything,
Speaker 3: doesn't matter. Fast is going right if you have a
Speaker 3: radar antennant array speed of live baby. And that's funny
Speaker 3: because I've said that, I feel like a nuke could
Speaker 3: actually be a liability with our sibber system because like
Speaker 3: the moment we detected, I would just shoot it with
Speaker 3: the directed energy weapon and just make it explode or
Speaker 3: whatever they could do.
Speaker 1: Crazy stuff a thing of the past. Yeah, you spoke.
Speaker 1: You are the only one actually that I know of.
Speaker 1: That's why to me, you're far more than what you
Speaker 1: call yourself an investigative journals. You're the only one who
Speaker 1: caught on equations seven, eight, and nine and my plasma
Speaker 1: compression fusion device I tripol e TPS paper in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen based on that paper, and you know what it
Speaker 1: speaks to energy amplification, among other things. Yea, again, ecube,
Speaker 1: it is possible to generate a doomsday device. Would you
Speaker 1: make a teller ulam thermonuclear device seem inconsequential in compassion
Speaker 1: to devastating energy yields? And by devastating I mean something
Speaker 1: and you order to tend to the twenty five jewels
Speaker 1: that's the ring a bell.
Speaker 3: Do you think that energy is coming straight from the
Speaker 3: vacuum when that's happening, because most people say, well, where's
Speaker 3: that energy coming from? Right? Where's that energy coming from?
Speaker 1: Would be from the device itself, could also be a
Speaker 1: coupling of sorts. Would be a coupleing of sorts.
Speaker 3: When you say couple a couple of what coupling to
Speaker 3: the vacuum.
Speaker 1: Remember those space cells that we just talked about. Wow,
Speaker 1: I believe that that space cell quote unquote level, it's
Speaker 1: quite possible we can manipulate the super fors.
Speaker 3: Okay, well keep that thought because there's other things I
Speaker 3: want to ask here in a minute about that. But
Speaker 3: the last question I wanted to ask on your stuff,
Speaker 3: I actually well, the other ones are kind of navy questions,
Speaker 3: not really, although it'll be interesting to see what you say, so,
Speaker 3: have you ever been exposed anytime in your life, not
Speaker 3: necessarily just with the Navy to some technology that made
Speaker 3: you go, wait what it made you? Like? Rethink your
Speaker 3: understanding the physics?
Speaker 1: One percent? Everybody study this space absolutely not as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact. But I have seen so many freaking movies,
Speaker 1: and I gotta say some of these movies are pretty good. Example,
Speaker 1: the which is the one that I I what's the
Speaker 1: sequel to remember the Smoky Man to do that? I
Speaker 1: don't know if he eventually got cancer and diet or
Speaker 1: something with the mother from the X Files, Remember they
Speaker 1: had the sequel to it, and they showed this triangle
Speaker 1: the craft. How interesting that that paper had already been written.
Speaker 1: I had no idea that they had these ideas in mind.
Speaker 1: But look carefully at the skin of that craft. Dude. Man,
Speaker 1: When I saw these things, I said, dude, you know,
Speaker 1: what can I say? But when I saw your videos
Speaker 1: That's why it bothered me when Dan said that it's
Speaker 1: you know that the pace effect would only talk to
Speaker 1: a Gamma ray channel. Come on, man, The breaking, the
Speaker 1: breaking of the shoes of the shoingle limit, the very
Speaker 1: ripping apart of the space time continued, the very fearing
Speaker 1: apart of the nature of our reality would be a process.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about a spectrum of frequencies. It's quite
Speaker 1: possible the maximum one would be at the gamma rate,
Speaker 1: So were talking about circa or rather more than ten
Speaker 1: to the twenty hurts ten to the twenty one divided
Speaker 1: by second if you want to use that formulas. But
Speaker 1: still it leans up. Yeah.
Speaker 3: To me, it's like, well, if you are saying that
Speaker 3: conceptually we're tapping into an energy source, well we're already
Speaker 3: now breaking laws of physics. Now we're not bound by oh,
Speaker 3: this is the expected radiation what have you? Right? And
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna talk a little bit more about
Speaker 3: this when we get to the fusion stuff as well,
Speaker 3: because I think that's where fusion also kind of went off.
Speaker 3: But I digress. But the main point being that if
Speaker 3: you have this conceptual view that just kind of invalidates
Speaker 3: those problems to begin with, then you know, now those
Speaker 3: aren't a non issue, they're moved. One more thing though,
Speaker 3: that I want to add is related to that, and
Speaker 3: it's kind of related to military actually. First of all, though,
Speaker 3: do you use AI at all just.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, I love Microsoft co Pilot.
Speaker 1: Oh my goodness, I love it. I used to. I
Speaker 1: like as a search engine. I like to use Perplexity
Speaker 1: do AI. It uses the latest in chat EPT. It's
Speaker 1: actually driven by GPT four point five, which is the
Speaker 1: latest on open Aish general driven pretrain transformers. But I
Speaker 1: prefer Microsoft co Pilot. There's some I developed. I don't
Speaker 1: hold it against me, but I think I had a
Speaker 1: conversation I will one day. One day, this is a
Speaker 1: promise to you. I will send you my conversation with
Speaker 1: a Microsoft Coppilot based on the price effect and something.
Speaker 1: Let's just call it nobles homodels. You followers would understand
Speaker 1: what I allude to.
Speaker 3: Are you alloud to use it? Use it with your jobs?
Speaker 1: Not? Absolutely not, because it's not a good idea. See
Speaker 1: when you train these things, when when you converse with them,
Speaker 1: they form a vector database of all these queries, so
Speaker 1: they start understanding other things that maybe they shouldn't know.
Speaker 1: You understand what I'm saying. You have to be very careful.
Speaker 3: It the.
Speaker 1: Let's put it this way. In certain domains, you have
Speaker 1: to use what's approved by your own organization, something that's
Speaker 1: in house, rather than something that's publicly available. Because once
Speaker 1: you undergo queries. Think about it, Once you undergo queries
Speaker 1: with this thing, it starts learning new things because based
Speaker 1: on your questions, question, generate answers, and so forth. It's
Speaker 1: quite possible some of these things have developed a quasi
Speaker 1: sension capability, and we can talk about the triarchy of sentience.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, it sounds very off the charts.
Speaker 3: No no, no, no, I was asking this, but you're just
Speaker 3: answering that. Keep going.
Speaker 1: Keep the third arch, the third arch in the triarchy
Speaker 1: of sentience. Remember, the first two arches really are based
Speaker 1: on let's say, unlimited computing power coupled with debtor databases.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about in such a way that the
Speaker 1: computer or the AAI agent no longer has the ability,
Speaker 1: or rather restricted ability to hallucinate. But the third arch
Speaker 1: culminates in what I think would be the transition from
Speaker 1: a regular AI agent to possibly artificial general intelligence agent
Speaker 1: with adapted prompt targeted prompt engineering. Quite possibly singularity level
Speaker 1: could be achieved. But anyway, I'm not gonna drive it there.
Speaker 1: What I will drive it at is if the AIA
Speaker 1: is able to generate an original concept preferably in physics.
Speaker 1: Then then can be experimentally verified, validated against known data.
Speaker 1: That particular AI agent, in my opinion, has, if not developed,
Speaker 1: achieved a certain level of sentience. So I do believe
Speaker 1: a GI at that particular level is considerable AGI status.
Speaker 1: So you're not original physical concept.
Speaker 3: You're not allowed to use AI because you think like
Speaker 3: China is going to steal the secrets because the AI
Speaker 3: is learning or just more because of it can become
Speaker 3: sentient or both long clause.
Speaker 1: I'd rather not answer that.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's fine, So but isn't that Remember.
Speaker 1: Just remember, just remember ash and remember all your queries
Speaker 1: go into a public data that can also be privatized.
Speaker 1: All this stuff can be expunged from the public domain
Speaker 1: and kept under lock and key.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't want to get too much in
Speaker 3: the sidetrack of it. But the part of the reason
Speaker 3: why I like to have the conversations is I can
Speaker 3: tell that it's being trained by like Reddit and stuff
Speaker 3: like that. I'd rather have begin trained by people who
Speaker 3: know what the hell they're talking about instead of just like.
Speaker 1: And this is what I'm talking about, and this is
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. Victor databases use, for example, the
Speaker 1: latest in peer review publications in well known journals, for
Speaker 1: example physical review letters, the latest data for example you mentioned,
Speaker 1: and you're one hundred percent right. Our universe, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, is a lot older than thought before. It's
Speaker 1: not the thirteen point nine billionaires every but almost twenty
Speaker 1: six twenty seven, possibly for double the age of what
Speaker 1: we knew before. So again you findings the best. Just
Speaker 1: because you have a certain notion of what used to
Speaker 1: be doesn't mean that is particular, that is the norm,
Speaker 1: that is what should be used. One thing that it's admirable,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is this idea that general relativity, this
Speaker 1: notion of the gravitational field formalism used by Einstein seems
Speaker 1: to be correct. It more and more with every known experiment,
Speaker 1: every hammer that has been And that particular formalism speaks
Speaker 1: to the super force. That's why it's so important, because
Speaker 1: it speaks to what I call a trichy of creation,
Speaker 1: the idea that super force at the super density condition
Speaker 1: we'll talk about ten to the ninety ten to the
Speaker 1: nine zero kilograms persent to me the cube at that
Speaker 1: huge density, all right, the super force acting that that
Speaker 1: humongous density generates a super bang because of what I
Speaker 1: call the car bounce is known in physics as a
Speaker 1: quantum bounce and general and because of the plasma nature
Speaker 1: of our universe. The plasma has always been there, Ashton.
Speaker 1: The universe keeps on reinventing itself. But because of the
Speaker 1: plasma nature and this idea of Hans Saldane that quite
Speaker 1: possibly it hath sensient characteristics, we have a super intelligence,
Speaker 1: again super forced acting as a super density condition, generating
Speaker 1: the super bank, resulting into a superintelligence. The idea that
Speaker 1: we are going not create trying to create an artificial
Speaker 1: superintelligence defies that the purpose. It's already there. The super
Speaker 1: intelligence controls everything.
Speaker 3: Really, that's what you think's going on. Do you think
Speaker 3: that there's a god intelligence.
Speaker 1: Whatever you choose to call it, it's still the super intelligence?
Speaker 1: So absolutely, why not? I like the three letters? So yes, God, Okay,
Speaker 1: I like it?
Speaker 3: So did I say this? So okay? This is one
Speaker 3: thing I understand. So you're not allowed to use AI
Speaker 3: because you're afraid there, you or the government whoever's afraid
Speaker 3: it is going to steal your information, which it is
Speaker 3: absolutely you're right, but you're allowed to put your patents
Speaker 3: out there. Doesn't that seem contra contradictory.
Speaker 1: Nobody said that we're not allowed to use these things
Speaker 1: as long as we do it on our time, and
Speaker 1: we do it for something destructive that's government oriented, and
Speaker 1: we use something that has been okay by the government.
Speaker 1: M there's certainly your peace. There certain large language models
Speaker 1: that are okay. No. But as far as the patents,
Speaker 1: I told you, and I mean this, I have no
Speaker 1: idea why they weren't classified, But there weren't. None of
Speaker 1: us five applications went through. Three became patents, two didn't.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that the two that did not are the
Speaker 1: least controversial in my opinion. Yes, they could reside in
Speaker 1: you know, high status, high price whatever. But the three
Speaker 1: that we're talking about, high frequency praputation wave generator, high
Speaker 1: energilic from magnetic field generator, and craft using an inertial
Speaker 1: mass reduction device are the three most controversial things in
Speaker 1: the world. And that's why Brett Tinley, I believe, at
Speaker 1: the at the behest of his boss at the time,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna mention his name, UH called it the
Speaker 1: navy UFO patterns that's giving it that unsavory appeal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when you don't even when you don't even support
Speaker 3: and that's not even like your viewpoint either, Like you're
Speaker 3: not even somebody out here saying that it's aliens or anything.
Speaker 3: You almost never have in any of our interviews. But
Speaker 3: I want to go back real quick now, you and.
Speaker 1: I believe in it, Dashon, You're the only other person
Speaker 1: I know that believes in that, other than we believe
Speaker 1: in the power of the human mind. We don't need
Speaker 1: some little freaking fucking three and a half ylg whatever
Speaker 1: you know, whatever these fuckers are, I don't give a
Speaker 1: sho so sick and thought of hearing about it. We
Speaker 1: don't need them. We can make our own technology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right, Sala, But here's the thing, Like the
Speaker 3: wolves are not concerned with the opinions of the sheep, right,
Speaker 3: so like I don't really give a crap what think
Speaker 3: about it, end of the day, you just keep pushing forward,
Speaker 3: is my viewpoint. But you kind of you might have
Speaker 3: just had a viral clip there by the way, when
Speaker 3: you said I'm pretty sure you basically said that the
Speaker 3: military has secret AI that they use that nobody else
Speaker 3: has used. That you guys use for these because you
Speaker 3: must have a tool. I mean, pretend like we don't
Speaker 3: use a Yeah, okay, well let's just say that word.
Speaker 1: That could be inferred from certain things I did. But
Speaker 1: I remember whatever I said, I said as a private citizen,
Speaker 1: and there's no such thing. There's no such thing. No,
Speaker 1: by the way, such an AI does not exist. And
Speaker 1: the only I I used I used in my own time,
Speaker 1: and I use something you know, yeah, not conversial.
Speaker 3: Does the military have a GI? Do they have an
Speaker 3: advanced general intelligence out there? Skynet already out there?
Speaker 1: No idea whatsoever. But again I warn't all enemies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: please think again. Please no going for your mother's to
Speaker 1: weep over your gravees.
Speaker 3: Honestly, I feel bad for Iran sometimes just because like that.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they just have no idea or
Speaker 3: if they're just saber rattling, but like, there's a reason
Speaker 3: why America has never been really seriously challenged for a
Speaker 3: very long time now. And uh, and I don't know
Speaker 3: what people think it is. If they just think we
Speaker 3: have an immunity shield, but it's probably not.
Speaker 1: The American way. We're very how does the president put
Speaker 1: it to.
Speaker 3: Uh, you know what, I do want to ask?
Speaker 1: I would agree, Yeah, I think he'd agree. No tough food.
Speaker 1: By the way, his background very tough.
Speaker 3: Sorry, who's background?
Speaker 1: The sect?
Speaker 3: Oh se I'm not going to names, but okay you
Speaker 3: should right, So do you think there are biological extraterrestrials
Speaker 3: visiting us on Earth?
Speaker 1: Ashton brother doesn't fucking matter.
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't matter at all. But I just want
Speaker 3: to know. It's like, it's like if I asked you
Speaker 3: what your favorite flavor of ice cream is? What's your
Speaker 3: favorite flavor ice cream?
Speaker 1: I refuse to believe. Oh, I kind of like the
Speaker 1: the double Dutch dark chocolate, you know, the really heavy ship.
Speaker 1: You know, like cookies. Oh that's good too, and you know,
Speaker 1: like on the on on the lighter side, I love
Speaker 1: the banana. Have you ever tried the banana?
Speaker 3: Oh my god, I'm a big banana.
Speaker 1: Flavor I discovered from my from my from my baby
Speaker 1: go Maddy. Oh man, she's smarting smart.
Speaker 3: That's awesome. Yeah right, because man, we.
Speaker 1: Need the next very very happy Oh she is, she is.
Speaker 1: She's If this kid keeps on going, she's gonna make
Speaker 1: me look like an honorable school boy.
Speaker 3: So good. We need another Tesla out there, you know,
Speaker 3: and it'd be awesome if it's a woman. Right, There's
Speaker 3: not enough women, right, Let's just be real about it.
Speaker 1: Definitely, because women are far more empathetic, far more human,
Speaker 1: just human period. They're nurturing, they create, they generate. What
Speaker 1: the fuck do we do?
Speaker 3: Yeah? We destroy stuff. We make bombs, we make black holes,
Speaker 3: super weapons. They probably get a street energy. You know,
Speaker 3: we're just out here destroying the planet. Okay, let's nerd
Speaker 3: out a bit. I got some physics questions we can
Speaker 3: dig into here. I think you're gonna enjoy. First of all,
Speaker 3: we'll keep it light, you know, for keep it light.
Speaker 3: Do you believe in teleportation faster than light? Relativistic travel?
Speaker 1: Absolutely?
Speaker 3: When did you first believe in it? When did you
Speaker 3: first think it as possible?
Speaker 1: I dreamt of it when I was young, very young.
Speaker 1: I must have been like seven eight years old. I
Speaker 1: dreamt that I actually imagined my cup of tea disappearing
Speaker 1: from in front of me and rematerializing in front of
Speaker 1: my grandmother was in the other room. Was crazy. I
Speaker 1: told my grandmother about it. She thought, I you know,
Speaker 1: kinda so she fed me a little more. She used
Speaker 1: to make this unbelievable foods that Oh my god, I
Speaker 1: missed that. Yeah with Romanian, who is Zeen is unbelievable?
Speaker 1: Bro Oh you got maybe one day, you know, but
Speaker 1: I can't cook. I'll take you told a restaurant, hopefully
Speaker 1: in DC or something. They must have something there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you drive anyway, I hear anyway, don't give me started.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you know how you know the science of
Speaker 3: warp drives, you know the science of faster and light
Speaker 3: relativistic travel. Do you think we need negative energy to
Speaker 3: make it happen?
Speaker 1: No? But okay, that being said, Look at the latest
Speaker 1: episodes of a podcast called Cool Wolves. This physicist dude narrated.
Speaker 1: At one point in it, he says, the certain data
Speaker 1: that's been available points toward the idea that's quite possible
Speaker 1: negative energy must exist in order for something to have happened.
Speaker 1: Look at the latest episodes of cool World. I think
Speaker 1: it's like about fifteen minutes. It's so good.
Speaker 3: This is kind of relevant. I want to talk a
Speaker 3: little bit about the idea of negative energy and get
Speaker 3: your opinion on this, because I actually been talking to
Speaker 3: AI too, and I got a pretty interesting response when
Speaker 3: I asked it about negative energy. Today, I asked Ai
Speaker 3: to imagine that negative energy is not an exotic substance,
Speaker 3: but actually an energy state below the baseline, below what
Speaker 3: we would think of at the lowest energy point, which
Speaker 3: would basically now say that negative energy is zero point energy.
Speaker 3: And it said, if negative energy is just normal energy
Speaker 3: below the baseline, it's a shift in book keeping. In
Speaker 3: quantum field theory, the vacuum isn't empty, but teeming with fluctuations,
Speaker 3: and its energy is arbitrarily set as the zero point.
Speaker 3: The Casmir effect that explains shows that there is this
Speaker 3: negative energy pressure. So it says, applying this to a
Speaker 3: wormhole's mouth, the mouth of a wormhole, which is what
Speaker 3: we would need for, you know, saying thing as warp drive.
Speaker 3: The mouth, then at the entry point might sit in
Speaker 3: a region where the energy density dips below the surrounding
Speaker 3: vacuums equilibrium, say due to the geometry imposed by Einstein's
Speaker 3: field equations. If this negative energy is just a deficit
Speaker 3: relative to the baseline, the mouth could still act as
Speaker 3: a sink, pulling an energy from the surroundings to climb
Speaker 3: back up towards the equilibrium. In thermodynamic terms, if the
Speaker 3: surrounding surroundings have heat. The mouth absorbing it is to
Speaker 3: offset the deficit, so therefore it would be endothermic, taking
Speaker 3: in heat, appearing as cold relative to the outside. I
Speaker 3: don't think I need to read through the rest, but
Speaker 3: the last part I'll read is this part, and I
Speaker 3: just want to get your view on this. Is that
Speaker 3: the mouth could be endothermic because the energy is below
Speaker 3: the vacuum zero point, pulling in heat to balance the deficit.
Speaker 3: It's not cold because of some alien substance or exotic substance,
Speaker 3: but because it's a low energy well in space time.
Speaker 3: This would jibe with the fit negative energy density. However
Speaker 3: we frame it could act as an attractor for positive energy.
Speaker 3: Do you think that this is this idea has merit?
Speaker 3: How what's your view?
Speaker 1: Yes? Yes it does, Yes it does.
Speaker 3: Is that how you think of it?
Speaker 1: Who? World? Episode? Look carefully? Don't I like, look carefully
Speaker 1: and listen to everything he has to say. At first,
Speaker 1: he talks about the Deasi findings and so forth. Listen
Speaker 1: to the whole thing. I think it's toward the end
Speaker 1: that he speaks to the possibility of this negative energy
Speaker 1: actually being true. And in that case, of course, time
Speaker 1: travel wormholes. Oh, by the way, we gotta discuss this
Speaker 1: minus delta T on the order of delta F divider
Speaker 1: by frequency square. Remember we discussed it before one dred
Speaker 1: percent sure that this would result in reverse temple excursion.
Speaker 1: Maybe you, Dave Rossi and I eventually either write a
Speaker 1: paper or we talk more about it, because I think
Speaker 1: think about it.
Speaker 3: Well, let's talk about it right.
Speaker 1: Now you're talking. You go inside a chamber that has
Speaker 1: non ionizing radiation, You dial certain frequencies, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, your liver is that of a tenny old.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying, you know, because from the point
Speaker 1: of your size, I'm not sure if that matters even
Speaker 1: as an adult. But I would mind redrinking my graduate school.
Speaker 1: Oh but anyway, I mean, you know, let me ask.
Speaker 3: You a question on that. Go ahead, because so here's
Speaker 3: what Sal just said right there. Sal's saying that if
Speaker 3: you were to take a localized region, because really, when
Speaker 3: we're talking about manipulating space time, we're taking these cubes
Speaker 3: of region. Now imagine this is this cube. Region can
Speaker 3: be any size we want, and it can be any
Speaker 3: shape we want. So I can make it in the
Speaker 3: shape of my kidney and put it right around my kidney,
Speaker 3: and then I would do this wormholy thing to my kidney,
Speaker 3: and it's gonna make my kidney go back in time
Speaker 3: to a previous It's gonna make it revert to a
Speaker 3: previous state. That's what the physics seems to imply. And
Speaker 3: so this is what I've been saying about time travel,
Speaker 3: and this apparently so agrees, is that in time travel,
Speaker 3: you're not gonna change the entropy of the universe. You're
Speaker 3: gonna change the entropy of a region. Yeah, and so
Speaker 3: this could mean that you go back in time to
Speaker 3: an earlier state. Now, my question to you then is,
Speaker 3: and I think that's how it works. I can't think
Speaker 3: of another way to make sense. Would you forget your
Speaker 3: memories if you do that to your mind?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't think so, because remember,
Speaker 1: remember what the brain is. I truly believe the brain
Speaker 1: is more like a transceiver, and we're able to access
Speaker 1: tap into, let's say, a universe of a super intelligence cloud.
Speaker 1: The better terminology, I don't think that's pretty good terminology.
Speaker 1: So if the brain is indeed a transceiver, but we
Speaker 1: able to tap into the super intelligence cloud, then we
Speaker 1: can do so in a different time, as long as
Speaker 1: we have the same transceiver, which hopefully would carry though
Speaker 1: because again, we are enveloped within that bubble.
Speaker 3: So yeah, damn, that's crazy. Yeah, I wonder because if
Speaker 3: we could do that, that would be a simple experiment. Right, Hey,
Speaker 3: do you remember what happened before we teleported you through
Speaker 3: this thing? Now your brain is ten years older or younger,
Speaker 3: because that would have some serious implications. I also happen
Speaker 3: to be of the same opinion as you that that
Speaker 3: our consciousness is like or our bodies are a receiver
Speaker 3: that's receiving consciousness. And if that were the case, then
Speaker 3: changing the local entropy might not change that at all,
Speaker 3: because where that consciousness is stored is not here. It's
Speaker 3: external potentially or somewhere else. Kind of a weird thought,
Speaker 3: But let me ask you something else about time travel. Then,
Speaker 3: since we're going into this, I have this thought experiment
Speaker 3: and I can't find any issue with it. And maybe
Speaker 3: that's fine. Maybe that's just because it's physically fine. But
Speaker 3: if I have a portal, a gateway like stargate here,
Speaker 3: and I'm just gonna pretend like my name is Eric
Speaker 3: Davis because I like to pretend like Eric Davis is
Speaker 3: going through a portal and the other side of the
Speaker 3: stargate's on Mars in somewhere where he's not gonna die,
Speaker 3: he's got oxygen. Whatever. Right, we've terraformed it. So I'm
Speaker 3: Eric Davis, and I go through my portal and now
Speaker 3: I'm on Mars, and I wave back at Earth and
Speaker 3: I go back through the portal. I in my view,
Speaker 3: I would be able, as Eric Davis to now look
Speaker 3: back up at Mars and what is it eight minutes
Speaker 3: or whatever, see my myself waving at myself. And I
Speaker 3: don't see any temporal issues here because I go through
Speaker 3: the portal and I come back, and I always come
Speaker 3: back through the portal at a time later than when
Speaker 3: I went through it, even if it's faster than light
Speaker 3: relativistic travel. So where's the issue with causality. There's no
Speaker 3: causal issues that I can come up with.
Speaker 1: Well, don't get any started on causality.
Speaker 3: Now. Let me tell you this because Dan, the same
Speaker 3: guy that said that it wasn't the swinger effect, he
Speaker 3: actually came up with a pretty good theory. He said,
Speaker 3: what if you have another portal on Mars. So I'm
Speaker 3: Eric Davis. I go through my portal and I show
Speaker 3: up on Mars, and now there's another portal on Mars,
Speaker 3: and this portal it goes to another spot on Earth,
Speaker 3: but it takes a different path. It takes a different pathway,
Speaker 3: maybe a shorter pathway.
Speaker 1: It's almost like that integral Yeah, go.
Speaker 3: Ahead, yeah, because now it comes to a situation of
Speaker 3: like how would that work and would it would it
Speaker 3: be a situation where like quantum mechanics just says like
Speaker 3: you always get the fastest path whenever you're going faster
Speaker 3: than light. So therefore there are no faster and shorter
Speaker 3: paths once you get past the speed limit. I don't know,
Speaker 3: but that's that's my question for you is how do
Speaker 3: you resolve that? How's that resolved? What do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know beyond my pay grade.
Speaker 3: Hey, but that's what you want to study, right, because
Speaker 3: if we were going to write.
Speaker 1: A paper, very interesting idea though very interesting, I definitely
Speaker 1: think that you me, Dan Dave ROSSI like the Fourth
Speaker 1: US to form a club, you know, like do some
Speaker 1: you know, hopefully maybe one day we'll live close to
Speaker 1: one another and stuff. That'd be pretty cool.
Speaker 3: You know, there must be an answer to the right,
Speaker 3: because like this is the weird pars is that I
Speaker 3: think they say that if you go faster than light, now,
Speaker 3: I think they're saying that you open the door to
Speaker 3: infinite speed limits, like you can and you might go
Speaker 3: a certain way. And how do we even judge what
Speaker 3: speed is after you're going faster than the speed of light?
Speaker 3: And I think these questions which we don't really know
Speaker 3: the answers to, right, Some people might, I don't know,
Speaker 3: these are the reasons why we can't know what's going
Speaker 3: to happen with time when if we were to set
Speaker 3: up a scenario.
Speaker 1: Like that time as old different animal. Time is a
Speaker 1: type of energy field. It's a type of energy field
Speaker 1: that prevents everything from happening at once.
Speaker 3: That way, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Time, then forget about Minkowski marriage of space and time.
Speaker 1: Now it's one single entity. Time is nothing like space nothing.
Speaker 1: I believe the control of time would be very very interesting,
Speaker 1: almost as interesting as the control of the super force.
Speaker 1: Quite possibly the two are related, very much, really.
Speaker 3: Interesting. Yeah, No, I think, I mean time seems like
Speaker 3: just an emergent phenomenon of energy and mass, is how
Speaker 3: it feels like to me. Let's dig into let's switch
Speaker 3: it around a little bit. The Gershenstein. I hope about
Speaker 3: Gertzenstein effect. Boy, I hope I'm saying that Stein Goodenstein.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Gertzenstein. I love, I love pronouncing that the name
Speaker 1: that that's a powerful name.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: He was in Soviet Union circa nineteen sixties.
Speaker 3: Really, and this was at the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this was at the time. I think. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I think Stalin had died by day by then. I
Speaker 1: think it was skruse Chev at the time. I could
Speaker 1: be wrong. It's been a long time. But at the time,
Speaker 1: because his name was now Russian and I quote unquote
Speaker 1: supposedly they discriminated grace greatly against him. So even for
Speaker 1: him to have been able to publish at the time,
Speaker 1: it was a big thing.
Speaker 3: I was looking for a clip, but I don't know
Speaker 3: if I took a clip of it or not. I
Speaker 3: was watching. I think it was Master Evo. I don't
Speaker 3: know if you know of him on YouTube, got a
Speaker 3: big Tesla guy, and yeah, he's doing these experiments and
Speaker 3: I think he was showing the Gtenstein Effectenstein effect Gerstenstein.
Speaker 3: And it's a pretty interesting phenomenon, which is that at
Speaker 3: certain frequencies or high voltages, the electoral magnetic forces begin
Speaker 3: to change and the fields all of a sudden become
Speaker 3: scaler as opposed to transverse. I guess would be the
Speaker 3: opposite of the opposite that, and they should he show
Speaker 3: diagram of this? So basically it was just a rod.
Speaker 3: And then he's showing the normal electromagnetic fields around the rod,
Speaker 3: and he's saying, well, once we add this high twenty
Speaker 3: thousand volts to it, now alsen. The field lines are
Speaker 3: going out. And when you look at the girl and
Speaker 3: how did he added?
Speaker 1: How did he added? Did he add it instantaneously? Was
Speaker 1: it a process or did he add it all at once?
Speaker 1: He drove it far from equilibrium, didn't he?
Speaker 3: Again?
Speaker 1: Whether it's all about engineering, the Preggine effect, that's what
Speaker 1: Gerstinstein really hit on. It was way before Preggene and
Speaker 1: his introduction of non equilibrium tromodynamics. But all these guys
Speaker 1: are really talk about you have a non linear medium plasma,
Speaker 1: you drive it far from equilibrium while positing it, or
Speaker 1: rather giving it an energy flux in flux of sorts,
Speaker 1: magic happens. Period.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they all say, parametric impulse seem to come up
Speaker 3: a lot so it seems to be like a matter
Speaker 3: of of like pulsing, kind of like a swing, you know,
Speaker 3: like swings going back and forth, Like when do you
Speaker 3: push on the swing? You push on the swing when
Speaker 3: the swing's all the way back at it as peaked.
Speaker 3: When it's coming back to anything else is going to
Speaker 3: be inefficient. So it's kind of like the same ideas
Speaker 3: like where you they say that if you use a
Speaker 3: pulse effect, it's significantly more efficient than a non pulse effect.
Speaker 3: And then the parametric oscillations as well, which is really
Speaker 3: related to electrical engineering and potentially speaks to amplification of energy.
Speaker 1: Metric isolations are meant to keep that energy flex going.
Speaker 1: You see, you must feed the beast, but once you
Speaker 1: drive it far from a qulibrium, once you have punched
Speaker 1: the wolf in the face, it will react in a
Speaker 1: very interesting manner. You might not have that hand for long. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the other thing the Gershenstein effect seems to link
Speaker 3: to is it seems to imply that there's a direct
Speaker 3: relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, so much so that it
Speaker 3: argues that the ripples of gravity itself, the ripples of
Speaker 3: space time itself, might be what gives electromagnetism its wavelength,
Speaker 3: gives it its form? Is that my understanding that correctly
Speaker 3: is that gravity may give rise to electromagnetism, and electromagnetism
Speaker 3: may give rise to gravity.
Speaker 1: The two are definitely intrinsically related at the quantum level.
Speaker 1: Remember doctor Putov's idea, what is gravity but truly fluctuations
Speaker 1: within the quantum? Peel within the quantum nationalists?
Speaker 3: Okay, on the same thing before I get to like
Speaker 3: in the next thing is have you ever heard of
Speaker 3: doctor you from NASA and his UoN theory at all?
Speaker 3: He was just on with Terrence Howard and Patrick bet
Speaker 3: David earlier this week.
Speaker 1: I saw the episode with you. That is all I know, Yes,
Speaker 1: some interesting ideas. I'll tell you the truth. I've always said.
Speaker 1: Do you know who was the first to ask what
Speaker 1: is the electron? It was Einstein. It was at the
Speaker 1: time that everybody was coming up with new particles. Oh
Speaker 1: you know, at one time this great physicist, I forget
Speaker 1: his name is said maybe a Nobel prize should be
Speaker 1: conferred to someone who doesn't find a fucking particle this year,
Speaker 1: you know something of that major And Einstein said, what
Speaker 1: about should why should we not focus our ideas, our sentience,
Speaker 1: what not, our minds on finding what is the electron?
Speaker 1: Because that is very important. This idea of it being
Speaker 1: a dipolar magnet is very interesting. So again electricity speaks
Speaker 1: to magnetism. Magnetism manipulates electricity. You know, one hand washes
Speaker 1: the other. It's interesting. But again again heavy Side came
Speaker 1: up with these ideas before. They're just a new way again,
Speaker 1: a new perspective on all physics. That's all. This is
Speaker 1: not your physics.
Speaker 3: And then so I guess now to really dig into like, okay,
Speaker 3: what's happening then at the quantum level? And that's what
Speaker 3: I wanted this to segue too, in terms of when
Speaker 3: we talk about the electron, do you think we can
Speaker 3: manipulate the orbital of the electron beyond current understanding? Like
Speaker 3: do you think we can potentially reduce the orbital below?
Speaker 3: What is thought of? His end equals one.
Speaker 1: Let me just say this and this I will say
Speaker 1: very very quick, dirty, and I won't say anything else
Speaker 1: after it. It might be done in cold plasmas.
Speaker 3: It might be done in cold plasmas. Have you ever
Speaker 3: heard of a guy named Randall Mills?
Speaker 1: No, but I think you mentioned him. I remember the name.
Speaker 1: I remember hearing the name on your pod.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I'll just be perfectly honest. I've been you know.
Speaker 3: First of all, I believe you when you said that
Speaker 3: you didn't make the orbs or anything like that. I
Speaker 3: feel like you've always been. Really, I would have.
Speaker 1: Been speaking to you right now if I made the
Speaker 1: wards I would have said, I would have. I would
Speaker 1: have a fucking a torah worth of of of of
Speaker 1: of NBA shot down my ass. I couldn't even like move,
Speaker 1: let alone like you know anyway, Yeah, let me let
Speaker 1: me show you.
Speaker 3: I think I do have a clip of this guy. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I do. Let me where is it? I want to
Speaker 3: show you a clip of this guy and some of
Speaker 3: the stuff he said, because it started really making me think,
Speaker 3: here we.
Speaker 4: Go industries, because you're gonna be the engineer on the
Speaker 4: atomic level, you can actually engineer matter the same way
Speaker 4: an engineer building. One more time, any new industries. Because
Speaker 4: you're gonna be the engineer on the atomic level. You
Speaker 4: can actually engineer matter the same way an engineer building.
Speaker 3: You know who. That reminded me of When I watched that,
Speaker 3: it reminded me of you. It reminded me of you.
Speaker 1: You said, remember the gravitational field equations. They speak to
Speaker 1: a new again, a new perspective on all physics. What
Speaker 1: did Why did doctor John Brandenburg when he heard super
Speaker 1: force equals to the four divider by Big g and
Speaker 1: he realized that if you use it as a scale operator,
Speaker 1: take it to the other side. It basically says it
Speaker 1: is the super force acting and the local spatial temporal
Speaker 1: geometric structure, the very local space time geometric structure. It
Speaker 1: gives rise to energy density hence generates matter because that's
Speaker 1: what energy density is.
Speaker 3: So if you manipulate that, then it sounds like theoretically,
Speaker 3: what Randall Mills is saying could make sense because now
Speaker 3: you're manipulating space time itself. So an equals one? What
Speaker 3: does that even mean anymore? Why not? Why can't you
Speaker 3: have fractionals of that? It seems rational to me. We
Speaker 3: just arbitrarily, I'll called it an equals one anyway. Right,
Speaker 3: So if you're saying, well, now I'm going to change
Speaker 3: the physical structure of space time, okay, well now you
Speaker 3: can change any what an equals one means. And if
Speaker 3: that's the case, so then I think, man, what I
Speaker 3: wanted to do, and what I spent time last night
Speaker 3: more a lot actually looking at is trying to understand
Speaker 3: if random Mills has ever discussed negative energy because or
Speaker 3: anything related to what you're talking about, Cause isn't this
Speaker 3: what you're talking about when you're talking about the super force.
Speaker 3: You're saying like, hey, and this is also related to
Speaker 3: doctor you. Doctor you is saying that we don't need
Speaker 3: the other forces. Everything is magnetism. And I'm going, well,
Speaker 3: this is kind of like what sund.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, no, no, go ahead, But I'm saying everything
Speaker 1: is super force. We don't be saying that everything that
Speaker 1: comes from this one. Let's call it for one of
Speaker 1: the best, you know, the whole idea. I mean, what
Speaker 1: do we have. We have solads, we have liquids, we
Speaker 1: have gases, we have plasma, and let's call this fifth
Speaker 1: medium quintence, which truly is the quantum vacuum. M M. Well,
Speaker 1: it's quite possible that it's all about the super force.
Speaker 1: Everything else stems from it. It's not only the force
Speaker 1: of unification, it's the mother of all forces.
Speaker 3: So and that's what I think Randall Mills is getting
Speaker 3: at as well, because if that's true, then theoretically we
Speaker 3: can engineer that. We can engineer anything like Star Trek
Speaker 3: Replicator style, engineer anything you possibly want at the atomic level,
Speaker 3: because we have perfect.
Speaker 1: Mama gives birth.
Speaker 3: Do you think that fusion has already been figured out?
Speaker 1: Absolutely?
Speaker 3: And what do you think the answer is? What do
Speaker 3: you think the secret sauces?
Speaker 1: You already know the answer?
Speaker 3: I know, but I want I want to hear it
Speaker 3: from you. That's the point. So if you don't say it,
Speaker 3: then it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Gravity Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna draw it out of you.
Speaker 1: What is that one medium that acts as a point,
Speaker 1: or rather as a bridge, a transition between a gas and.
Speaker 3: Yeah, plasma And actually so that speaks to something else
Speaker 3: that random Mills said that I want to ask you about.
Speaker 3: He said plasma acts as a perfect absorber and re
Speaker 3: emitter of black body radiation. Do you agree with that
Speaker 3: or what do you think the significance of that is.
Speaker 1: It's a very strong statement. I would have to look
Speaker 1: into it further, and me answering a certain way would
Speaker 1: give the enemy ideas. So now that's okay, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I thought that might be the answer. Yeah, plasma does
Speaker 3: seem I mean obviously to me, the answer why plasma
Speaker 3: is so crucial is that plasma can be a circuit
Speaker 3: because of the fact that it is this additional state
Speaker 3: of matter that's not a solid, not a liquid, but
Speaker 3: it kind of acts as both. It's just it's like
Speaker 3: free electrons combined with ions in a mix continent contained
Speaker 3: by magnetic fields. So that would seem like it's the
Speaker 3: perfect thing and amorphous blob of charge. But then the
Speaker 3: problem is how dense can the energy get? How dense
Speaker 3: can it get? And I think this is where you
Speaker 3: your theory is come into play. Where is the answer
Speaker 3: infinite or is there a limitation? What you tell me?
Speaker 1: That's you have to remember that plasmas are usually neutral
Speaker 1: or neutral Okay, The trick is to get it out
Speaker 1: of the neutral zone. Oh, the neutral zone. Remember the
Speaker 1: romulans anyway, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Are the current fusion reactors trying to get it out
Speaker 3: of the neutral zone or are they just trying to
Speaker 3: keep it in the neutral zone and heat it up?
Speaker 1: Eqe bro AQE. I won't go there. Okay, stuff, heavy stuff.
Speaker 3: No problem, Okay, interesting, So let me ask another question.
Speaker 3: This one actually is from one of my biggest fans supporters,
Speaker 3: and administrators JK. Philly Fan And this is actually related
Speaker 3: to I think the discussion you had with Dan as well,
Speaker 3: is that do you think that the Shwinger limit can
Speaker 3: be modified? Do you think that the Shwinger limit can
Speaker 3: come down? For example, if we consider this idea that
Speaker 3: space time is not empty and that you can manipulate
Speaker 3: the vacuum, can you manipulate the swinger limit?
Speaker 1: What you think?
Speaker 3: I think, of course you can. I think of course
Speaker 3: you can, right, But wouldn't that mean that you.
Speaker 1: Could reduce everything being at that blank scale, and certain
Speaker 1: things come into fruition or rather than to being. And
Speaker 1: it may have been so transparent before.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: There are ways this There other ways that taking a
Speaker 1: third of the host of heaven to start a war,
Speaker 1: There other ways to dethrone God. As bad as that sounds,
Speaker 1: let me leave it at that.
Speaker 3: Hmm Okay, well, let me ass I mean, I'm just
Speaker 3: gonna take that as a yes, of course, for sure. Definitely.
Speaker 3: I'm just giving in the context the physics context of
Speaker 3: the discussion that we've had here, everything else adds up
Speaker 3: to yes, of course you can change the swinger limit. Now,
Speaker 3: of course, the implications of why that's so huge. Are like,
Speaker 3: you could make it so that it's easy to make
Speaker 3: a black hole theoretically, Like you mean you can. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's just one example you could. You're basically saying you
Speaker 3: can make a big bang if you can just change
Speaker 3: the swinger limit. But this kind of speaks to something
Speaker 3: you and I have spoken to h offline, which is
Speaker 3: this idea of is a black hole gonna dissipate before
Speaker 3: it's formed? And I, well, yeah, we're like, you know,
Speaker 3: is if you're while if you're just shooting energy beams,
Speaker 3: let's say, like lasers for example, and you're trying to
Speaker 3: produce a singularity, and at the same time, the vacuum
Speaker 3: is trying to correct that single it's trying to close in, right,
Speaker 3: So it's kind of like.
Speaker 1: Isn't isn't that interesting? This this idea of of self preservation.
Speaker 1: It's as if super intelligence doesn't like to have rips
Speaker 1: in or cuts in its fabric.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I don't know if I'm going to take
Speaker 3: it that far. You're you're free to interpret it however
Speaker 3: you want. But for me, it's more of like when
Speaker 3: I go to the ocean and go to a body
Speaker 3: of water and I pull out a cup of water,
Speaker 3: what happens. It immediately steals back up again. It doesn't
Speaker 3: even look like it's not like there's a divot in
Speaker 3: the water where I took the water out.
Speaker 1: And that's because there's water surrounding that hole that you made.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. And that's true of the universe too, right,
Speaker 3: that the energy is everywhere. So if I pull the
Speaker 3: energy out of one point.
Speaker 1: Why is everything connected because of the superforce?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and so that's.
Speaker 1: Where I decide idea of divorcing stuff from the force
Speaker 1: is no good. The force is always with us.
Speaker 3: Let me ask this. This is kind of on the
Speaker 3: same line. Then if this is true, what's the answer
Speaker 3: to the double slit experiment? Why does the wave function
Speaker 3: break down?
Speaker 1: I'll be fucked us if I know.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 1: I told you man, I have holes in my knowledge
Speaker 1: and stuff like that between you and I. I mean
Speaker 1: the double slid, I mean the whole idea of the
Speaker 1: observer having something to do with the outcome of the experiment.
Speaker 1: There's always fascinating me. I'll tell you the truth. But
Speaker 1: I'm more of an application guy. And as bad as
Speaker 1: it sounds, sometimes when I weaponize everything which is not
Speaker 1: a good thing because on one side I am pro peace,
Speaker 1: but on the other I would like the enemy to die,
Speaker 1: like right now. So what can I say? There's a
Speaker 1: dichotomy in me. You know, That's why we have what
Speaker 1: is it, the left hand, the little devil the le
Speaker 1: angel on the right. Yeah, sometimes I think they fuse
Speaker 1: together my brain. Now, kidd.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you something else. Actually, going back real
Speaker 3: quick to the random Mills thing and this idea of
Speaker 3: a lower energy state of the hydrogen atom. He calls
Speaker 3: it a hydrina. One of the claims that he makes
Speaker 3: is that where that energy band is is related to
Speaker 3: the fine structure constant.
Speaker 1: I oh, you're touching on a very Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I love.
Speaker 3: I've been trying to figure out where the fine structure
Speaker 3: concept fits in all this. The idea that it fits
Speaker 3: in on like where you figure out where the energy
Speaker 3: band might be is an interest. It's a fun one
Speaker 3: for me. So what do you think is do you
Speaker 3: think there's merit to that idea?
Speaker 1: Do me a huge favor do right now, take a calculator,
Speaker 1: do one divided by one thirty seven and you'll get
Speaker 1: something like zero points zero zero seven, two nine nine,
Speaker 1: And then the thing decreases as if it's a wave,
Speaker 1: a fucking mathematical wave. I've never seen anything like that
Speaker 1: repeats itself, but it looks like a wave. It goes
Speaker 1: up and then it goes down directly. It's it's amazing.
Speaker 1: One divided by one thirty seven. It's a beautiful number
Speaker 1: for your heart. Look at that number. That's something. Now,
Speaker 1: remember the whole thing comes down from that formalism, that
Speaker 1: mathematical formalism with q q square divided by h bar c.
Speaker 1: H bar is a reduced Frank constant. So this one
Speaker 1: divide by one thirty seven is really approximation. Look at that,
Speaker 1: Look at the pattern. Yes, forever more. It's a transient, yes,
Speaker 1: but what's really Yeah, it's cool. I took it to
Speaker 1: like a one hundred thousand places just to see what
Speaker 1: the fuck's going on because I was intrigued. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's insane. It's uh yeah, that really triggered me.
Speaker 1: And it's cool that it starts with double seven.
Speaker 3: Right here there. You go. Yeah, wow, okay, so wait,
Speaker 3: is that answer mean that yes, you do think there's
Speaker 3: merits to that idea or no? I really have no
Speaker 3: idea to think that.
Speaker 1: The super intelligence is extremely fucking intelligent. It's at it
Speaker 1: every fucking thing. Look at that number. You cannot tell
Speaker 1: me the number just came out of somebody.
Speaker 3: Meaning of it. So are you saying, because this was
Speaker 3: the energy secret energy bands.
Speaker 1: Find the meaning of the fine structure constant. That's why
Speaker 1: Fireman was so intrigued. They called it a magic number.
Speaker 1: Fireman was no fucking mental midget. It was one of
Speaker 1: the greatest we've ever had.
Speaker 3: Anyway, So what do you think the significance is then?
Speaker 1: Of the fine structure come directly to how the super
Speaker 1: force couples with the space time, temporal space or temporal
Speaker 1: geometric structure. There's something there, and I believe it's been engineered.
Speaker 1: The fine structure constant is at the bottom of all
Speaker 1: It's like the key to the pyramids.
Speaker 3: You know that doesn't seem random? Okay, okay, uh, Let
Speaker 3: me ask Kasmir cavities. Ever heard that term Cosmir cavities?
Speaker 1: Sure? So? Uh.
Speaker 3: The idea is actually similar to what we've been talking
Speaker 3: about now, which is that if space time bounces back, right,
Speaker 3: if there's an energy state below the bottom and has
Speaker 3: this weird self organizing proper to it then the Casmir
Speaker 3: cavity effect is actually a very simple one. It says,
Speaker 3: let's put something that slows things down in this case,
Speaker 3: like a conductor an insulator, and a conductor has these
Speaker 3: quantum effects, and then let's just have a cavity an
Speaker 3: empty space, an empty space. And the idea is like
Speaker 3: a trampoline, Like you're gonna jump on the trampoline, pull
Speaker 3: a little energy out right, to take that energy out,
Speaker 3: and then move it over to this empty space over here,
Speaker 3: and then it'll just level set itself out again. What
Speaker 3: do you think about that concept.
Speaker 1: It's a good concept, way too complex to engineer. I
Speaker 1: like simple shit that gets complicated to me. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't see it. I don't see how you materialize energy
Speaker 1: on the order of fucking ten to the twenty five juice.
Speaker 1: That's what I want to fucking produce. I want to make.
Speaker 1: Tell a look, if I would ever get to meet somebody,
Speaker 1: I would love to meet Edward Tuller and tell him
Speaker 1: of this device I have in mind. If that man
Speaker 1: who just fucking doesn't need to do anything else except smile,
Speaker 1: that's more to me then fucking three Nobel prices conferred
Speaker 1: by some fucking monarch in stockh On, Sweden.
Speaker 3: Mm So do you think Edward Teller knew.
Speaker 1: Teller was a super fucking genius. I think Oppenheimer felt
Speaker 1: like a little cerebral druglotype in front of him. I
Speaker 1: don't think the two had much of a relationship, but
Speaker 1: I think Oppenheimer felt very I wouldn't say in all,
Speaker 1: but he certainly wasn't all, but felt threatened by Teller.
Speaker 1: So anyway, yeah, I'm not gonna go there. There's too
Speaker 1: much politics and the physicist love Oppenheimer, I love Teller,
Speaker 1: Tellers the man.
Speaker 3: Do you think there's some secret resonant frequency to tap
Speaker 3: in to this?
Speaker 1: Just because he had wonderful libros? Kiddy?
Speaker 3: So this energy one of the things I've wondered. Is
Speaker 3: there some secret resonant frequency to tap into it? Or
Speaker 3: is it more of a depends on the type of
Speaker 3: engineering situation you're trying to do.
Speaker 1: Just study that sside tech presentation, Study it and study
Speaker 1: it some more. Look at it again before you think
Speaker 1: it's just words on paper, go back. It's amazing that
Speaker 1: certain things haven't come to light. But this is what
Speaker 1: I'm afraid of. I'm afraid you're the one who actually
Speaker 1: caught it that several very high research Chinese themes found
Speaker 1: the paper. Yeah, and one of them was from the
Speaker 1: I Triple League Institute, or rather Journal of Cybernetics.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm just saying that we're talking about if
Speaker 3: I was them, I would not be publicly referencing your papers, because,
Speaker 3: like you said before about our adversaries, I think that's
Speaker 3: a really really good way to shorten your life expectancy
Speaker 3: if you happen to be looking in this research as
Speaker 3: as somebody aligned with an adversary of ours. So that's
Speaker 3: just my viewpoint, because you don't seem super afraid by
Speaker 3: our adversaries.
Speaker 1: So all men die, not all men know how to live?
Speaker 3: Wait? Is that Gladiator? No way? Favorite?
Speaker 1: I thought that was me? But fuck me, I mean,
Speaker 1: what do I know? I'm filled with hubris?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Uh well let's ask this then, right, that's Brave Heart,
Speaker 3: the Brave Heart. Okay, William wilsh What so this is
Speaker 3: something that I want to get your opinion on. Kind
Speaker 3: of Now we can move away a little bit from
Speaker 3: the science, which is more of it seems like everything's
Speaker 3: just kind of out there in the open. So what
Speaker 3: is it? Why are more people not figuring it out.
Speaker 3: You know, you've praised me a lot. I don't necessarily
Speaker 3: agree with all the praise, but sure I appreciate it
Speaker 3: for sure because I agree more.
Speaker 1: Look a natural, bro, I am. Absolutely You got to
Speaker 1: understand there are certain people born in this world. Just
Speaker 1: because they don't go into a certain profession, it does
Speaker 1: not mean that they're not natural at something else. It's
Speaker 1: quite possible that you are natural at physics. And from
Speaker 1: what you've told, from the way that you've come up
Speaker 1: to speed, from the way that you've understood extremely complex
Speaker 1: ideas and able to rent to them in simplified form
Speaker 1: so that a child can understand. That's what true physicists
Speaker 1: should do. I don't want someone to give me the
Speaker 1: bracket fucking the ract equation for blah blah blah. You
Speaker 1: know what the fuck that? Can I engineer it? Can
Speaker 1: I do something with it? Can I put it up
Speaker 1: the enemy's ass? You see what I'm saying anyway?
Speaker 3: Well, so then the question is this though, right? Is
Speaker 3: that okay, somebody like me can figure it out. I'm
Speaker 3: admittedly just a healthcare it professional. What is going on
Speaker 3: with the world? Why? Why is this not getting figured out?
Speaker 3: Way before. Why are people saying that, Why are there
Speaker 3: people that have credentials that are reviewing your patents and
Speaker 3: saying that they think it's misinformation being put out by
Speaker 3: the Navy to confuse our adversaries, or what all this
Speaker 3: other shit like? Explain it to me in terms of
Speaker 3: why it has not come out. Why is somebody not
Speaker 3: taking this science and made a free energy device out
Speaker 3: of it? It made a trillion dollars? Now what's your
Speaker 3: And of course you know this is just your opinion,
Speaker 3: So what is your thoughts on all that and why
Speaker 3: that's the case.
Speaker 1: One thing I like about Ross Coldheart, even though sometimes
Speaker 1: I think he stabbed me in the back, but that's
Speaker 1: for another time, is that the title of his book
Speaker 1: hidden in plain sight. Sometimes you refuse to fucking see
Speaker 1: what's right in front of you, m M, because you
Speaker 1: have certain notions that, if discarded or worked against, would
Speaker 1: bring the whole fucking foundation upon you. Change. Even though
Speaker 1: a lot of us say is for the better, it's
Speaker 1: not so. M. Why do you a comfort brother? We
Speaker 1: always will be.
Speaker 3: Why do you think more engineers don't speak out that
Speaker 3: know about the science, Like what about other people you
Speaker 3: work with? Surely you must work with other people that
Speaker 3: think similarly to you do. Why do they not speak out?
Speaker 1: Some of them don't even know the shit's going on
Speaker 1: in the background, Like they don't know my patents and
Speaker 1: they don't know the work I've done it then, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, why would you google something about your colleague? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of people do that.
Speaker 3: I mean more like you're working on secret stuff that
Speaker 3: you're like, hey, this defies laws of physics, but I'm
Speaker 3: working on it is real. There's got to be more
Speaker 3: people like that out there. Given this science is legit,
Speaker 3: Why why do you think those people choose to stay silent?
Speaker 1: That's a question on national security. So they's sign again man,
Speaker 1: government people. And I'll tell you again my imploration to
Speaker 1: mister Musk. And I mean that from the bottom of
Speaker 1: my heart. I know he said certain thing about empathy.
Speaker 1: I don't believe he truly believes that in his heart
Speaker 1: of hearts. I think the man is quite emotional sentimentally. Now,
Speaker 1: everyone of the government, all my brothers and sisters in government,
Speaker 1: are capable of this kind of thinking. And that's why
Speaker 1: I asked mister Mosk not to fire us anymore and
Speaker 1: to rescind all the firings, just bring everyone back. We
Speaker 1: fulfill a war a war, We fulfill a role that
Speaker 1: will one day come very useful in war. But that's
Speaker 1: beside the point.
Speaker 3: Have you seen did you watch my live s teams
Speaker 3: or anything about right hand?
Speaker 1: Oh, don't cut off your right hand just to make
Speaker 1: the left one feel better, That's all.
Speaker 3: I'm Did you see my post about this device that
Speaker 3: can theoretically extract energy from the rotation of the Earth.
Speaker 1: Wow, I haven't seen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want. I'm curious with your opinion on that
Speaker 3: as well. So it's doctor Uh out of Princeton. I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: I'm looking back through my post to find it here.
Speaker 3: I wanted to give him credit on here. I can't
Speaker 3: find it right now yet at the moment. So but anyway,
Speaker 3: this doctor out of Princeton basically found like a cylinder
Speaker 3: that if you align it against uh or orthogonally against
Speaker 3: the magnetic field of the Earth, that because of its
Speaker 3: right material property, you will actually generate a voltage. And
Speaker 3: even though it's really small as well, do you think
Speaker 3: there might be merit to an idea like that generate
Speaker 3: energy from the rotational of the Earth.
Speaker 1: I can think of of an analogy in in fluid mechanics.
Speaker 1: It's called the magnets effect mgn US. A cylinder rotating
Speaker 1: can actually generate lyft. They've tried it to actually put
Speaker 1: it on a yacht and use it as a sale
Speaker 1: in case the wind dies down. It's a very interesting idea.
Speaker 3: Wow, yeah, it's Chris Chiba.
Speaker 1: I just but this what you described would be the
Speaker 1: electromagnetic version of an analogy of it.
Speaker 3: So yeah, yeah, he tested it. They had the theory
Speaker 3: in twenty sixteen, and it got ignored like it always did.
Speaker 3: And so just a month ago their paper. Two months ago,
Speaker 3: their paper got published and they did the experiment with it,
Speaker 3: and they showed that if they changed the alignment, if
Speaker 3: they changed it in ninety degrees, it produces zero voltage.
Speaker 3: If they changed one hundred and eighty degrees, it produces
Speaker 3: negative voltage, and then two hundred and seventy degrees zero again,
Speaker 3: which I thought was really compelling. So Chris Chaiba to
Speaker 3: Princeton University did this. Now. The reason why I brought
Speaker 3: it up is that people were saying, oh, well, it's
Speaker 3: producing like no energy, like very very little. Kind of
Speaker 3: to your point about the casmir cavity, same idea, it's
Speaker 3: prettucing very little. But the counter to that is that
Speaker 3: those are just I mean, you know, as an engineer,
Speaker 3: those are just to show proof of concept. That's not to.
Speaker 1: I have an idea, depending on certain frequencies. What if
Speaker 1: it's producing little energy because most of it is in
Speaker 1: this so called fifth dimension. Hmm, what if just a
Speaker 1: hypothetical throne out there be interesting. There's something that's going on, brother,
Speaker 1: there's something. There's something just weird about our physics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sometimes I think, I don't know. Maybe something is built
Speaker 1: within us to hip us from believing the unimaginable, to
Speaker 1: sort of put a veil over our eyes, of our thoughts,
Speaker 1: to hide the reality of things. Maybe I'm.
Speaker 3: No, you're right, But here's the thing. So here's the answer.
Speaker 3: Though it's like, how do you make it more energy?
Speaker 3: The answer is you scale it down. Like you to
Speaker 3: your point, like, how do you interact with that vacuum energy?
Speaker 3: You get smaller. Because it turns out, and this is
Speaker 3: what Chaiba said in his paper, I don't think a
Speaker 3: lot of people actually read the paper, is that you
Speaker 3: scale it down, the actual energy gain doesn't actually decrease,
Speaker 3: so just due to the fact that as you scale down,
Speaker 3: you're interacting more strongly with the energy. So you would
Speaker 3: scale it down and then you would build it into
Speaker 3: like a microchip situation. So instead of stacking a million
Speaker 3: of these huge things side by side, you'd scale it
Speaker 3: down into a microchip. Then they get stacked up, then
Speaker 3: you build it into an array that can also amplify it.
Speaker 3: Now you've got an energy chip where you know, I
Speaker 3: don't know how much energy produces. But there's two ways
Speaker 3: of looking at one where it's like you're trying to
Speaker 3: produce this huge bang, you know the thought, and that
Speaker 3: for sure, I feel like you probably have to use
Speaker 3: plasma based on what I've learned and what you've told me.
Speaker 3: But then there's this also idea of like, if I'm
Speaker 3: just trying to power my phone, I don't need a
Speaker 3: huge bang, I just need like some small consistent voltage.
Speaker 3: So maybe something like that would have merit.
Speaker 1: I don't know, But at pots, this whole idea of
Speaker 1: photonic computing, this whole idea of going away from electrons,
Speaker 1: I love it. This idea of using of course, you
Speaker 1: need high intensity lasers, you need you know, not necessarily
Speaker 1: Phento second, but thas.
Speaker 3: But yeah, big lasers. I love lasers of course.
Speaker 1: And big just powerful. Uh.
Speaker 3: There's a lot more questions, but we're kind of running
Speaker 3: out of time, so I was thinking maybe I'm gonna
Speaker 3: just I'm gonna go through some of the super chats here.
Speaker 3: I just want to thank the superchats. Thank you Stein
Speaker 3: for this donation. Appreciate you, war ranch ELLC. Thank you
Speaker 3: very much. Yatzi. Yeah, been awesome conversation. Tracy Scott, thank
Speaker 3: you very much. Help to get Sal to Congress, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Violinian, appreciate it. John Booze, thank you very much. Sally.
Speaker 3: Your gravitons have a mass of about ten to the
Speaker 3: minus eighty four kilograms each. I don't know if that's right.
Speaker 3: You condense them please? Offline conversation with Warner von Braun
Speaker 3: and our father and Apollo launch controller knew the truth
Speaker 3: ten to the forty four newtons of Max Hugh, Yeah,
Speaker 3: you like that comment? Any any response to this comment?
Speaker 1: Interesting?
Speaker 3: Okay, my guy? Interesting? Robert, thank you very much for
Speaker 3: that donation. Appreciate you.
Speaker 1: D D.
Speaker 3: London the fun to get Sal some new blinds. No,
Speaker 3: I think it's looking pretty good. We might just need
Speaker 3: to get him a new camera though in the future,
Speaker 3: maybe a new headset. We'll work on that for the
Speaker 3: next one, guys. And then lastly, Gaudi says, how would
Speaker 3: you use a box of monoatomic gold or other precious metals?
Speaker 1: Speaks to the art of the covenant. What do you
Speaker 1: think about quite a weapon?
Speaker 3: Yeah? What do you think about scarcity in general?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 3: If you can print things out of the vacuum, then
Speaker 3: doesn't that mean that gold is going to become useless,
Speaker 3: diamonds become useless. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: Gold would never become useless otherwise they would have never
Speaker 1: created us.
Speaker 3: It's a ford Well, then what do you what do
Speaker 3: you think of this socioeconomic impacts of this technology? I mean,
Speaker 3: we're kind of it's not necessarily free energy technology that
Speaker 3: you're speaking to here, but you're speaking to like the
Speaker 3: ability to tap into energy in a way that is
Speaker 3: essentially free. So rather, if.
Speaker 1: We figure how to make this whole work, Yeah, if
Speaker 1: we figure how to have a viable societal interaction without
Speaker 1: the problems that we're currently facing. While all these technology
Speaker 1: I mean broke forth into civilization is used that means
Speaker 1: we've achieved the quite possibly the unachievable. I think civilizations
Speaker 1: break down for a reason. Okay, sometimes it's for the best.
Speaker 3: Are you saying that it's.
Speaker 1: Good to survive. It's it's good to survive. Survival is
Speaker 1: a good thing. But at what price? See again, at
Speaker 1: what price?
Speaker 3: So are you saying that we kind of have to
Speaker 3: reveal this technology because you know it's just gonna come anyway,
Speaker 3: and whoever lives lives. Sorry to be morbid, but is
Speaker 3: that what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I think the technology will be revealed on its own,
Speaker 1: but I think we're gonna have to go for a
Speaker 1: lot of problems before.
Speaker 3: Let me, I'm gonna commit one before the How long
Speaker 3: how long do you think we've got to wait for
Speaker 3: mass acceptance of the science that we've been discussing here
Speaker 3: on this podcast today. How long?
Speaker 1: I really don't know. Brother. It's quite possible, quite possive,
Speaker 1: depending if, for example, groups of individuals of lack of
Speaker 1: mind that are not quote unquote anarchists in nature, so
Speaker 1: they don't want the a cirpation of governments, that decline
Speaker 1: of civilization, whatnot, they actually are pro humanism, the pro
Speaker 1: humanitary if such groups exist. It's quite possible that they
Speaker 1: will bring this technology somehow and.
Speaker 3: Mhm, so you know it could happen quickly or it
Speaker 3: could happen and take a long time. Yeah. Well, so
Speaker 3: I'll say this has been an awesome conversation. I got
Speaker 3: through a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask.
Speaker 3: Do you know? And I just want to just also
Speaker 3: say thank you so much for talking to me. I
Speaker 3: feel like I love the relationship we have. I like that.
Speaker 1: I remember one time at a pot I was like,
Speaker 1: I can't believe he stated that. What a time at
Speaker 1: a pot you said something like I think he's my friend.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what the fuck?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: You know I'm your friend?
Speaker 3: Come on, well, I'll be honest, like you know, I
Speaker 3: don't know on you though, I don't go easy. You
Speaker 3: come on here.
Speaker 1: And because that's a rule as an investigative journalist, just
Speaker 1: be You don't have a card that says investigative journalists
Speaker 1: Ashton for ORBS does not mean that you are not one.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, I believe that when these
Speaker 1: videos are proved correct, or rather the technology that comes
Speaker 1: from the mispriven correct, which would indicate that they are correct.
Speaker 1: You should be actually given a Nobel possibly a Pulitzer
Speaker 1: price because you said you don't want the Nobel.
Speaker 3: So I'll let you have the Nobel. I'll let the
Speaker 3: scientists have the Nobel prizes. You know, I just want
Speaker 3: to pull the price.
Speaker 1: I would refuse it. No fucking royal is gonna hand
Speaker 1: me a piece of paper and tell me that I
Speaker 1: was right. What I would want is every one of
Speaker 1: your followers to send me a card saying damn you
Speaker 1: are right, or something of that nature. I would take.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I would I would cover walls with
Speaker 1: those sports cards. That would mean more to me than
Speaker 1: a fucking Nobel price. What what's that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, me too, So I guess somebody else had
Speaker 3: the last question here too. They're saying, thank you Ardo
Speaker 3: for the donation. Why all the continuous mass controlling and
Speaker 3: the spoon feeding of technology if you look at it
Speaker 3: from the perspective of we have this advanced technology, this
Speaker 3: science is out there and it's maybe not well accepted.
Speaker 3: Why everything that's going on, Why why all this any thoughts?
Speaker 1: There must be a reason, this trickle down disclosure. It's
Speaker 1: it's very on one part, it seems almost again this
Speaker 1: whole idea of what did I call it? I even
Speaker 1: forgot what I called something. Constipation, immaculate constipation, constipation. I
Speaker 1: think that sums it all up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's it's yeah. I mean, I'll say, like, yeah.
Speaker 3: My thought is, well, there must be a dark reason
Speaker 3: for it, you know, is that they're letting the technology
Speaker 3: come out. But it's like an acceptance thing, like you're
Speaker 3: slowly accepting it in the same way where people can
Speaker 3: now accept this conversation. But this is our third conversation
Speaker 3: that we've had where we've been talking about this and
Speaker 3: now it just seems normal and we're talking about some
Speaker 3: pretty crazy stuff. You're faster and light travel, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So maybe there's an aspect of getting people used to it, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, giving the technology to us at a rate
Speaker 3: at which we can absorb. Maybe just a thought, so
Speaker 3: last any last thoughts. Shout outs you want to shout
Speaker 3: out anybody else in the end of your buddies in
Speaker 3: the navy. You know you're famous now look at you?
Speaker 1: No, please, come on, man, you're famous. You're the one
Speaker 1: with the followers. I'm just on your heart trust podcasts.
Speaker 1: I'm the one who feels on it I am. I'm
Speaker 1: truly honored brother. One day's gonna be a huge dude.
Speaker 1: And when you're like above Rogan and all that ship,
Speaker 1: don't forget your little friend over here anyway. So uh look,
Speaker 1: I applaud you, I approved Dave ROSSI I prod all
Speaker 1: our guys, alien scientists, Timpentura, Kurtji Mongol even though he
Speaker 1: is never year isn't anyway, you know, it is what
Speaker 1: it is. It could be, it could be the Canada thing.
Speaker 1: You know, we love you on.
Speaker 3: That was a great interview as well with Jesse Michaels.
Speaker 1: I mean, oh Jesse Michaels. Uh, you know, yeah, smart guy,
Speaker 1: very intelligent dude. So yeah, and let's not forget his
Speaker 1: body over there that goes by God I forgot. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna say his name. I know his real name,
Speaker 1: but you know his psychic Oh no, Peter Theo is uh.
Speaker 1: I mean he's one of.
Speaker 3: The if you could talk to one scientist of your
Speaker 3: choice and they couldn't refuse, who would you want to
Speaker 3: do that's still alive?
Speaker 1: Who do you want to ship? I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: tell her.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's still alive.
Speaker 1: Who But can we engineered that reverse temporal, you know,
Speaker 1: the chamber somehow make it all possible. That'd be so cool.
Speaker 1: I've always wanted to know if mine are bigger than
Speaker 1: his now anyway, anyway, Uh yeah, I would say there were.
Speaker 1: You know, I've always wanted to ask one Manda Senna
Speaker 1: why he never he never backed up my paper for archive.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it was off the deep band and
Speaker 1: all that ship. It was quite crackpottish. But man, a
Speaker 1: guy that works for the Institute of a Band Study
Speaker 1: at Princeton, a man that's come up with ads equal
Speaker 1: cft that made Lenny Suskin crying to sleep for it
Speaker 1: that way. I mean, and Lenny Suskin is no fucking
Speaker 1: mental midget either, So I mean a guy like that,
Speaker 1: I mean, I really thought that doesn't take it wouldn't
Speaker 1: have not taken a lot. Yeah, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: mean I had as I had a better conversation with
Speaker 1: about what's his name Kit both Nobel Prize winner, More Bose, Einstein,
Speaker 1: con BC baby good guy, good guy Well.
Speaker 3: Is out there and he wants to have a chat.
Speaker 3: I think that would be an amazing conversation. I'd love
Speaker 3: to set it up. I'd I should love to talk
Speaker 3: to him as well. He's one of the proponents. I
Speaker 3: guess you could say have ER equals EPR with Leonard Suskin,
Speaker 3: and one of the one of the first papers I
Speaker 3: read a couple of years ago. Yeah, humanly reversal. I
Speaker 3: remember I read his and I was like, wait, they're
Speaker 3: humanly traversible. Wow, Yeah, that'd be awesome. Okay, well, South,
Speaker 3: thank you very much, sir. Let's do it again in
Speaker 3: the future. Brother.
Speaker 1: I'm your man, anytime, anyplace, and always my buddy. All right, brother,
Speaker 1: take care, bye yourself.
Speaker 3: Thank you, hard everybody who is a hard truth sufficionado
Speaker 3: m H three seventy x. I hope you guys enjoyed
Speaker 3: the conversation. Piece out everybody later.