Speaker 1: Oh that's are Hello, and welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 2: I'm Jacob.
Speaker 3: And today we bring back your boy Lou.
Speaker 4: What a do?
Speaker 3: My good sir?
Speaker 4: What's up, guys? How y'all doing?
Speaker 3: Stoked? Stoked about this conversation?
Speaker 2: You have been diving into some weird scientific rabbit holes
Speaker 2: in which you feel like you're uncovering a lot. And
Speaker 2: that's what's so magical about all this is that I
Speaker 2: think that you know, science and all that kind of
Speaker 2: stuff is very fluid and if you if you remember
Speaker 2: back during the COVID days, it was always trust the science,
Speaker 2: Trust the science. Well it's not exactly trusting the science.
Speaker 2: It's trusting the scientists. That's really what they wanted you
Speaker 2: to learn, right, Like, don't question the scientists. Everybody can
Speaker 2: be a scientist. Everybody can can do math and and
Speaker 2: equations and look at you know how numbers and science
Speaker 2: and atoms and everything works. We all have the capabilities
Speaker 2: of doing that level of research. Now, I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to sit here and say that any one
Speaker 2: of us is ever going to be an expert on
Speaker 2: the subject, because I think that probably takes years and
Speaker 2: years of dedication and whatnot. But I love what you're doing.
Speaker 2: You're not just going with the flow of what everybody
Speaker 2: else says. You're trying to figure it out on your own.
Speaker 2: And if that's nothing else, is that not just opening
Speaker 2: up your third eye?
Speaker 4: Sir? Right right? I agree with that absolutely. So from
Speaker 4: the last last episode that we had went through an
Speaker 4: adventure of the universe all of that. At the end
Speaker 4: of it, I said I was going to take a break.
Speaker 4: As it turns out, I did not actually take a
Speaker 4: break whatsoever, and I went in deep started. I basically
Speaker 4: had a interesting realization which ended up making me go
Speaker 4: down this whole rabbit hole. I will continuously say that
Speaker 4: even though I've tried to approach this with no biased
Speaker 4: depending whatsoever or anything like that, I still feel as
Speaker 4: if this is a I guess you could say, a
Speaker 4: walk with God. When I I find connection and understanding
Speaker 4: through what I believe is my God's creation, right, That's
Speaker 4: how I feel like I get closer to him. So
Speaker 4: it led to, uh, led to some very interesting findings.
Speaker 4: I went through most, if not all, of science as
Speaker 4: best as I could, basically coming up with what you
Speaker 4: could say is a unifying field theory.
Speaker 5: All right, so break it down a little deeper for
Speaker 5: the uneducated into this conversation, what do you mean by
Speaker 5: unifying field? Do you mean everything being frequency and energy
Speaker 5: and so everything is unified in that regard or do
Speaker 5: you mean something else?
Speaker 2: Separation is a fucking illusion, bro, Is that what you're
Speaker 2: trying to stay with this unified field theory?
Speaker 4: Not necessarily so, when, for example, when Einstein made relativity,
Speaker 4: that wasn't just a theory that came out to explain gravity.
Speaker 4: It was majorly like to explain everything, to explain how
Speaker 4: everything got its shape, how everything got into the order
Speaker 4: that it was, how everything basically works. Quantum is basically
Speaker 4: another theory about that of just trying to explain how
Speaker 4: everything works. I wouldn't say at the smallest level, but
Speaker 4: essentially at a foundational level, of like how everything formed together,
Speaker 4: how everything actually works. Just stuff like that. It where
Speaker 4: for example, you would like measure electricity in certain units,
Speaker 4: you wouldn't necessarily do that the same way and measuring
Speaker 4: like fluid pressure, hydraulics or stuff like that.
Speaker 5: I mean you would go for volts or amps versus
Speaker 5: you know, PSI's or atmospheres or something like that. I mean,
Speaker 5: I'm with you. The the terminology would change, but there
Speaker 5: is still a unit of measure associated with both I'm with.
Speaker 4: You, right, So it's basically trying to figure out what
Speaker 4: that process is behind like behind closed doors, to make
Speaker 4: those happen and for them to actually work in the
Speaker 4: way that they do. Obviously, yes, you would not want voltage,
Speaker 4: for example, in like a water pump because that probably sucks,
Speaker 4: right right, Absolutely, So I realize after I this is
Speaker 4: actually something that I came up with earlier this week
Speaker 4: because I was trying to figure out what is the
Speaker 4: best like linear path to go on to basically tell
Speaker 4: this whole story. And I'm after looking at everything as
Speaker 4: a whole and having this understanding that I've gotten, I
Speaker 4: made a realization that what I'm calling could be the
Speaker 4: greatest heartbreak in scientific history. And I feel like, since
Speaker 4: this is at the end of at least where I've
Speaker 4: gotten now, I mean, why not continue the trend of
Speaker 4: starting at the end and then working my way back.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go.
Speaker 2: I'm ready to break science's.
Speaker 3: Heart, sir.
Speaker 4: It's more than just science's heart. So when I went
Speaker 4: into this again trying to not have a biased opinion
Speaker 4: on it. I would say that that benefited me a lot,
Speaker 4: because there are some places to where it seems like
Speaker 4: biased opinions might have gone in, whether they were meant
Speaker 4: to or not. But because I wasn't looking at it
Speaker 4: that way, I didn't really frame it that way, so
Speaker 4: I never really fault anyone for it. I guess you
Speaker 4: could say, when.
Speaker 5: You say biases, do you mean personal biases or educational biases?
Speaker 4: They both could be the same.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair Like how a lot of science and historical
Speaker 2: finds seem to somewhat contradict the findings that are in
Speaker 2: the Smithsonian Museum, for example.
Speaker 4: Right right, it could I guess maybe there are definitely
Speaker 4: some bias opinions. You could also say assumptions, right, So
Speaker 4: if you do something, you get data, there's an assumption
Speaker 4: behind what caused that data, what process is actually played
Speaker 4: out in order to give you what you got? Right,
Speaker 4: So for example, and this is just in case any
Speaker 4: I guess physicists come through here and read this because
Speaker 4: this is the first time that this is going to
Speaker 4: be coming out, or not read it, but listen to
Speaker 4: the show.
Speaker 5: First of all, I mean physicists are listening to this
Speaker 5: show please, dm us, I have so many Q questions
Speaker 5: about what you think about things, But yes, continue please.
Speaker 4: I would say because of going into this with an
Speaker 4: unbiased opinion a lot of if I'm going to say
Speaker 4: all of them, all physicists that are out there, especially
Speaker 4: the legendary ones right like Einstein, like Hawkings, like Newton,
Speaker 4: I think the conspiracy community needs to realize that a
Speaker 4: biased opinion and an assumption could be different. So I
Speaker 4: would say, a biased opinion is you throwing out an
Speaker 4: unneeded assumption. But an assumption just as a whole, is
Speaker 4: you giving your idea for the data that you received.
Speaker 4: You get what I'm saying, Like one has I guess
Speaker 4: a personal feeling behind it, and one is just you
Speaker 4: could say, trying to further science.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Now I could also see the gray area where
Speaker 5: there's meat, you know, in the middle. But I can
Speaker 5: see that, see, Yeah, I can see the nuances to
Speaker 5: where those could be separate conversations, and I can also
Speaker 5: see the nuances where there's would be the same conversation
Speaker 5: for sure.
Speaker 4: Right, So, once this paper is released, I at no
Speaker 4: point in time am I actually saying that modern day physicists, scientists,
Speaker 4: whatever you want to say are wrong about the data
Speaker 4: that they are receiving, all of the math maths, all
Speaker 4: the numbers align correctly, and then on the other side.
Speaker 4: I'm seeing this more now, but I would definitely say
Speaker 4: that the people that are doing this work should entertain
Speaker 4: some of the views and skeptic ideas that like the
Speaker 4: conspiracy community has, because there are lots that are extremely
Speaker 4: valid and there there's real I'm not going to say concern,
Speaker 4: but skepticism behind some of their ideas. Yes, some of
Speaker 4: them are kind of way far out there for no reason.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying entertain those, But there are a lot
Speaker 4: of things that are brought up that are actual issues.
Speaker 4: So instead of just waving a hand or giving some
Speaker 4: you know, general example that really has no relation or
Speaker 4: doesn't actually matter, go on to a show like this,
Speaker 4: go talk. I mean, I think that the both communities
Speaker 4: could easily learn a lot more from each other. I
Speaker 4: agree as we are going into this, it is in
Speaker 4: my opinion that once this paper is released, I may
Speaker 4: ignite a feud that ended almost one hundred years ago.
Speaker 4: Although that was never my intention or wish, I believe
Speaker 4: it's inevitable this feud. Being what I would consider the
Speaker 4: three main scientific unities, which I would call classical, relativistic,
Speaker 4: and quantum. I believe once classical physicists see what I
Speaker 4: have done here, they will accept it quickly, especially in
Speaker 4: regards to the legacy electromagnetism community. The relativistic community will
Speaker 4: fight it, undoubtedly, but once they realize I've done what
Speaker 4: modified Newtonian gravity and modified relativity are already pointing at,
Speaker 4: they may accept it faster than I expect. I think
Speaker 4: that the quantum community might fight it the hardest. I
Speaker 4: believe it's because they'll be changed the most if I
Speaker 4: am correct. But it is my hope that once the
Speaker 4: entire picture is there, they'll see and respect it for
Speaker 4: what it is. I realize.
Speaker 5: You get go ahead. I had a question about the quantum,
Speaker 5: but I don't want to derail your point.
Speaker 4: I realize, after completing my journey and looking over everything,
Speaker 4: I may have discovered what you could call the most
Speaker 4: tragic heartbreak in scientific history. By looking back at scientific lineage,
Speaker 4: I realized that all paths, no matter how divided, it,
Speaker 4: lead back to one individual. Also that while both relativity
Speaker 4: and quantum try to unify the other, this only spreads
Speaker 4: them farther apart, because neither realize that they are already
Speaker 4: the ghost within each other's respective field. Did you want
Speaker 4: to say what you want to say real quickly?
Speaker 5: I guess my question is why do you believe that
Speaker 5: the quantum scientists would be the most offended for lack
Speaker 5: of better words.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to say offended. So their work relies
Speaker 4: on probability, right, it relies on for the most part, Yes,
Speaker 4: it relies on When we're talking about quantum foam and
Speaker 4: we're talking about virtual particles, there is a large aspect
Speaker 4: of probability there, which.
Speaker 5: But also the quantum conversation fifteen years ago was seen
Speaker 5: as hokum, that was seen as pseudoscience. There are those
Speaker 5: that believe that the quantum physicists are more of the
Speaker 5: open minded when it comes to possibilities of things that
Speaker 5: may not fit neatly into our paperwork as of this moment,
Speaker 5: because their whole thesis didn't fit neatly fifteen years ago.
Speaker 5: So whenever you say that whatever you're presenting is about
Speaker 5: to like derail them and they might be the most
Speaker 5: the most slow to grasp it that. I guess that's
Speaker 5: my question is why why do you think may be
Speaker 5: the most open minded.
Speaker 2: But why do you think that they only started really
Speaker 2: getting it fifteen years ago? What happened fifteen years ago.
Speaker 4: That I would say technology caught up to their theories?
Speaker 5: Right? The theories have been around for forever, right, But
Speaker 5: like having a quantum computer or understanding the double slit
Speaker 5: experiment on a mathematical scale, it's kind of like Schrodinger's cat.
Speaker 5: Schrodinger's cat is a philosophical conversation that has been had
Speaker 5: for decades and decades and decades. It doesn't make it
Speaker 5: true or untrue. It's kind of a hypothetical thought process.
Speaker 5: The quantum mechanics of it all that only really came
Speaker 5: into mathematical certainty, not mathematical theorem, mathematical certainty only in
Speaker 5: the last I would argue, possibly two decades, right, And
Speaker 5: like Luke said, it's because technology was able to catch up,
Speaker 5: to be able to catch a snapshot of the things
Speaker 5: happening to prove their point. So it's that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: You would think that the quantum scientists would be more
Speaker 5: open minded to new ideas and new theorems.
Speaker 4: Not so minded, right, So, because there there is another
Speaker 4: side of that to where honestly, relativity might like the
Speaker 4: relativistic community might fight it more than the quantum and
Speaker 4: that is because the mystery behind Quantum ended up bringing
Speaker 4: a lot of younger people in that are more open
Speaker 4: to different ideas and alternate theories. So there is a
Speaker 4: possibility that the quantum community might accept this easier than
Speaker 4: relativity because the relativistic community sometimes has a cult following
Speaker 4: behind it, and that is why Quantum has had to
Speaker 4: fight as hard as it has.
Speaker 5: The Quantum has its own cult following. I can't tell
Speaker 5: you how much of the no offense to anybody who
Speaker 5: considers themselves a part of this community, but the Woo
Speaker 5: Woo community has latched onto Quantum to such a level,
Speaker 5: and most of them are speaking about things that they
Speaker 5: have no idea what they're saying, but it kind of
Speaker 5: aligns close enough to what they believe. It's developed its
Speaker 5: own cult following strictly off of it being so new
Speaker 5: and so mind bending.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't even necessarily say the Wuo Woo. I would
Speaker 2: say just about every spiritual community has latched onto it,
Speaker 2: and every sense I mean I would.
Speaker 4: I would say that every spiritual community has grabbed onto
Speaker 4: it at least one part of quantum right at least.
Speaker 2: Well, and it also depends on what you consider woo woo.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying, it's all spirituals woo.
Speaker 5: Now, like I said, I wasn't throwing shade. I'm not
Speaker 5: throwing shade towards the community or right.
Speaker 2: But a lot of there's new age, and which we're
Speaker 2: not going to get totally into that, but a lot
Speaker 2: of these practices have been practiced for a very long time.
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily new. It's just people that are combining
Speaker 2: things together that never used to be combined before, in
Speaker 2: a sense, kind of like if you've ever looked into
Speaker 2: eclectic witchcraft.
Speaker 3: That's all it is.
Speaker 2: Is really just everybody putting a little bit here, a
Speaker 2: little bit there and combining it in a sense. And
Speaker 2: that's really what it. That's really where the title of
Speaker 2: new age comes from. All it's all old stuff. It's
Speaker 2: just the new age part of it is the combination
Speaker 2: of the old stuff that was never really combined before.
Speaker 4: I'm not gonna lie. For some reason, in my head,
Speaker 4: as soon as you said that, I just imagine a
Speaker 4: bunch of witches running around with epilepsy.
Speaker 5: I can see it.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah they can.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they cannot, they cannot. The reason I say it
Speaker 4: is it's disruptive to the quantum community is because I
Speaker 4: am essentially going to be saying that in regards to
Speaker 4: like Schrodinger's cat. Right, the cat was never in the box, right,
Speaker 4: But I'm hoping that they at least give it some
Speaker 4: thought because I'm making their equations much much smaller. But
Speaker 4: when we look over the lineage, right, the history of
Speaker 4: what has happened, we realize that there has been five
Speaker 4: generations since the gentleman name James Maxwell, right, the father
Speaker 4: of electromagnetism. Essentially, so up to the seventies to the
Speaker 4: present time, we have, for example, string theorist Penrose Stephen Hawkins.
Speaker 4: That is what I would consider like the fourth generation
Speaker 4: that has come through. You could argue that there's a
Speaker 4: fifth generation now, but anyway, before them was Swinger, Feynman
Speaker 4: and Wheeler. Before them was Drach Heisenberg and Schrodinger. Now
Speaker 4: before them you get the first generation, which would be Einstein,
Speaker 4: Bore and Plank. Right, Okay, right before you get that
Speaker 4: first generation, you have Oliver Heavyside, Josiah Gibbs, and Heinrich Hertz.
Speaker 5: Yeah, which is where we get hurts frequency correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what they did was essentially when Maxwell came
Speaker 4: out with his paper, the Treaty between Electricity and Magnetism.
Speaker 4: In his paper, he had something called a quarter neon.
Speaker 4: You being an electrician, I'm sure you've heard of a
Speaker 4: quarter neon at least once or twice.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Right, So what they did at the time, it was
Speaker 4: too complicated to understand. It was too new, it was
Speaker 4: too fancy. Some even considered that it might have been
Speaker 4: just a little too far out there and somewhat spiritual.
Speaker 4: So because of the times, I mean, we got to think,
Speaker 4: this is eighteen eighties, so we're talking about a lot
Speaker 4: of industry building up all of that stuff. They ended
Speaker 4: up breaking his quarter neon equation down into essentially three
Speaker 4: separate parts. This is where we get the divide. So
Speaker 4: Plank and Bore in the next generation took one part
Speaker 4: of the equation, Einstein took the other part of it,
Speaker 4: and then there was a part that was essentially left
Speaker 4: and nobody went back for it. If you want to
Speaker 4: put a philosophical idea on it or a just a
Speaker 4: diagram terms. Einstein took the skeleton of that equation bore
Speaker 4: and plank, which continued the quantum generations. They took essentially
Speaker 4: what you could call the soul of the equation. Yeah,
Speaker 4: the body, the body was left over.
Speaker 5: So for anybody who doesn't know what a quarter neon is.
Speaker 5: And the only reason I even read that, yeah, okay
Speaker 5: are you yeah? Okay, okay, okay. I heard it spoken
Speaker 5: of one time in college when I was we were
Speaker 5: talking about electric electrical theory and things like that. It
Speaker 5: was a subadendum. It was never like a thing we
Speaker 5: were graded on, but I recognized the word. I just
Speaker 5: looked up a little Wikipedia page on it. So all right,
Speaker 5: if you're already gonna go.
Speaker 4: Over there, never mind, we're gonna yeah, we'll go over it,
Speaker 4: all right. So then relativity took off, quantum mechanics took off,
Speaker 4: and they continued going and going and going. And this
Speaker 4: is why I said, neither one realized that the ghost
Speaker 4: in their equations was actually the other. So neither one
Speaker 4: of them could ever make a a field theory that
Speaker 4: could combine the two back together, such as any kind
Speaker 4: of quantum aspect to relativity, any kind of gravitational aspect
Speaker 4: or relativistic aspect to quantum and actually the further they
Speaker 4: kept going, realistically, they were splitting further apart to never
Speaker 4: be able to combine it back together because again they
Speaker 4: never realized that they already needed the other one to
Speaker 4: begin with, and both of them left the body still
Speaker 4: within Maxwell's equations. So when we talk about that first
Speaker 4: group that split apart Maxwell's equations, they did it for
Speaker 4: convenience because at the time everything was advancing so fast
Speaker 4: they needed to move. Could it have absolutely derailed ever
Speaker 4: having a unifying theory, Absolutely, and I am actually going
Speaker 4: to be showing you how it probably did. But I'm
Speaker 4: not going to fault them for it because they were
Speaker 4: doing what they thought was best at the time. And
Speaker 4: this is what I'm talking about about going in without
Speaker 4: the biased idea, right, So like, if it is proven
Speaker 4: that I am right with everything that I've done here, Yes,
Speaker 4: a lot of people could look down on heavy side
Speaker 4: on Gibbs on Hurts, but you shouldn't. They were doing
Speaker 4: what they thought was best at the time in my opinion.
Speaker 4: And actually it's very interesting because a lot of people
Speaker 4: do not like Einstein, right, Everybody has their opinions onto
Speaker 4: why we won't get into it, but because of my
Speaker 4: approach that I've been taking, I realized that in his
Speaker 4: later work things get really interesting because he very much
Speaker 4: shows that he knew relativity was wrong, and he actually
Speaker 4: goes back and tries to make a unified theory. He
Speaker 4: actually goes so far that he himself committed what you
Speaker 4: could sell, or what you could say, the just physics
Speaker 4: taboo of redefining mass. And because of that, I gained
Speaker 4: a lot more respect for him, and I'm glad I
Speaker 4: got to do that. One I knew, I knew he
Speaker 4: was obviously very intelligent because of relativity to begin with,
Speaker 4: but for him to, you know, essentially admit that he
Speaker 4: not made a mistake, but that relativity wasn't it. There
Speaker 4: was something else that he was missing. It made me
Speaker 4: feel more justified in actually going back through and redefining mass.
Speaker 4: But when we look at the basically the things of relativity,
Speaker 4: there is structure there, right, but there is no actual field.
Speaker 4: There is no way that mass arises, There is no
Speaker 4: way that really energy works to begin with. This is
Speaker 4: why he knew that, This is why he started going
Speaker 4: back and try tried to find the energy for the
Speaker 4: field in quantum mechanics. We have direct C, which came
Speaker 4: through in the the twenties, twenties, the thirties. Direct C
Speaker 4: is a kind of mixer that Paul Dract tried to make.
Speaker 4: It was kind of a relativistic quantum field theory. When
Speaker 4: you look at the basically bare bones of this sea,
Speaker 4: it is Maxwell's sea of tiny vortices. When you go
Speaker 4: back through and look at the later versions where we
Speaker 4: get quantum foam and we get virtual particles, they're still
Speaker 4: dancing around the same idea of quater neons and the
Speaker 4: sea of tiny vortices without calling it the same thing.
Speaker 4: It's because while quantum has energy, it doesn't have actual structure.
Speaker 4: They had to actually rely on probability because they did
Speaker 4: not have structure. And I can, after looking through it
Speaker 4: all now I see why it actually evolved into what
Speaker 4: it did. It's because they had no other place to go.
Speaker 4: So now with that all being said, we are going
Speaker 4: to almost share the screen.
Speaker 5: And while you go and share the screen, listen, good
Speaker 5: cult members, if you haven't gained this information already, this
Speaker 5: is going to be an episode that has a lot
Speaker 5: of depth to it. You're gonna want to see what
Speaker 5: our boy Luke is sharing with us on this evening,
Speaker 5: and for all of those that would like to see
Speaker 5: it rather than just hear it Jonathan, where can they go?
Speaker 2: Patreon dot com slash Cult of Conspiracy podcast. That link
Speaker 2: is down in the show notes below. It's the best
Speaker 2: way to be able to support us. We appreciate all
Speaker 2: the good Gold members who have done so on all
Speaker 2: of the different tiers that we do have. If you
Speaker 2: just want to be able to get the shows a
Speaker 2: couple of days in advance, you want to be able
Speaker 2: to see all the video, and you want it to
Speaker 2: be absolutely and totally completely commercial flush, then we do
Speaker 2: have a five dollars tier for you to be able
Speaker 2: to join five dollars a month and you get I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't even know how many shows a month we're
Speaker 2: putting out anymore.
Speaker 3: It's just too many. It's too many to even count.
Speaker 3: My brain doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Whenever you start getting past twenty five, you know what
Speaker 2: I'm saying, I run out of fingers and toes. So
Speaker 2: if you like to be able to watch all the
Speaker 2: shows a couple of days in advance, you like it
Speaker 2: completely commercial free, you like to be able to slide
Speaker 2: into our dms, and you like to be able to
Speaker 2: see all the video content that you won't be able
Speaker 2: to see anywhere other than TikTok or Instagram or Twitter.
Speaker 2: Then you come over and you sign up for the
Speaker 2: five dollars tier that we have. Now where it gets
Speaker 2: even better is whenever you include all of that and
Speaker 2: you jump up to the next tier where you will
Speaker 2: be able to join us at the third eye all
Speaker 2: the way Open tier that will give you access to
Speaker 2: be able to come and join us every Tuesday night
Speaker 2: at nine pm Central. That is a great, great tier
Speaker 2: because it's even more all inclusive. You ain't doing shit
Speaker 2: or fuck on a Tuesday night. Who is nobody's doing
Speaker 2: anything on a Tuesday night, and it's at nine pm.
Speaker 2: The kids are probably down to sleep, your wife is
Speaker 2: no I'm just playing. I'm not assuming that it's all
Speaker 2: dudes over here. We know we got a lot of
Speaker 2: lady cult members out there as well. So maybe your
Speaker 2: husband fell asleep and he's snoozing. You want somebody to
Speaker 2: come and hang out with and just get your third
Speaker 2: eye busted all the way open. Then you come over
Speaker 2: and support us over at Patroon dot com. Slash Cult
Speaker 2: of conspiracy podcast. We also have a twenty five dollars
Speaker 2: tier for the cult member maniacs out there. So if
Speaker 2: you find yourself to be an absolute maniac and want
Speaker 2: to be able to support us in the best way,
Speaker 2: that would be the best way. So anyhow, let's get
Speaker 2: back over the show. We appreciate all the good cult
Speaker 2: members who have been doing so helping us in that way.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 4: The big turning, just a realization that I had was
Speaker 4: that right around the same time that Einstein came out
Speaker 4: with relativity, there was another very interesting and amazing discovery
Speaker 4: that Maxwell had basically predicted or just calculated in general,
Speaker 4: and that is that photons right light, they transfer momentum,
Speaker 4: and if they transfer momentum, then that means that they
Speaker 4: must create pressure. Tests later on would absolutely confirm that
Speaker 4: they did both of those.
Speaker 5: So now that's that's got of the minuscule, right, I mean,
Speaker 5: they recently just didn't experiment where they were able to
Speaker 5: freeze a photon, and and to that point, it means
Speaker 5: that it does have a physical for lack of better words, platform,
Speaker 5: So therefore it would give pressure if it's passing through
Speaker 5: the air. But at the same time, air is not
Speaker 5: a good medium to transfer energy through, especially if it's
Speaker 5: pressure that you're talking about. So if we're talking about
Speaker 5: a photon passing through, it has pressure and it has
Speaker 5: energy to it. We're talking about actual literally a fart
Speaker 5: in the wind or.
Speaker 4: We're not now when you're getting hit as many farts
Speaker 4: as the sun is hitting you with.
Speaker 3: Okay, a lot of farts of the sun is thrown
Speaker 3: at us.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but it's not like the photons.
Speaker 5: It is, but it's not like we are feeling some
Speaker 5: sort of a pressure difference based off of the amount
Speaker 5: of light. Like on a cloudy day versus a sunny day,
Speaker 5: the air pressure is going to remain at least relatively
Speaker 5: the same. We might have barometric pressure that's a little different,
Speaker 5: but it's not based off of the sun, is it.
Speaker 4: We'll find out.
Speaker 2: Okay, I want to get your your your thoughts on this.
Speaker 2: I heard this theory the other day and I heard
Speaker 2: some scientists that were throwing it around, and the theory
Speaker 2: that light doesn't travel, that it's essentially just lighting up
Speaker 2: where it is almost like in the example that was
Speaker 2: given was like whenever you're at a football stadium and
Speaker 2: everybody's doing the wave, you know, it's not the wave
Speaker 2: that is traversing all the way around. It's one person,
Speaker 2: one individual standing up at that exact moment and standing
Speaker 2: up and then sitting back down, and it's emulating somewhat
Speaker 2: of a wave. Now, if you multiply that by thousands
Speaker 2: of people that are going around in a stadium, did
Speaker 2: that mean that the wave was literally traveling all the
Speaker 2: way around the stadium?
Speaker 3: You know, significantly, Like.
Speaker 2: When we're talking about like photons, for example, would a
Speaker 2: photon be traveling all the way around or would it
Speaker 2: just be lighting up in the medium call it the
Speaker 2: ether or whatever in that moment because of the momentum
Speaker 2: that you're talking about.
Speaker 4: I find it incredibly interesting that you have brought this
Speaker 4: up at this time. Let's go all right, So after
Speaker 4: that finding, I essentially got to work. And these are
Speaker 4: the first principle, first principle like factors that I have. Right,
Speaker 4: So everybody that comes out with a theory, whether it's Newton,
Speaker 4: all of that, has the original starting factors, right, So
Speaker 4: like in the beginning, we had work, then we had forced,
Speaker 4: then we had pressure stuff like that. So these are
Speaker 4: essentially my first principal values that I have created for
Speaker 4: this field. Some of them have parallels, some of them
Speaker 4: are new, but this is just an entire explanation of
Speaker 4: the first principal values. So first we have emission pressure.
Speaker 4: So emission pressure defined as energy density emitted coherently from
Speaker 4: a source. So coherence is another one that we will
Speaker 4: get to further down. It is the first measurable consequence
Speaker 4: of the un callst pulse, serving as the original point
Speaker 4: for all field based quantities in DET the theory as
Speaker 4: a whole of what it's called is DET. It is
Speaker 4: divine emission theory. So continuing nine emission theory. Interesting, yes,
Speaker 4: So the casual origin and the empirical root. So emission
Speaker 4: pressure was first identified by interpreting radiant pressure the measurable
Speaker 4: solar energy per unit volume received at Earth's surface and
Speaker 4: high altitudes the standard radiant pressure values at sea level.
Speaker 4: Where this I'm not going to go and like name
Speaker 4: the actual numbers or like units, because we're going to
Speaker 4: take forever doing that. Then at higher altitude it typically
Speaker 4: drops around ten to thirty percent, depending on elevation when
Speaker 4: compared to gravitational acceleration. It was observed that the rate
Speaker 4: of decline and radiant pressure per vertical meter matched the
Speaker 4: observed gravitational pull. This revealed that vertical acceleration could be
Speaker 4: exactly reproduced by treating the solar radiation not as a
Speaker 4: passive flux, but as a scalar rebound field, which we
Speaker 4: would go through. What a scalar field is rebound all
Speaker 4: of that later on from a coherent emission shell, which
Speaker 4: is another one we will go through. This became the
Speaker 4: basis for defining emission pressure, coherence, and scalar potential. Thus,
Speaker 4: emission pressure emerged directly from empirical solar data and coherence
Speaker 4: layer analysis, not from theory or assumption. The equations to
Speaker 4: derive emission pressure are as is shown. You can measure
Speaker 4: them in jeweles for per cubic meter, or you can
Speaker 4: do it in pascales or Newton meters. Far as the
Speaker 4: physical interpretation, emission pressure represents the coherence scalar force dense
Speaker 4: city that structures space, time and matter. Unlike vacuum pressure
Speaker 4: or the thermodynamic stress, it is not a reactive force,
Speaker 4: but an active causative emission that gives rise for field potential, mass, time,
Speaker 4: magnetic and electric behavior. Comparison to the classical models, it
Speaker 4: replaces assumed gravitational constants, electromagnetic field strength, and quantum energy packets.
Speaker 4: It reduces two classical pressure in mechanical systems, but with
Speaker 4: casual origin and field persistence. I also continued, much like
Speaker 4: what Einstein was trying to do, I went through this
Speaker 4: without the assumption that mass is innate. I basically went
Speaker 4: through this by assuming that guess, gravity is a thing, obviously,
Speaker 4: like at this point in time, like, obviously it is
Speaker 4: a thing, saying it as a force that we can measure.
Speaker 4: But I went through it without assuming mass based attraction.
Speaker 4: So go ahead, do you mean what do you mean
Speaker 4: by that?
Speaker 5: Like you're you're saying that you're basically rethinking how mass works,
Speaker 5: but you're also stating.
Speaker 4: Or how mass is created, how what mass comes from?
Speaker 5: Okay, I mean, but then't that directly connected to the
Speaker 5: gravitational pull on an object? To say that you know
Speaker 5: one pound of titanium, Well, what makes it one pound?
Speaker 5: Because the gravitational force on this x amount of that
Speaker 5: material makes it way out to be about one pound.
Speaker 5: And isn't that what you're talking about? Or is there
Speaker 5: more to this?
Speaker 4: I would say there's more to this, So like you
Speaker 4: have an actual so like for example, mass doesn't necessarily change,
Speaker 4: but weight changes with altitude. Right, yes, absolutely, right, So
Speaker 4: what if mass is as variable as that is not
Speaker 4: necessarily that it is derived straight from a force, but
Speaker 4: maybe it is more of a field action, which is
Speaker 4: exactly what Einstein was looking into. If you look at
Speaker 4: his later work before he ended up passing, he was
Speaker 4: trying to derive it from field interactions instead of it
Speaker 4: just being an innate thing. He wanted to show that
Speaker 4: it was emergent, that it came from the field, instead
Speaker 4: of it just being a constant thing throughout for forever.
Speaker 5: But if that had to do with fields, like you're
Speaker 5: talking about them being on top of a mountain versus
Speaker 5: being below sea level, the field itself of the matter
Speaker 5: would be the field of the matter, regardless of what
Speaker 5: altitude it's at.
Speaker 4: Not necessarily. Actually, quantum mechanics, because of their decoherence, would
Speaker 4: actually disagree with you.
Speaker 5: Explain this please.
Speaker 4: It's based off of just collapse delay, so like there
Speaker 4: is a point to where a matter starts getting lost.
Speaker 5: I mean, so break this down here, Okay, So an
Speaker 5: example of this, if you were to boil a pot
Speaker 5: of water and you are in Denver, Colorado, it would
Speaker 5: take less temperature. It would take less degrees fahrenheit to
Speaker 5: boil that water than it would if you were in
Speaker 5: New Orleans, Louisiana. Now we are now talking about one
Speaker 5: hundred degree difference. We're talking about a few degrees. However,
Speaker 5: that being the case, atmospheric pressure on top of a
Speaker 5: mountain is a lot different than the atmospheric pressure below
Speaker 5: sea level. Even though we are boiling the same it
Speaker 5: could be deionized.
Speaker 4: H two.
Speaker 5: Oh, let's make it the exact same medium that we're
Speaker 5: talking about boiling off. The boiling points are different based
Speaker 5: off of atmospheric pressure. You are saying that it has
Speaker 5: more to do with the mass field of the water
Speaker 5: depending on where it's located, rather than the atmospheric pressure
Speaker 5: that is pressing against the water to make it go
Speaker 5: to its evaporation point.
Speaker 4: Right, So one, what is causing the atmospheric pressure? And
Speaker 4: to what is I mean? I guess that's really about it.
Speaker 4: What did you say before you said the atmosphere pressure?
Speaker 5: So like to what's making the atmospheric pressure?
Speaker 4: Oh so it would be really right, So it would
Speaker 4: really be thermal interactions and entropy.
Speaker 5: Honestly, I get that it's been a while since I
Speaker 5: did the math on this, I used to calibrate the
Speaker 5: instrumentation that was reading these types of things for you know,
Speaker 5: specific gravity for certain materials and things like that. Correct
Speaker 5: me if I'm wrong, But at sea level, atmosphere pressure
Speaker 5: is fourteen point six nine six give or taken. We
Speaker 5: can call it fourteen point seven for shits and gigs here,
Speaker 5: and that is how much PSI we feel on top
Speaker 5: of our head. The way we can equate this not
Speaker 5: only just from a instrumentation platform, but also if you
Speaker 5: were to take the atomic mass of every oxygen molecule
Speaker 5: and then carbon dioxide and the nitrogen whatever else that
Speaker 5: is stacked on top of your head from here to
Speaker 5: the limits of what we would call space, that equates
Speaker 5: to fourteen point sixty ninety six pounds per square inch. Now,
Speaker 5: why is that less on top of the mountain because
Speaker 5: you have less molecules between you and space when you're
Speaker 5: three thousand ft feet above sea level as opposed to
Speaker 5: a New Orleans where you're two hundred feet below sea level.
Speaker 5: So that's at least what's always made sense to me
Speaker 5: why I would take more energy to boil something because
Speaker 5: you're fighting a higher atmospheric pressure. So whenever you're saying
Speaker 5: that it has to do more with the mass and
Speaker 5: its coherence to the elements around it. That's why I'm like,
Speaker 5: give me a little more clarification on this.
Speaker 4: I'm not telling that like Pokemon, you're good. Now you understand,
Speaker 4: Now you're good, because so like one thing. As of
Speaker 4: right now, in this paper, I have one hundred fifty
Speaker 4: eight equations. Some of them do deal with like interactions
Speaker 4: of what you're talking about. Every I'm not I have
Speaker 4: the document to go through just every match, but every
Speaker 4: single one of them has been worked out, and every
Speaker 4: single one of them matches all empirical tests, empirical data,
Speaker 4: because I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You know
Speaker 4: what I mean, no doubt. I'm saying that if you
Speaker 4: are in a so say there is a field going
Speaker 4: on in the background right no matter where you go,
Speaker 4: if you never knew that field was there, all of
Speaker 4: your assumptions and interactions would be the same.
Speaker 5: What do you mean to have a field?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 5: Right now, we're being bombarded with radio waves that we
Speaker 5: cannot pick up on unless we tune our radio to
Speaker 5: FM ninety eight one, FM one oh two five whatever
Speaker 5: the case, we're getting here to these radio waves. What
Speaker 5: do you mean by a field?
Speaker 4: So if we didn't know like the going or the
Speaker 4: currently accepted theories, if we didn't know about Newtonian gravitation,
Speaker 4: or if we didn't know about relativity, right, everything that
Speaker 4: you're doing would still be the same because you don't
Speaker 4: know about the field interactions going on in the background.
Speaker 5: I mean that's fair. Gravity existed before Isaac Newton put
Speaker 5: words to it, that's for.
Speaker 4: Sure, right. So what I am doing is I am
Speaker 4: looking for the background field that is allowing these interactions
Speaker 4: to happen. Okay, So where we're just looking at like
Speaker 4: a book, we're looking at the cover, I'm saying that
Speaker 4: there is a whole novel behind that cover.
Speaker 2: Well, and I've always believed that there's a lot more,
Speaker 2: too than what meets the eye. I've heard this quote
Speaker 2: that that basically says that science can only explain what
Speaker 2: something does, It doesn't explain what something is.
Speaker 4: Welcome to what I'm doing here, let's go. So I am.
Speaker 4: I am doing my best to provide causality to everything
Speaker 4: and determinism. Put determinism back into it to show that
Speaker 4: everything actually does happen on a scientific level to an
Speaker 4: almost one percent expected way, like whether it's an event
Speaker 4: or whether whatever it is, it is one hundred percent
Speaker 4: able to be calculated. It's one hundred percent able to
Speaker 4: predict all of that because as of right now, we
Speaker 4: when it comes to quantums like predictions, yes, they do
Speaker 4: a very very good job, but one there is probability
Speaker 4: that is there, so that will always cause a gray area.
Speaker 4: So for example, when we are talking about you know,
Speaker 4: atomic functions and wave functions in some of the more
Speaker 4: complicated elements like quantum, cannot do really accurate predictions past
Speaker 4: copper and then if I remember correctly past uh Bismouth,
Speaker 4: they can't really predict anything at all. It is all
Speaker 4: just one hundred percent like theoretical of like what it
Speaker 4: looks like, what's going on.
Speaker 5: You mean on the periodic table?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, because like the quantum understanding of all elements,
Speaker 4: it like they have their own interpretation of what's going on.
Speaker 5: I mean kind of yes, kind of no, Right, there's
Speaker 5: some elements on the periodic table that only exist in
Speaker 5: a specific environment and only for a certain amount of
Speaker 5: time before it disintegrates into something else. That's why we
Speaker 5: had that whole subudendum of two lines underneath it, like germanium, americanium,
Speaker 5: californium and these types of things.
Speaker 4: Right, And that's why it is so hard for them
Speaker 4: to try to figure out what's going on there, because one,
Speaker 4: they are very short lived. In two, there are a
Speaker 4: lot of interactions going on there, especially when we're talking
Speaker 4: about the strong and weak nuclear forces. Whenever we're talking
Speaker 4: about electron orbitals or probability density clouds, stuff like that,
Speaker 4: it gets really hard to start juggling all of that
Speaker 4: based off of probability. Okay, So, like that's essentially what
Speaker 4: quantum is trying to do. It is trying to have
Speaker 4: a deeper understanding of what is driving energy, what is
Speaker 4: making it do what it is doing.
Speaker 2: And and quantum science is a relatively I mean it
Speaker 2: it's one of the newest sciences out there. I mean actually,
Speaker 2: just this year is the centennial for quantum mechanics.
Speaker 4: Right, So once that split from maxwell equation happened, that
Speaker 4: that was essentially the birth of relativity and the birth
Speaker 4: of quantum. But because quantum has to rely on probability
Speaker 4: so much, it is now just well, you could say
Speaker 4: the last twenty to thirty years, technology has caught up
Speaker 4: to be able to account for what quantum is predicting,
Speaker 4: right right, Okay, all right, So now we get to
Speaker 4: scalar field coherence. So what it essentially is It is
Speaker 4: a dimensionless value representing the structural integrity order or memory
Speaker 4: fidelity of a scalar emission field. It quantifies how coherent
Speaker 4: or how coherently energy is distributed within a field shell,
Speaker 4: and determines how efficiently that energy results in physical structure, motion,
Speaker 4: or perception. It arise because during the early times of
Speaker 4: looking at radiant pressure, which is solar energy per unit volume,
Speaker 4: drops with altitude, but doesn't drop linearly, so there is
Speaker 4: obviously something going on differently than simple atmospheric conditions. So
Speaker 4: at higher altitudes, solar radiation exists, but matter behaves differently.
Speaker 4: Objects fall more slowly, time dilates, decay accelerates. Despite having
Speaker 4: nearly the same energy per square meter, the effect of
Speaker 4: energy was weaker, implying something other than just energy quantity
Speaker 4: was changing. This led to an insight that energy alone
Speaker 4: isn't enough. What matters is how coherently it's structured. Therefore,
Speaker 4: a field property was defined. So if we have emission
Speaker 4: pressure held constant. Then a drop in field effectiveness must
Speaker 4: come from the denominator, which would be the coherence of it.
Speaker 4: The new field property was then compared against gravitational acceleration,
Speaker 4: radioactive decay, and time dilation effects. Each showed that coherence,
Speaker 4: not just energy, was the missing link. Essentially, coherence represents
Speaker 4: the orderliness of the scaler field. High coherence means a
Speaker 4: coherent structure field, leading to gravity, time, mass, memory, and
Speaker 4: visibility persist. Low coherence basically meaning decoherence, which leads to disorder,
Speaker 4: shell collapse, material losses, structure, and perception distorts, eventually leading
Speaker 4: to time being defined as coherence divided by the decay
Speaker 4: of coherence or the loss of coherence, and then mass
Speaker 4: being a product of emission pressure multiplied by coherence, multiplied
Speaker 4: by radial dispersion, which is one that we will get
Speaker 4: into later on, and then speed of light squared. Also,
Speaker 4: it allowed the implication of Bor's or Born's rule. So
Speaker 4: in order to effectively interpret quantum behaviors you actually have
Speaker 4: to meet some standards. These standards were set during the
Speaker 4: Copenhagen interpretation. Right then, there are a few different ones.
Speaker 4: We will get through them, every single one of them
Speaker 4: I have met. For example, how we get to the
Speaker 4: Born rule here. I'm sure people don't want to get
Speaker 4: too deep into it, but in the larger theory paper
Speaker 4: it does go deeper into it. But every single part
Speaker 4: of the Copenhagen interpretation I have met. So this locked
Speaker 4: coherence and as a central quantity in scalar field mechanics,
Speaker 4: this scalar analog to entropy, curvature, and wavefunction all in one.
Speaker 4: This is the equation that you can use in order
Speaker 4: to figure out what the coherence is. It is unitless.
Speaker 5: That's a whole lot of Greek letters.
Speaker 4: Tell me about it, dude, tell me about it.
Speaker 5: Looks like Sigma Fi Kappa fraturns. He opened his bitch.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying, tell me about it. I did leave
Speaker 4: it unitless because in quantum mechanics there is something called decoherence,
Speaker 4: and it is essentially the opposite of what I am
Speaker 4: saying here, because obviously, if you have a value of decoherence,
Speaker 4: which shows basically things breaking apart, losing structure, all of that,
Speaker 4: you obviously have to have the opposite, right. So the
Speaker 4: physical interpretation is coherence determines how effectively scalar pressure becomes
Speaker 4: casual whether energy remains as potential collapses in the mass
Speaker 4: sustains light, which is one of the interesting things that
Speaker 4: Jonathan brought up when talking about the stage lights uh
Speaker 4: or fades into an unstructured field. It is coherence level
Speaker 4: of a scalar shell, memory density of the field, and
Speaker 4: a modifier for energy to matter conversion. It is also
Speaker 4: the gatekeeper of time decay, gravity, light, and entropy. It
Speaker 4: does have comparisons to the classic model, where we get
Speaker 4: space time curvature, we get entropy, we got quantum probability amplitude.
Speaker 4: It reduces to just standard whenever coherence values are understand
Speaker 4: are understood to be one near zero and decoherence values
Speaker 4: which is going to be like it can reduce to
Speaker 4: quantum here. But honestly, I would recommend just using the
Speaker 4: formulas I provided because they're much smaller. They're much shorter
Speaker 4: some of the quantum equations because of having to have
Speaker 4: probability in there with all of the interactions. I mean,
Speaker 4: they are literally almost like a mile long, and I've
Speaker 4: feel bad for everybody that's using them. I hope that
Speaker 4: that is one thing that will interest them is the
Speaker 4: fact that you don't have to have to write a
Speaker 4: novel to make a prediction with mine. Coherence is the
Speaker 4: heart of d T. Everything bends around it. It is
Speaker 4: casually derived from field rebound structure, not inserted. It has
Speaker 4: already shown testable measurable effects in gravity, optics, quantum decay,
Speaker 4: and subjective perception. Then you have scalar field potential, which
Speaker 4: is just essentially the field potential in that area, like
Speaker 4: the tension of it going on to the next one.
Speaker 2: I do have a question though, just out of curiosity,
Speaker 2: and I don't know if this applies to what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, but I've often said in the past that
Speaker 2: I believe that it's possible that the Earth is its
Speaker 2: own double toroid kind of structure, and or at least
Speaker 2: it's encompassed inside of one. And with that there is
Speaker 2: the plane of inertia. Now, just out of curiosity, if
Speaker 2: that does apply the plane of inertia inside the double
Speaker 2: toroid to the Earth, would the plane of inertia be
Speaker 2: equal to sea level?
Speaker 4: There's a lot of depending factors on that. I wouldn't
Speaker 4: say absolutely, I would say it's probably close to it.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say it's one hundred percent, though we will
Speaker 4: actually get there and I will give you the explanation
Speaker 4: as to I mean really not only what the double
Speaker 4: toroid is, but what causes it?
Speaker 5: Good, I mean, just thinking about this out loud, does
Speaker 5: that mean like the peak of Mount Everest in the
Speaker 5: first sum that would say, like the flat earth model, right,
Speaker 5: that would still coincide with the plane of inertia in
Speaker 5: a double toroid. Otherwise it couldn't exist. But I never
Speaker 5: thought about it like that. How does sea level as
Speaker 5: opposed to high altitudes shift in the double to roid model? Honest,
Speaker 5: I've never even thought about that.
Speaker 2: The plane of inertia, it can exist on a flat
Speaker 2: earth or on a globe.
Speaker 3: I mean, you're it.
Speaker 2: Doesn't necessarily mean just a flat surface plane, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's just the plane of inertia. That would be
Speaker 2: like I always look at it as like that's the
Speaker 2: ground that we would walk on, you know that that
Speaker 2: would be the mid the midway between the as above
Speaker 2: and the so below.
Speaker 4: So right, you could essentially just put it in the
Speaker 4: middle of anything and it would be a correct plane
Speaker 4: of inertia. It would just matter sea.
Speaker 5: Level above sea level, inside of a submarine, wherever the
Speaker 5: case is.
Speaker 4: Right exactly, Yeah, I'm gonna try to do my best
Speaker 4: without taking structure away from this and also without boring
Speaker 4: the absolute shit out of everyone at home. So that's
Speaker 4: why I like, uh, like I said, by the time
Speaker 4: this episode is released, this will be available to the
Speaker 4: public for everybody to go through, look through whatever they
Speaker 4: want to do. So if I know, I skipped over
Speaker 4: scalar field potential just a little bit. It is similar
Speaker 4: to Einstein's space time, but it does have some differences
Speaker 4: to it. But in hopes of not putting everybody to sleep,
Speaker 4: I will continue on. Okay, So then we have torsional
Speaker 4: rebound time, which is basically scalar pulse duration. It's very
Speaker 4: close basically in terms of like frequency stuff like that.
Speaker 4: It is a timing influence to what is observed as frequency.
Speaker 4: It has an aspect with coherence or memory, which memory
Speaker 4: is essentially another term for structure, but it's just a
Speaker 4: remembering of structure. So like if you hit something made
Speaker 4: out of jello, it flexes, but its structure remembers its shape, right,
Speaker 4: That is essentially the same thing. Some Then going further on,
Speaker 4: we get harmonic dispersion co efficient. This is essentially just
Speaker 4: field spread. It's just the radial spread of the scalar
Speaker 4: emission shell. We will get into shells and all that.
Speaker 4: It determines the spatial extent over which scalar pressure diffuses,
Speaker 4: rebound echoes, bloom, or coherence memory fades. It's essentially how
Speaker 4: wide the field itself stretches. Continuing on, we have vertical
Speaker 4: scalar acceleration. It kind of is what the name implies.
Speaker 4: It was one of the earliest breakthroughs in what I
Speaker 4: was doing. Whenever, like we were talking about emission pressure
Speaker 4: and all of that, it's local gravitational acceleration with empirical
Speaker 4: field pressure drop offs such as solar radiation, sphere potential,
Speaker 4: and shell compression. It was noticed that this acceleration was
Speaker 4: not actually caused by mass, but by gradient in field energy,
Speaker 4: so essentially layers. It was noticed that acceleration changed more
Speaker 4: depending on layers than it did by mass.
Speaker 3: Interesting, what would be an example of that.
Speaker 4: So when you have they've done tests with this. When
Speaker 4: you drop a box right and that box, say it
Speaker 4: has ice in it, so that box has reached its
Speaker 4: full acceleration due to like terminal velocity. Well, once that
Speaker 4: ice is melted in there and that drop is able
Speaker 4: to basically do its own thing. It actually hits the
Speaker 4: bottom of the box, it continues fallowing down, So obviously
Speaker 4: there is something else going on other than just pure
Speaker 4: acceleration due to mass.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, yeah, I can see that.
Speaker 4: Continuing on through. I do have time added into this,
Speaker 4: so it is just an expression of coherence divided by
Speaker 4: the rate of loss of coherence. It has to deal
Speaker 4: with radioactive decay, could be photon travel in scalar null zones,
Speaker 4: which we will get to. A lot of people will
Speaker 4: love that. Fusion event durations and rebound intervals. Boy, saying
Speaker 4: all of this out loud really makes it seem the
Speaker 4: most boring.
Speaker 5: No, it doesn't make it seem the most boring. It
Speaker 5: makes it seem like it will go over the heads
Speaker 5: of a lot of the uneducated or uninitiated in the
Speaker 5: realm of the world of physics in high level mathematics.
Speaker 4: Right now and once. This is why the next part
Speaker 4: that we get to will help a lot more with
Speaker 4: visual I just needed to insert the first principle value
Speaker 4: so you at least knew somewhat of what they were,
Speaker 4: what they came from. All of that, I mean, mass
Speaker 4: is most people just know mass, but it is not.
Speaker 4: I'm defining it not as a intrinsic substance, but as
Speaker 4: a amount of field pressure retained a cross a coherent
Speaker 4: shell and spread radius normalized by propagating propagating propagation energy
Speaker 4: scale of light squared. It represents the resistance to field propagation,
Speaker 4: how essentially, how much scaler energy is held back in
Speaker 4: the rebound shell, causing inertia. This actually is very close
Speaker 4: because of I looked at Einstein's later equations of him
Speaker 4: trying to rework everything. It is pretty interesting to see
Speaker 4: how close in relation his equation for redefining mass is
Speaker 4: to this. I'm not gonna say it's parallel, but I
Speaker 4: would say that it is very relatable between the two. Okay,
Speaker 4: this is it fully written out, all right, we can
Speaker 4: go on to not boring stuff.
Speaker 5: And again, for anybody who would like to see that, Patreon,
Speaker 5: you're gonna be able to pause this and go deeper
Speaker 5: and read more and make those equations on your own
Speaker 5: piece of paper that you may have to try to
Speaker 5: work that for yourself. Honestly, I don't speak ancient Greek,
Speaker 5: so a lot of those letters do not make sense
Speaker 5: to my mathematical brain. But yeah, some of you out
Speaker 5: there are highly educated that will be able to break
Speaker 5: all that down for yourselves.
Speaker 4: So I'm so after the first few episodes we did, yeah,
Speaker 4: I was somewhat like tired of science. After this, I
Speaker 4: feel like I have forgotten way more than I like
Speaker 4: remember because it's just like, yeah, this is just filled
Speaker 4: in so much stuff of me just trying to remember it,
Speaker 4: trying to effectively teach everybody out there what it is
Speaker 4: all saying in a simple way that doesn't also take
Speaker 4: away from what it's saying, you know what I mean? Right,
Speaker 4: So this is the big paper. It is extremely large.
Speaker 4: It's one hundred and forty six pages. We probably won't
Speaker 4: go through all one hundred and forty six I will
Speaker 4: try my best to save everybody from that, but we
Speaker 4: can go over the essentials, right. So a lot of
Speaker 4: it is just saying a lot of what I just said,
Speaker 4: but that paper was just outlining it to just start
Speaker 4: the whole conversation of it. So in order to get
Speaker 4: the best visual I think going to the part where
Speaker 4: we go over Maxwell and actually go over Tesla that
Speaker 4: is some of the best ways to visualize what is
Speaker 4: actually going on. So going over Tesla rebound, magnetic curl
Speaker 4: and coherence nulls. So Nikola Tesla understood something that no
Speaker 4: one else of his time did. That is that earth
Speaker 4: is a conductor, that air is a dynamic dielectric, and
Speaker 4: that energy does not simply move. It rebounds modern science
Speaker 4: dismisses his experiments. This is not a shot at modern science.
Speaker 4: This is more of a professional dismissal. There was no
Speaker 4: you know, repetition of this. There was no real paper
Speaker 4: behind it besides his notes. So I understand, I'm not
Speaker 4: saying this as a jab to modern science. But in
Speaker 4: divine emission theory, Tesla's work is not only validated, it
Speaker 4: is casually explained. So det formalizes what Tesla observed but
Speaker 4: could not yet mathematically define, that all motion and charge
Speaker 4: effects are the result of something called scalar rebound, and
Speaker 4: that magnetism, levitation, and torsion emerge from this interaction. So
Speaker 4: after looking over his Colorado Springs experiment right, specifically that one,
Speaker 4: it gives a really detailed description of what is going on.
Speaker 4: So he was out there, he had a big old
Speaker 4: teslical device, all of his stuff out there to start
Speaker 4: doing tests, right, so he essentially powered it up and
Speaker 4: sent out a pulse. This pulse, obviously, as most people know,
Speaker 4: lit a lamp further down the basically the field that
Speaker 4: he was working in. He might have actually been working
Speaker 4: in a flat I don't remember exactly, but it lit
Speaker 4: that right now. One interesting thing is that it went
Speaker 4: relatively far I mean one, because he would when it
Speaker 4: comes to pushing power, Tesla was ridiculous with it. He
Speaker 4: decided to push a lot more power than he probably needed,
Speaker 4: but he just sent it, which I respect. I see
Speaker 4: Tesla as like that kid that you come home and
Speaker 4: he took a part the TV. Yeah he doesn't he
Speaker 4: doesn't know what he's doing, and he doesn't remember like
Speaker 4: how to put it back together, but he it's very
Speaker 4: curious about it, so he took it apart. That is
Speaker 4: really how I see Tesla. He had a decent amount
Speaker 4: of electricity in order to how to use it, but
Speaker 4: he didn't have the knowledge and the I'm not even
Speaker 4: gonna say knowledge because at the time nobody really did.
Speaker 4: But he couldn't express what he was seeing outside of
Speaker 4: certain ways. So when he sent out that pulse, interesting
Speaker 4: things happened. One, it lit the lamp. Two he started
Speaker 4: getting return waves that he notated down as non Hertzian waves. Right.
Speaker 4: Not only did he get that, he didn't get just one,
Speaker 4: he got multiple waves coming back to him at different times.
Speaker 4: Not only that, but what he noticed was everything that
Speaker 4: he had did on the top was completely mirrored under
Speaker 4: the ground beneath him. And then at some of his
Speaker 4: other places he would notice either what you could say,
Speaker 4: something visually looked like like ball lightning, right, or some
Speaker 4: of the metal plates he was using, we're just levitating.
Speaker 4: I have gone through and basically expressed everything that he
Speaker 4: was seeing. So Tesla repeatedly described energy rebounding from the
Speaker 4: Earth's surface as if the ground were alive, echoing every
Speaker 4: pulse it received. I have now formulized this as rebound
Speaker 4: pressure waves. So essentially, you send out this wave and
Speaker 4: it travels through this scalar field. Once it gets to
Speaker 4: a certain point based off of like radial dispersion or
Speaker 4: the emission pressure that it hits, or if it hits
Speaker 4: something that is already like too close, it'll start sending
Speaker 4: return waves. You can kind of iagine it as like
Speaker 4: a scalar echolocation, right, Or another way if you wanted
Speaker 4: to is you could imagine it as how waves come
Speaker 4: in on a beach. Right, So once the wave comes
Speaker 4: in and crashes, it goes back out. Sometimes it goes
Speaker 4: back out in different directions depending on how the sand
Speaker 4: is built up. This is just a way that you
Speaker 4: could visualize it, right. So Tesla's rebound equation is this
Speaker 4: right here to where you have rebound pressure which is
Speaker 4: a scalar return force, and then you have vertical scalar
Speaker 4: field pressure which actually acts as a downward pressure. Then
Speaker 4: of course you have coherence. Essentially, when an emission meets
Speaker 4: resistance such as the earth, oil or metal plate, it
Speaker 4: doesn't stop, it rebounds. It essentially works like a return wave.
Speaker 4: The rebound coat is coherent. If coherence is roughly equal
Speaker 4: to one, the the rebound becomes torsional if pressure strikes
Speaker 4: off access. This is another interpretation, or essentially DT's interpretation
Speaker 4: of magnetic field curl Jacob, which I think you are.
Speaker 4: You're probably familiar with this with your electrical background. It
Speaker 4: goes a little bit deeper into what is actually happening,
Speaker 4: so such as like why magnetic fields form around wires
Speaker 4: instead of not inside of them, why poles are always
Speaker 4: paired if they're inward or outward curls of rebound. Why
Speaker 4: and also why motion creates magnetism. It's because essentially in
Speaker 4: this scalar field, resistance alters emission geometry. Once we go
Speaker 4: over Maxwell's actual quoter neons and I show how they
Speaker 4: can actually be expressed, it brings in a deeper picture
Speaker 4: of why so many people, whether they are in the
Speaker 4: scientific community or not, talks about double toroids, and that
Speaker 4: actually has to do with the magnetic curl. So one
Speaker 4: interesting thing is his observations of the metal plates floating right.
Speaker 4: So when scalar rebound is eventually distributed in opposite directions,
Speaker 4: it creates a torsional pressure. Well, this causes levitation at
Speaker 4: the center for tex rotation around the axis and mass
Speaker 4: reduction within that null region. It is observed in the
Speaker 4: Tesla Colorado Springs experiments, as he stated, a metal plate
Speaker 4: hovering over a pulse coil or objects roting within the
Speaker 4: rebound fields without external torque. It also explains the diminished
Speaker 4: weight of the test apparatus that he was using under
Speaker 4: certain frequency bursts.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: This is a table that explains exactly what the one
Speaker 4: to one comparisons are. Now we get to a interesting
Speaker 4: part that will catch a lot of people's attention. Coherence
Speaker 4: nulls where the field cancels. So when two scalar emissions
Speaker 4: of equal magnitude but opposite vector overlap, they cancel. Essentially,
Speaker 4: imagine two waves in the ocean hitting each.
Speaker 5: Other rights, positive equals and negative.
Speaker 4: Basically, yes, yes, that was a good representation of it.
Speaker 4: So it is the net coherence equals coherence of the
Speaker 4: first wave subtracted by coherence of the second wave. This
Speaker 4: is obvious equal, easy the equation to go through. Once
Speaker 4: it hits zero, this is called a coherence null. At
Speaker 4: this point, there is no acceleration, there is no pressure flow,
Speaker 4: There is interestingly enough, no flow of time. There is
Speaker 4: no emission visibility. This actually explains within acoustic levitation. They
Speaker 4: have started noticing some weird stuff. So when people are
Speaker 4: levitating stuff with sound, right, it has to be done
Speaker 4: at extremely high frequencies because you have to create enough
Speaker 4: pressure with the air in order to levistate stuff. Right,
Speaker 4: They can only do really small things like fucking foam
Speaker 4: balls stuff like that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I've seen them make a stream of water go
Speaker 5: up back into its container with frequency, or at least
Speaker 5: give the appearance that it is anyway. So yeah, it's like,
Speaker 5: I don't know. I mean, there's there's stories of monks
Speaker 5: being able to use sound energy to move rocks that
Speaker 5: weigh multiple tons strictly off of the resonance of their
Speaker 5: sound ways off their voice. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 5: where the truth versus myth starts and ends on that.
Speaker 5: But there are those that say that the pyramids were
Speaker 5: built using sound energy and things, so, you.
Speaker 4: Know, correct, So through this theory, I am saying that
Speaker 4: actually both of those are possible because you know how
Speaker 4: you've always stated that when we're talking about creating energy, right,
Speaker 4: your voice is a little bit different.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: This is one of the ways that this jumps the
Speaker 4: gap and is an all encompassing unified field theory because
Speaker 4: your voice acts as a source of emission pressure which
Speaker 4: has direct interactions with this scaler field.
Speaker 5: Interesting.
Speaker 4: Uh, that's not specific in this paper, but that is
Speaker 4: the extensions that I will start going into, like after
Speaker 4: this is released. But one of the biggest things about
Speaker 4: the acoustic levitation experiments is they are now starting to
Speaker 4: find out in situations to where they use a lower
Speaker 4: frequency than they should be using and a larger object
Speaker 4: than they should be able to levitate. They are doing
Speaker 4: it perfectly fun when all laws of acoustic levitation basically
Speaker 4: say you shouldn't be able to. They have some little
Speaker 4: workarounds that explain it, but I'm gonna be honest, they
Speaker 4: are truly not that convincing. I have gone through with
Speaker 4: these equations and actually showed that based on the size
Speaker 4: of the object and the frequency that they are emitting
Speaker 4: with the sound plus the continuous gradient that they are in, yes,
Speaker 4: they are one hundred percent using what you could call
Speaker 4: harmonic levitation instead of acoustic levitation. It's basically sound interacting
Speaker 4: with the scalar field in order to levitate these objects.
Speaker 5: Isn't that the same thing, harmonic versus acoustic.
Speaker 4: No, because you can do harmonic levitation within a vacuum chamber,
Speaker 4: and obviously you cannot do acoustic levitation in a vacuum
Speaker 4: chamber as long as you match the correct frequencies. Because
Speaker 4: in this theory, and realistically in just any theory, frequency
Speaker 4: is basically the heartbeat of what you are using. It's
Speaker 4: not just a wave or how the wave works. It
Speaker 4: is essentially a heart beat. So in order to create
Speaker 4: that cancelation, you have to match the same frequency that
Speaker 4: is coming down, okay, because if not, then there's either
Speaker 4: going to be constructive interference or just no interaction whatsoever.
Speaker 4: You that actual deconstructive interference, because you're essentially canceling gravity. So,
Speaker 4: for example, I have done the calculations on it, the
Speaker 4: geometry of the Pyramids of Giza. We all know about
Speaker 4: the king's chamber, right, We know that there is a
Speaker 4: passageway that obviously leads directly outside. We know that there
Speaker 4: is a certain frequency that is emitted when wind comes
Speaker 4: through that passageway into the king's chamber. Right. It just
Speaker 4: so happens that that frequency, I think it's like four
Speaker 4: hundred and something hurts when it starts resonating because the
Speaker 4: pyramid has a granite foundation, right, Yeah, this actual starts
Speaker 4: a resonating effect and an amplification to where as long
Speaker 4: as the geometry is still correct and the actual structural
Speaker 4: integrity of the pyramid is correct, as winds literally blows
Speaker 4: into the King's chamber from that passageway, all of those
Speaker 4: like what five was it five tons or like five
Speaker 4: thousand pounds something like that, Those blocks, those limestone blocks,
Speaker 4: all of them get much lighter, literally up to the
Speaker 4: point to where it's about twenty five kilograms each. If
Speaker 4: you look at the earlier like accounts of people going
Speaker 4: to the pyramids, everybody that notated down stated that as
Speaker 4: they were climbing on the side, which of course is
Speaker 4: no longer you know, allowed, which for historical reasons, I
Speaker 4: one hundred percent agree, all of them speak about feeling lights,
Speaker 4: feeling like they are being lifted up, feeling like they
Speaker 4: don't have anything really holding them down. You don't really
Speaker 4: get that many accounts of it now because one people
Speaker 4: can't go on top of it. Two that's much older
Speaker 4: stuff that people don't really talk about anymore. But there
Speaker 4: are plenty of those accounts actually out there. I'm not
Speaker 4: saying that it wasn't built by slaves. I'm saying that
Speaker 4: the math maths.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's fair.
Speaker 2: They definitely were on a lot more shit than we
Speaker 2: give them credit for. I mean, especially it if that
Speaker 2: is true that whenever the wind blows into the King's chamber,
Speaker 2: that wind blows and then it resonates at a certain frequency.
Speaker 2: They got that math figured out, like man, what forethought?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yeah, honestly, Now, the issue is I knew some
Speaker 4: of the deeper implications that could happen with this theory.
Speaker 4: So I did put actually like ethical restraints on this
Speaker 4: when we're talking about like if this is real, Yeah,
Speaker 4: we we have things that we need to talk about
Speaker 4: to where rebound manipulation is not benign. Tesla witnessed destructive
Speaker 4: scalar oscillations capable of cracking the earth through his own words,
Speaker 4: shattering buildings with tune frequencies, and creating energy surges with
Speaker 4: no apparent current source.
Speaker 5: Would this be what he classified as his death ray?
Speaker 4: No, okay, I actually haven't done much looking into his
Speaker 4: deathray just because one I I'm it kind of sounds
Speaker 4: like a do to me, like a direct energy weapon.
Speaker 5: It could be, but I could also see it. To
Speaker 5: the again uninitiated and educated, it might seem like that's
Speaker 5: what it is. In reality, it might be a byproduct
Speaker 5: of his equipment. Like you're saying, like he found that
Speaker 5: this device and this type of math could destroy buildings,
Speaker 5: cause cracks in the earth, and whatever else. To a
Speaker 5: layman's person that's just walking around and would see this,
Speaker 5: they would obviously call it a death ray. Yeah, they
Speaker 5: lose their shit exactly.
Speaker 4: I mean, it could have been honestly, the precursor for
Speaker 4: a maser. Okay, because for anybody that doesn't know, before lasers,
Speaker 4: we had masers.
Speaker 5: They were playing what a maser is instead of a laser?
Speaker 4: I think it's just instead of light, it's magnetism. Ah
Speaker 4: if I remember correctly, or it might be microwaves. I'm
Speaker 4: not one hundred percent sure. Okay, all right, So going
Speaker 4: over the ethical framework of this, yes, they are not
Speaker 4: a joke. So dese he confirms that these are not metaphors.
Speaker 4: They are a result of strong scaler coherence effects because
Speaker 4: Tesla was pushing way more power than the typical person
Speaker 4: would ever even think of doing, because that's just how
Speaker 4: he was. Magnetism is not magic, obviously. It is essentially
Speaker 4: the universe breathing in reverse. Where electric current pushes, magnetism swirls.
Speaker 4: This is because Scala rebound never returns in a straight line.
Speaker 4: Tesla saw this. He didn't need particles, charges or field lines.
Speaker 4: He saw pressure, resonance, and reflection. So in honor of
Speaker 4: the work that he did, these non Hertzian wave rebound
Speaker 4: waves shall be called Tesalian rebound waves. So essentially pressure
Speaker 4: waves which he originally put out and the rebound waves
Speaker 4: that he was receiving back that were causing all these
Speaker 4: weird things in this theory, I've decided to basically name
Speaker 4: them after him. So you have Teslion waves and Teslian
Speaker 4: rebound waves. So going up back to Maxwell's actual work
Speaker 4: of quarter neons, I mean, you could say that this
Speaker 4: is essentially where the bread and butter is. This is
Speaker 4: where we get into actual like where geometrical structures, for
Speaker 4: how people try to explain vacuum, how quantum tries to
Speaker 4: explain virtual particles, quantum foam, just all the stuff like that.
Speaker 4: So what is a quarter neon?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: A quarter neon is a four part hyper complex number
Speaker 4: for the simple not really simple terms, but for the
Speaker 4: simple description of it. Because science actually treats like waveforms
Speaker 4: and geometry and all of that, they just treated as numbers.
Speaker 4: So for example, where we get described a particle, quantum
Speaker 4: says there actually isn't a particle there, It is just
Speaker 4: a field function.
Speaker 5: I mean, but that makes sense though in the realm
Speaker 5: of science you have to have it quantifiable in some
Speaker 5: way for it to make sense on paper. So it
Speaker 5: will make sense that to them, a quarter neon, it's
Speaker 5: not a thing.
Speaker 4: Americal representation, right, right, right, So you have q, which
Speaker 4: is quarter neon equals A plus bi plus CJ plus
Speaker 4: d K. I promise you it is not as difficult
Speaker 4: as that sounds. That is Maxwell's interpretation of the quarter neon,
Speaker 4: which he, in my opinion, did a really good job.
Speaker 4: But with DT we switch it up a little bit.
Speaker 4: So A is going to be essentially the scalar component.
Speaker 4: It is going to be the scalar part of the field,
Speaker 4: because in quarter neons you have a essentially a three
Speaker 4: rotation or torsion aspect of this field, but the fourth
Speaker 4: one has to be scaler. This is explicitly outlined basically
Speaker 4: in Maxwell's notes, but he never mentioned the torsional aspect of.
Speaker 5: It, right, Okay, So I looked it up here It
Speaker 5: says in mathematics, the quarter neon number system extends the
Speaker 5: complex numbers. Quarter neons were first described by the Irish
Speaker 5: mathematician William Hamilton in eighteen forty three and applied to
Speaker 5: mechanics in three dimensional space. Long story short, the A
Speaker 5: plus bi plus cj plus dk, the coefficients abcd are
Speaker 5: real numbers. And let me make sure I get this
Speaker 5: right here. Yeah, and one, I and K are all
Speaker 5: basis vectors or basis elements.
Speaker 4: Right, so you show a picture of a quarter neon,
Speaker 4: you are going to send Jonathan down a rabbit hole.
Speaker 5: You know what I'm gonna do that. I'm gonna do that.
Speaker 5: Let me let me share the screen real quick. Save
Speaker 5: your spot on where you're at on your page.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're good, You're good. I'm again. I'm sorry to
Speaker 4: bor everybody. I just getting getting the baseline out there
Speaker 4: is a little bit dry sometimes until we get into
Speaker 4: the fun stuff.
Speaker 5: No, I mean, but this is pretty crazy. I mean,
Speaker 5: like I said, quarter neons were shown to me in
Speaker 5: college by one of my electrical theory professors, but very
Speaker 5: very basically, it was not something that we spent a
Speaker 5: whole lot of time talking about because for the base
Speaker 5: level math that we were doing for electrical theory, basically
Speaker 5: Ohm's law was like the one to oh one of it, right,
Speaker 5: and then that's very simple multiplication and division. It might
Speaker 5: sound more in depth when you break it down, it's not, Jonathan.
Speaker 5: Is the appearance of what a quarter neon would look like.
Speaker 5: This is the eyes and the j's and the case,
Speaker 5: the positives and negatives thereof, and how they all play
Speaker 5: into each other on the positive and negative polarity aspect.
Speaker 4: Of it all correct.
Speaker 3: Kind of looks like a Mercaba right here we.
Speaker 5: Go, little flower of life action. Bruh.
Speaker 4: Think about the other one. Think about the first one,
Speaker 4: the main one. When we're talking about sacred geometry.
Speaker 5: I talking about the you know, talking about the golden ratio. Well,
Speaker 5: I guess in that regard it would be. But are
Speaker 5: you talking about like the hermetic symbolism.
Speaker 4: Keep keep hermetic out of it, Keep hermetic out of it,
Speaker 4: and just go off of that one book that some
Speaker 4: people say should be in the Bible and some people
Speaker 4: should say it shouldn't. Oh well, Enoch, right, So look
Speaker 4: at that compared to Metatron's cube.
Speaker 5: Okay, matter of fact, I could look up picture of
Speaker 5: metatrons cube real quick.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, yeah, just to just to give people entertainment.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and again if you want to see what we're
Speaker 5: talking about.
Speaker 4: I know it's dry. I know it's dry.
Speaker 5: Wow, gotcha?
Speaker 2: All right? So oh you got to pull it up.
Speaker 2: There you go, there it is. Yeah, it looks fucking identical.
Speaker 5: Absolutely that as compared to the mathematical representation of a
Speaker 5: quarter neon.
Speaker 4: Turn it turn the I know, I don't know if
Speaker 4: you can actually do it on there. But if you
Speaker 4: turn the Metatron's cube just a little bit to its
Speaker 4: side to where like the flat part lays like you know,
Speaker 4: perpendicular or just horizontal, whatever you want to say, it
Speaker 4: is almost a one for one with a quarter neon.
Speaker 3: Wow, hold up, let me let me pull up that representation.
Speaker 5: Oh quarterneon.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, go to the one all the way to
Speaker 4: the right. Whenever you're seeing that it's like right above that. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's a better representation of it.
Speaker 3: Okay, wow, yeah that is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's as if oh yeah, it's just putting it
Speaker 2: on its side essentially, because these are the flat sides
Speaker 2: of the uh of the Metatron's cube, and so yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just turning it.
Speaker 4: That's actually that's a different depiction than what the actual,
Speaker 4: like I guess drawing of Metatron's cube is because that's
Speaker 4: got some extra added on to it, right.
Speaker 5: The two in the middle. That kind of that's kind
Speaker 5: of thrown me off because Metatron's cube has six in
Speaker 5: the middle. The quarter neon has two in the middle.
Speaker 5: But I'm it's not the.
Speaker 4: Reasons for that. Sure, there's actually a reason for that. Okay,
Speaker 4: So going into the update I basically gave the quarter neon.
Speaker 4: So quarter neons were designed to represent both rotation and
Speaker 4: orientation in three dimensional space, but they also contain a
Speaker 4: scalar origin term. Unlike modern vector calculus, which separates magnitude
Speaker 4: and direction, quarter neons unify them into a single structure.
Speaker 4: This makes them ideal for describing fields that have both
Speaker 4: directional behavior and an organ or I think I might
Speaker 4: have had a type of there or sorry, actually originating source,
Speaker 4: such as scalar emission. In this light, a quarter neon
Speaker 4: is not merely a mathematical tool. It is a field
Speaker 4: descriptor scalar origin pulse vector's flow.
Speaker 3: Go head back to sharing your screen there, Luke, so
Speaker 3: we can see what you're.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no doubt. I just needed to share it to
Speaker 5: get the visual representations of a cornyon.
Speaker 4: So right, anyway, So how I re establish an envision
Speaker 4: and also formulize it. Essentially, the most of the equation
Speaker 4: is actually there. I just give values to it. So
Speaker 4: we have the scalar field potential essentially the origin of
Speaker 4: the emission, two coherent field vectors along the shell axis,
Speaker 4: and then a torsional aspect of the rebound pulse that
Speaker 4: it's creating because all of these have a essentially a
Speaker 4: shell to them. This shell is similar to Schrodinger's harmonic shells.
Speaker 4: It makes sense that he would have those because of
Speaker 4: how close he was to basically Maxwell's original equations. You know,
Speaker 4: he was like, I think second generation of that. Everything
Speaker 4: that this thing does is essentially what virtual particles is
Speaker 4: dancing around, what quantum foam is dancing around. Because Maxwell
Speaker 4: envisioned that the entire field was filled with these, but
Speaker 4: they were in their dormant state. They are in a
Speaker 4: negative polarity. Once they become excited by what I say
Speaker 4: is a basically an emission pressure wave or Teslian wave,
Speaker 4: they flip polarity and this causes just a whole cascading effect.
Speaker 4: It works very similar, almost one for one, for what
Speaker 4: the Higgs field is currently being thought of as.
Speaker 5: When you say the Higgs field, do you mean possibly
Speaker 5: in reference to the Higgs boson.
Speaker 4: Yes, so the Higgs field is also a thing as
Speaker 4: of right now. Quantum mechanics believes that mass is accumulated
Speaker 4: from the Higgs field, and it just comes from there
Speaker 4: as it is popping in and out of reality.
Speaker 5: Okay, and the Higgs Boson particle would be what some
Speaker 5: would call the god particle. Right, So, if you're saying
Speaker 5: that this is the field to where things basically are
Speaker 5: in and out of reality, the comparisons that can be
Speaker 5: drawn are vast.
Speaker 4: Right, exactly, It's really not different. They're just kinda they're
Speaker 4: not able to actually give a structure to it because
Speaker 4: they're missing that part of it. Essentially, Einstein took it
Speaker 4: and gave it to relativity. Okay, So that's why I
Speaker 4: was saying, they have to rely on probability because they
Speaker 4: have no structure. So yes, for them, in order for
Speaker 4: their work to actually be correct, probability has to be
Speaker 4: a factor instead of having a actual deterministic outcome. Okay,
Speaker 4: So yeah, I know it's it's very dry, and I'm
Speaker 4: or we're gonna get to the fun part soon.
Speaker 5: You're good. I'm just this is you're essentially saying that
Speaker 5: Einstein's entire life work is inaccurate.
Speaker 4: But it's.
Speaker 5: Fair. But it's also not, like you said in the beginning,
Speaker 5: it's not that it's inaccurate and like just basically flat
Speaker 5: out Einstein was wrong. He was right for the day
Speaker 5: and age and the information that he had to work with,
Speaker 5: but that doesn't mean that it can't be revised and
Speaker 5: improved upon.
Speaker 4: Right correct, So I would say everything that relativity did,
Speaker 4: whether general or special, is core wrecked within the framework
Speaker 4: that Einstein wrote for it, or whether it was his
Speaker 4: partner no ether, which we don't have to get into
Speaker 4: the the name there. Then on the other side, everything
Speaker 4: that quantum mechanics was, you know, basically evolved from and
Speaker 4: then continues to go. Everything that they are doing is
Speaker 4: correct within side of the framework that they have, So
Speaker 4: all of their numbers are correct, all of their interpretations
Speaker 4: are correct. It's just that they are missing half, essentially
Speaker 4: two thirds of what should actually be there. Part of
Speaker 4: that is determinism, so they have to insert probability. They
Speaker 4: have no actual structure, they have no really just any
Speaker 4: any kind of field to enable it to happen. So
Speaker 4: they have to come up with quantum foam, which just
Speaker 4: comes in and out of existence. That's where particles come through.
Speaker 4: That's where mass originates from.
Speaker 5: Gotcha.
Speaker 4: So here's where we get to the fun part. So
Speaker 4: now that we've gone through the quarter neon, we know
Speaker 4: what it looks like through this. I was able to
Speaker 4: do a few things, Like I said, this is a
Speaker 4: large paper.
Speaker 5: How long have you been working on.
Speaker 4: This since we ended? I remember I said I was
Speaker 4: going to take a break. I didn't. Right, right, right,
Speaker 4: all right, So we get to article mass also with
Speaker 4: scaler masses. So one of the interesting things was whenever
Speaker 4: I took my variables that I created, that I introduced
Speaker 4: in the very beginning, right, emission pressure, coherence, radial dispersion.
Speaker 4: Obviously the speed of light squared was already there. I
Speaker 4: was able to do some very interesting things with it.
Speaker 4: So when you take give me one second, sorry, it
Speaker 4: was up at the top. So I am essentially stating
Speaker 4: that mass comes from those So basically emission pressure multiplied
Speaker 4: by coherence multiplied by radial dispersion divided by the speed
Speaker 4: of light squared, stating that masses are not intrinsic but
Speaker 4: emerge from show coherence, emission pressure, and rebound spread because
Speaker 4: of this, and basically collecting the the empirical data that
Speaker 4: is out there about all of these particles and then
Speaker 4: assigning values. Right, So when we're talking about for base
Speaker 4: particles like electrons or protons, coherence was set to one
Speaker 4: basically a meaning that it is perfectly structured. It is
Speaker 4: perfectly interacting with what you could call reality or everything
Speaker 4: around it. When you take composite particles, basically mesons, they
Speaker 4: have a coherence that are more roughly towards like zero
Speaker 4: point six to zero point eight. By the way, coherence
Speaker 4: only goes from zero to one, right, I may have
Speaker 4: to extend it whenever we talk about actual structured other realms.
Speaker 4: So you're not.
Speaker 5: Talking about a particle's coefficients, you're talking about its coherence, correct,
Speaker 5: all right, but break it down for somebody who may
Speaker 5: not know what the fuck you're talking about.
Speaker 4: This is essentially coherence is how structured and how well, uh,
Speaker 4: something interacts with the field. It's basically how well is
Speaker 4: this doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing? Right? So, like,
Speaker 4: for example, with jello, and you're punching it, and it's
Speaker 4: still like even though it shakes around, it still keeps
Speaker 4: its structure. So it would have a either fluctuating coherence
Speaker 4: because that is what liquids have, or it would have
Speaker 4: just a higher coherence to be able to maintain its structure.
Speaker 4: Its structure. It's basically the opposite of what we observe
Speaker 4: as entropy, right, which is a just steadily degrading, loss
Speaker 4: of structure, loss of just everything which happens with like
Speaker 4: temperature stuff, other things like that. For composite particles, I
Speaker 4: assigned these we do have like torsion inverted particles, like
Speaker 4: sterile neutrinos, they have a much lower coherence. We do
Speaker 4: have quarks added in here. The entire particle zoo is
Speaker 4: and that's what they call it, not me, right, the
Speaker 4: entire particle zoo is part of this. And I assigned
Speaker 4: the estimated values for things like emission pressure because of
Speaker 4: the the things I was able to pull from the
Speaker 4: portor neon equations right continuing to go down, basically assigned
Speaker 4: a roughly harmonic spread from it. Basically how it's radiating
Speaker 4: out like radially just emitting these pressure waves that every
Speaker 4: single one of these do, because every energy packet, every particle,
Speaker 4: they're all doing this right right then, obviously, like the
Speaker 4: speed of light is, it is what it is. I
Speaker 4: was able to through that original equation detect or not detect,
Speaker 4: but calculate the mass for all of these particles. Even
Speaker 4: if you'll notice proton, so proton does have mass. It
Speaker 4: actually has two sets of mass. It has a mass
Speaker 4: while it is in motion, and it has a mass
Speaker 4: while it is at rest.
Speaker 5: And that kind of makes sense though, right, I mean
Speaker 5: objects in motion, and especially if we're talking about the
Speaker 5: atomic level, centrifugal force plays a factor in that, right,
Speaker 5: the same way of what keeps you up right while
Speaker 5: you're on a bicycle. Right, it's not that you way less,
Speaker 5: but the centrifical motion of the tires and you balance
Speaker 5: on top of it gives you a different mass. You
Speaker 5: still weigh the same, your mass is still the same,
Speaker 5: but in motion, there's different mass that equates on that.
Speaker 5: So to say that a proton, well, I'm thinking electron.
Speaker 5: Electrons are the ones that are flying around the outside
Speaker 5: of an atom. But at the same time, a proton
Speaker 5: has mass, and if it's emotion, it would stand to
Speaker 5: reason that it would have a different mass while well, this.
Speaker 4: Is actually where the current model and I disagree because
Speaker 4: they don't necessarily one hundred percent acknowledge that a proton
Speaker 4: has mass. I actually give reason as to why it's
Speaker 4: masked or why it has mass, because remember, all of
Speaker 4: these particles are pulsing, they're emitting pressure.
Speaker 5: Not always When does a proton not have mass?
Speaker 4: I thought a photon, Sorry, Okay, not a proton.
Speaker 5: We're talking about pentoton a light yeah. Okay, hold on,
Speaker 5: now I know for effect, protons, neutrons, and electrons all
Speaker 5: have some sort of a quark mass. Okay, we're about
Speaker 5: photons of light.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, my bad, My bad. Okay, So we have
Speaker 4: the electron mass, we have proton mass. I actually the
Speaker 4: mass that I calculated for each of these. It matches
Speaker 4: another one of those scientific rules, which is the proton
Speaker 4: to electron mass ratio. It is too exact as to
Speaker 4: so my calculation here is to the exact ratio that
Speaker 4: they have stated is needed. Like whenever you're doing any
Speaker 4: kind of theory or like interpretation or whatever, because you
Speaker 4: have to meet certain criteria when whether it comes to
Speaker 4: quantum theory, whether it comes to just classical whatever it
Speaker 4: comes to. If you're not actually bringing this, then you're,
Speaker 4: I mean, one, you're probably not gonna get acknowledged because
Speaker 4: I am not saying that they're wrong. I am in
Speaker 4: agreeance with them until we get to the bigger picture
Speaker 4: for the most part, So we go through proton, we
Speaker 4: go through neutron muon the towel, the upquark, down quark,
Speaker 4: the charm quark, the strange quark. I know, I know,
Speaker 4: I don't know why there's so many quarks, but it
Speaker 4: is what it is.
Speaker 5: We didn't name them. Blame the people with the hydron collider.
Speaker 5: They're the ones that did that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the top quark, bottom quark, neutrino. And then finally,
Speaker 4: sorry everybody, we get to the photon rest mass and
Speaker 4: the photon in motion mass. Now, one thing that is
Speaker 4: interesting is because remember we were talking about emission pressure, right, Yeah,
Speaker 4: as a photon is traveling, it is creating emission pressure.
Speaker 4: It is sending out these pressure waves, the teslion waves,
Speaker 4: right Yeah, in my opinion, because of the way that
Speaker 4: for you can just say the math mass, the pressure
Speaker 4: that it is putting out as a photon is in motion,
Speaker 4: this is actually the same force or same essential mass
Speaker 4: or energy as to what they are expecting or calculating
Speaker 4: for the graviton, even though they have not detected it
Speaker 4: yet for the raton. Yes, so under quantum mechanics, the
Speaker 4: way that they are trying to unify it with like
Speaker 4: gravity and with relativity is through a particle called a graviton. Okay,
Speaker 4: I am saying that. And they they know it's there
Speaker 4: because of the numbers they are, they just can't actually
Speaker 4: see it or really like isolate the detection on it.
Speaker 5: So very similar to how we know we have a fifth,
Speaker 5: sixth eighth dimension. We know it's there because the math
Speaker 5: equates to such. There's no way of us to perceive
Speaker 5: it with our human minds or eyes or any of
Speaker 5: these things, but we know that it physically does exist.
Speaker 5: I'm with you.
Speaker 4: I would actually say that you can interact with it.
Speaker 5: What do you mean?
Speaker 4: So when we talk about anything entering the quantum realm, right,
Speaker 4: this goes through a process of decoherence, so essentially the
Speaker 4: opposite of my coherence value. Right, So as decoherence drops,
Speaker 4: that is, whenever that particle enters what they call the
Speaker 4: quantum realm, which is what some people interpret as like
Speaker 4: you know, the DMT realm or the spiritual realm or
Speaker 4: the demon realm, whatever you want to say. So I
Speaker 4: have not actually isolated the exact value, but yes, I
Speaker 4: have determined that once your coherence drops to a certain
Speaker 4: extent or to a certain number. I don't know if
Speaker 4: it depends on on you know, each individual person, or
Speaker 4: whether it is just an all encompassing value. Once that
Speaker 4: coherence drops to that number, you go into a what
Speaker 4: you could call a lower dimension.
Speaker 5: A lower dimension like as in the second or a
Speaker 5: higher is in the fourth or fifth.
Speaker 4: A lower one. Once your coherence raises to a certain extent,
Speaker 4: it will go to the possible higher dimension.
Speaker 5: So from your research, would the d M t roalme
Speaker 5: be considered a lower or higher dimension. I know a
Speaker 5: lot of people think that taking psychedelics raises your vibrational
Speaker 5: frequency and therefore puts you in the fourth or fifth dimension.
Speaker 5: But the way you're talking makes it sounds it's bringing
Speaker 5: you to the lower or second dimension.
Speaker 4: Don't hate me, guys.
Speaker 5: No hate. I'm saying, per your what you have found right,
Speaker 5: and I can.
Speaker 4: I haven't gone through it yet to figure out like
Speaker 4: how many actual layers there are For all I know,
Speaker 4: like I may have to adjust coherence for different dimensions
Speaker 4: to where it might go to like negative one, to say,
Speaker 4: like negative one is where all of the you know,
Speaker 4: evil spirits or however you want to say it is,
Speaker 4: and maybe something like the DMT realm is kind of
Speaker 4: in between.
Speaker 5: Okay, he might?
Speaker 2: I mean, could you even say that whenever people go
Speaker 2: to the quote unquote DMT realm, that it's the same
Speaker 2: exact realm, I because I've done in one night, I
Speaker 2: did DMT twice and it seemed that they were definitely
Speaker 2: not of the same place.
Speaker 5: But that's what you're saying. So you doing different amounts
Speaker 5: brought your coherence level two different levels. Therefore you were
Speaker 5: able to see different dimensions. Am I about on track here?
Speaker 4: Luke? Yes, you are correct, Okay, okay.
Speaker 5: So, but the same could be said for somebody having
Speaker 5: a couple of shots and getting completely trashed, or somebody
Speaker 5: needing an entire fifth of jack to get completely trash.
Speaker 5: It depends person a person to get the same quote
Speaker 5: unquote effect, but either way it goes. You're talking about
Speaker 5: lowering your coherence level in order to I guess be
Speaker 5: more perceptive to the lower dimensions.
Speaker 4: Uh yeah, I mean pretty much for the most part.
Speaker 4: You also do it while you're dreaming as well. This
Speaker 4: is why you go through the different brain waves or
Speaker 4: the brain stages while you're sleeping.
Speaker 5: Okay, now, I'm glad you brought this up. Now with dreaming,
Speaker 5: for instance, would that be a higher coherence level or
Speaker 5: would that also be lower.
Speaker 4: That would need to be measured to depend on how
Speaker 4: what is exactly happening to your brain waves at the
Speaker 4: exact time. So you could say, like you know how
Speaker 4: your brain goes through the different like actual wave sequences,
Speaker 4: why you're going through the different stages of sleep. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that directly runs parallel with this theory. So I will
Speaker 4: have to start looking into action brain waves, how they change,
Speaker 4: what the actual magnitude of them are, all of that
Speaker 4: stuff to see whether maybe those realms are within the
Speaker 4: coherence values I've already established, or if it is possibly
Speaker 4: outside of it, and I may need to make another
Speaker 4: section for that where coherence can change to the negatives
Speaker 4: or above one.
Speaker 3: It's probably largely based upon the frequency that you're emitting.
Speaker 4: Right, because yes, because the frequency is essentially the whole
Speaker 4: heartbeat of the energy. So depending on what's going on there,
Speaker 4: it changes the value. So if your frequency has changed
Speaker 4: and your emission pressure, for example, has gone down, then
Speaker 4: coherence will go down with it. There is there's a
Speaker 4: direct relationship between what goes up with what's going on
Speaker 4: or what goes down all of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense just in general.
Speaker 2: You know, if you look at the like the frequency
Speaker 2: scale or the even just the emotional scale, for example,
Speaker 2: like somebody who is angry and mad and frustrated or
Speaker 2: anxious or depressed or whatever. Like, that's a that's on
Speaker 2: the lower the lower tier of said emotional scale, right,
Speaker 2: but then you start to raise it all the way up,
Speaker 2: and then obviously at the top you have like enlightenment,
Speaker 2: and there's another one that's even on top of that,
Speaker 2: which is kind of crazy, but but yeah, I would
Speaker 2: say that the our own like emotional scale, it probably
Speaker 2: has something to do with a lot of this. It's
Speaker 2: almost like why they say you shouldn't go to bed angry,
Speaker 2: you know, why? Why why you should you know, give
Speaker 2: your wife, give your wife a kiss at the end
Speaker 2: of the night, as opposed to just going to bed
Speaker 2: pissed off, because that frequency is gonna carry all throughout
Speaker 2: the night and probably have a little something to do
Speaker 2: with the next day.
Speaker 4: Absolutely absolutely so. Continuing to go through, we finally have gluons.
Speaker 4: From what I have seen, there is zero mass. They
Speaker 4: are a torsion only scaler pulse, so they are actually
Speaker 4: part of that quarter neon one of the rotational aspects
Speaker 4: of it or the torsion aspect of it. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 4: gluons are what are thought to hold like quarts together, right,
Speaker 4: So that actually matches basically one hundred percent to what
Speaker 4: they are currently thinking. I'm just saying that it has
Speaker 4: zero mass because that energy is actually going somewhere else.
Speaker 4: It's not an actual particle itself. It is more of
Speaker 4: a emission pulse or the emission pressure. Then when we
Speaker 4: go through the Higgs boson, it is a torsional rebound
Speaker 4: field emitted during photon decoherence. So as the photon is
Speaker 4: in motion, right and it is putting out these pressure
Speaker 4: waves and it is having rebound waves go on, it
Speaker 4: is creating two things. One is the graviton as you
Speaker 4: see below it, which is essentially energy that it is
Speaker 4: pushing out and getting back in. The other one is
Speaker 4: the Higgs boson, so it is another part of its
Speaker 4: torsional aspect. So the energy is there. Because in this
Speaker 4: whole theory one thing will be noticed very quickly. There
Speaker 4: is a literal one to one for every particle in
Speaker 4: every atom I have scalar mass comparative to the classical
Speaker 4: like understood mass. There is always a twenty times increase
Speaker 4: in mass because I'm also using energy to calculate the mass, right,
Speaker 4: So every rebound wave or every pressure wave that is emitted,
Speaker 4: all of that is getting measured in whenever we're talking
Speaker 4: about actual atomic structures, there is also a every single
Speaker 4: atom or every single particle, there is also a sixty
Speaker 4: eight percent increase in energy. One thing that's very odd
Speaker 4: is you know that universal mass and energy budget that
Speaker 4: we have talked about a couple of times.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that gets you almost right exact on the spot. Okay, me,
Speaker 4: I promise that there is a method to the madness.
Speaker 4: I will. I do have a document that goes through
Speaker 4: how I derive or calculate every single universal constant across science.
Speaker 4: I also, as we see in the next slide, Sorry
Speaker 4: before we go, so, dark matter is not, in my opinion,
Speaker 4: in my theory and actual thing. It is more of
Speaker 4: a glue ball field signature, which is a particle. As
Speaker 4: you can see up here, it is torsional bound shell
Speaker 4: interactions from gluon compressions. Dark energy is also the same thing,
Speaker 4: except it is just a decoherence of drift field. I know,
Speaker 4: I know, it's a different language.
Speaker 5: I know it really is, but I mean it's that's
Speaker 5: kind of the point though, right right.
Speaker 4: It sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is.
Speaker 4: It is just a matter of just imagine the ocean
Speaker 4: right just waves as energy pulses just going out coming in.
Speaker 4: This keeps everything together. And not only that, but it
Speaker 4: also causes magnetism because as we went through the basically
Speaker 4: the right hand rule, the curl of magnetism is encoded
Speaker 4: within the quarter neons as long as they have an
Speaker 4: actual torsional value. Not all of them do, as we'll see.
Speaker 4: Using this same equation as right here and actually assigning
Speaker 4: coherence values for just noble gases, alkaline metals, transitional metals, halogens,
Speaker 4: and the radioactive parts of just certain elements. Using that
Speaker 4: same equation, I was able to derive the entire periodic
Speaker 4: table without really using the same functions that Mendelev used
Speaker 4: in the pretty much like same Zach order as what
Speaker 4: he has them in. The reason I say that is
Speaker 4: this is basically a graph, right and where these values
Speaker 4: basically meet is where an element is. So if we
Speaker 4: continue going all the way down currently as of right
Speaker 4: now there is only one hundred and eighteen, it actually
Speaker 4: continues going. It goes all the way for right now
Speaker 4: to one hundred and fifty. I'm not gonna lie to you,
Speaker 4: it actually goes to one hundred and eighty.
Speaker 5: Oh sure, it's only one hundred and eighty or is
Speaker 5: this more of one of those infinity conversations.
Speaker 4: Once you get to one hundred and eighty, it could
Speaker 4: turn into an infinity conversation. But from what I've seen,
Speaker 4: the energy is actually just dispersed back into the field.
Speaker 4: So you can argue that there just is no element created.
Speaker 4: That is one of the that's one of the ways
Speaker 4: that conservation of energy is met. Anytime energy is lost
Speaker 4: anything like that, it's not actually lost, it disperses back
Speaker 4: into the field.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 4: One of the interesting things is once we get to
Speaker 4: where's that? So you see how one thirty two, right,
Speaker 4: whenever we're looking at this value right here in the middle,
Speaker 4: it is actually the scalar potential, right, Yeah, it actually
Speaker 4: locks into very similar to hydrogen, right, the very first element.
Speaker 4: If I'm going to be real with you, you know how
Speaker 4: in the first periodic table, Mendelev had ether as the
Speaker 4: first element.
Speaker 5: He was honest, it's something that can't be measured, so
Speaker 5: it couldn't fit on the periodic table even know, it's
Speaker 5: something that we know connects things.
Speaker 4: But correct, you correct, it's actually because when he said ether,
Speaker 4: I think he meant light. So remember how I told
Speaker 4: you that a photon has in motion mass and rest mass.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so.
Speaker 4: A phototon the rest right, the rest mass, So that
Speaker 4: one actually is the first building block you can actually
Speaker 4: are they combined together through the field in order to
Speaker 4: start creating hydrogen. Then we continue on down. It's essentially
Speaker 4: just light folding in on itself continuously through these field interactions,
Speaker 4: because remember, light is just energy. Atoms are just energy.
Speaker 4: Mass is just energy. Even Einstein himself stated that he
Speaker 4: knew it had to be through a field function because
Speaker 4: like everything just kind of folded in on itself. But
Speaker 4: he knew that mass had to come from the field
Speaker 4: like that. He knew that mass had to be yeah, emergent.
Speaker 4: He knew that it had to come from something. It
Speaker 4: wasn't just a like a guaranteed thing every single time.
Speaker 5: I mean, but that's the case, then how did the
Speaker 5: periodic table get built in the first place with all
Speaker 5: the atomic masses being stagnant in that way.
Speaker 4: Because of the quarter neon values. So the quarter neon
Speaker 4: is the field structure that actually drives all of the
Speaker 4: elements to be exactly the way that they are. So
Speaker 4: when we start at the beginning, right, So remember this
Speaker 4: tea is the torsional value. You do not actually get
Speaker 4: a spin until you get to lithium, right. Okay, Hydrogen
Speaker 4: and helium do not spin even though they have electron,
Speaker 4: They do not.
Speaker 5: Spin ME one and two respectively.
Speaker 4: Right. So lithium once it gets that third proton and electron,
Speaker 4: in order to overcompensate for that electron, it actually has
Speaker 4: to start spinning in order to keep it. Okay, this
Speaker 4: is what starts a whole spinning. Just relationship between all
Speaker 4: of the elements. One interesting thing, So my decay time
Speaker 4: equation for lithium especially or really just lithium ion. Right,
Speaker 4: So basically there's the lithium that has that extra electron
Speaker 4: in order to make it lithium ion. Right, I calculated
Speaker 4: the decay time for it to be sixty eight seconds.
Speaker 4: You want to know what the uh, the empirical value
Speaker 4: is for that?
Speaker 5: What's that?
Speaker 4: Around seventy seconds? Wow?
Speaker 5: And just so we're clear here, whenever you're talking about
Speaker 5: it having a rotation, you don't mean the electron rotating
Speaker 5: around the nucleus, because every atom does that. You mean
Speaker 5: the nucleus itself spinning in cope like in unison with
Speaker 5: the electron.
Speaker 4: Right, So if you look at the actual quarter neon
Speaker 4: diagram again, the outside is an exact reflection of the inside.
Speaker 4: So the inside as it starts turning, this causes the
Speaker 4: outside to turn in a I think it's actually a
Speaker 4: perpendicular direction. So now when you have that, right, when
Speaker 4: you have that quarter neon per Maxwell's were the best
Speaker 4: way to actually describe what is going on there, Imagine
Speaker 4: a gyroscope. Okay, yeah, so you have just wheels spinning
Speaker 4: inside of it. Right now, when you have energy spinning
Speaker 4: like that, what happens to the outside once it actually
Speaker 4: gets a torsional value and it starts spinning, I mean
Speaker 4: it spins, You get magnetism, You get a magnetic curl. Huh.
Speaker 4: This magnetic curl is shown as a toroid. So for
Speaker 4: everybody that says that you know, quarter or toroids make
Speaker 4: up everything, right that everything is just toroids inside of
Speaker 4: toroids with smaller toroids, and do you have bigger toroids
Speaker 4: and all of that. Yeah, if we're talking outside of
Speaker 4: helium and hydrogen, you are exactly correct. You are just
Speaker 4: missing the scalar gyroscope that is inside of it the
Speaker 4: quarter neon, because it's very hard to actually see the
Speaker 4: scalar field scalar field interactions. Magnetism comes from quarter neons.
Speaker 4: Those torrido fields that you see are from quarter neons.
Speaker 4: But there is no like how some people say a
Speaker 4: black hole and a white hole. That's a white hole, right,
Speaker 4: it's just a They don't state that they actually exist.
Speaker 4: It's just a something people say to counteract black holes, right,
Speaker 4: So they say, right, if a black hole sucks in,
Speaker 4: then obviously somewhere, no matter how big it is, a
Speaker 4: white hole has to push out.
Speaker 5: I figured that would be what we would call a
Speaker 5: fucking star.
Speaker 4: I don't know, it sounds horrible to say. I'm like
Speaker 4: saying it out loud.
Speaker 5: I mean, I mean, I get it. Yeah, the twelve
Speaker 5: year old in me is like a white hole enough,
Speaker 5: But like on some real levels here, a white hole
Speaker 5: being a equal in opposite of a black hole, wouldn't
Speaker 5: we just call that a star?
Speaker 4: Not necessarily, because that would imply that the exit of
Speaker 4: a black hole is into the center of a star.
Speaker 5: Not inherently. I mean, yeah, we're going off with the
Speaker 5: whole Ying Yang conversations nsure.
Speaker 4: But well, I mean, a yanang is just a symbolic
Speaker 4: representation of what you said. You have to have an
Speaker 4: equal and opposite, but.
Speaker 5: The two don't have to be connected, right, Like the
Speaker 5: equal and opposite don't have to be inherently linked to
Speaker 5: each other like physically. To say, like a black hole
Speaker 5: leads to the inside of a star, like that's that's
Speaker 5: like a necessarily electivity.
Speaker 4: Then obviously it has to come out somewhere, and if
Speaker 4: it is a star, to where it comes out, then
Speaker 4: it has to have that exit point somewhere in the star.
Speaker 5: But then that would basically just burn to a crisp
Speaker 5: inside the star. So it's not like anybody would.
Speaker 4: See that now, because relativity is just geometry. That's one
Speaker 4: of the issues that Einstein ran into because he did
Speaker 4: not actually have a field of energy. He just had geometry. Hmm.
Speaker 5: Okay, So for.
Speaker 4: Everybody that says toroids are everything and they're just nested
Speaker 4: toroids inside of each other, you are absolutely one correct
Speaker 4: halflee because you are missing the quarter neon inside that
Speaker 4: is causing that exact toroidal field. But not every element
Speaker 4: is going to create that toroidal field. For example, hydrogen
Speaker 4: helium don't turn so they're not going to do it.
Speaker 5: Loosely like inert elements that don't have covalent electrons and
Speaker 5: are not looking looking for any more or anything like that.
Speaker 5: Do they spin?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 5: Neon are gone these things?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 4: So, for example, the torsional values that all of these have,
Speaker 4: they're all empirically like that is the rotation for them.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say, because torsion and rotation aren't
Speaker 4: exactly the same thing. But torsion causes rotation, so like
Speaker 4: torsion is the cause, rotation is the effect.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm with you.
Speaker 4: So it's it's not the same because you got to
Speaker 4: remember what we're talking about here. There is differences between
Speaker 4: an apple and an apple. But that's basically it explained.
Speaker 4: So the torsion ends up making it have to spin. Okay,
Speaker 4: I'm trying to remember what comes after this. Oh, I'll
Speaker 4: just go to the Uh give me one second, everybody.
Speaker 5: Take your time. Man. I'm I'm trying to wrap my
Speaker 5: head around everything you're talking about here. And I know
Speaker 5: I would like to think of myself as an educated individual,
Speaker 5: but you're talking about things that even some of the
Speaker 5: most advanced minds of our day and age are still
Speaker 5: like heavily debating in their circles of highly educated intellectuals.
Speaker 4: It's wow, Oh absolutely this is this is basically getting
Speaker 4: in the trenches of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So this is what you could call a compliance packet.
Speaker 4: This is the one for one relationships between my equations
Speaker 4: comparative to the standard equations. So we have standard gravity,
Speaker 4: this is my equation for it. Continue on to time dilation,
Speaker 4: red shift, electromagnetism, quantum collapse. And then this is the
Speaker 4: equations for all of the universal constants, which is gravitation, planks,
Speaker 4: constant fine structure, magnetic permeability, electric permittivity, mass I even provide.
Speaker 4: So this is like another one of those things you
Speaker 4: have to do. You have to provide falsifiable experiments. I
Speaker 4: have actually provided five to where there is a delay
Speaker 4: and light propagation. Then we have the levitation tests delayed
Speaker 4: quantum collapse. This is one that's interesting and I hope
Speaker 4: catches a lot of people's eye scalar field perception via
Speaker 4: d MT symbol tracking. Then we have scalar memory drift
Speaker 4: in radioactive decay. As of right now, this one is
Speaker 4: already kind of leaning towards me. There is some talk
Speaker 4: of whether it's just like artifact in data. But essentially
Speaker 4: they are finding that light is not constant and it
Speaker 4: actually gets slowed down by some kind of field interaction.
Speaker 5: I mean again, like I just said, they didn't experiment
Speaker 5: where they actually froze a photon particle, right, So we
Speaker 5: know for a fact that, yeah, like the speed of light,
Speaker 5: light being a physical thing, not just a reaction of
Speaker 5: a thing happening. It is at least something that we
Speaker 5: can freeze and collect and trap. Therefore it can be quantified.
Speaker 5: There is a mass to it, there is inherent physics
Speaker 5: to it. So I'm with you.
Speaker 4: Correct. Basically all of these as of right now are
Speaker 4: actually leaning towards my prediction and my equations. I always
Speaker 4: fuck up this one. But like Reigian, however, they actually
Speaker 4: say it frameworks. Essentially, it's just vector formatting all of
Speaker 4: that formulation. It's what they use for like relativity and
Speaker 4: all that stuff. I actually get around it. I don't
Speaker 4: need any tensor or the L word frameworks to do it.
Speaker 4: It all works off of just similar events to like
Speaker 4: Schrodinger shells and all that stuff. So this is do
Speaker 4: you remember the Cavendish experiment, right?
Speaker 5: I remember hearing about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So essentially what it was was two large lead
Speaker 4: balls that were suspended from a rod that also had
Speaker 4: two other smaller lead balls that were suspended from a
Speaker 4: different rod. This is how Cavendish actually proved the basically
Speaker 4: everything that Newton was saying, right, because he observed that
Speaker 4: the smaller ball would end up being gravitationally attracted to
Speaker 4: the larger ball just because of the mass difference the
Speaker 4: mass to mass attraction. Right, Okay, so we have the
Speaker 4: values here for the larger lead ball, then we have
Speaker 4: the two smaller lead balls. Then we have the distance
Speaker 4: between the two centers. So we have basically all of
Speaker 4: the information that we need to where I can run
Speaker 4: through and do my calculation for it, which I guess
Speaker 4: got a race from this document, so I will try
Speaker 4: to get that back in a second. This is where
Speaker 4: I go through and basically calculate the same exact values
Speaker 4: using my variables for the known constants. So planks known
Speaker 4: constant six point six two six times this just large number, right.
Speaker 4: This is all based off of my values that I
Speaker 4: have derived from my equations. So from first principal values
Speaker 4: I was able to derive planks constant. Then I was
Speaker 4: able to derive the gravitational constant that is currently known calculated,
Speaker 4: then I was able to derive the fine structure constant,
Speaker 4: as well as the magnetic permeability and then electric permittivity.
Speaker 4: I was also, through this equation, able to calculate the
Speaker 4: exact proton to electron relationship, which is a known value.
Speaker 4: Through this, I was able to calculate the exact same
Speaker 4: effects that we perceive from red shift, right because it
Speaker 4: has essentially an almost known amount of red shift comparative
Speaker 4: to distance. And all of that, right, I was able
Speaker 4: to calculate the same exact number, even going to two
Speaker 4: spectral lines, even going to find structure, going to time dilation,
Speaker 4: going to the Cashmere effect. All of them were calculated
Speaker 4: based off of my first principal values, and I could
Speaker 4: actually match exact numbers that they were doing. There's no
Speaker 4: actual reason why all of this should line up.
Speaker 5: I mean, there's no reason why the mass should be
Speaker 5: mathing right.
Speaker 4: So unless I was at least somewhat correct, there's no
Speaker 4: reason why my values from my just first principles that
Speaker 4: I created based off of all these other observed effects,
Speaker 4: with ignoring that mass is emergent there's no real reason
Speaker 4: why all of this should line up unless this basically
Speaker 4: scalar field that I am talking about that I am
Speaker 4: outlining actually exists. Whow So then we go even further.
Speaker 4: If you remember the other the other night whenever we
Speaker 4: have the live and I was, I basically showed you this. Yeah,
Speaker 4: so this is hydrogen wave function, right, This is something
Speaker 4: that quantum mechanics calculates. They are essentially in quantum mechanics.
Speaker 4: This would represent a probability density cloud of where the
Speaker 4: electron is in relation to the nucleus. Right. I actually
Speaker 4: not only do I calculate pretty much around the same
Speaker 4: area as them, I'm actually much closer to the actual
Speaker 4: empirical values that we have from the tests. This actually
Speaker 4: goes beyond just the two zero to zero ratio with
Speaker 4: the electron shells. As you can see, here's your you're
Speaker 4: double toroid, Jonathan. So there's four to zero to zero,
Speaker 4: which is an exact match to the empirical data. This
Speaker 4: is two one zero, which again is just a exact
Speaker 4: This is actually what carbon looks like as the quarter
Speaker 4: neon versions with these scaler shelves.
Speaker 5: A triple toroid.
Speaker 4: Yes, huh, And it actually tells a lot as to
Speaker 4: why life started from or is based off of carbon,
Speaker 4: because carbon has the best values to keep its structure
Speaker 4: under pretty decent damage or any kind of outside effects
Speaker 4: on it. This is uranium. Uh, stuff gets start starts
Speaker 4: getting pretty wild for or radioactive elements because their emission
Speaker 4: pressure along with their radial dispersion starts getting very chaotic
Speaker 4: and too high for the element to actually hold together. Yeah,
Speaker 4: which that energy is then exerted as radiation. Now this
Speaker 4: is where things get interesting. So this is basically my
Speaker 4: wave function for copper, which is where quantum mechanics predictability
Speaker 4: kind of gets vague. As of right now, I think
Speaker 4: it's this one that there is an electron on the
Speaker 4: outer wall that slips into a inner wall, and as
Speaker 4: of right now quantum mechanics can't one hundred percent explain it,
Speaker 4: but I explain it as that outer shell wall becomes
Speaker 4: too weak and the inner shell wall ends up pulling
Speaker 4: the electron back in because the outer wall just disperses
Speaker 4: back into the field. This is where this is bismuth.
Speaker 4: As of right now, they have empirical data empirical scans
Speaker 4: for this. This actually matches relativistically like close to what
Speaker 4: the empirical data suggests. But things start getting too complicated
Speaker 4: and energy densities start getting too intense for quantum mechanics
Speaker 4: to be able to predict based off of probability, because
Speaker 4: probability had to be there. It is actually deterministic, but
Speaker 4: you're missing two thirds of what is actually going on there. Wow.
Speaker 4: So when things get to this point and are so chaotic,
Speaker 4: they probability can't get them close. It even goes further
Speaker 4: beyond to the last element, which is uh onngnesium or unganessing.
Speaker 4: As you can see, energy densities start getting extremely high
Speaker 4: in this area.
Speaker 5: There are room connecting it to the next right uh.
Speaker 4: This is actually a further like shell that is out.
Speaker 4: They do not last long at all.
Speaker 5: Like that, think one of those elements only exists in
Speaker 5: a certain condition and only for so long.
Speaker 4: I got you right now. One of the issues with
Speaker 4: especially like the large hydron collider, the reason why they
Speaker 4: can't make any elements past one eighteen isn't necessarily because
Speaker 4: they don't last long enough. It is that in a
Speaker 4: field where you are using just brute force like the
Speaker 4: collider is using, you are creating extreme temperatures. You were
Speaker 4: putting you know, magnetism and energy everywhere. Everything is actually
Speaker 4: too chaotic for an element to actually form. It all
Speaker 4: basically just burns up before it can form anything. Through
Speaker 4: this method, we could actually develop a better way in
Speaker 4: order to do a more surgical approach in creating new elements,
Speaker 4: especially new compounds, new ions, all of that stuff. Like
Speaker 4: I said, the paper will be out for anybody that
Speaker 4: wants to dig deeper into it. Most everything I go
Speaker 4: through in this theory, So is there any part they
Speaker 4: all want to go to?
Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna need you to full on break
Speaker 2: this down so that a dummy could understand exactly what
Speaker 2: you mean.
Speaker 3: What is First?
Speaker 2: Let me ask you this, what was your purpose in
Speaker 2: doing this research? Was there an end goal that you
Speaker 2: were searching for? Or is this a rabbit hole that
Speaker 2: kept on going dig deeper and deeper and deeper And
Speaker 2: you know what were you trying to get to with
Speaker 2: all of this? If you could dumb it down for us.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say there was an endpoint because honestly, it
Speaker 4: seems like there has been just a continuance to be
Speaker 4: able to just go to a different field. I can
Speaker 4: say that like from Tesla's work. Not a single thing
Speaker 4: that he has done, from what I've seen, is wrong.
Speaker 4: So there are a lot of aspects of that that
Speaker 4: we can go into. Actually, this is really really interesting.
Speaker 4: I actually developed a test that I was going to
Speaker 4: try to do in order to basically prove that everything
Speaker 4: that I'm talking about is actually here. What it was
Speaker 4: was just take a Tesla coil, send out a pulse, right,
Speaker 4: But this pulse is going to go through an area
Speaker 4: where there is a vacuum chamber. Right inside of that
Speaker 4: vacuum chamber is going to be a Faraday cage. Inside
Speaker 4: of that Faraday cage there is either going to be
Speaker 4: ferrofluid or a piezoelectric crystal with either a motion detector
Speaker 4: in there or a just device to measure charge. Right,
Speaker 4: because according to standard electricity just em whatever, Jacob, you
Speaker 4: can say there's nothing that should happen in there, right, I.
Speaker 5: Mean kind of motion detector would be there, so if
Speaker 5: there was motion, it would in fact detect it. But
Speaker 5: I don't know how you're going to get a motion
Speaker 5: detector that's going to be small enough to pick up
Speaker 5: on atomic movement.
Speaker 4: Oh, this is just for this isn't necessarily like any
Speaker 4: quantum behavior. This is for anything. So like you could
Speaker 4: just put a five gallon bucket of ferrofluid or just
Speaker 4: filled with pizo crystals inside of a Faraday cae age
Speaker 4: inside of a vacuum chamber, so that way you make
Speaker 4: sure that like there's no air pressure getting pushed on it.
Speaker 4: There's no there's nothing to interact with it because you
Speaker 4: have the Faraday cage properly built and the vacuum chamber. Right. Yeah,
Speaker 4: So then I found out after coming up with this
Speaker 4: test to prove myself, in twenty nineteen, Golden Gate University
Speaker 4: did this exact same test and guess what they found?
Speaker 4: There was current inside of there because the pressure waves
Speaker 4: are real. Everything that I'm saying here matches one hundred
Speaker 4: percent empirical data. That was just a test that I
Speaker 4: came up out of nowhere, and then I found out
Speaker 4: in twenty nineteen it essentially already proved me correct. Wow,
Speaker 4: So everything Tesla was talking about was correct. That also
Speaker 4: means that you can levitate based off of just nulls. Actually,
Speaker 4: when you think about it, a null which creates a
Speaker 4: hole in not necessarily a hole, but just a a
Speaker 4: non moving area there is no pressure inside of there. Well,
Speaker 4: if you create that inside of a energized system, where
Speaker 4: do you think that energy is going to go inside
Speaker 4: of the null?
Speaker 5: It has to go somewhere, right.
Speaker 4: It flows inside of the least dense area, which is
Speaker 4: the null. So there you go with what Tesla was
Speaker 4: saying about energy being in the air. It would absolutely
Speaker 4: I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Speaker 2: Okay, so free energy talking about the ether basically is
Speaker 2: what you're trying to say that it.
Speaker 4: Does not ether because this all of this works just
Speaker 4: a little bit differently than the ether. So like, for example,
Speaker 4: remember the the Michael and Morley tests or the experiment
Speaker 4: that they did to where they essentially proved that the
Speaker 4: ether wasn't real. Remind us, I don't remember exactly what
Speaker 4: the experiment fully entailed, but basically they didn't detect any
Speaker 4: movement in like the flowing ether. It's because the ether's
Speaker 4: not necessarily real. It's a scaler field, and the scaler
Speaker 4: field that doesn't actually move around for the most part
Speaker 4: unless you start fucking punching holes in it. What was
Speaker 4: the name of that experiment you said, the Michael and
Speaker 4: Morley experiment. I think.
Speaker 5: Michael and Morley experiment. Alright, let's check it out. Ummm okay,
Speaker 5: I got a video of Neo Degrass Tyson explaining this theory.
Speaker 5: But you don't know if we don't want to watch
Speaker 5: that or not. Yeah, I know, right, let's see special
Speaker 5: relativity one Michael Morley experiment. Huh okay, got a couple
Speaker 5: of different videos that could do a decent job of
Speaker 5: explaining it, but we don't have to go down that road.
Speaker 4: It's it's what I know. I know this is a
Speaker 4: very science dent episode, and I I know it was boring,
Speaker 4: but there are very interesting and very fun parts of this,
Speaker 4: such as like the null levitation, such as.
Speaker 5: The ooh, okay, let's check this out, says the greatest
Speaker 5: failed experiment ever. This is the Michael Morley experiment.
Speaker 3: Let's check out for disguise.
Speaker 5: Do you think, oh man, of course there's gonna be
Speaker 5: a commercial makes sense, I'm telling you for anybody who
Speaker 5: is listening, yeah, Patreon, as we talked about commercial free listening, listen,
Speaker 5: we deal with it on Orient two. All right, let's
Speaker 5: see this is a four minute video explaining what they
Speaker 5: say is the greatest failed experiment ever. And you're saying
Speaker 5: that this proved that the ether was not real.
Speaker 4: So that is what they say, Yes, all right, let's.
Speaker 5: Check it out.
Speaker 6: There were lots of things scientists believed a century or
Speaker 6: two ago that might sound weird to us today. For
Speaker 6: one thing, they once thought that Adams looked like plum pudding.
Speaker 6: But over time, as researchers have done more experiments and
Speaker 6: developed new theories, those ideas have evolved into the science
Speaker 6: we know today. One of the most game changing experiments
Speaker 6: ever was what's known as the Michaelson Morley experiment, not
Speaker 6: because of what it did find, but because of what
Speaker 6: it didn't. You see, physicists used to think that all
Speaker 6: of space and time was filled with what they called
Speaker 6: the ether, an invisible material that wasn't interacting with anything,
Speaker 6: but was giving light its speed. No one had ever
Speaker 6: detected this ether, but scientists figured it had to be there.
Speaker 6: They knew that light acted like a wave, and waves
Speaker 6: seemed to need a material to travel through Throughout the
Speaker 6: nineteenth century, evidence was piling up that light was a wave.
Speaker 6: It reflected like a wave, it interfered with itself like
Speaker 6: a wave, So it makes sense for light to get
Speaker 6: around like other waves too. By moving particles back and forth.
Speaker 6: In ocean waves, for example, the water molecules move up
Speaker 6: and down, and in sound waves, air particles move back
Speaker 6: and forth. So it would make sense for light to
Speaker 6: be moving around something, even if it was invisible, and
Speaker 6: physicists called that something the ether. In the spring of
Speaker 6: eighteen eighty seven in Cleveland, Ohio, Albert Michaelson and Edward
Speaker 6: Morley set up an experiment to learn more about the
Speaker 6: ether by looking for the effects of something called the
Speaker 6: ether wind. You know how when you try to yell
Speaker 6: into a particularly strong gust of wind, your voice won't
Speaker 6: go very far, But if you yell with the wind,
Speaker 6: it'll go much farther. Scientists assume that as the Earth
Speaker 6: moved through this ether, it would create a similar kind
Speaker 6: of wind, but one that would affect the speed of
Speaker 6: light from Earth's perspective. So Michaelson and Morley set up
Speaker 6: the beams of light in a way that should have
Speaker 6: given them different speeds depending on whether they were traveling
Speaker 6: with against or perpendicular to the ether wind. Then they
Speaker 6: bounced the two beams off of mirrors so that they
Speaker 6: eventually reunited with each other and predicted the beams would
Speaker 6: arrive at slightly different times since they'd been sped up
Speaker 6: or slowed down by the wind, But the result one
Speaker 6: of the greatest failed experiments of all time. There seemed
Speaker 6: to be no difference between the two beams. It was
Speaker 6: like Earth wasn't moving through any kind of ether at all.
Speaker 6: Over the next few years, physicists tried to figure out
Speaker 6: how that could possibly make sense. Some said that the
Speaker 6: experiment just wasn't accurate enough, and tried repeating it with
Speaker 6: better and better equipment, but they still didn't find anything.
Speaker 6: But eventually they had to accept that it seemed like
Speaker 6: there was no such thing as an ether. Instead, light
Speaker 6: is just different from other waves. Turns out that the
Speaker 6: speed of light isn't affected by an invisible ether, and
Speaker 6: light speed through a vacuum is always the same. Space
Speaker 6: and time will even bend themselves to fit, which is
Speaker 6: where Einstein's special theory of relativity comes in. He helped
Speaker 6: put all these pieces together, showing that physics could work
Speaker 6: even without the ether. It just meant that completely mind
Speaker 6: bending things had to be happening, like time slowing itself
Speaker 6: down and unlike with the ether. Experiments have shown that
Speaker 6: Einstein was right Meanwhile, more physicists were working on some
Speaker 6: of the other questions raised by the fact that the
Speaker 6: ether didn't exist, Mainly, if light wasn't like a regular wave,
Speaker 6: what was it. After a whole lot of experimenting, they
Speaker 6: realized that even though light did act like a wave,
Speaker 6: sometimes it also acted like a particle, what's known as
Speaker 6: the wave particle duality. It was another brain melting idea,
Speaker 6: and one that eventually led to a whole new field
Speaker 6: in physics, quantum mechanics, the science of the very small.
Speaker 6: So the Michaelson Morley experiment might have banished the ether
Speaker 6: to the history books, but its failure also led to
Speaker 6: some of the most important ideas in science. Thanks for
Speaker 6: watching this episode of science.
Speaker 5: Okay, fair enough, now, I gotta say, just looking at
Speaker 5: that experiment and how they had it set up, I mean,
Speaker 5: aside from it proven that the ether doesn't exists or whatever,
Speaker 5: they're talking about the speed of light being off by
Speaker 5: a fraction of a cunt hair and them being able
Speaker 5: to register this in the eighteen hundreds, even they we
Speaker 5: still arguably don't even have the equipment that could make
Speaker 5: that comparison. I mean, even just saying that this light
Speaker 5: traveled a further distance than this light and for them
Speaker 5: to hit the same point they hit at the same time.
Speaker 5: That doesn't make sense. It's like, bro light travels so
Speaker 5: fast that we can barely even understand it. Like it's
Speaker 5: not even this the slowest of slow frame cameras are
Speaker 5: not going to pick up the difference between light A
Speaker 5: and light B hitting the same point. It's that's crazy
Speaker 5: to me that that is what they did to prove
Speaker 5: that the ether doesn't.
Speaker 4: Exist, right, And that's what there. They didn't necessarily prove
Speaker 4: that the ether doesn't exist. They proved that it doesn't
Speaker 4: move in the way that they thought it does. One
Speaker 4: of the differences between this type of scalar field and
Speaker 4: the ether, this is not necessarily e theoric. I mean,
Speaker 4: if you want to be honest, like when you think
Speaker 4: about the ether, it helped propagate the light, right, it
Speaker 4: helped it move through, it helped it actually gain just
Speaker 4: what it was as a whole. And this is very
Speaker 4: close to the Higgs field. For what quantum mechanics says
Speaker 4: allows mass to come from is no, because they're missing
Speaker 4: two thirds of the actual framework. Okay, so like quantum,
Speaker 4: quantum foam is parallel but also not complete to what
Speaker 4: I'm saying, because I'm also taking the relativistic framework into
Speaker 4: it as well and then using the full quarter neon equation.
Speaker 5: Okay, I mean even, like you said, the Higgs boson particle,
Speaker 5: like they knew it existed in the seventies, they just
Speaker 5: couldn't capture or quantify it until twenty twelve, right, So
Speaker 5: I mean they the ether has been used since the
Speaker 5: earliest days.
Speaker 4: Of alcohol a long time. Yeah, for just to.
Speaker 5: Put a moniker one of those Greek letters for lack
Speaker 5: of better words, on the unattainable. They knew that it
Speaker 5: had to exist in order to make the equation make sense,
Speaker 5: but it was something that they didn't have the right
Speaker 5: framework to actually quantify in some way, right, So I
Speaker 5: mean to compare the ether to the Higgs boson, that's
Speaker 5: kind of I see what you mean, But I feel
Speaker 5: like we're also trying to compare like Japanese language to
Speaker 5: Aztec language. Like it's not even we're not even in
Speaker 5: the same ballpark here.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. Yeah, but the
Speaker 4: the field structure itself is essentially the same as what
Speaker 4: they were predicting back then, except with quantum foam. There
Speaker 4: actually isn't any structure. It's just all energy. That's why
Speaker 4: when they hit a certain decoherence per their terminology, it
Speaker 4: goes into the quantum realm, it just vanishes. It's because
Speaker 4: it doesn't have the structure that's actually supposed to be
Speaker 4: around it in order to keep it there. The energy
Speaker 4: is still there, it's just spread out too far to
Speaker 4: actually like quantify any kind of structure, like any kind
Speaker 4: of shape to it.
Speaker 3: Gotcha, Hm, wow.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's gonna be some more interesting things coming up
Speaker 4: when I do go into I guess you could say
Speaker 4: more of the sacred geometry, when I go into some
Speaker 4: of the ripples that have been seen going across the moon.
Speaker 4: When I go into, for example, this theory, actually one
Speaker 4: outlines that what Royal Rife did is absolutely correct what
Speaker 4: he did the Rife machine.
Speaker 5: Ah well, yeah, we know that works for like motherfucker.
Speaker 5: Which for the record, anybody wants to check that out
Speaker 5: real rife technologies use the promo code cult at checkout anyway. Right.
Speaker 4: But I am showing that it works all the way
Speaker 4: from a actual field structure, because, as I showed you carbon,
Speaker 4: we're all just energy. Yes, when people say that we
Speaker 4: are just energy. You are one hundred percent correct, and
Speaker 4: the same type of things that will cause decoherence. For example,
Speaker 4: when you're taking if psychedelics lowers your decos coherence, it's
Speaker 4: all the same effects. It all translates over interesting.
Speaker 5: So, in your opinion, what can raise your decoherence possibly
Speaker 5: puts you in the a higher level of dimensional understanding
Speaker 5: or something like this.
Speaker 4: If not for substance, so would actually be So there's
Speaker 4: three parts of it. You have coherence, which is just
Speaker 4: the normal variable for it. Right, once it starts lowering,
Speaker 4: you enter a state of decoherence. Once it gets past
Speaker 4: the point of being able to retain its structure without
Speaker 4: some kind of outside influence, it actually hits a point of.
Speaker 5: Incoherence, incoherent to our human mind or incoherent on a
Speaker 5: mathematical platform both. I mean, what do you mean here? Again,
Speaker 5: we have MATT that equates to the twelfth dimension. Just
Speaker 5: our human brains would never be able to perceive any
Speaker 5: dimension outside of our own, but we know that it exists.
Speaker 4: Mathematically speaking, that's only due to string theory, which still
Speaker 4: hasn't actually been proven yet. I mean, it's just what
Speaker 4: the math is saying but I can actually attribute partial
Speaker 4: of string theory to this because you remember Tesla having
Speaker 4: the mirrored effects underneath him in the ground, right, Yeah,
Speaker 4: so understand that every celestial object is indeed a extremely
Speaker 4: large quarter neon, You're going to have that same mirrored effect.
Speaker 4: This is mostly where I believe that that statement of
Speaker 4: as above so below comes from. It is not talking
Speaker 4: about you as a person and just talking about the
Speaker 4: field itself.
Speaker 5: Interesting, go a little deeper in that. What do you mean?
Speaker 4: So there is actually, but literally a literally validity behind
Speaker 4: saying that the celestial alignment affects your mood. It actually
Speaker 4: does have a almost direct, almost type of string theory
Speaker 4: type of effect on you.
Speaker 5: Is that negligible or minuscule or are you saying like
Speaker 5: clearly because mercury is in rich are grade that's why
Speaker 5: all the white women are losing their shit this week.
Speaker 4: I'm just asking it now, You're good. It depends on
Speaker 4: the state of the individuals to begin with. If they
Speaker 4: are at a high coherence to begin with, no, they're
Speaker 4: not going to really be affected by it. If they
Speaker 4: are at a already unstable state, then yeah, it might
Speaker 4: push them over the edge.
Speaker 5: But then the same could be said for pretty much anything.
Speaker 5: If you are a person that is pretty sure of
Speaker 5: yourself and you've got your goals in mind, you got
Speaker 5: places you're going, outside forces are not really gonna be
Speaker 5: you up. If you're somebody who's easily swayed by the
Speaker 5: smallest thing, the smallest obstacle getting in your way is
Speaker 5: going to be the entire world crashing down, then obviously
Speaker 5: any small thing is going to set you off. That's
Speaker 5: that's kind of a painting with a broad brush, don't
Speaker 5: you think?
Speaker 4: Not really, it's just the you could because I remember,
Speaker 4: coherence has to do with not necessarily exactly memory, but
Speaker 4: it has to do with structure, It has to do
Speaker 4: with organization, It has to do with actual like what
Speaker 4: you're doing at a field level. So your coherence could
Speaker 4: actually fluctuate depending on your brain waves, what actual interactions
Speaker 4: you're causing with your thoughts, what interaction you're causing with
Speaker 4: your feelings, whether it's intentional or not. Yeah, so your
Speaker 4: your coherence could fluctuate.
Speaker 5: So somebody whose brain operates at a very high frequency
Speaker 5: of one of the very alpha dominant person types, who
Speaker 5: doesn't really matter if the sun came up or not
Speaker 5: this morning, we got shit to do today. We got
Speaker 5: to go, go go, as opposed to somebody who has
Speaker 5: a lower brainwave frequency that if one thing goes wrong,
Speaker 5: if they if they're making their morning cup of coffee,
Speaker 5: they're out of creamer, then the entire day is just fucked. Like, Yeah,
Speaker 5: I could see how the stars would appeal to one
Speaker 5: of these people a little more heavily than the other.
Speaker 2: And for anything, unless you're a fully fucking enlightened individual,
Speaker 2: there's going to be a little bit of fluctuation. I
Speaker 2: don't care how hard you are, if you're fucking David
Speaker 2: Goggins and you're out there just you know, talking shit
Speaker 2: to yourself all day, trying to be as big and
Speaker 2: bad and you know, buff as you possibly can.
Speaker 3: He has highs and lows. Everybody does. Nobody is.
Speaker 2: Nobody is flat like flatlining it depending on whatever your
Speaker 2: frequency is. I mean, that's that's why we drink coffee,
Speaker 2: that's why we drink energy drinks, that's why we have
Speaker 2: fucking vapes. It's all to basically try and get us
Speaker 2: to a like a steady level playing.
Speaker 3: Ground in which we're comfortable operating in.
Speaker 5: I mean, I get that too, but a perfect example
Speaker 5: there's a difference between Goggins and the person that is
Speaker 5: blaming mercury and retrograde for why they're weak as shit.
Speaker 5: There's like clear differences between the two.
Speaker 2: Well, there's differences in everybody, but that doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: one is going to be less or more affected by
Speaker 2: the alignment of the stars.
Speaker 3: How how what do you mean?
Speaker 4: How?
Speaker 3: I mean? I can't if we're saying.
Speaker 5: If Goggins is affected by the stars, it is to
Speaker 5: such a minute level that it would be called negligible,
Speaker 5: Like it's not something that actually affects his day to day.
Speaker 5: It might affect a thing, but it's not going to
Speaker 5: like decide the course of events for him, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but most of that shit is going on, like
Speaker 2: shit that you're dealing with internally, bro, it's not necessarily
Speaker 2: outwardly world.
Speaker 5: That's what he's saying, is that the outward world affects
Speaker 5: our inner world. That's his whole thesis.
Speaker 2: Right, And it's up to you to determine exactly how
Speaker 2: you're going to express that outwardly. But it first has
Speaker 2: to affect you inwardly. Wouldn't you think it has to
Speaker 2: go through that filter that filter field interactions Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean to say that somebody is not affected by
Speaker 2: it is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: So for example, like you know how some people when
Speaker 4: they walk into a room, they just light up the
Speaker 4: whole room, right, Yeah, that could actually be formulized in
Speaker 4: this theory depending on their like, once scans and tests
Speaker 4: are done to actually like calculate the real values, that
Speaker 4: could be formually shown to be an actual thing.
Speaker 5: Hmm.
Speaker 4: Okay, I could actually formulaly show after scans are done
Speaker 4: that maybe Alzheimer's is just a form of entropy.
Speaker 5: What do you mean, So.
Speaker 4: It's just entropy in science, is just a disorder, right,
Speaker 4: So it's like instead of it's essentially the same as
Speaker 4: the coherence factor, it is a but it's in the opposite,
Speaker 4: it's essentially decoherence, right. So it is just losing structure,
Speaker 4: It is losing the actual rebound of everything, the shape
Speaker 4: of whatever you're thinking, the thoughts that you have. It
Speaker 4: could actually be entropy at its at its hole, at
Speaker 4: its base level.
Speaker 5: So you're saying that Alzheimer's could be just a version
Speaker 5: of brain entropy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, at the smallest level, Yes, at the field level
Speaker 4: where we are measuring brain waves, we are measuring neuron synapses,
Speaker 4: We are measuring all of that. Yes, it absolutely could be.
Speaker 2: Is basically just a slow decay, right, Yes, yes, that
Speaker 2: would make sense then.
Speaker 5: So I didn't I mean, I've never thought that the
Speaker 5: laws of thermodynamics, as far as decay goes an entropy
Speaker 5: could play into I mean, yes, I understand the human
Speaker 5: body decays, right the right. A person's body at ninety
Speaker 5: five is not operating at such a high level as
Speaker 5: somebody who's twenty eight, Like I understand that. I didn't
Speaker 5: think that we were necessarily talking about entropy at that time,
Speaker 5: but I guess by any other definition, sure.
Speaker 4: All right, but if we actually prove, even by a
Speaker 4: quantum level, that these field interactions are happening, that very
Speaker 4: well could be a realistic future that we see because
Speaker 4: we were talking about at the very very very small level.
Speaker 4: Because I mean, you gotta remember, your brain is just
Speaker 4: made up of atoms, it's just made up of energy.
Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, again, it's kind of oversimplifying it, but yes,
Speaker 5: it is nothing more than a organ that is reacting
Speaker 5: off of electrical impulses and chemical components.
Speaker 4: Like based off of field interactions. Okay, fair talking about
Speaker 4: the smallest level of what's actually going on.
Speaker 5: But then everybody's different, right, everybody's brain chemical makeup is different.
Speaker 5: That's why you have so many people on any depressants
Speaker 5: because they have medically, well I'm not going to say
Speaker 5: so many. I feel like a lot of those people
Speaker 5: on any depressants probably shouldn't be on them. But you
Speaker 5: have some people that have like actual chemical imbalances that
Speaker 5: have happened naturally and they have to take outside sources
Speaker 5: to try to rebalance that out. You have certain people
Speaker 5: whose brains do not fire off on all cylinders as
Speaker 5: they should, and things like that. So I mean, I mean,
Speaker 5: I guess that goes into the conversation of like if
Speaker 5: stars will affect them or not? Are their brains more
Speaker 5: geared to let outside things affect.
Speaker 4: Them or not?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: And I mean.
Speaker 2: I think it goes beyond I don't know, I feel
Speaker 2: like you're watering it down little too much. They're Jacob,
Speaker 2: you if stars will affect them? These these stars are
Speaker 2: not just fucking rogue planets out there that are just
Speaker 2: hanging around. I mean, they're essentially fucking energetic fields that
Speaker 2: are projecting their energy onto the Earth and onto the
Speaker 2: individual as much as the sun is sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely, the sun has a direct impact on you.
Speaker 5: Yes, right, I mean that's also measurable, but not to
Speaker 5: the level that people have taken it. To say that
Speaker 5: Leo being on the horizon on this morning makes you
Speaker 5: have a certain personality trait because it was our birth,
Speaker 5: I think that that's a bit of a drastic assumption.
Speaker 4: Right, I'm saying it'll probably have a live effect, not
Speaker 4: that because you were born at a certain time, that'll
Speaker 4: be your personality that's based off of your environment, because
Speaker 4: these are the these are the more dominant field interactions.
Speaker 5: That's all I'm saying. It's like, Yeah, to say that
Speaker 5: it has a effect, that's like saying that, uh, you know,
Speaker 5: when we had that planetary alignment a couple of years ago,
Speaker 5: we had wreck high tidle waves. Therese were stars that
Speaker 5: were playing an effect on our physical world just based
Speaker 5: off of gravity sling shotting off of each other. And
Speaker 5: to say that that had some sort of an effect
Speaker 5: on our human bodies, even if it was a small
Speaker 5: or negligible amount, didn't mean that it didn't happen. I'm
Speaker 5: not negating that, right, but I feel like people will
Speaker 5: take that and run with it. And use that as
Speaker 5: an excuse to justify their behavior. And I'm not about
Speaker 5: that shit either. No.
Speaker 2: I mean, anybody doing anything as an excuse is never justifiable,
Speaker 2: right right, So yeah, I mean I agree somebody's like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you know one a scorre pio.
Speaker 3: It's like I don't give a fuck. You know, it's
Speaker 3: like figuring.
Speaker 4: Out that's not the dominant effect on your life exactly.
Speaker 5: And like you said with the Goggins example, yeah, there's
Speaker 5: outside forces affecting all of us, right, but there are
Speaker 5: certain people that just don't really deal with the bullshit
Speaker 5: or excuses and still got to get shited done today,
Speaker 5: you know. That's that's what I'm saying. Then you have
Speaker 5: the other people that will be looking for any excuse
Speaker 5: as to why they couldn't accomplish their tasks for that day,
Speaker 5: and then the whole you know, retrograde or this thing
Speaker 5: or this alignment will come into conversation for them, and
Speaker 5: it's like, Yo, there's no way that you woke up
Speaker 5: this morning truly feeling like Jupiter was in retrograde so
Speaker 5: hard that you couldn't get up and pay your fucking
Speaker 5: bills this morning. Like I'm sorry, I'm calling bullshit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, anytime you're using it as a crutch or something
Speaker 2: against you, I think that that's probably looking at it
Speaker 2: the entirely wrong way. I think that if you can
Speaker 2: use it for the benefit that you should be using
Speaker 2: it for, then use it. You know, like you if
Speaker 2: you believe that whenever there's an ascendant libra or whatever.
Speaker 3: The fuck.
Speaker 2: I don't even understand fully understand astrology. But whenever you
Speaker 2: believe that and you think that it's actually going to
Speaker 2: help you for today.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's placebo, maybe it's real fucking go with it.
Speaker 5: Not fair enough.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I'm not saying that I'm putting all
Speaker 2: my eggs in the basket of astrology.
Speaker 3: I think it's fascinating.
Speaker 2: I don't understand it fully well enough to be able to,
Speaker 2: you know, rightfully comprehended, probably to the to the level
Speaker 2: that you know it requires.
Speaker 3: But but yeah, I think.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying that it is going to set your
Speaker 4: mood for the entire day, but it could definitely push
Speaker 4: you over the edge.
Speaker 5: Okay, push you over the edge as far as like
Speaker 5: a psychotic break.
Speaker 4: I mean, depending on what state you're in.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, that's fair.
Speaker 4: I mean, you could either just you know, get pushed
Speaker 4: over that edge and say like I'm just chucking this
Speaker 4: day up as just a shitty day, or you might
Speaker 4: just have a total meltdown, depends on where you're at.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair enough, They're just subtle energies, that's the way
Speaker 2: you gotta look at them, Just subtle energies. Maybe you
Speaker 2: pick up on them, maybe it doesn't have any effect
Speaker 2: on you. But yeah, I don't know. Everybody has emotions.
Speaker 2: I mean we all we all go through the highs
Speaker 2: and lows of emotions thousands of times per day, and
Speaker 2: so to say that there wouldn't be any cause and
Speaker 2: effect from the stars is like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what honestly as of right now. So looking
Speaker 4: at uh, for example, Danny Goehler's experiments that he's doing, right,
Speaker 4: I can based off of the refracted laser that they're using.
Speaker 4: I do need to get some more information about the DMT,
Speaker 4: but I can actually predict exactly what symbols that they
Speaker 4: are going to be seeing.
Speaker 5: Really yes, because there seems to be a repetitive nature
Speaker 5: to the symbols that are being seen. It's not like
Speaker 5: every time he looks into the laser he sees something new,
Speaker 5: if anything. He explains it like it's like a matrix
Speaker 5: and it's almost like a alphabet of hieroglyphs that we
Speaker 5: in our American English have not seen before, but something
Speaker 5: that you can write down and that somebody else doing
Speaker 5: the exact same experiment could see the exact same hieroglyphs.
Speaker 5: So you're saying that based off of the outside forces
Speaker 5: in the situation itself, you can predict what nessa's they'll
Speaker 5: be receiving.
Speaker 4: What symbols, because the thing is, I there is actually
Speaker 4: something going wrong there because in this theory, you have
Speaker 4: to understand that light and sound are very similar, but
Speaker 4: sound is a mechanical part of light, so like sound
Speaker 4: can't do everything like can because it has to have
Speaker 4: a medium, right, which light just is just uh scalar interactions.
Speaker 4: So either the there's some kind of electromagnetic interference going
Speaker 4: on in his experiments, or it could be uh you
Speaker 4: know how A lot of people say, like, be careful
Speaker 4: who you get DMT from.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because especially these days because of the fentanyl and shit.
Speaker 4: But aside from that, but you don't want somebody that is, like,
Speaker 4: you know, in a bad mood or just a horrible
Speaker 4: person in general to make your DMT that is actually
Speaker 4: because they put a impression on the coherence of that substance.
Speaker 4: So yes, it could one hundred percent make you either
Speaker 4: have a bad experience or it could make you have
Speaker 4: a reduced experience. So, because sound and light are very similar,
Speaker 4: sound creates cymatics, right light actually also does this. And
Speaker 4: in those DMT experiments they should be seeing complete three
Speaker 4: dimensional basically light simatics which actually come out looking very
Speaker 4: similar to the quaternionic structure as it is. But because
Speaker 4: they're only seeing individual fractions of it which look like symbols,
Speaker 4: there is something going on, and there may be a
Speaker 4: possibility to where one day, once all of this gets
Speaker 4: one hundred percent mapped out, you can actually do that
Speaker 4: same experiment to figure out what kind of therapy you
Speaker 4: might need, like what part of you on the inside
Speaker 4: needs some kind of help, whether you want to call
Speaker 4: it shadow work or whatever whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 4: because you should be seeing a full blown light simatic
Speaker 4: with that, or you could say sacred geometry, whichever one
Speaker 4: you want.
Speaker 5: But how do we know that these symbols are not that?
Speaker 4: Because they should be whole, they shouldn't be fractured like
Speaker 4: they are.
Speaker 5: What do you mean by fractured?
Speaker 4: So the symbols that he's seeing like have you have
Speaker 4: you looked on him, like actually looked at him online
Speaker 4: and all that, So they should be full blown cimatics
Speaker 4: like actual like three yes, and actually more similar to
Speaker 4: sacred geometry type stuff than just symbols themselves.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe what he's looking at is is much bigger
Speaker 2: and he's only looking like zoomed in, you know, to
Speaker 2: a smaller piece.
Speaker 4: And it could that as well. Or it could be
Speaker 4: just maybe the frequency of the laser, I mean, even
Speaker 4: though it is red, maybe it needs to be just
Speaker 4: a little bit higher, just a little bit lower. There
Speaker 4: also could be just any kind of electromagnetic interference, like
Speaker 4: you could literally if you're using a cell phone too
Speaker 4: close to it, it could ruin the entire thing, right,
Speaker 4: A little bit radiation, just electromagnetism going through the air,
Speaker 4: if you have Wi Fi or if you have Bluetooth
Speaker 4: anywhere close to it, Yes, it can absolutely affect it.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well look, look you need to keep on digging, sir,
Speaker 2: because I feel like you're on one yeah, and that
Speaker 2: I don't even fully comprehend what you're on but I
Speaker 2: believe that you're on one.
Speaker 5: I felt like I kept up with a good bit
Speaker 5: of it, but then you got to a point where
Speaker 5: it started going way over my head and I'm like, shit,
Speaker 5: I'm trying to keep up here with fuck.
Speaker 4: And I for the most part knew that this was
Speaker 4: going to be a dry like introduction of this. We
Speaker 4: haven't got to the cool parts of this, to the
Speaker 4: parts that are very interesting, that are very fun. For example,
Speaker 4: do you remember in the live whenever we were talking
Speaker 4: about UFOs and how they move in the manner that
Speaker 4: they do. Yeah, this is easily done by the nulls,
Speaker 4: the coherence nulls, because you got to think even inside
Speaker 4: of inside of the nulls. So if they create one
Speaker 4: around the ship or inside of the ship, one time
Speaker 4: stops moving so it makes them look like they're moving
Speaker 4: really fast, or they could actually just disappear. In general,
Speaker 4: matter is matter and mass are manipulable, so they can
Speaker 4: change shape at will. This is not EM propulsion, This
Speaker 4: is not EM like technology. This is what actually drives EM,
Speaker 4: which is the scaler technology. For example, when we you know,
Speaker 4: talk about the uh diglockin right, that is a halfway
Speaker 4: product that is not one hundred percent on scaler technology.
Speaker 4: It is basically at the top of what em technology
Speaker 4: could do. There's a lot of things. Yeah, there's a
Speaker 4: lot of parts of this that, like I said, the
Speaker 4: introduction of this is dry, and I apologize to everybody
Speaker 4: and if you go through this, because like I said,
Speaker 4: by the time this episode goes live, this will be
Speaker 4: out at the very top of it. I do have
Speaker 4: the email that you could email me questions. Do whatever
Speaker 4: you want to do. I got no problem answering them.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to I am trying to get everybody to
Speaker 4: learn about this so that the way they can easily
Speaker 4: understand it. It is a hard learning curve at first
Speaker 4: because of the different terminology, the different ideas, but because
Speaker 4: of the fact that it's unifying once you learn that,
Speaker 4: it goes everywhere.
Speaker 5: I want to get my buddy, who is a well
Speaker 5: he's in the process of becoming a physicist as we speak.
Speaker 5: I would love to get him on the show with you,
Speaker 5: so y'all could chop it up and he maybe he
Speaker 5: could do a better Like I'm trying to draw comparisons
Speaker 5: to something that everybody can resonate with this, but I
Speaker 5: feel like I did a horrible job this episode. I
Speaker 5: want to get him to kind of bounce ideas back
Speaker 5: and forth with you and see what he thinks of
Speaker 5: all this. I'm going to get you back on. I might.
Speaker 5: I might try to see if he's available to come
Speaker 5: on with it too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we'll see. Uh, we'll see where we get to
Speaker 4: that point or where I'm at at that point, because
Speaker 4: we got some things lined up, like I'm gonna be
Speaker 4: talking to Crow here soon. For example, what he is
Speaker 4: seeing is stuff that I directly predict, what he's seeing
Speaker 4: with the sun, what he is seeing with the moon,
Speaker 4: all of that.
Speaker 2: Wow, Crows demand. I can't wait for you to have
Speaker 2: that conversation.
Speaker 3: Luke.
Speaker 2: Where are they gonna be able to find this information?
Speaker 2: We're gonna have it down in the show notes, the
Speaker 2: link to so that they can go through this document.
Speaker 4: I will send you all like wherever I end up
Speaker 4: actually posting it at where they can actually reach me
Speaker 4: is all capital d et and then all lowercase theory
Speaker 4: at proton dot me. I know it says theory twice.
Speaker 4: I didn't think about that until the end.
Speaker 2: But whatever be like that very well. We will put
Speaker 2: that down to the show notes and Luke, I think
Speaker 2: you came here and you you blew my mind to smithereens,
Speaker 2: and I'm just I'm gonna try and piece it all
Speaker 2: back together. But I think that you're really onto something, dude,
Speaker 2: and I appreciate the work that you're doing, and uh, dude,
Speaker 2: keep on doing it.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, I'm gonna I'm gonna try to. Like I said,
Speaker 4: we're gonna get into the more fun things soon. I
Speaker 4: just I knew it was going to be dry, but
Speaker 4: that's how it is in the beginning.
Speaker 5: Heard that that's how it is.
Speaker 2: So, as I had said earlier, if you guys want
Speaker 2: to be able to come and check us out on Patreon,
Speaker 2: that link is going to be down on the show
Speaker 2: notes below. But we do have a couple of other
Speaker 2: ways that you might be able to support us and yourself.
Speaker 5: Indeed, if you would like to support your own financial
Speaker 5: future and freedom, the best way to get your start
Speaker 5: in the buying, selling, and trading of gold and silver
Speaker 5: bullion would be to go to the link in the
Speaker 5: description below, cocsilver dot com. When you fill out your information,
Speaker 5: our homeboy Wayne Clark is going to be the one
Speaker 5: to reach back out to you and get you squared
Speaker 5: away in this regard. You want to buy a little silver,
Speaker 5: you want to buy a little gold, You want to
Speaker 5: get your start in the business side of all of
Speaker 5: this and become a distributor yourself. He's going to be
Speaker 5: the guy to talk to. Listen. Gold and silver have
Speaker 5: always maintained a value. The kings of old have used
Speaker 5: it as currency. I promise the kings of the future
Speaker 5: are going to use it as currency while it's still
Speaker 5: affordable and able. Right you can get your hands on
Speaker 5: some of it for yourself. Now is the time. Cocsilver
Speaker 5: dot Com once again is the best place to get
Speaker 5: your start. Another way that you could support not only
Speaker 5: yourself but this show and help us grow this cult
Speaker 5: community to even larger and further places would be too
Speaker 5: please at this time. Hit the five stars, hit the
Speaker 5: shares of licenscribes comments, sleep, post the review, and shares
Speaker 5: a defensive family shares. If we're here's the deal. The
Speaker 5: more activity the algorithm sees across all of our listening platforms,
Speaker 5: the more we get promoted to more potential listeners who
Speaker 5: could that become potential cult members like the rest of you. Find,
Speaker 5: ladies and gentlemen, why are you ready to go check
Speaker 5: out Metamisters, Jonathan's other show and getting the samelever of
Speaker 5: inspect over there with the five star reviews and the
Speaker 5: positivity in the comments. Come check out the Cage tonight
Speaker 5: and come join each of us for our individual Patreon
Speaker 5: lives that we host every Wednesday night at nine pm
Speaker 5: Central link to those in the description below as well,
Speaker 5: and we thank you if everybody's already gone and done so.
Speaker 2: And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 2: of the Cult of Conspiracy. And my name's Jonathan, well Jacob,
Speaker 2: and there's one very important, extremely vital piece of information
Speaker 2: where we need you to learn just as soon as
Speaker 2: humanly possible.
Speaker 5: Oh hey, cult members, Jacob here just want to ask
Speaker 5: who wants better sex? The best way to get started
Speaker 5: is to go to Adam and Eve dot com right now.
Speaker 5: Adam Eve is offering fifty percent off just about any item,
Speaker 5: but that's not all. When you get one item, they
Speaker 5: will also send three bonus sexy items and six free movies.
Speaker 5: They offered a screet shipping as your privacy is a priority.
Speaker 5: Plus free shipping on your entire order doesn't matter how
Speaker 5: much you spend or what you buy. All we packaged
Speaker 5: and sent discreetly for free. That's fifty percent off one
Speaker 5: item and ten free gifts to boot bring more pleasure
Speaker 5: and satisfaction into your bedroom. Just go to Adam and
Speaker 5: Eve dot com and select any one item. It could
Speaker 5: be an adventurous new toy or anything you desire. Just
Speaker 5: enter the offer code cult at checkout and you'll get
Speaker 5: fifty percent off almost any item, plus ten free gifts,
Speaker 5: three bonus items, six free movies, and free shipping. Use
Speaker 5: the offer code cult that cult at Adam and Eve
Speaker 5: dot com. Now, this is an exclusive offer specific to
Speaker 5: this podcast, so be sure to use this code to
Speaker 5: get you not just the discount and the free goodies,
Speaker 5: but also the one hundred percent free shipping with the
Speaker 5: code cult