Roy D. Herbert's Unification Dilation Theory

This is Ashon Forbes. You are on Hard Trews number five. Hard Trews
the podcast where we ask the hard questions and we get the hard truths.
We seek scientific answers. We see answers about things that are conspiracies, out
there, stuff that people do not feel comfortable hearing about. So thank you
all for being with us. Roydy Herbert, thank you very much. Theoretical
physicist. He is also the proponent of dilation theory, which is a theory
that seeks to understand the nature of space time and what it means respect to
our lives. Ready, Herbert, thank you very much, sir. Welcome,
thank you, and good offtenoon to you. So let's just get right
off to it. We have limited time and I have a lot of stuff
I want to ask you. So, first of all, what is your
job? What do you say? Well, how do you describe yourself to
people on social media or people that you run across, et cetera. Out
there? Theoretical physicist essentially, that's what I do. I think about problems
within physics, come up with ideas to solve them. And how'd you get
interested in it? Interesting? Since I was a little boy, essentially a
fascination with the cosmos and nature to a degree that I have now uncanny understanding
of things. I used to keep my brothers awake at night hypothesizing black holes
when I was about seven to eight years old and stupid things like that.
So who's your favorite Sorry to interrupt you, So who's your favorite physicist out
there? Who do you look to for inspiration when it comes to physics and
stuff like that. My main mentor, I would say, would be Carl
Sagan. Carl Sagen, yeah, from the past, but my current I
would call my chief officer at the moment possibly Cliff Burgess, who's an extraordinary,
extraordinary talented physicist and theoretical business and we share a lot of musings on
social media. And what do you think what inspires you about their understanding of
physics or what do you gravitate to you towards them. I guess we're going
to use a physical physics concept. I think it. Well, Cliff is
one hell of a guy, So there's that. So it doesn't really matter
about his ideas. You know, he has a sort of open attitude towards
things and towards people, and he responds, so that's a bonus people usually
do not engage, you know, that sort of level, but Click is
one of those people who will engage with it, so he's great. Those
are kinds of people I like to and that's the kind of person that I
try to be as well. Somebody that doesn't judge people based on how many
followers they have or whatever, just tries to get out there and answer questions
for people. It gets harder though, the more followers you get, for
sure. Yeah. I tried to answer as many questions as possible. I
mean, some of them are quite silly, as you get someone quite ludicrous,
but the vast majority are very, very important, and even from people
who have not been sat in the world of physics for all their lives or
within any level of some sort of professional career. Yeah, that's why you're
responding to people this morning as well. So thank you very much for your
effort. And honestly, I was one of those people once upon a time,
and look at us now now we're sitting here doing the hard Trews number
five with you, So thank you again for being here. Let's just jump
right into the physics. So can you explain dilation theory to us? I
have it in my profile. I'm a big believer in it. I believe
in the simplicity of it. But I want to hear it in your term,
in your words. Feel for you to take as much time as you
want. Okay, right, Well, diition theory asked us to consider time
okay, differently okay, and looking at those weird and wonderful attributes of time
and asking ourselves sent what's going on? That's what I did, and that's
why I come up with dilation theory. Essentially, we should consider time like
all things within our cosmos, governed by the laws of conservation. Okay.
When we do so, we find that time holds a fluidity in its continuous
nature. Okay, it goes back to a theorem chnorance serum. We have
things that have a continuous nature within the universe. In an linear emotional all
the way or any sort of fashion will invoke conservational symmetry. We see this
with liquid smoke, for example, where smoke is forced to share a direction
and force through an aperture for example, which shares linear motion, and then
it turns. Conservational symmetry kicks in and the smoke turns to a fluid well
time turns to a fluid, though we don't perceive the fluid side of time
because we are what one could say abstractions within the flow time we only ever
experience and would consider are now a dynamic eternal moment where the property is of
any moment to note a particular outcome that gives us a resolution to the paradoxical
issue of the double slit it for example, whereby the observer is simply an
added property of any moment. Okay, they're even looking. They're not properties
change. See, it's a dynamic. So essentially symmetry is and behavior within
things. I'm not they don't break as such as what is the current thinking.
They are dynamic in that they change according to your changes. Okay,
so if we can consider those nows to be continuous, they invoke conservational symmetry.
Therefore, time we can consider to be a fluid symmetry. So if
we use some fluid dynamic analogies that we are more familiar, we take our
minds to say a screen. Okay, we look to the banks of the
stream. The flow of the river, they're all the stream slows, is
slowed by the bank. If you were to throw sticks in by the bank,
you would notice all the plots in there around it is being gathered by
that slowing of the flow gathered to the banks. Okay, well, what's
going on. Well, wherever we get slowing effects within fluid relativistic fluid dynamics,
we get a passive transversal inertia that is born that drags that flotsam to
the shore to the slowest relative speed of its flow. But if we look
dead mid stream in our flow of our stream, as it were, the
fastest flow in the stream, there is no inertia. So you know,
our analogies to time as it were, the fastest relative flow will have zero
G is zero inertia state. Okay, And where time has almost stopped as
it were, it's very very very slow. We have very very high inertia.
We see this with black holes. So if we use our analogy of
our friends, for example, the phenomena we see them whipping around very very
fast, one could consider that and therefore having no inertial gravity upon them.
Well, they're holding a relative past a rate of time. Then they're surrounding.
It's as simple as that. Well, and so there's a couple of
things I want to ask on that. Then would that hold true as well
to let's say, like small objects, small creatures, beings like bugs and
ants, and I think dragonflies as well as would you consider that to be
a similar phenomenon just scaled down exactly? If we take the analogies of the
dragonfly, for example, it's a very much more simplified thing. It's very
small, therefore it's ultimate. You know, the makeup of it of itself
is much more less complicated than me and you, So therefore it will hold
a much faster relative rate of time. We call it a relative rate of
time bullet time, okay, because we've done some things with them, and
these things can dodge bullets ses species, so they can you know, they
have a much faster relative rate of time. Let's put analogy. If we
were to look at a wristwatch, for example, if we could upon the
dragon fly's wrist, we can give him one for a moment imaginary. If
we were to be able to view upon that riskwatch, it would have an
incredible rate of time, be ticking away very very fast. But to him,
the dragonply, it's normal ti toop seconds. You see what I mean.
It's yes, things can hold different relative rates of time. Now one
of those funny things is and we just had a result pushed it in yesterday
was with the neutral style side of data that's just come in from the LIGO
results. One of those little quirks that come out previously before that, a
week before that, was the correlation of the spin rate of neutron stars to
the spin rate of certain forms of contact, in that they correlate precisely.
Now, so how is that working? Well, neutron stars essentially hold an
extended electron cloud, and they're poor hold the properties of contact and are therefore
given the phase of quantat Yeah, yeah, sorry, I'm listening. I
was just can you see the screen right now? I'm not sure I shared
because I think is this the example you were talking about from yesterday? Yes,
yes, sorry myself disappearing through me. I probably confused you for a
second. Yes, what we've discovered here is that essentially a neutron star is
a supersized atom. Okay, so okay, what's going on? Well,
basically what's going on is the material has been pressed down to such a degree
that the electrons within the actual material of the actual neutron star can't sit there.
Okay, they get extended and by having that extended electron cloud essentially emulates
the properties of quanta, the apport the universe considers our neutron star. Even
that's the size of a neutron star quanta. So things essentially can be considered
quanta if they help the properties of quanta no matter what their scale. I
call this thing dynamic behaviorism, and that properties to know the behavior outcome independently
of scale. Yeah, so with respect to a neutron star, then you're
saying that the neutron star can teleport move at the speed of Later, what
kind of properties are we going to be able to see from an object like
a neutron star that appears to achieve the properties of quantum Here we're talking about
like just the pressure is causing the atoms and or the neutrons and the protons
to I don't know, maybe even call LESCo into this quark matter, I
think is how it was described, which then allows the whole object to act
like an atom. You know, what kind of things can we see from
that that can prove that to us to prove this unification of very large objects
small objects, Well, we can test that spin rate for example, and
that correlation to that quantent rate is sigma. Okay. We can look at
the actual makeup of the neutron star, and as we can see from the
makeup of that, which is that you provided that it checks out, okay,
So we can see all these different bits and pieces. Basically what we're
looking at is we're looking at the behavior of the thing, okay, and
the powers and the scales and the energies that are coming off. And if
we take those and we take them reduce them down to the quantent scale,
they correlate precisely, okay. So we can pretty much firmly guess okay,
that's definitely considered an atom okay by the universe. So which provides some issues
in that things can hoodwork hedwink the universe essentially into considering them at the microscale
and with it the package that comes with it. Now, when you're at
that scale as such, or considered that scale, you no longer interact with
the largest scale in the same way, and there's a set of different rules
that apply to you. As you pointed out the rules of quantat okay,
So certain things can hold superposition. We can imagine a black hole to be
a neutron star in superposition not holding a physical state at all at that particular
time because of its underlying quantum information, cannot come to determination of precisely what
is there. So, in other words, black hole is where a neutron
star can no longer be rendered within our universe. That's really interesting because it
seems like that would be the ultimate conclusion of the quark matter situation, right
where you get so much pressure, so much gravitational force there that it now
causes us to have this you could even call it a non radiant barrier.
But you know, you see the essentially the shell of the black hole,
you know, the event horizon, right where we can't see anything past that
anymore. So it does seem like it could be possible that a black hole
is simply a neutron star, And I think physics would say that it is
potentially just a more dense, more massive object, one that caused that potential
phase transition to happen in even a larger state. So I think that that's
the beauty I think of in my mind. The physics that you've put forth
is that it provides an underlying symmetry, or I guess, for lack of
a better term, unification of things that are very small versus things that are
very large. And someone sent me a tweet the other week actually as above,
so below, and it is the case. It is a geometric unity
essentially, and that geometric unity is a cheap conservational symmetry. You know where
that statement comes from, as above, so below. I've heard that so
many a lot of times. Curious question. I have no idea, and
someone sent it to me, and then someone told me. A colleague told
me, oh, don't let them take you down there, for God's sake,
and I said, okay, maybe someone in the chat can tell us.
Yeah. The other thing I just want to quickly back up up again
on is that when you were talking about the double slit experiment in time,
I think that that's very interesting to me in terms of like the way we
perceive times through our own initial frame of reference, because now you can still
hear a lots of physics, but now you can have things like non locality
and quantum entanglement exist where it's like there's an underlying framework that we can't see
because of our biology, because of our frame of reference, that can allow
things to move faster in the box. Yes, exactly, Yeah, locked
in the box is a good way to put it, right. And there's
a meme that's been going around recently that I really like a lot where it's
the guy that looks to the side and looks straight ahead, and when he's
looking at the side that you have the wave pattern, and then when he's
looking straight ahead and then it breaks down to the double slits, right,
And so yeah, I think that your idea and understanding of time or dilation
theory seems to make a lot of sense to me. And just to reiterate,
and you can jump in here. You know, for a lot of
people don't understand time dilation is a real concept. Right, So what we're
talking about with frames of references has already been proven for fifty years or more,
right, Yes, long time, long time. Yeah, it's nothing
new. This is what it is. I'm not suggesting anything new. I'm
just asking that certain principles that we have adopted over the last eighty years,
that being conservation, should be applied to time. Yeah, and that time
can be described as an etropic, emergent phenomena essentially that comes from all things
within the cosmos, even if they hold no as a cality at all,
there's still some determination of what's going on. So therefore there is some form
of change, and they've got time, you's know what I mean. So
where we have nothing in the university example, nothing at all, then we
get expansion of the universe. And where we have that slowing of time at
all, we have a compression of the universe essentially, So these two things
are you see what I mean? Do you think that explains dark energy?
Well, skipping a head, one could consider dark energy to be essentially the
canvas of our reality. M Okay, it's bubbling up as almost like a
deport as it were, the determination and null determination as it were. It's
it's quite it's quite difficult to get your head around. But if we look
at dark matter, for example, if we now, okay, the thing
for a problem with dark matter is that we cannot equate certain courses of gravity
that we see within galaxies, okay, according to the amount of mass that's
there. So that's why we call it dark It's something there that we can't
touch, we can't see, but it's causing this gravity. Well, the
big problem was that they never knew actually what was the cause of gravity.
But if we actually now that down. Now, say, okay, if
we put it into an abstract form, Let's say, okay, here's my
abstract complexities of quantum information. Determination denote one's dilation, and dilation stress on
that fluid symmetry of emergent time denotes gravity. Okay, so the dilation stress,
the slowing of time powers the inertia of gravity. So what is that
dark matter? Well, essentially that dark matter is now an unqualified form of
dilation. So what we should be looking for is something that's slowing time.
What possibly could be slowing time? Well, let's take, for example,
the start of a galaxy in its life cycle. It's hydrogen cloud and nebuli
like. Okay, let's take its particular dilation and rate of time. We
know that particular dilation rate of time of particular quanta is like our neutron start
very very fast. Okay, needs to get slowed down, as it were,
so that gravity starts to take effect. We need some dilation. Okay.
More complex forms of energies are created in this stellar evolutionary process. That
matter, Now that's still that hydrogen. It's same stuff, but it's now
transformed. Okay, it's transformed into more and more and more and more complex
forms of matter. Is there galaxies dilation? They going to be exactly the
same as that Nebulie cloud, even though it's exactly the same mass. No,
of course it's not. The complexities of the determination denote the dilation.
Okay, So things are getting more and more complex, they're taking longer and
longer and longer to determine in time. Okay, that gives you your missing
factor. Also, galaxy should come to at some point life. Okay,
we'll have a galaxy's audience could also be that missing factor of ue qualified dilation.
You see what I mean. So, yeah, we start to look
at once, we start to look at gravity and time and its relationship between
that and energies. Okay, and knowing resolving that issue, then it resolves
not just gravity but all of the issues. And it really lays it out
in a much more common sense way. You can see things. You don't
need a degree, you don't need a PhD. You just need common sense.
Yeah. And I was watching a presentation which I want to get into
with you in a few minutes. By pointed out that if you were to
just take from a quantum level to try to understand and graph how information gets
more complex. You could look at it like a string, where the strings
getting longer, longer, longer, and longer longer, And then the idea
there is somewhat the same, which is, as things get more complex,
the string just keeps getting longer, keeps growing, And that could be you
could analogize that to the inertia. Right, You're getting more and more inertia,
which is slowing things down, which is making things that's complex. So
that's why one of the questions I wanted to ask you is what do you
think dark matter is? But I think you just went ahead and answered it
for us is yes, you know, complexity is the answer? Right?
Is that you think that's a growth of complexity of whatever mass you have in
space time? Right? Is that is that something that want? Well,
it points to it goes back again to the double slit in that it points
to the universe to being stochastic and deterministic rather than probabilistic. Okay, that's
what it means. It means that there's something else going on under the hood,
a process whereby a determination it's passed beyond the paradigm as it were,
of emergence, then is returned and according to how long that took to return,
that denotes one's installation. Okay. So I call this underlying modu superandi
dynamic behaviorism okay, in that that basically essentially is all defined in the eternal
dynamic moment that now okay, and your properties denote the particular outcome for you,
okay, And that ultimately is a form of conservation of well in that
it denotes what conservational symmetry should be applied to you in time. So this
thing can look backwards and pause in time to determine what it should do for
the now to give a more concerned outcome, perhaps even in the future.
Yeah, that is explaining Yeah, happens outside of our emergent time. So
in other words, there are more layers of emergent time that we have yet
to discover. Aha, leg that's great. I love that. I wish
I had a snow globe right now, because that's I always think of it
like the snow globe scenario where it's like you can shake the snow globe,
you can watch it go. But that's not our time on the outside,
right, it's something else, like a mini universe that's going on there.
And to me, what you're saying means that there's I'm just going to call
it the matrix. I just love the idea of the matrix. Right,
there's an underlying matrix in which our reality is being projected onto, right,
because that's the only way you can explain how you have this capability to look
backwards and forward in time. Would you kind of agree that there must be
this must imply some sort of construct to our universe. Yes, the double
slicks experiment itself. As I've been saying, that form of dynamic behaviorism points
to quite you or a soft we developer. You're painting an area of the
screen. You need to determine what's there by the properties of what the debuwer
is looking at. Property is to note the outcome. It's a holographic paint
event. That now is a holographic paint event, and it is dynamic.
And I'm not sure if it can be overloaded. When you say overloaded,
what do you mean in terms of more adding more parameters? Perhaps interesting?
Yeah, it does make me wonder if you could hack into the underlying code.
Right, if you think of it from like a computer program stars a
neutron stars to ingust that and so our friends. Yeah, and we're going
to talk about that in a minute as well. Before we get that,
though, I want to stick with a little bit more scientific uh stuff as
well. So one thing I want to ask you is do you believe in
string theory? So one thing you mentioned is I hadn't actually heard this that
you mentioned in terms of like I like to think of it as a universe
is able to look backwards and forwards and figure out what it should do,
right, and that's definitely what we're seeing a double slit experiment. So do
you think this supports the idea of string theory or what's your idea of your
concept or understanding string theory fits in there? Okay, I'm not going to
destroy every swampy's dream. Yeah okay, which is a nickname we give for
people who work in string. It's not an insult, okay, But basically,
yeah, string theory fits in there someway in that that determination has to
change what's there. Okay. So even that determination done, the universe has
to perform that actual action of saying okay, draw you render you as So
now that yeah, string theory comes in. So one could say that that's
the communication medium between the dynamic behavior modus operando and the fabric of reality itself
abstract. Okay, that's yeah, So that's where the fields come in.
Essentially, the fields are that manipulation process at work. Okay. But my
stuff is more of what's going on behind the hood as it were, you
know, under the hood, and projecting that as it were, understanding gravity
more and this geometric unity that's obviously there. I mean to be honest with
you, I'd be totally honest with you. I don't want to be egotistical.
But all this is pretty much Charles playing for me. I've been doing
this for like since nineteen ninety seven. I actually put the first thing together.
So I've been shouting at doors for years and years and years and years,
and every single result that comes out ast and it's like bang, more
sigma, bang more sigma, and they're still going, no, we're not
listening, we're not listening. We're still hunting for this over here and dark
matter and no, we're sure gravity is like this, and they're still going
to fail fail. Well yeah, but it is. It really is a
lot of it's really basic stuff, basic relativistic fluid dynamics and laws of conservation,
and yes, it's just ignored. It's just stupid. Sorry it is.
Yeah, No, I think we can talk about that for a second
too, because I was just posting yesterday and I was digging into this investigation
and I found this guy, Matthias Chang, and I found this quote from
this interview he did, which was really good, where he says that people
are asking him what do you think happened that? What do you think is
going to happen with regards to this plane investigation. He says, well,
people are so brainwashed and conditioned by what they get told, and people that
are the authority that they're willing to believe just at face value, whatever someone
says in terms of they give him a story from the authority, people believe
it. And that's what I've come to realize. And I think this stuff
like you mentioned, threatens the paradigm, But isn't that what science has always
been. Science is not a process of gradual improvement. What it is is
people break through the barrier, right, and they set a new paradigm and
then people are just that's been live view. I don't know what your thought
is. It's been going on since Galileo Copanicus, Einstein, you name it,
Newton, Darwin, you name every single breakthrough in human understanding. It's
been kicked and pushed into the gutter. And you know the person's been kicked
and pushed into the gutter as well. You know that sort of stuff,
because there isn't an orthodoxy as it weren't that is entrenched with its own Interesting
now, if I mean, I know, I'm right, Okay, it
might might. You know, I'm not alone anymore. I've got one of
the world's leading mathematicians to go through this in the last two years and go
ship you're right, you know, And he's done all the math in the
equations and everything else, and you probably see what amount of wels leading physicists
and now follow me. You know, they know they smell something right blood
in the waters. It's a something that's feeding time. Well, I say
to them, don't bloody argue because I'm using their argument against because we present
the invariants and all the data and everything to them, we say, don't
argue, calculate and just go with a blow baby. That's good. Given
the analogy of the stream, I like it. I want to go back
real quick to the dark energy stuff, because I think that's really interesting that
something I had never considered as well, which is that, you know,
the way that conventional academia explains the universe says that there's this big bang,
which let's just go with it for now. I'm not sure one hundred percent
agree, But the thing about it is that they say that the universe would
have had to expand faster than the speed of light. Right, And this
also kind of comes into play when we start talking about quantum teleportation, right
and talk about superluminal speeds. Well, if you have if you think of
the underlying matrix with nothing projected on it, there, you have exactly zero
inertia. Right, so now you are going to have superluminal speeds are now
possible. Right, And now that could explain dark energy. How you get
this expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. So that's a
new thing that I've just kind of epiphanized on based on our conversation just now.
So did you have any comments on that? Yes? How many systems
you're a programming developed, how many systems have you mounted and started an instant
and a lot of the cpure, Yeah, quite a lot. I've been
on a lot of sites across the country. Go ahead, go and mount
something very very juicy, and then kick it into run. But as you're
mounting it, look at the actual pressures and the loads on the CPU,
and all the memory, and all the heat and the tempera that's being kicked
out by your system. Measure it all in grass and then align that craft
to the expansions and the other bits that were happening within our universe, and
one will find a correlation. That's a good idea. I didn't really think
about that, but yeah, I mean it's a things of like, yeah,
bringing on a new computer system, you know, watching the power us
increase over time, get more and more complex. You could say that there's
this pretty strong analogy to what you know, our universe is. And even
the fact that we even have computers and you can describe everything in ones and
zeros almost makes me wonder, is that already us hacking into the underlying framework
of what our matrix reality really is? So well we know that. You
know, if we take my theory and we say that time is an emergent
in tropic phenomena, then it's emerging from somewhere Okay. Now my ideas are
that it emerges from what we could. We would use analogies as within the
development worlds as parental domain, for example, so that parental domain, our
emergent contextual duality emerges up. Okay. We could call that parnal domain the
domain, not quantum information. Okay. But ultimately I believe that a methodology
at work, that dynamic behaviorism, that modus underlying modus operandi is it says
to me, I am a behavioral government methodology. Okay, the similarities are
just far too strong, Okay, So one could look at that. One
could also use the analogies of a virtual abstract terminologies when looking at our duality,
for example, our virtual side of magnetism and so on, and the
abstract electricity doing that duality as it were, we are, for example abstract.
That's interesting, Dave ROSSI was just talking about the duality of magnetism electricity
yesterday in our space and giving analogy of the male and the female. One
thing I want to ask real quick, would you say, am I defining
dynamic behaviorism correctly? When I would say that it's essentially going back the double
slow experiment, how the universe is able to look backwards and forwards and determine
what should happen. Is that would that be a good way of describing it.
Yes, it is the underlying modus operandi of our abstract reality. It
governs conservation, which is everything essentially, even timed light, absolutely everything in
the universe is governed by conservation, even this dynamic behaviorism. So conservation comes
from a higher contextuality. So what I mean, Ashton? It has it
has parental it has precedence as such in the order. Yes, so it's
coming from much higher. It's like there's a hierarchy of rules, right,
and it's like, okay, that's the hierarchy of the top hierarchy in you've
got it, it's the top constraint. Interesting, so one, Yeah,
and therefore one could basically visit excep or that the and I think who is
it? Edibly? Gerald T. Hoof put out publication a year ago after
I went public, proposing almost exactly the same in the the laws of physics
are essentially an inheritance of those constraints, as it were, up the scales.
Okay, so yeah, we can we can answer all all the all
the problems where all the laws how that's all coming through and so on and
all those bits and pieces. But it's like going back to the point.
You ate, what was the point you were making about? Remind me if
you can they always do this? No, I think that that was That
was pretty much it. It was just the idea of this construct and then
that these rules that we have on top of it, and understanding what dynamic
behavior is a parental domain I was I was talking about the parental contextual domain.
Yeah, now is that the ultimate contextuality? Perhaps not? You know,
where does it stop? I don't know. So if we think about
okay, the freedom and okay, and then we talk about the dimension of
the gauge of time, we've got four dimensions. Anything else from that,
we shouldn't really be looking at it as dimensional. We should be looking at
it as contextual, okay, as a former contextuality. Okay. So we
exist in as we know already, we exist in a few different contextualities.
You're abstract, I'm abstract. Okay. There's also a fluid quantum side to
us. We know that we exist as well as quanta. Okay, we
know what those properties are. Now we understand it all about that. You
know that very cold thing. But that's part of you and it's not harming
you, is it. So we have much to learn about this other side
to our contextuality. Okay, that other side of that contextuality to us doesn't
hold a physicality. I like that understanding because I've always struggled with this idea
of like five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, dimensions,
right, I think it needs to be simplified down where it's like,
Okay, we've got the three dimensions that we see are three axes, right,
I can explain this, right, three axes, and then you've got
the fourth one, which we can understands time because we understand time dilation is
a real thing, right, and we understand frames of reference. But beyond
that, I like the idea of the rest of its contextual Right, It's
like trying to understand how we all relate to one another. Doesn't mean there's
necessarily another dimension that's there. Just means that there's more properties or more underlying
behaviors that we don't quite understand related to the dimensions that we do experience.
It's just different forms of contextuality of the same thing. That's where you have
the geometric unit, and it's that conservational nature of the universe that's providing for
us. Yeah, yeah, if I could opine just for a second too,
I think that my mind's already starting to get blown from this, but
I am starting to think that there's a relationship between engineering and physics itself where
you need to understand the rules, right, the dynamic behaviors, and the
upper bounds of what those rules are in the hierarchy of them in order for
engineering to be able to know how to produce the effects that you want to
be able to create. Right. Once you have that relationship, then once
they kind of mesh, now you can I would say, perform magic essentially,
Oh gray hot please. And I don't know if we're talking about Star
Trek replicators, but you know, why not, honestly, why not at
this point if you can relate matter to that degree and you can actually make
the quantum information inside of the contextuality, we could potentially say, oh,
don't render me here, render me there. And that's what we've been seeing
happen with quantum teleportation. They just teleported a picture, a full picture was
teleported, I think just last week, where I think it's amazing that science
is starting to catch up with you know, us you and you know,
and the destigation that we've been putting in. Yeah, and you know,
like you said, it's in thirty years, right and yeah, nineteen ninety
seven, nearly thirt years, yeah, twenty five, thirty years. And
and then you know, every day I think that we get more and more
evidence that you know, begins to show that, know, these types of
concepts aren't just you know, crazy theories. They're just stuff that actually explains
reality better than conventional understanding. Right, Yes, it really does, and
it does so very very simply, and one doesn't require agree just common sense.
Yeah, okay, that's what we record. So one thing. The
next thing I want to come want to go to, which is similar to
what we've been talking about, is are you familiar with Suskind and Maldacina by
any chance eer equals epr no speed? Then yeah, this is Newtonian physics
essentially, and string theories and you know, the field theories and so on.
So most of us have been washed away. So here's what their theories
are. They've had this theory called eer equals ep are, and what it
essentially means is general relativity is equal to quantum mechanics. And this uh,
and actually, before I get to this, I just want to ask you
a pretty simple question and you can answer however you want. Is do you
think that we already have unification theories of quantum macro? Y? Yeah?
And would you say that your theory of time of dilation theory is one of
those theories or if not, what would you consider to be one of those
theories that unifies quantum macro to be, dynamic behaviorism is the unifier. Dilation
theory is the explains the cosmos of what we see and gravity and the structure
of the largest scale, whereas dynamic behaviorism covers the other side of the veil
across the paradigm as well. So you have to put them together. To
unify the cosmos. One has to answer all phenomena in the universe, not
just that what we know and understand. Now, yeah, okay, so
it sounds like yes, you're saying you're saying yes, And so just to
reiterate, just correct it requires two sides to the coin as it were to
be to be solved, rather than just the one. Yeah, god yeah,
yeah, And so that's where the er equals EPR is And just a
correct something I said before is that I don't think we would describe as Newtonian
physics. It's more of Einstein Rosen physics. Now eers Einstein Rosen and what
we're talking about there is wormholes like a bridge in general relativity. Some people
have argued that black holes might have either another black hole on the other side
or white hole, however you want to think of it. But you can
think of an underlying bridge and the matrix right where you can break through and
take a short cut. Right, It's like you find a little shortcut.
And then EPR is Einstein Poldowski Rosen, which is quantum entanglement, spooky action
at a distance. Right. And so what Suska and the Maldosine have argued
is, well, these concepts are fundamentally related. Now quantum entanglement, you
know what you're talking about, dynamic behaviorism, right is it's taking a shortcut,
it's finding that underlying way through the matrix, same way as the wormhole
analogy is. And so what they argue is that there is no difference between
the two. It's really just a matter of perspective in size, similar to
what you would argue with respect to your properties that are out there. Yes,
and so when we already have stuff like quantum, we have quantum entanglement,
we have quantum teleportation literally teleporting pictures. Right. It makes me wonder
if perhaps it's just a matter of our perspective, is that we're not going
to see a wormhole like when we look out there, right, We're just
going to see maybe even just the mouth of it, maybe even not that
much. And it's not like it has to be something that's sitting out there.
It's not since I can tell you like Star Trek Star Trek Deep Space
nine, where this big worm whole thing appears and you're looking inside of it,
right, that's not really what's going to end up happening, right,
because when we look at quantum teleportation, it's not something where you're like,
we can see through the whole of where this information is teleporting. It's just
that there's this underline framework that we can't see, right, that's able to
do that. Now, what are your thoughts in general about that theory and
that unification? Sure? Okay, Well, as I expressed, the inndication
comes from the geometric conservational symmetries. Okay, so that explains all the unifying
of the scales. Okay, in that basically the proper the rule of that
it's basically a new law, the first law, okay, in that our
properties to note our behavioral outcome. Those behaviors are the states of matter for
example, okay, like the bose Einstein Coom said, that's one of those
base states of matter. Water as a fluid, is, as a gas,
is as ices, and so on. So these are not things that
we don't understand and we don't know about. It's just that we different terminologies.
Okay. Now, wormholes, yes, potentially okay, as I said,
if you can manipulate the contextual domain of quantum information, but it's not
in the same way you see, because this is when they've got all relativity
wrong Ashton, okay, in that that underlying thing of the energy tensor is
it's right, it's right, okay, But there's more to it, as
it were, in that the more entropy energy one has, the more dilation
one has. Okay. So it's the dilation that's causing the inertia, the
slowing of time. So it's time is the big factor, not like not
the mass okay, but the time. Okay. So if we and those
and going back to the wormhole thing. Okay, because we've corrected all of
that misunderstanding, majority of what they're saying no longer applies. That's interesting.
Yeah, we have to rethink the whole scenario. So let's think of it
in that contextuality way. Can we achieve it? Okay? Can we go
from point to point within the universe? If you could, for example,
amends your quantum information to say, I'm not where I am, but I
am somewhere else, and I need to look after the consequences of the void
that I leave behind me and all relevant impacting information and do exactly the same
on the other side the other end. And I can do all that in
that now there's no problem. But I doubt that will ever be the case.
Well, so it's funny because that's what Saska and the and Maldosina actually
argue. And it's interesting when you watch their presentations about it, because the
one limitation that seems to hold back macro scale teleportation through a wormhole is mass,
And they say that you would need the mass because the mass is like
you're I say, it's like your butt trying to get through the doorway and
you can't. You can't wait cut it through, right, so we can
see it works on the quantum level. But if we reduce the mass to
zero, then the equations seem to work out where now you can object,
right, yeah, Now, that I think is what's that allowed those unifications.
And then at that point you're just saying, I'm just allowing quantum teleportation
of a macro object because I reduced the mass to allow it to obtain the
properties of quantum. You got it. So, yes, so potentially not
as our form as we are, but in that potential state as we're holding
that you know, quantum like state, okay phase potentially, yes, very
much so, using entanglements that sort of thing of where we are. But
we've got to make sure that the outcomes are more heavily weighted that we're over
there rather than where we were. Yeah, you see what I mean.
It's like that, It's that deterministic process needs to be ticked and the conservational
rule needs to be ticked. If it's more conserved to do it this way
than the other, the universe might say it all right, fine, yeah,
well so I want you to hear this part then too, because this
is really weird. I'm had to send you these presentations later because the one
part that I was trying to get my head around is they throw someone into
the wormhole and then they take a measurement on the side where they threw somebody
into the wormhole, and this closes off that side of the wormhole. Then
they throw the information over the other side. You can think of it as
phoning somebody on the other side, and when the other side looks at that
information, that shoots the person out from that side of the wormhole. And
I've been trying to wrap my brain around that, but it's almost like what
you just mentioned in terms of like this level of symmetry. We have to
see it to close the gap and whatever happened on the one side and now
allow them to reappear on the other side without you know, breaking causality or
what have you. I still haven't really fully grasped it, but I think
there something there. Yeah, I don't think so, mate. Honestly,
I don't think ever, ever, ever be possible, and we don't particularly
need it to be possible because we have all natives. Okay, let's take
that in zero inertia state. Yeah you are. Now, let's let's close
our minds, you know, open our minds a bit and say, okay,
we're now considered quanta. We have a much much faster a relative rate
of time. We don't hold any physicality as such anymore. What else,
we're very very cold. What other attributes would we have? Okay, we'd
have a zero inertia state. So the geodisics essentially of the lattice of space
time are no longer applicable to us. Of the larger scales. We now
follow the rules of quanta. Okay. Now, as quanta with that is
zero inertia state, if for example, we were to we know now that
any form of entropy a slowing of time okay, creates that inertia that passive
transfers to the ersaal gravity. So we can now use that a bit.
We hold a zero inertia state. Need directed entry in any particular direction will
create that inertia and tug us through the universe, but pulling the universe towards
us. Essentially we do not move. We hold no motion at all.
Yes, okay, that yeah, we know that black holes essentially like cannot
escape them. Why because the black hole is essentially consuming the universe, the
cosmos as it were, faster than the speed of light travel through it.
Okay. So this method of modus is essentially there is no speed limit and
we can speed time up enormously. Okay, So you know speed time and
distance time is variable of that equation. You speed up the time as it
were, you shorten your journey massively. Okay. So yeah, it's that
sort of stuff. So it's we don't need wormholes. Yeah, we can
already go anywhere at any rights of speed, and so how do we Yeah,
and so yeah, that's the part too. I'm trying to understand with
it but without motion part, because so what would your thoughts be on the
Alcoberry drive right where the Alcoberi drive says yeah, absolute winning idea. So
I'll just do a quick explanation for people who may not be familiar, but
Alcoberry drive is essentially the concept behind Star Trek warp travel. And the big
issue when moving at very high speeds is that you have friction. You have
this capability where the people inside are going to get liquefied essentially from the kind
of the effects of moving out of very high speed. So what you need
is a bubble around the object in space time, which can allow therefore be
a different frame of reference on the inside versus outside that once you achieve that,
you know, it sounds like we achieve kind of what you were talking
about, where we can have zero mass and now this object can move at
warp speed if we want to call it, whatever speed you want. So
how do you what are your thoughts on that? How do you think we
would achieve this Alcoebarry bubble in order to allow for the zero mass and therefore
increase local speed essentially that you're talking about. Well, that zero inertia state,
that mass reduction trick essentially by the manipulation of time essentially on relative rate
of time, produces that mass reduction effect. So, like I was saying,
we can use that to our advantage as well, in that we can
create directed entropy to you know, shrink space time essentially in front of us.
So it's shrinking, you see what I mean. We're not actually moving,
we're manipulating the lattice essentially. Okay, So we're doing that. That's
achieving that particular aspect to that puzzle jack of a drive is the same thing.
Essentially that entropy is flowing time and that's why and he's spending up time
at the other end of him, So he's getting double the whack. It
were a pull and a push. Do you see what I mean? Yeah,
So you would say you would be contracting spacetime in front of you and
expanding it behind you. Is that what your understanding would be? Yes,
exactly that Yeah, interesting, that's all you need to do. Okay.
Basically, if you have, say we had like an egg or anything else,
if we were to just have an egg in free space, Okay,
if one side of our egg had a slower relative rate of time than the
other side of our egg, it would potentially for its own motion. Yeah,
that's to maintain that that difference. Then it would maintain that inertia and
potentially just go on and on faster and faster and faster and faster, and
it just never end. If you did the opposite, would have just slowed
down. Then all your thoughts, if you just well, you would essentially
just stop. Remember we're not emotional. So now now you can see our
friends how they now do that? Now, Yes, I never thought about
it backwards, because like now you could have something stop in a superposition almost
it feels like like freezing time. That would be very weird. Well,
they would push up in if they would. Yeah, he's still there.
Oh, I think we might have lost Roy. So I think I'm just
gonna riff real quick while we see if Roy can reconnect here. But oh,
there you are. You're back, can you hear me? Okay?
Yeah? Way through there. I don't know what happened. Okay, good.
Yeah, So just to reiterate that real quick, I think that so
if we think about the Alcaberry Drive, if we think about contracting space in
front of us and expanding it behind us, this is going to lead us
to be able to achieve faster and faster let's say, outside frames of reference
speeds of whatever's happening there within the let's call it craft or bubble or whatever.
But then if we reverse it, then it's going to slow things down
more and more and more and more until you potentially get to a point where
you're frozen in time, as if you were to approach the event horizon of
a black hole. Right. Correct. So there's a couple that's a whole
other aspect of it that I hadn't even considered. But I love the idea
of symmetry and yin and Yang, and you know you can do the you
know, opposite of things are always possible. So I appreciate the understanding there
on that side of it. But now that you mentioned our friends, I
think we're talking about the UAP phenomenon. I wanted to get your thoughts on
some of that because I do have a lot of people and viewers who are
interested in it. You know, my personal opinion is that I think that
there's life out there, probably everywhere, is my personal belief. Whether or
not there beings visiting us isn't really that important in terms of my daily life,
in terms of what I what happens to me. The technology is.
What's exciting is that there's this whole branch of technology out there. I think
that we're basically cavemen who just figured out how fire works, and then we're
thinking there, thinking oh, we've figured it all out, We've got fire
right, and it's like, well, you've got a long way to go
still. So but I do I do find it still fascinating the idea of
non human intelligence, what's going on out there. So go ahead and let
me know what's your thoughts on it, what's your interest in the in the
phenomenon and anything else you want to discuss. Well, seeing is believing,
as I say, isn't it. It's all in the proof of the pudding.
I was thirteen years old. I was having a family barbecue with on
my family on my thirteenth birthday. I've been at the NAGC for quite a
few years by that time. I was dealing with quite heavy levels of physics
already. What I saw, I pointed out. We lived in the hepro
airport, so I mentioned this my video. You know, I'm well used
to seeing aircraft. I know exactly what the aircraft looks like. I know
exactly where they stack, where they don't, where the helicopter's coming, what
trajectories, and what routes apply past that everything uses. This thing essentially did
not have the usual attributes sort of an aircraft, in that it had a
permanent light source that was orange orange in color, orange glowing red in color,
that sort of pulsed more prominently in a repeating pattern. So that caught
my attention because it was different me being you know, an instant what are
you mode? You know that sort of inquisitive kid. So and then asking
the smart guy in my family, my uncle Dennis, what's that then,
and he's saying, hmm, that's interesting. Mmm, you know the usual
sort of thing. Won't put his finger on it. And then you know
more and more people's tension of being drawn to this thing as we're discussing it,
and as we were this single atmosphere in under a second from a standstill
position above about forty foot above the skyline of the housing that was about half
mile away. So within three minutes, I said to myself, that's impossible.
Known the laws that I know, the only way logical possible that that
can do that is this, it holds a relative past rate of time thirteen
and I know already that they hold a past relative rate of time. That
started to pursuit of abo my understanding about what the attributes of time really were.
In that enlightened me. That moment enlightened me, as it were,
And then I started pursuing the attributes of time and looking for things in nature
that would guide me in that way, and I found them in conservation and
symmetry. So that then led to dilation theory. But it actually began when
I was thirteen years old on that evening. Yeah, and it's tricky too,
right time is because we're all on the same Earth, right, and
we're on the surface and it's a sphere, so we are all theoretically experiencing
time at a very very similar rate, almost indistinguishable on another. Yeah,
so that's the trick of time dilation. Why we don't see it now?
For me, I wish I was only thirteen years old when I had such
an epiphany. It was actually for me, It wasn't until I watched the
movie Interstellar where I realized, like, wait a minute, what time dilation
is real? And then I google it because I didn't believe. I just
thought there's no way. And so you know, it's been a rapid understanding
for me on that front. Well, what are your thoughts then, do
you believe that there are other non human intelligence beings visiting us? What's your
favorite theory when it comes to non human intelligence? Where do you think they're
from? The well, as we've explored it, the capability to be coming
from absolutely anywhere, and the cost busses. Now, as this slaps nils
ideas you know who I'm talking about right out of the park. Not a
clue, yes, but I guess what A guess? Yeah, of his
theory is when it comes to an him intelligence, I feel like it's a
very closed minded approach right to the science, classical physics. I'm afraid,
tied to classical physics, mass tied to you know, to what he's produced
all his career and his life, and he must stick to it. And
I you know, salute is stoic attitude to dead ideas. Yeah, yeah,
so I guess what you're saying there is, Please correct if I'm wrong,
is that once you get to a point where you can have a zero
inertia and superluminal speeds essentially quantum teleportation but of macroscale objects, then the local
frame of reference for the traveler there time is they're not going to experience as
much time as it takes to you know, come here from a thousand light
years away. It's not going to feel like a thousand years for them,
right, They can achieve they can come here basically instantly, right, So,
well, you would this is the thing. You would only need that
very faster relative rate of time if you had something you had to negate the
gravity of Wow. Yeah, okay, So if you're passing through a solar
system, planets and things like that, turn on the base. We need
to be independent of these guys all black holes or whatever. It would give
you a complete independence from everything. There would be no inertia of bonding from
anything. You're the fastest guy in town, okay, right, so you
only need that one and the baggage that comes with that would be an incredible
age essentially if you were to maintain that. Yeah, so that's the problem.
There's a hangout aging. Okay, So you know you would rapidly age
in that type of base state in that term I mean if I don't know,
perhaps you don't age when you are the phase of contact. Yeah,
you see what I mean. There's lots and lots and lots of things here
that we need to test, look at what's going to happen, see what
the outcomes are. There's lots and lots of things that need to be played
with us before we even play with this. I do not recommend anybody playing
with the phase of contact in their whatever. Okay, don't play with this
stuff. Do not play with dynamic behavior and then in any way possible at
all. It's extraordinarily dangerous. Okay, your mum will be tiding you up
with a mop Okay, Yeah, what do you think the implications are the
cyber technology. I think that's probably a good thing to jump into next.
Well, so we're going to have to face the implications of the technology.
They are onto logical. Okay, certain aspects of this are onto logical.
I won't go into that, you know, and now unless ask, but
it's it's it's a type rope. We're going to have to walk, like
with anything, like with the gun, like with the boat, like with
fire, like with the wheel, like with the aircraft, like with any
development of humanity. We will have to deal with the implications of the change.
Okay. Now, one of the changes is massive benefits to us as
a resource in that we are no longer limited to any resource. Why are
we fighting what about space? Well, we can go anywhere. What are
we fighting for? Sorry, We've got bigger problems to deal with, and
one of them is our dogmatic tribalism. It's got to end boats, okay,
because if we go, we've got to go together. Okay. That's
the rule. Okay, one rule that I've figured out. That's the rule.
You must go together. They will not put up with us being feral
out there. Okay. End of now, if it is a construct,
a holographic construct as such, what a nuclear few vision doing? What is
it doing? What a nuclear bombs doing. They're reversing the natural order process
of the universe by ripping everything apart, rather than things getting more and more
enterpy, more complex. Okay, what's going to happen to the underlying quantum
information there or the residing data, whether that's its or what is related to
you don't know. Stop playing with this shit. Okay, that's the point.
They have no idea what they're playing with at all. This is how
it changes everything, Ashton, absolutely changes everything. Wouldn't you as a developer,
if say you were responsible for this particular construct, let them piss with
it? Mama, No, No, From a database ARCTEC standpoint, you
never want anyone meddling in your in your sandbox, so to speak. You
don't want anyone pressing with your baby. Yeah, that's definitely true. What
do you do you think? Just going back to the up phenomenon real quick,
of these UFOs we're seeing out there, I'm just going to call them
what they are. You know, what percentage would you think are potentially man
made at this point versus ones? That are of other origin, unknown origin,
And I think that this is more of a question of knowing how long
this physics may have been out there. I mean, you're talking about it
thirty years ago almost right, Like you think that what were your thoughts to
be on the ratio there and doesn't have to be exact, just curiously your
thoughts. In general, I think the morphology is to giveaway, Okay.
The morphology tells you the actual levels of the technology when you ultimately realize what
it all is and how it all hangs together and ever you think you realize
that those those conservational geometric symmetries essentially are at work there, and that if
you can emulate quanta, perhaps we can emulate other forms of even smaller scale
geometry. Okay, so that tells you your morphology. So I'm essentially saying
that it depends on what they look like in terms of Yes, that tells
you their technology. Okay level. Now I would say we were probably in
the orb region. Yeah, because that's probably the simplest thing to do.
Okay, all the sorcery sort of stuff that's very easy to do. The
cubes that's very difficult to do. But once you get cube tech sort of
level. Then you can go city tech level, neutron star level, you
know what I mean, it doesn't matter how big you get when once you've
got to that level and this is this is what it's showing. This is
confusing to me because I see, you know whatever, and I hear the
reports of different this crap looks like this, this crop, this has more
apology, just have that, And I'm thinking to myself, why are they
in saurceers anyway? I mean, you know, if you figured this stuff
out and you know it dynamic, had that emulation as such is the thing,
then why would you even bother with the saucer basic stuff, you know,
which tells me that you haven't reully figured it all out certain species and
that we might actually have to jump on quite a few. Yeah. So
I think what you're saying there is the orbit sphere would be the easiest thing
to make. So potentially, if we see spheres out there, that would
be probably the lowest form of technology that might be where we're at potentially,
if we're just hypothesizing. Right, when you start to get more complex shapes,
like that's where it's like, Okay, now you're really able to manipulate
the effects at the very small level, like very high levels of control of
the quantum effects right on the Maercroskill level. That's interesting because it makes me
think about Star Trek again. It's always going back to Star Trek for some
reason with the b and their cubes, right, even though it's not really
how we play out, but it's it's still it shows a level of just
complete technological superiority. Right, So yes it does. But like I said,
once you understand it, or it makes you want ponder like did they
miss a trick? Yeah, it's like or is that the cheap budget version.
Well that's what I think about the video game Civilization a lot. And
the part about it I think of is there's this tech tree, and like
generally what happens is different people with different parts down the tech tree. And
what this kind of is analogous to is this idea that just because a civilization
is very advanced in one area doesn't mean they're going to be very advanced in
all areas. Right, And you can also look at our past civilizations on
this planet, and I think you could argue some of that as well,
is that some past civilizations may not have had computers, but they still understand
these quantum effects at a level maybe even better than we do right now.
And so I find that's very interesting as well, So that that could explain
why you might have beings they are busying us in a saucer, even though
it may not be the most efficient method of you know, a microscopic quantum
uh, you know, entanglement or a quantum coherence, but it's still a
method where they can still you know, achieve whatever they're trying to do to
travel whatever distances they need to travel. Maybe they're only coming from Alpha Centauri
and that's satisfactory. I don't know, just making it up. They could
be coming from even nearer. They could be coming from say Europa, Yeah,
there you go. Yeah, even within the solar system itself. Yeah,
or some you know truth I mean, or here these it's it's it's
yeah, it's it's really yeah, or even here who knows, I mean,
best guess, isn't it really until we actually get you know, and
ask them, hi from chaps? Yeah, you know, it's that sort
of But it's like, what was I going to say? Yeah, I
mean, those those rules of properties to note the behavior don't just work for
the cosmos. They seem to apply everything mhm, even in nature. So
if we look at the attributes of them large eyes, h small, it
sounds like a subterrannial species to me. Properties to know, you see what
I mean, the environments as it were, and the environments to know the
attributes of whatever it is. Okay, so we look at them and then
look at okay, what are the environmental things upon them, and we can
pretty much say what sort of where they're from, and you know that sort
of stuff. I mean, I think Gary Nolan should should be digging down
down that one really rather than me. But it seems pretty obvious to me.
Huge eyes, Well they live in a low light environment, you know
what I mean. I mean, right, I mean adapt to your environment,
you know, especially over a long periods of time. I mean,
we can get that here. However, we've now got another problem up to
another issue, which is that say they were using that phase all the way
and that things rapidly age within that play state unless you've actually mastered DNA replication
process where your time is no longer relevant to you and you will live forever
like an octopie or whatever, you know, like some jellyfishes can do that
sort of thing, or would you make them on route or when they're right.
Some of the attributes of this require that, I think to some degree
that you require sentience. Okay, Now, yeah, consciousness is linked in
a whole wou crowd out there are going to be raising air arms in you.
We love you. Yeah, it does, okay, in that everything
of that moment denotes the outcome, even you, what you're thinking, Okay,
all that sort of stuff. You're consciousness. Now, as I said
before, if we deal with the universe in the way of contextualities, then
one can consider us consciousness itself perhaps an emergent property m and that we are.
Therefore, if it's a holographic constructors the hypothesis is looking like it is,
then you are avatar. I was about to say that. Okay,
So now we are all linked in that parental domain, as it were,
and we are all here as avatar in the abstract consciousness out here, right,
And yes, that's in the matrix somewhere else in the underline framework,
and this is connected to it, right, yeah, because we do not
hold the correct context. Now, now he's developed our heads turned on that
one. So what I mean, it's all about one's contextuality and one's properties
about any one moment. So what you're saying there is that you could fly
your object to another distant solars without even maybe passengers in it can build the
body when you arrive and have your consciousness somehow avatar your way into it,
right and now you so there may even be ways to get around this issue
of your speeding up of your time kind of housing this mass aging, rabid
aging that happened to you. Yes, there are multiple opportunities, now you
know what I mean. One thing leads to another, it leaves more opportunities.
But you've got to have a total grasp but the whole big picture really
before you can even start to look at some of those probabilities or possibilities.
I mean you're talking about bulk in all of the probabilities or possibilities, could
there be balk Yeah, No, that's the answer to that one. No,
Because once you realize, as I said, what the cosmos is essentially,
and they will get to that point no matter who you are, where
you are in it. Yeah, okay, then you will understand the fundamentally
a lot more about it in what it is and what is purpose or is
and what your purpose within it is in that it is of you and you
are ultimately of it. M So you're saying that there would be a higher
spiritual understanding as too, more of a mechanical more so, much more so,
incredibly more so. Okay, that's more spenting species of that per section
level of perception. Would consider everything holy, Yeah, spiritual everything. That's
interesting. It makes me think of the idea of dharma and you know,
holy in life to be sacred, like the way that people in India whole
cows to be sacred, et cetera. It's like you achieve this unity with
the planet itself and I think that's a very beautiful thought in general, right,
just unity with the cosmos essentially, that's the point you would read to
that point. Now, like I said, it's some of the bits and
pieces are ontological, but some of it is ontological to the point of it's
actually bloody good news for a lot of people. Yeah, Okay, Now,
I've been an atheist my whole life. My head has been filled with
physics and science and everything else. I ask anyone in my family what I've
about God forever? Okay, So I'm not going to hold my hands up
and said, I believe in God. But any construct requires a construct Yeah,
that's the point. Any construct requires a constructor. And we do live
in a construct. We live in a contextual emergent contextual duality of geometric symmetries
within symmetries projected upon a gauge lattice as a holographic space time continuum. That
is the cosmos. Now we know what the box is, it's time to
play yes so on that front, and this is I think one of the
last questions I want to ask, although it's going to bring it back to
the dark side of this as well, is what do you believe that this
type of technology. I'll just throw this out there. My understanding is that
this is like a Pandora's box. Once you open up the world of technology,
it's not coming back in. You're getting all of it. You can't
just pick and shoes, you know. This isn't a burger king. You
can't customize to have it your way. You've got to take everything. And
what that means in my mind is doomsday weapons. The ability to destroy our
whole planet becomes just simple, not just a matter of dropping a bomb,
but like literally destroying the whole planet, or destroying the Sun, or maybe
even our destroying our whole universe. What is your thoughts on that and how
do you think humanity has to be responsible to prevent that from happening? Exactly
that we need to be very very very responsible. Okay, Now we already
have that capability. We already are this antimata. If we were to allow
that antimatter to collide as it were to nothing, that would remove our planet
and half the Solar System. So we already have that capability without this technology
to do that. And real quick, what does antimatter basically, it's the
other side of matter. How do we have that? That would argue that
we don't, So I'm just curious. Yes, we do have it.
We have anti hydrogen, for example, and we use it at certain Okay,
so we do hold it, but we only produce very very small microbe
amounts at that time and then release that and observe that. So it's tiny,
tiny, tiny amounts that we are actually producing. But we do.
So the capability of doing what you say is already there, okay, but
we haven't done it. Why of course the one I've said children, Yeah,
Okay. Everyone wants a better world for their children, even the Russians,
Okay, even the Chinese, they want a better world for theirs,
and so on and so on. And if we can come to a common
agreement that okay, let's for our children and do this for them the future,
and I think we're all going to be in a good place, okay,
and that if we set down some ground rules. For example, no
militarization of this technology. None. Okay, this technology can be mitigated when
one understands it completely. Asta. I'm not going to go into those details,
but it can be mitigated. Okay. We can't stop them, Okay,
we can control them if we want it to with a greater understanding of
the technology. Okay, So that mitigates all that. Oh we're going to
blow up the world with this, and we can zoom things into things like
that can sit through matter exactly in that funny state and everything. Well,
yeah, and no, because you can mitigate against this technology as well,
just as much as you can create it. That's good. It's interesting to
know. I mean, one thing to day Rossi has mentioned is this ability
to detect gravitational way, which could be a way where you could detect the
use of the technology and is a gravitational way. Now, if we look
at the dialation series side of it, what is a gravitational way. All
that is is essentially a ripple of slow time in the symmetry of time.
Okay, So all you need to do is look for where and what our
friends are doing is that they are doing the other end of that. They're
not slowing time, they are spreading up time. So all we need to
do is use interfrometry in an array and see where time is being sped up.
Okay, we can do that now, so we can use these things
to track them or put up safeguards against them or whatever. Also, any
this, obviously, when it produces into a place tape is another form of
simply electromagnetism. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it still is the form of
electromagnetism. Diamagnetics reject electron geticism. Okay, So diagmagnetics can be a shield
against them. Okay. Also, the properties are diagnogetics can help us create
that state in that if you would have a close form of energy associated next
to a diagnagnetic and you were to put power to it, the electrons traveling
through that medium would be rejected by the diaminetic and become extended. Extended electrons
are a property of content. The can auncil actors actually a building tool building
blockers, yes, where you can create it or reject it as it were,
using exactly the same material. Okay, so it's extraordinarly easy to make
this stuff, to be honest, And the technology is essentially the same as
your your refrigerator in that all you are doing is that you are getting preferential
outcomes of behavior by changing one's potential properties, which is exactly what we do
in the refrigerator. One of the most powerful diamagnetic elements is bismuth as well.
I think they keep coming back up time and time and time again in
this uh liquid bismuth is five hundred old. Then it's solid property. So
again those symmetries different things. In different symmetries give different relative rates of time
and give different strengths of its electromagnetic resonance ability. M So we cut it
down. Might be a method that you could do to change his properties?
Then yeah, well it's it's it's smelting point is very low. It's even
lower than interesting, So you could have something like, Yeah, so liquid
form of busmus and then have something with a high lineal say strontium, with
like, you know, high electrons, so that the closer the electron is
to nuclear hard that they are to knock off. Then okay, the further
they are awaving the nucleis center, the easier they are to knock to extend.
Okay, so you want materials that got those high electrons, so strontium
is a good one. Bor on things like that, and then have that
behind some sort of dibagnetic pumps and power through its, ay even copper magnesium,
something that, you know, something really cool that can you know,
you put round in those particular shapes that you need, as we see in
the aircraft, the particular orbits or the electrons as it were. So yeah,
that goes back to your flight in that Basically, what that's showing is
a transitional phase in that the orbs are emulating the behavior of Quanda because they
already hold that superconductive state and are already considered by the universe therefore guanta all
right, Okay, so it gets into a pattern. Oh, we've got
nucleari, We've now got electrons orbiting. Oh, Quanta transitional base. Okay,
that incredible speed, rate of time instantly, the cold environment and so
on, it looks like teleportation. But essentially what this thing has just done
is shot up and incredible rex but that way in your eye or the camera
concin so yeah, you'd only have to need it on for like second,
and you'd be five hundred miles that way. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah.
And just for people that following along, we're talking about the MH three
seven zero videos, we're talking about the orbs traversing around the plane and the
trip plane just disappearing straight from space time with this endo thermic events, this
absorption of energy that we see there. I think that a lot of people
have their own opinions in terms of how to explain it. And that's part
of what is so exciting for me when I talk to physicists and engineers is
getting everyone's different theories and understandings of how it's it's happening, and trying in
my own mind to like mesh and reconcile them together. So I think,
yes, on star article, look at the other one. The correlation with
this fight the spin and the time, and there's rates and so on and
brilly much. You don't need a degree. Just like I said, common
sense. Really look at what you're looking at, Examine that. What are
the properties of it? What does that correlate to? Do we know anything
about that? Yes? Does it then make sense? Yes? Gives you
the answer? Awesome? Well, thanks, Roy. I think that's probably
a good spot to end on this particular conversation. Do you want to go
ahead and plug anything or anyone or you know, thank anyone or whatever you
want to do and give you a few months ahead. Well, obviously I'd
like to fight think Mike gifted colleague Martin Gibson, who it goes under the
account of uni servant, where dilation theory in the math and all of the
detail and all of that, and the physics side of it, the more
serious side of it rather than my abstract musings as well, is on his
account. The more visual side of it is on my account. And also
to say that for any technical reference or anything to do with the phenomena,
people should be contacting Ted Row Okay, because Ted is fully aware of the
modus the abstract and is one of the people that's actually seen the non public
domain information. Okay, So if you do want any I will pug ted
is god mode without u ap okay, any subject? Okay, and Ashton
keep digging. I know that you're right, and I thank you very much
for your video because your video when it was brought to my attention, proue
dynamic behaviorism is correct. So thank you. Yeah, no need to thank
me. It's the world's videos, to be honest with you, and I
hope that those videos end up bringing a greater truth and understanding of science to
the entire world. That's really my only objective out here is well, I'm
free. Anybody wants to ask me questions, just send me down on X
or Twitter or whatever is you want to. I jump into rooms often and
answer people's questions as well, so I'm always accessible. And like I say,
it's been a long long time shouting at doors. But yeah, is
that the best way to find you? On Twitter? Yes, it really
is. I don't. I don't use any other form of social media.
I think a few people created to see things for me, but I never
visit them at all. I'm usually on here because majority of all my colleagues
and so on, we we we, you know, we communicate with this.
Can you be found at roy D Herbert on Twitter, So go ahead
and give roy a follow out there. He's got several thousand followers already,
and as he mentioned, he's got some pretty prominent physicists who follow him as
well. So if you want to be on the cutting edge of science,
this is the man to follow right here. Okay, guys, well,
we're going to go ahead and close down Hard Shrews Number five. Thank you
all for watching today. We appreciate it, and thank you Roydy Herbert very
much, the physicists for being here and teaching us about time dilation and dilation theory.