#25 | Inside Black Projects: Energy, UFOs, and Control with lan Crossland

<v Speaker 1>Ian Crossland. Welcome to hard Truths.
<v Speaker 2>Man.
<v Speaker 1>How are you doing today?
<v Speaker 2>Great dude?
<v Speaker 1>You know, first question, do you know what these cards
<v Speaker 1>are over here?
<v Speaker 3>Well?
<v Speaker 2>I know I know their magic. I thought they were
<v Speaker 2>magic cards. I couldn't tell if they were magic or Pokemon,
<v Speaker 2>but I thought they were magic cards. But what I
<v Speaker 2>can't tell what cards they are? Are they? What are they?
<v Speaker 1>How dare you judge me think that I'm a Pokemon card? Now,
<v Speaker 1>I know you played magic cards, but.
<v Speaker 2>Do you did you play Pokemon?
<v Speaker 3>I played Pokemon Go, so like, yeah, okay, but I
<v Speaker 3>didn't play Pokemon cards or whatever.
<v Speaker 2>But okay, so I was a.
<v Speaker 1>Kid and I played.
<v Speaker 3>I grew up with magic cards, but like I never
<v Speaker 3>really like played, you know, in the nineties, and then
<v Speaker 3>as an adult I kind of got into it. And actually, uh,
<v Speaker 3>this is the coach sent me that uncut sheet right there.
<v Speaker 3>That's a war the spark, the one with all the planes.
<v Speaker 1>Walkers in it. I don't know if you remember, but
<v Speaker 1>I bought some stuff from them, and they like mess
<v Speaker 1>up the order, so they sent these, uh these cards.
<v Speaker 1>I just think it looks really cool. So I got it.
<v Speaker 2>It looks amazing. Dude, are they foil.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Yeah, they're all like the foil plane that looks
<v Speaker 1>so good. I don't know, and I just lean into
<v Speaker 1>being a nerd anyway. I'm not ashamed of it at all.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's mathematics magic the gathering. It's just math with
<v Speaker 2>the colors and pictures of dragons and shit. But it's
<v Speaker 2>all math.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Let me ask you that.
<v Speaker 3>That brings me to kind of My first question is
<v Speaker 3>have you ever heard the thing about, like I know
<v Speaker 3>you're a musician, that mathematicians when they are asked what
<v Speaker 3>study are do they most relate to?
<v Speaker 1>I think that they overwhelmingly agreed music was the answer.
<v Speaker 1>Have you ever heard that before? Do you agree with Yeah?
<v Speaker 2>I have heard that. It's works with me too, especially geometry.
<v Speaker 2>I think of music as like spatial sound, spatial awareness, moving.
<v Speaker 2>I think of a lot in terms of momentum and
<v Speaker 2>like pattern, like when you moved, when you walk across
<v Speaker 2>the room, it's like a pattern. I see, like a
<v Speaker 2>pattern of motion, and so I hear that when I
<v Speaker 2>hear sound, like I can picture one, three, five, and
<v Speaker 2>I see it on a graph, and that's just like
<v Speaker 2>a line graph. I can picture the shape of the sound.
<v Speaker 2>But then you can actually hear like the wholeness of
<v Speaker 2>tone as well, and it kind of creates these like
<v Speaker 2>spherical canonical shapes and things like that. And I think
<v Speaker 2>a lot of is like filling space. Similar with cooking,
<v Speaker 2>you want to like make sure there's enough seasoning in
<v Speaker 2>all the little parts of the bowl and that no
<v Speaker 2>part of the thing is too hot, that all the
<v Speaker 2>temperatures evenly dispersed. So it's kind of with sound is similar.
<v Speaker 2>You know.
<v Speaker 3>The other thing that reminds me of is I think
<v Speaker 3>this is something that we talked about on the podcast
<v Speaker 3>when we were on.
<v Speaker 1>Culture Wars, was like waves versus particles.
<v Speaker 3>You know, is that when you think of sound like that,
<v Speaker 3>when you think of you know, you're really describing waves.
<v Speaker 1>In my opinion, you know, it's like the up down motion.
<v Speaker 1>It's like you're this resonance kind of that's out there.
<v Speaker 1>I think that the question is is matter is matter
<v Speaker 1>a wave? Can matter be a wave?
<v Speaker 3>We stuck in this particle mindset where everything must be
<v Speaker 3>this definite thing, definite thing? But is it possible that
<v Speaker 3>we are just a complex series of wave forms? But
<v Speaker 3>we you know that there's some other explanation. Do you
<v Speaker 3>do you agree with the that kind of viewpoint, that
<v Speaker 3>esotery viewpoint.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. And you know, after wayping, you and you came
<v Speaker 2>on and you you and you came on the culture war,
<v Speaker 2>I started thinking a lot about subatomic spin and like
<v Speaker 2>what's causing it? You know, the scientific community thinks maybe
<v Speaker 2>was it angular momentum, But then they're like no, because
<v Speaker 2>that would mean that these two vortices are traveling the
<v Speaker 2>speed of light, which is not possible. So what is it?
<v Speaker 2>They don't know? I think it's simatics that there's a
<v Speaker 2>vibration of space time that's causing the position of the
<v Speaker 2>subatomic space to face left, and then the frequency changes
<v Speaker 2>and it faces north, then it changes again, it faces east,
<v Speaker 2>faces south as the frequency changes, but the frequency is
<v Speaker 2>changing so fast that it looks like it's spinning. And
<v Speaker 2>so there's some maybe low, maybe not imperceivable vibration, but
<v Speaker 2>I think eventually we'll end up being able to measure
<v Speaker 2>what's causing shape to snap to that form.
<v Speaker 1>No, that's a good way to put it.
<v Speaker 3>And so we were talking about quantum spin, and we
<v Speaker 3>know there is spin when we look at particles at
<v Speaker 3>the quantum level because we can see like the perturbation
<v Speaker 3>and we can measure that, like we can put electromagnetic.
<v Speaker 1>Fields next to them.
<v Speaker 3>We can see these things react, So we know that
<v Speaker 3>there must be this quantum spin. But then it's like,
<v Speaker 3>what does that actually mean? You could watch videos all
<v Speaker 3>day of people online trying to explain quantum spin, but
<v Speaker 3>end of the day, it's like, we know it has
<v Speaker 3>the properties of something that's spinning, but at the same time,
<v Speaker 3>we think of it as just this like quantum kind
<v Speaker 3>of magical uh.
<v Speaker 1>You know, dot this particle. So it's hard for us
<v Speaker 1>to wrap our brains around that.
<v Speaker 3>I think one other thing that could open the door
<v Speaker 3>to that is something we talked about on the podcast too,
<v Speaker 3>which is the ether. It's like the idea of this
<v Speaker 3>extra dimension that was thrown out, you know, like one
<v Speaker 3>hundred years ago. Because if there is this spin that's happening,
<v Speaker 3>if there is some effect that's had, where's it coming from?
<v Speaker 3>What's causing that to happen? And surely there must be
<v Speaker 3>some force kind of pushing on it from some direction
<v Speaker 3>to cause it to spin or for something like that
<v Speaker 3>to happen. Have you had any thoughts about the idea
<v Speaker 3>of the ether and extra dimension at all?
<v Speaker 2>Well? Yeah, but what does that mean? Exc What is
<v Speaker 2>ether exactly? Is that the fabric of space time is ether.
<v Speaker 2>They think it's an actual fabric.
<v Speaker 3>So not really like we've kind of moved away from
<v Speaker 3>this like fluid medium. I mean, it really would be
<v Speaker 3>a super fluid if you were really described it as
<v Speaker 3>a lot of different ways to describe it, but you
<v Speaker 3>could say that space time itself is like a flexible solid.
<v Speaker 3>So it can like it's solid, but it can move,
<v Speaker 3>it can jiggle it a little bit, like it's.
<v Speaker 1>Connected, but it can move around.
<v Speaker 3>Leonard Suskind, who's written is kind of popularized er equals EPR.
<v Speaker 3>I think he would call it like anti desiter space.
<v Speaker 3>So it's almost like a counter space. So like you
<v Speaker 3>have this the universe trying to expand you know, at
<v Speaker 3>the same time you have this force pointed together at
<v Speaker 3>the same time.
<v Speaker 1>So but that's more.
<v Speaker 3>I don't know how he geometrically like connect how they
<v Speaker 3>connect it together. But the way I perceive it is
<v Speaker 3>like Yin and Yang's like you've got our observable reality
<v Speaker 3>and then you have this quantum reality and they say
<v Speaker 3>it must be connected through this idea of quantum gravity
<v Speaker 3>that is in this imperceivable extra dimension. And what this
<v Speaker 3>then opens the door up to is like you know,
<v Speaker 3>wormholes and things like that, where you would say that
<v Speaker 3>like the holographic principle. So if I'm playing a video game,
<v Speaker 3>like if I'm playing Minecraft or something, it seems like
<v Speaker 3>I'm in a three dimensional world when I'm playing the
<v Speaker 3>video game, but I know I'm not really, I know, really,
<v Speaker 3>I'm on a microchip somewhere right, and that if I
<v Speaker 3>were to take that microchip, I could connect it to
<v Speaker 3>a different microchip somewhere else, and now you know they
<v Speaker 3>would be together, but you know, they would.
<v Speaker 1>Seem to be super far away. It's kind of like
<v Speaker 1>that idea.
<v Speaker 3>And I think that the ether then adds this extra
<v Speaker 3>dimension to explain like how can you you know, how
<v Speaker 3>can you wrap something together? There must be some medium
<v Speaker 3>that you're in in order for like that type of
<v Speaker 3>thing to happen.
<v Speaker 1>Does that make sense?
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So it's like a sub atomic real, like the
<v Speaker 2>fabric of the sub atomic reality.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, And so like molecules will like exchange energy with
<v Speaker 3>this ether all the time. So it's the idea that
<v Speaker 3>like hal Pudov's nineteen eighty seven paper that says ground
<v Speaker 3>state of the hydrogen atom is he says it, Oh,
<v Speaker 3>this at the hydrogen atom when it's at rest, it's
<v Speaker 3>not radiating energy, but they would expect it.
<v Speaker 1>To radiate energy.
<v Speaker 3>And they're saying, well, why doesn't it do that because
<v Speaker 3>it's spinning, right, it's got this quantum spin. And they say, well,
<v Speaker 3>it's because it must be in some sort of equilibrium,
<v Speaker 3>like whatever energy is being radiated out must be getting
<v Speaker 3>absorbed in at the same exact rate.
<v Speaker 1>So there's this idea that.
<v Speaker 3>Like particles are actually just exchanging energy with the zero
<v Speaker 3>point energy all the time, so they might have like
<v Speaker 3>a reservoir of energy that they're kind of like tapping into.
<v Speaker 1>So I think that's a way to put it.
<v Speaker 2>Nasim Harriman has this concept of the schwartz Child proton,
<v Speaker 2>where he had mathematically derived that every proton was two
<v Speaker 2>protons spinning around each other at the speed of light,
<v Speaker 2>putting information into the vacuum. Maybe it's the ether is
<v Speaker 2>what he's talking about that he calls of the vacuum
<v Speaker 2>of space time, and so it's repositive depositing information into
<v Speaker 2>the vacuum. The vacuum itself then is doing a massive
<v Speaker 2>calculation of everything in the known universe and then giving
<v Speaker 2>you a local response in it lights as the net
<v Speaker 2>as the photon emerges from the vacuum back into reality.
<v Speaker 2>And so that may be how the information is being
<v Speaker 2>or one way that information is being transmitted into the
<v Speaker 2>subsystem into the Would.
<v Speaker 1>You guys ever talk to him or had him on
<v Speaker 1>the show or no.
<v Speaker 2>I've only seen his stuff. Yeah, I've been. People have
<v Speaker 2>been telling me to contact him for literally nineteen years.
<v Speaker 2>I would love to get in touch with them.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, And I just realized we're actually live on YouTube.
<v Speaker 3>I accidentally went live without realizing this. So okay, I
<v Speaker 3>guess we're just going to play.
<v Speaker 2>This out awesome rock and oops.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, go ahead, both of you on. I'll like re
<v Speaker 1>edit it, probably re upload it later on. Okay, I
<v Speaker 1>just realized it. Okay, So yeah, now seem here.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, you know, he's I think he's the only
<v Speaker 3>person who can claim the title of zero point energy
<v Speaker 3>Influencer more than I can, probably because he's like the
<v Speaker 3>OG and one of the things to a lot of
<v Speaker 3>these guys. One of the things I've realized is they
<v Speaker 3>use the different terminology for the same stuff, So you
<v Speaker 3>will he'll hear people use like quantum vacuum, or they'll
<v Speaker 3>use a vacuum, but they'll also say, well, the vacuum
<v Speaker 3>is not empty, you know, it's it's not an empty vacuum.
<v Speaker 3>And so it's the same ideas that the zero point
<v Speaker 3>energy of the ether. Uh, they're connected through this idea
<v Speaker 3>of an extra dimension.
<v Speaker 1>And this is where I wanted to kind.
<v Speaker 3>Of take it in the next uh kind of discussion
<v Speaker 3>with you, which is that like the alien topic, you know,
<v Speaker 3>especially recently, ANNAPOLINEA Luna was on Joe Rogan and she
<v Speaker 3>was talking about, you know, the extra dimensional aliens. I mean,
<v Speaker 3>you guys have heard this thing. You guys have either
<v Speaker 3>had her Nancy Mace or you know, you guys have
<v Speaker 3>had people.
<v Speaker 2>On the Yeah, we had both. Yeah. We we interviewed
<v Speaker 2>Luna Ana Paulina Luna while we were at Congress. We
<v Speaker 2>did like a roundtable where different congressmen were coming in
<v Speaker 2>and sitting down. So she came in for about twenty minutes,
<v Speaker 2>and then Nancy Mace we had on officially as a
<v Speaker 2>guest on IRL once.
<v Speaker 3>So what are your thoughts, what do you think about
<v Speaker 3>Congress and what do you think about this UFO disclosure stuff?
<v Speaker 2>I think that extra Okay, I think it is. It's
<v Speaker 2>a misnomer to say extra dimensional. That's insane. You and
<v Speaker 2>I are extra dimensional creatures. We live in multiple dimensions.
<v Speaker 2>We are in the fourth dimension. We actually exist in
<v Speaker 2>the fifth dimension, even though you might not see it
<v Speaker 2>with your eyeballs. So that is like a really dumb
<v Speaker 2>layman thing to say extra dimensional, that these things are
<v Speaker 2>extra dimensional. Yes, of course. Uh you know, if we're
<v Speaker 2>talking like spirits, that's a I don't believe them. I
<v Speaker 2>don't believe that spirits are piloting airplanes. I don't.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I need evidence, you said, so, okay, so this
<v Speaker 3>is why this is the thing too.
<v Speaker 1>It's like I love your take there. It's like extra dimensional,
<v Speaker 1>what does that actually mean?
<v Speaker 2>Like, yeah, we're extra.
<v Speaker 3>Dimensional beans, we live in three dimensions and a time dimension.
<v Speaker 3>So it seems like it's just like a red hairy
<v Speaker 3>and they're just throwing this idea. They're trying to make
<v Speaker 3>it sound scary or something like sensationalized, like oh, yeah,
<v Speaker 3>the extra dimension. Because when I found like, okay, there's
<v Speaker 3>this extra dimension, this ether, and you know, maybe this
<v Speaker 3>explains how we can do wormholes, I'm going, well, I
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't call a bean that goes through a wormhole an
<v Speaker 3>extra dimensional bean.
<v Speaker 1>I would just say it just went through a wormalle.
<v Speaker 1>It's still in our universe.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, you know, I mean, but granted it could
<v Speaker 3>come run different you know, universe if you believe in
<v Speaker 3>multi worlds theory. So I guess what I would want
<v Speaker 3>to know from them when they're asking this stuff is like,
<v Speaker 3>are you saying that there's infinite universes and that you
<v Speaker 3>can go to different ones? Because that would be a
<v Speaker 3>major physics claim to say, right, is that there are
<v Speaker 3>multiple universes and aliens are coming from a different universe
<v Speaker 3>than we're coming from.
<v Speaker 1>So, I mean, do you what do you think?
<v Speaker 3>Do you think there she's just doesn't understand physics and science,
<v Speaker 3>or do you think that like this is some kind
<v Speaker 3>of narrative that's being pushed.
<v Speaker 2>Well, she doesn't understand what extra dimensional means. Obviously, if
<v Speaker 2>she's just repeating that, she's repeating what she was told
<v Speaker 2>by someone that probably was told that or decided that's
<v Speaker 2>the narrative we're going to run with. But I also
<v Speaker 2>think they are working with like space time warping technology
<v Speaker 2>that they're creating cavitation bubbles and defying you know, classical
<v Speaker 2>physics and things like that.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and I mean you just have to listen to
<v Speaker 3>like what Science and Technology advisor Michael Kratzios has been saying,
<v Speaker 3>if you you know, if you question that, I mean
<v Speaker 3>literally said, we have the ability to manipulate time and
<v Speaker 3>space to annihilate distance. And we've had Trump say multiple
<v Speaker 3>times that we've got weapons that nobody understands.
<v Speaker 1>How they work.
<v Speaker 3>I mean you said it multiple times like it had
<v Speaker 3>to be scripted. Basically, people think that manipulating time and
<v Speaker 3>space is some magical sci fi Star trek type thing,
<v Speaker 3>but actually it's much simpler than that. It's really just
<v Speaker 3>about I mean, gravity is just mass that's condensed into
<v Speaker 3>a region, that's just pulling on something. That's the way
<v Speaker 3>we at least perceive it, right, It's not necessarily exactly correct,
<v Speaker 3>but mass is just energy equals mc square. So in theory,
<v Speaker 3>if you have a whole bunch of energy, then you
<v Speaker 3>should have gravity being sucked towards that, right. I mean,
<v Speaker 3>that's a simple thing to understand. So then what then,
<v Speaker 3>I would say, Okay, well, at what scale, like does it.
<v Speaker 1>Have to be a sphere? Of mass like this size
<v Speaker 1>of my this sphere here, or can it be a
<v Speaker 1>super super super tiny dot? Right?
<v Speaker 3>Can it be a super tiny dot and I just
<v Speaker 3>compact as much energy onto that little little tiny dot.
<v Speaker 1>Is it really about energy density?
<v Speaker 2>Right?
<v Speaker 3>It's really about how much can you compact onto a
<v Speaker 3>little tiny point. And turns out when you look at
<v Speaker 3>it from that perspective, it's not that insurmountable of the challenge.
<v Speaker 3>It turns out we can have like these super powerful
<v Speaker 3>lasers that focus energy onto a very tiny point in
<v Speaker 3>time and in space, and that, in theory could be
<v Speaker 3>enough to stimulate a gravitational effect of me, you know, measured,
<v Speaker 3>and then that can also be useful for things like
<v Speaker 3>fusion as well. So it's I don't think it's surprises
<v Speaker 3>anybody that they're at least working on the ideas of
<v Speaker 3>anti gravity or gravity manipulation, space time manipulation, whatever you
<v Speaker 3>want to call it, it's all the same thing. I
<v Speaker 3>would just call it, like manipulation of the ether. You
<v Speaker 3>were talking about cimatics, Like, the question is how do
<v Speaker 3>you manipulate entanglement?
<v Speaker 1>How do you create entanglement?
<v Speaker 2>I think you need to understand where you're going, so
<v Speaker 2>What you do is you have to map the matrix.
<v Speaker 2>You get a three dimensional space, and then you you
<v Speaker 2>derive what is in each position, how the consistency, how
<v Speaker 2>much of it and where? So what how much and where?
<v Speaker 2>If you can mapch that for every incremental metal point
<v Speaker 2>in this three dimensional x y z cube, then you've
<v Speaker 2>mapped the matrix. You know what, where and how much
<v Speaker 2>of each in each space. Then you have a mathematical map.
<v Speaker 2>You can teleport too. So if you know where you're going,
<v Speaker 2>if you know what you're going, you know where you're going,
<v Speaker 2>what you're going, it's the same thing. What where? It's
<v Speaker 2>all one thing. What is it? That is where it is?
<v Speaker 2>If you know that and you can calculate that, then
<v Speaker 2>you can target it, I think, and then you can
<v Speaker 2>you can replicate it locally and be there at a distance.
<v Speaker 2>You know.
<v Speaker 3>They have a term for what you just said. It's
<v Speaker 3>called solving Schrodinger's equation. So actually there are people working
<v Speaker 3>on this idea of like if there is a medium
<v Speaker 3>and even though we can't perceive it, is there a
<v Speaker 3>way where we can like reverse engineer, like you said,
<v Speaker 3>like figure out the matrix? Right, Like we only imagine,
<v Speaker 3>we only see this flat surface. Is there a way
<v Speaker 3>to figure out, like, what is all this like with
<v Speaker 3>this whole bulk here that we can't see? Is there
<v Speaker 3>a way to measure, measure it and measure its effect
<v Speaker 3>on our flat two D reality? And the answer is yes.
<v Speaker 3>The Aaron Hoff Bom effect is a good example of this.
<v Speaker 3>Aeronoff Bom effect is a real experiment. They take a
<v Speaker 3>solenoid that traps all the electromagnetic fields in a cylinder
<v Speaker 3>inside of it, and you would say, okay, well, there's
<v Speaker 3>no electromagnetic field signal on the outside of the solenoid,
<v Speaker 3>so if I shoot an electron past it, nothing, there
<v Speaker 3>shouldn't be any interference or any you know, shift in
<v Speaker 3>the phase pattern.
<v Speaker 1>But there is.
<v Speaker 3>There's an actual measurable effect. It's called the scaler potential
<v Speaker 3>and so or the magnetic scalar potential of it. And
<v Speaker 3>so the question here then is if you can measure this,
<v Speaker 3>then can you reverse engineer it. There's a great uh
<v Speaker 3>presentation that I was watching about or or optical vortices
<v Speaker 3>of light, and really what it was about was like
<v Speaker 3>trying to figure out like if you have this vortex motion,
<v Speaker 3>if you were looking at a two dimensional surface and
<v Speaker 3>you just saw a circle. Could you map out what
<v Speaker 3>the vortex motion is in an extra dimension?
<v Speaker 1>Could you map it out?
<v Speaker 3>And after they model it out a while, they come
<v Speaker 3>up with and they say, oh, here's an equation that
<v Speaker 3>you know, seems like it fits what the experimental data shows.
<v Speaker 3>And so from that that kind of you know, answers
<v Speaker 3>the question too. Could you actually create entanglement? Could you
<v Speaker 3>manipulate the ether or this extra dimension to cause two
<v Speaker 3>things to be you know, joined together.
<v Speaker 1>Now maybe, well, yes, if you can solve it.
<v Speaker 2>But if we can figure out the subatomic formation of
<v Speaker 2>the matter and then figure out what frequencies if this
<v Speaker 2>theory that it's a simatic you know, phenomenon that's causing
<v Speaker 2>sub atomic formation, if you can figure out what frequencies
<v Speaker 2>cause the sub atomic formation to cause the matter to be,
<v Speaker 2>what is thus like this this area that you want
<v Speaker 2>to entangle to, then it would be more of creating
<v Speaker 2>the frequency patterns in a system to reproduce the sub
<v Speaker 2>atomic features.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think that actually is what it is. So
<v Speaker 3>because cimatics, if people are not familiar, the simplest explanation
<v Speaker 3>of cimatics is you just take a metal plate and
<v Speaker 3>you put sand on it and then you just hit
<v Speaker 3>it with or vibrate the plate at different frequencies and
<v Speaker 3>different shapes begin to form. So the question here is
<v Speaker 3>is this connected to this idea of the ether, Like
<v Speaker 3>why are those shapes forming from certain frequencies? Is it
<v Speaker 3>because we're in a medium and you're seeing this vibration
<v Speaker 3>and can you then map that that's what they are
<v Speaker 3>doing with Bose Einstein content states. That's actually what Bose
<v Speaker 3>Einstein content states are. Now we think of them at
<v Speaker 3>this thing at very low temperature, but it really when
<v Speaker 3>you boil it down to what is actually means this
<v Speaker 3>coherent shape that's being created by a frequency, and so
<v Speaker 3>how is that being created?
<v Speaker 2>Go ahead and like the simatics on the plate you
<v Speaker 2>were talking about, that's a two dimensional represent When you
<v Speaker 2>see three dimensional bubble simatics, good board, I think that
<v Speaker 2>is what is that Bose Einstein condensates. They think that
<v Speaker 2>they're bubble simatic or maybe something got to getting close.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think we're blurring the line at this
<v Speaker 3>point in terms of what, yeah, is it The same
<v Speaker 3>physics at play in the bubble simatics is what we
<v Speaker 3>see in the Bose ein Sein condensates, I think so,
<v Speaker 3>and the idea there is that we're creating these coherent
<v Speaker 3>stabilized shapes and the other thing that then ether then
<v Speaker 3>opens up the idea to is like just stabilize structures
<v Speaker 3>in general, and geometry stabilize geometric structures. So a good
<v Speaker 3>example of one would be like a smoke ring, you know, smokering,
<v Speaker 3>Like when you blow smokering, it's crazy how stable it is,
<v Speaker 3>like that thing can blow and blow and blow.
<v Speaker 1>And the reason why it's stables because it's a toroid.
<v Speaker 3>It's a toroidal shape, so you'll have the toroidal field
<v Speaker 3>and then you'll have the paloidal field going around the
<v Speaker 3>toroidal field as well, so you'll see the smoke kind
<v Speaker 3>of going around the ring as well as it blows.
<v Speaker 1>This also holds true for plasma as well. So the
<v Speaker 1>question then is can can we manufacture reality through these
<v Speaker 1>concepts or you know, going back to the disclosure question,
<v Speaker 1>can aliens do it? You know, can we make a
<v Speaker 1>Star Trek replicator out of this? When you start to
<v Speaker 1>be able to say, Okay, I'm gonna stimulate the ether
<v Speaker 1>with some you know, uh frequency, and then I'm going
<v Speaker 1>to cause an effect to happen the coherent shape to happen. Now,
<v Speaker 1>it's just like Okay, I'm just gonna tune it to
<v Speaker 1>whatever I want to occur, right.
<v Speaker 2>And it and it would be about the impulse of
<v Speaker 2>it too, so about the frequency and how fast you're
<v Speaker 2>introducing the frequency into the systems like bla bah blah
<v Speaker 2>blah blah by at a certain frequency and then you
<v Speaker 2>like slow it down, maybe you won't hit it, but
<v Speaker 2>then you like so like there's these what impulse are
<v Speaker 2>you delivering and what frequencies are being delivered, and then
<v Speaker 2>you'll be able to produce hydrogen with that that impulse frequency.
<v Speaker 2>And then if you do that and add other impulse
<v Speaker 2>frequencies to produce heat or or magnetic confinement, you might
<v Speaker 2>be able to produce fusion.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.
<v Speaker 3>So the hydrogen thing is really interesting because I keep
<v Speaker 3>thinking of this one experiment, the dynamic Casmir effect, where
<v Speaker 3>real photons are just being pulled out of the virtual photons.
<v Speaker 3>Because when I think about that from the perspective of
<v Speaker 3>you know, the ether is your point and going, wait,
<v Speaker 3>we're just pulling light out of the vacuum out of nothing, right, Well,
<v Speaker 3>how is that happening at all? And if we can
<v Speaker 3>pull light out of the vacuum, then well e equals
<v Speaker 3>mc squared, So light is you know, energy is matter.
<v Speaker 1>So and the.
<v Speaker 3>Most simple ad in the most simple element is hydrogen.
<v Speaker 3>So can we just literally produce hydrogen out of nowhere?
<v Speaker 3>I think the answer is yes. I think we actually
<v Speaker 3>can produce hydrogen out of nowhere and then transmute elements
<v Speaker 3>as well. The fusion aspect of it, I think is
<v Speaker 3>a little bit more complicated. I've been doing a pretty
<v Speaker 3>deep dive into fusion, and I don't think the secret
<v Speaker 3>is just like understanding gravity or what have you. It's
<v Speaker 3>a little bit more complicated than that. I think the
<v Speaker 3>real secret of fusion is actually.
<v Speaker 1>Non ignition fuel.
<v Speaker 3>Like in our heads we think of it as like
<v Speaker 3>we need to make a star, and we need it
<v Speaker 3>to be this star that's roiling with heat coming out
<v Speaker 3>of it. But if you incorporate the ideas of like
<v Speaker 3>Nikola Tesla and like electric circuits that are super efficient,
<v Speaker 3>then you can actually make an electric circuit, electric generator
<v Speaker 3>using fusion that doesn't require ignition that can produce over unity.
<v Speaker 3>So the idea of being we can get small scale
<v Speaker 3>fusion reactions like temporary ones like pulse ones like you're
<v Speaker 3>talking about, and get fusion reactions to occur, but we're
<v Speaker 3>not going to get this permanent sun that's there, and
<v Speaker 3>the output of that can be higher than the total
<v Speaker 3>energy input, which is really what we're trying to achieve,
<v Speaker 3>which is just infinite free energy.
<v Speaker 2>Right. Yeah, in order to build these little suns. I
<v Speaker 2>was thinking, I know, I think I know how to
<v Speaker 2>do it. There's this guy, John Kansas. He was a
<v Speaker 2>chemist in Ohio. He passed away in like two thousand
<v Speaker 2>and He was looking for a cure for cancer, and
<v Speaker 2>he was running frequency through salt water in his laboratory,
<v Speaker 2>different frequencies. I don't know if you've you've seen this.
<v Speaker 2>There's video of this guy doing this. He finds the frequency.
<v Speaker 2>I don't have it written down. He runs a certain
<v Speaker 2>frequency through saltwater. It lights off fire like a hydrogen flame,
<v Speaker 2>sixteen hundred degree hydrogen flame off the surface of the
<v Speaker 2>salt water. There's a gap between the saltwater and the flame,
<v Speaker 2>just like the sun, between the surface of the sun
<v Speaker 2>and the corona. There's that gap, and I'm like, okay,
<v Speaker 2>that's an electromagnetic flame being produced. So if that saltwater
<v Speaker 2>was in orbit, it would coagulate into a sphere. Naturally,
<v Speaker 2>we run the frequency through it, you get a light bulb,
<v Speaker 2>a star, and so you figure out if you can
<v Speaker 2>collect that heat somehow and use that heat to produce
<v Speaker 2>the electricity to continue the frequency, you'll have an ever
<v Speaker 2>producing star basically. But I wonder if that would produce
<v Speaker 2>like a z pinch phenomenon, if it would cause some
<v Speaker 2>sort of electric discharge into our own sun, into the
<v Speaker 2>Earth's magnetic field. Like it could be a real dangerous experiment,
<v Speaker 2>but it would be. It would be an immense amount
<v Speaker 2>of heat, and you just have to fuel it with saltwater.
<v Speaker 2>You just have to keep pumping saltwater in. Yeah.
<v Speaker 3>And that's the thing is that once we realize that
<v Speaker 3>we can use like water as a fuel source, I
<v Speaker 3>think I think it was redheaded. Libertarian was posted about
<v Speaker 3>Stanley Meyer the other day, and you know, I thought
<v Speaker 3>at once upon time that the whole water power car
<v Speaker 3>thing was nonsense. But then I realized I watched this
<v Speaker 3>video about if you take water and put it in
<v Speaker 3>like a cup or a bucket, and then take a
<v Speaker 3>tube and go up like a couple hundred feet and
<v Speaker 3>just an altitude, like you know, up some stairs or whatever,
<v Speaker 3>and you have your water tube and you suck the
<v Speaker 3>water all the way up through the tube. You get
<v Speaker 3>to a point eventually where above a certain level the
<v Speaker 3>water boils.
<v Speaker 1>Room temperature just boils.
<v Speaker 3>So like the water will go up to this level,
<v Speaker 3>everything above it just turns into gas automatically because why
<v Speaker 3>the pressure.
<v Speaker 1>There's not enough pressure.
<v Speaker 3>So without enough pressure, the water can't stay together and
<v Speaker 3>the water just falls apart. And so this would be
<v Speaker 3>how are people able to make.
<v Speaker 1>A water power car?
<v Speaker 3>Well, that's how you basically cause the hydrogen and the
<v Speaker 3>oxygen you just fall apart. And now you can use
<v Speaker 3>either as the fuel source. You know, you can pump
<v Speaker 3>the oxygen I think it is to your engine. If
<v Speaker 3>you want to make it more efficient, you can potentially
<v Speaker 3>use the hydrogen directly as fuel source as well. So
<v Speaker 3>we have fuel all around us. If we understand nuclear
<v Speaker 3>physics and nuclear science, and if we can manipulate gravity,
<v Speaker 3>if you can manipulate gravity itself, in my mind, you
<v Speaker 3>should be able to cause that net pressure, that lack
<v Speaker 3>of pressure. You should be able to cause that to occur.
<v Speaker 3>And then the question is, okay, well, how do I
<v Speaker 3>how do you make a system. It's actually pretty simple.
<v Speaker 3>You just have your area where you have the water
<v Speaker 3>comes apart, and then you send it to a different area.
<v Speaker 3>You either send the hydrogen or the oxygen where you
<v Speaker 3>want to go to produce energy, or if you want
<v Speaker 3>it to recombine, you just send it to a different
<v Speaker 3>area where now that's gonna it wants to come back together.
<v Speaker 3>It's just gonna recombine there, and then you can use
<v Speaker 3>the excess energy or the energy that's produced from fusion.
<v Speaker 3>So I think the idea of the water power car
<v Speaker 3>is definitely within reason. And I think that some of
<v Speaker 3>these like low energy nuclear fusion reactors, they're trying to
<v Speaker 3>do what you just mentioned, which is like you know,
<v Speaker 3>burn salt water, or in some cases they're using the air.
<v Speaker 3>Air is fuel as well, because air's got potentially enough
<v Speaker 3>elements in it, they don't need a lot of molecules
<v Speaker 3>in order to make you know, fusion reactions occur.
<v Speaker 2>Oh man, you're as you were saying about the like
<v Speaker 2>making water reducing the density so it becomes gaseous. I realized, Okay,
<v Speaker 2>so if I took my saltwater out into orbit to
<v Speaker 2>light it up like a light bulb, it would turn
<v Speaker 2>into gas. So we maybe we need to take ice.
<v Speaker 2>We need to take ice into orbit and just electrocute
<v Speaker 2>ice or run a current through ice to give off maybe,
<v Speaker 2>and then it would melt and create like a self.
<v Speaker 2>Like the sun. The sun doesn't just evaporate, it's keeping
<v Speaker 2>itself in positions. So at some point I feel like
<v Speaker 2>the heat would would like be make a self containing
<v Speaker 2>I don't know.
<v Speaker 3>So let's talk about fusion, because this was the thing that, Man,
<v Speaker 3>what a eye opener for me. I was really all
<v Speaker 3>of like, why have we been failing at fusion for
<v Speaker 3>seventy years? You know, like we've been supposedly we've had
<v Speaker 3>the age bomb since the sixties, but I don't think
<v Speaker 3>there's ever been an official use of the age bomb.
<v Speaker 1>He really knows what a fusion bomb is.
<v Speaker 3>We just assume it's this big, big boom, right, We
<v Speaker 3>just assume that it is. So when I started researching
<v Speaker 3>fusion trying to figure out, like, okay, why we failed,
<v Speaker 3>why does it suck? The first thing I found is
<v Speaker 3>that the hot fusion people have really a one track mindset.
<v Speaker 3>They're trying to get to ignition. They're trying to get
<v Speaker 3>to a star producing a star that was really hot.
<v Speaker 3>Now here's the problem is that the energy efficiency of
<v Speaker 3>any system where we're just getting heat out of it
<v Speaker 3>is really low. Like let's I'm just gonna throw at
<v Speaker 3>random number. This is just an index number, like thirty
<v Speaker 3>twenty or thirty percent. Let's say if we could produce
<v Speaker 3>electricity directly from our nuclear reactions, that efficiency can get
<v Speaker 3>up to like ninety percent, so two three times more
<v Speaker 3>efficient than those other forms. So in theory, we don't
<v Speaker 3>even really want this all is excess heat. In a
<v Speaker 3>perfect world, what we'd like is we'd like our power
<v Speaker 3>plant to produce electricity directly, not like making steam and
<v Speaker 3>then having steam t spin.
<v Speaker 1>The turbine or whatever it is.
<v Speaker 3>So when I was looking at the fusion types, I
<v Speaker 3>found one that I've called the I can't say I
<v Speaker 3>coined it, but I'm calling it cool fusion. So cold
<v Speaker 3>fusion was this idea that you could put like metal
<v Speaker 3>rods in water and then all of a sudden, put
<v Speaker 3>like a current through it. Now it's gonna boil, and
<v Speaker 3>there's gonna be this excess heat in there. And this
<v Speaker 3>was considered like basically like room temperature nuclear reactions hot
<v Speaker 3>fusion is like a tokamac. We're saying, Okay, we're trying
<v Speaker 3>to get ignition, and once we get ignition, then ignition happens,
<v Speaker 3>and now there's enough energy that we've got this runaway.
<v Speaker 1>Star that runs itself.
<v Speaker 3>There's a third option, cool fusion, and this is the
<v Speaker 3>one I was kind of saying before. So the companies
<v Speaker 3>are doing cool fusion are Helion Energy, which is funded
<v Speaker 3>by Mythral Capital, George or pal whatever, Peter Thiel and
<v Speaker 3>Sam Altman, and another one is try Alpha Energy, and
<v Speaker 3>both of these have backing by the Department of Event Energy.
<v Speaker 3>And what they're doing is they're saying, we're not even
<v Speaker 3>trying to get to ignition at all. They're keeping their
<v Speaker 3>temperatures lower than that. But they're using a different fuel source.
<v Speaker 3>They're using helium three. So they're doing something where they
<v Speaker 3>call it a neutronic The neutrons are where the heat
<v Speaker 3>comes from, So why is it all this heat coming out, Well,
<v Speaker 3>the neutrons. So they found a form of fusion that
<v Speaker 3>they're doing where they call it a neutronic fusion where
<v Speaker 3>there's only a very very little bit of neutrons coming out.
<v Speaker 3>And so what this means is they can actually capture
<v Speaker 3>the energy as electricity directly. The way they explain this
<v Speaker 3>is they say, well, okay, we make this plasmoid and
<v Speaker 3>they literally creating a plasmoid like a plasma smoke ring.
<v Speaker 3>And they create this plasmoid and its magnetic field strength
<v Speaker 3>is so strong that while it's trying to spread out
<v Speaker 3>and come apart, the magnetic field strength keeps it together
<v Speaker 3>and the magnetic field strength pulling it together walls trying
<v Speaker 3>to expand like this is where they pull the kinetic
<v Speaker 3>energy out of the just and turn it.
<v Speaker 1>Into like an engine like this. At least that's how
<v Speaker 1>it's described.
<v Speaker 2>You know what I think, But I think that is
<v Speaker 2>is friction. That's that that excess heat that's in that
<v Speaker 2>system or something like friction. I asked chat GPC to
<v Speaker 2>help me calculate this because what's happening. There's this ideal
<v Speaker 2>gas lots that the pressure of a system is equal
<v Speaker 2>to the volume multiplied by the temperature. I think that's
<v Speaker 2>what it is. So there's an inverse relationship in the pressure,
<v Speaker 2>volume and temperature of a system. If you increase the pressure,
<v Speaker 2>the system's either going to expand in volume or it's
<v Speaker 2>gonna get hotter, and that's basically the thing. But the
<v Speaker 2>ideal gas law is written for tubes to go longer
<v Speaker 2>and shorter to get water out of wells. It was
<v Speaker 2>written in the eighteen hundreds. So fusion, I think, is
<v Speaker 2>this gas, this this plasma, you know, the fluid, and
<v Speaker 2>but it's expanding, but it's expanding spherically, and when it happens,
<v Speaker 2>it's expanding so fast that it the expansion itself produces friction,
<v Speaker 2>and that friction is brought from without the system. It's
<v Speaker 2>outside of the system, comes into the fusive system. The
<v Speaker 2>friction then makes it get hotter faster, which makes it
<v Speaker 2>expand even faster, which adds more friction, which makes it
<v Speaker 2>hotter faster. So you get this runaway expansion. It may
<v Speaker 2>not be as simple as just saying it's friction, but
<v Speaker 2>I think that that might be the phenomenon of like
<v Speaker 2>I mean, yeah.
<v Speaker 3>I think that's the idea, right, is that you're taking
<v Speaker 3>this kinetic energy and you're able to then convert this
<v Speaker 3>to electric energy. The way they describe it, like the
<v Speaker 3>CEO of helium fusion would describe it, says, it's high
<v Speaker 3>beta values is high magnetic field compression. I think it
<v Speaker 3>says like a bat a biotic. I forget, how do
<v Speaker 3>you say compression? And I guess this is the part
<v Speaker 3>where people like struggle with this concept because it's so
<v Speaker 3>different than what we've been led to believe from the
<v Speaker 3>public perspective of like, oh, we're.
<v Speaker 1>Trying to make this star right.
<v Speaker 3>And the benefit of his approach is they use a
<v Speaker 3>pulse approach as well, so they minimize the total input energy.
<v Speaker 3>So instead of like trying to like focus this huge
<v Speaker 3>amount of energy to make ignition happen, they're like, no,
<v Speaker 3>we're just gonna hit it with this small pulse, and
<v Speaker 3>then we're going to try to recuperate as much of
<v Speaker 3>the energy pulse as we can as well, just like
<v Speaker 3>with like with an electric car, with like how the
<v Speaker 3>breaking in the electric car like recuperates the energy, same.
<v Speaker 1>Kind of concept.
<v Speaker 3>And so I just even if I didn't believe that
<v Speaker 3>they were on the right track, I would still be
<v Speaker 3>like supportive of what they're doing because they're thinking outside
<v Speaker 3>the box about the problem. They're going, Hey, it's not
<v Speaker 3>really just a matter of trying to get to ignition.
<v Speaker 3>What if we make our system super efficient, because once
<v Speaker 3>we get to a point where we're getting more energy
<v Speaker 3>out of this fusion system, then we're getting it that
<v Speaker 3>we're putting into it. Then we just have to scale
<v Speaker 3>it up right, because then you just have you have
<v Speaker 3>infinite energy. Once you get to over unity, you're good.
<v Speaker 3>It doesn't matter if you have ignition or not.
<v Speaker 2>Right, Yeah, when you're talking about getting a system started
<v Speaker 2>with like just impulses, I think of that when I'm
<v Speaker 2>lighting my incense with a lighter. You can click the
<v Speaker 2>lighter and have the flame there and just hold the
<v Speaker 2>stick and just run all that fire and you're gonna
<v Speaker 2>get that stick lit eventually. Or you can burst it
<v Speaker 2>and just tap it with flame and it'll get really
<v Speaker 2>really hot, really fascinating. Let go, and you can use
<v Speaker 2>like a third or a fifth of the of the
<v Speaker 2>fuel to get it lit. It's just about efficiency of fuel,
<v Speaker 2>efficiency of input heat. You don't need to lather your
<v Speaker 2>system excessive amounts of heat to get it hot. You
<v Speaker 2>can pulse it.
<v Speaker 3>And that's what Tim Poole was saying. Actually, he said
<v Speaker 3>I'll probably never forget that. He said, free energy is
<v Speaker 3>about efficiency, right. If we could get energy, if we
<v Speaker 3>could have energy that's even just ten times less or
<v Speaker 3>more efficient, less expensive than what.
<v Speaker 1>We have right now. It would change everything to everything
<v Speaker 1>about the world. That's what free energy is really about.
<v Speaker 3>Everybody thinks of it as like free energy is like
<v Speaker 3>energy is going to cause zero but it's not even
<v Speaker 3>about that. And it's also not about producing something that
<v Speaker 3>you know, produces energy from nothing at all. It's about efficiency.
<v Speaker 3>It's about getting a system, designing any system, you know,
<v Speaker 3>the square system, that you're getting more out of it
<v Speaker 3>than what you're putting into it if you've done that,
<v Speaker 3>and like.
<v Speaker 2>Can people even get access to it? You know, that's
<v Speaker 2>another aspect of is that energy free? Because if someone
<v Speaker 2>in a laboratory has unlimited electricity but no one else
<v Speaker 2>can use it, it's not really free energy. You know,
<v Speaker 2>freedom really means like can people use it? Is it
<v Speaker 2>accessible to people? Is it efficient in that it is
<v Speaker 2>easily utilized by the pop less?
<v Speaker 3>And that's what I wanted to ask you next, which
<v Speaker 3>is do you think they'll ever let us have this?
<v Speaker 3>Because you know, just long story short, I dug into it,
<v Speaker 3>they're definitely hiding fusion. Like and it's kind of silly
<v Speaker 3>when you think about it, because you go, we've had
<v Speaker 3>the fusion bomb since the sixties, but we can't figure
<v Speaker 3>fusion out.
<v Speaker 1>Like what am I missing here? The sixties was like
<v Speaker 1>a long time ago. So they figured the fusion bomb out,
<v Speaker 1>but they just couldn't figure out how to get energy
<v Speaker 1>from it like this is.
<v Speaker 3>So the question is are they going to give it
<v Speaker 3>to us? And why or why not?
<v Speaker 2>This is I think every time we hang out this
<v Speaker 2>we talk about this, and we like keep asking each
<v Speaker 2>other this question because it's like I think I want
<v Speaker 2>you to be like, oh, yeah, everyone's gonna be I
<v Speaker 2>don't know, it's dangerous obviously. This is like where I
<v Speaker 2>come through is like how explosive is the potential force?
<v Speaker 2>Like what if some idiot monkey drops it on the ground,
<v Speaker 2>are we all gonna die? Because if that's the case,
<v Speaker 2>you can't give it to every idiot monkey. No offense
<v Speaker 2>to the monkeys out there. The hominid species is a
<v Speaker 2>descend it from apes according to genealogy records, and people
<v Speaker 2>are a make accent and they sometimes fall down or
<v Speaker 2>mess up or get angry and do stupid shit. So
<v Speaker 2>I'm I'm not totally against like not giving every piece
<v Speaker 2>of information to everyone. I'm okay with with that. I
<v Speaker 2>don't know, if fusion is necessarily the answer to thriving
<v Speaker 2>is a species. But I do believe energy efficiency is
<v Speaker 2>I'm more interested in hydrogen, which I I'd like to
<v Speaker 2>talk about too. But where's your mind do you think?
<v Speaker 1>Then? Where's the line? Right? Like, where's the line between
<v Speaker 1>national security then and like the public good? Right?
<v Speaker 3>I mean, if you can make the justification that well, sorry,
<v Speaker 3>guys can't have fusion because you can make bombs that
<v Speaker 3>can annihilate the planet. And I think you could, in fact,
<v Speaker 3>I think that's probably what's gonna happen. That's just my
<v Speaker 3>personal opinion. But you know, where do you draw the
<v Speaker 3>line then in a scenario like that? And I think
<v Speaker 3>that does or maybe I actually does that explain the
<v Speaker 3>certain the whole situation that we have with the UFO.
<v Speaker 1>Phenomenon right now? Like why is this whole thing such
<v Speaker 1>a huge mess?
<v Speaker 2>Is it?
<v Speaker 1>Because because whatever it is that they're hiding is so
<v Speaker 1>dangerous that like there's a serious moral question over whether
<v Speaker 1>or not it can be allowed to be given to
<v Speaker 1>the public.
<v Speaker 2>That maybe like if they have fusion generators on those things,
<v Speaker 2>I don't think they do, because if one of them
<v Speaker 2>gets knocked down, that would be like the cat is
<v Speaker 2>out of the bag. It's such a risk to put
<v Speaker 2>one on board. But if they're not on board, how
<v Speaker 2>would they be powering it like by laser from a
<v Speaker 2>base station and moving it around like a magnet or
<v Speaker 2>something could be?
<v Speaker 1>Could be?
<v Speaker 3>I mean that is Bob Greenier literally thinks that, Yeah,
<v Speaker 3>like with the ORBS and that ma A Street seven
<v Speaker 3>zero video.
<v Speaker 1>He thinks they're using like.
<v Speaker 3>Satellites and shooting lasers to create like interferometry to shoot
<v Speaker 3>them around. Now, I think they are on board, And
<v Speaker 3>in fact, I would say I think some of that
<v Speaker 3>that has happened before. I don't think like they've shot
<v Speaker 3>down like a plasma ball and then they were like,
<v Speaker 3>oh we got this plasma ball.
<v Speaker 1>But like there's a drone called the RQ one seven zero.
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if you've ever heard of that, but
<v Speaker 3>during the twenty eleven under Obama, Iran hacked this drone
<v Speaker 3>and they they claim they hacked it. The Obama administration
<v Speaker 3>denied it, and then they like posted pictures of it
<v Speaker 3>and you're like, oh, well, that is definitely the RQ
<v Speaker 3>one seven zero drone, And then they made their own
<v Speaker 3>version of it, and I kind of wonder looking at it.
<v Speaker 3>I was reading through the other day, like everything about
<v Speaker 3>it's classified, so we don't even really know exactly what
<v Speaker 3>propulsion like they had. They suspect there's a certain kind
<v Speaker 3>of engine they were using. But what I found is
<v Speaker 3>that these fusion engines they kind of use a Z
<v Speaker 3>pinch type mechanism. They call it dense plasma focus, but
<v Speaker 3>it's like a Z pinch mechanism. All they've done is
<v Speaker 3>they turn that the turbine the engine. They just remove
<v Speaker 3>the turbine from the engine and they turn this into
<v Speaker 3>like a tube that's a heat exchange. So you put
<v Speaker 3>these magnets along the edges of it. They're like opposite polarity,
<v Speaker 3>and then this could just cause like any electron that
<v Speaker 3>goes through it, or plasma that goes through it like
<v Speaker 3>slows down, and I think they use like a helical motion,
<v Speaker 3>so it creates the plasmoid in the middle of it,
<v Speaker 3>and then the plasmoid creates the jets that come out
<v Speaker 3>of it, just like if you were looking at a
<v Speaker 3>neutron star and they just angle it. So those jets
<v Speaker 3>are the propulsion, Like that's how you fly around. So
<v Speaker 3>if you shot that down like you could figure out
<v Speaker 3>the science behind it, But I don't know if you're
<v Speaker 3>going to figure out like fusion immediately. You know, it's
<v Speaker 3>a slightly different concept.
<v Speaker 2>It sounds like rifling, like the way that they built
<v Speaker 2>they carve the spherical or the spiral into the engine
<v Speaker 2>to create either accuracy essentially plasmoidal accuracy trajection and very
<v Speaker 2>similar to how they built rifles.
<v Speaker 3>Did Yeah, did you know that when they uh some
<v Speaker 3>of the plasma fusion nuclear fusion scientists like there's a
<v Speaker 3>couple of shapes that keep coming up, toroids or one
<v Speaker 3>of them, but helical motion is another one that comes
<v Speaker 3>up all the time as well, like this vortex motion.
<v Speaker 3>So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there is
<v Speaker 3>literally a connection with like you know, guns and the
<v Speaker 3>and the helix motion of like the bullets and things
<v Speaker 3>like that as well.
<v Speaker 2>You nort now is the hydrogen revolution that it sounds
<v Speaker 2>like is like right around the corner. For the last
<v Speaker 2>fifty years out of Rice University, they're doing this graphene study.
<v Speaker 2>I talked with Jim Tour who's like one of the
<v Speaker 2>head scientists down there working on it, and they figured
<v Speaker 2>out this process called flash jewel heating where they'll take
<v Speaker 2>the electrocute carbon, any kind of carbon, trash, plastic, dirt, whatever.
<v Speaker 2>They put it in a vacuum and they electrocute it
<v Speaker 2>with seven thousand degree pulses of electricity and it breaks
<v Speaker 2>it apart, and then it cools down and reforms into
<v Speaker 2>its most stable form, which is the hexagon, which is
<v Speaker 2>the graphene start structure. And so you get this powder,
<v Speaker 2>black powder, graphene, bulk graphene, and it gives off hydrogen byproduct.
<v Speaker 2>And so for every kilogram of hydrogen that's released, you
<v Speaker 2>get about four dollars and fifty cents worth of graphene.
<v Speaker 2>So they've inverted the cost. It used to cost money
<v Speaker 2>to produce hydrogen. Now you receive, well, you receive product
<v Speaker 2>to produce the hydrogen. So after the cost of electricity induction,
<v Speaker 2>you get four dollars and fifty cents in return for
<v Speaker 2>every kilogram of fuel hydrogen fuel you've produced. And he's saying,
<v Speaker 2>our methane system across the United States is ready to
<v Speaker 2>introduce the hydrogen for cars for fuel, So if we
<v Speaker 2>want to start fueling our car. It sounds like they
<v Speaker 2>have contracts with the Department of Defense. He said that
<v Speaker 2>we're on the cusp of a hydrogen revolution. Fuel wise,
<v Speaker 2>I could see like a hybrid petroleum hydrogen cars where
<v Speaker 2>you can pump one or the other.
<v Speaker 3>I don't know, I think that they well, I mean,
<v Speaker 3>my sources have told me that there's companies that were
<v Speaker 3>already in the hydrogen game producing hydrogen. I didn't hear
<v Speaker 3>exactly how they were doing it. But once you open
<v Speaker 3>the door to solve the infusion, like and just what
<v Speaker 3>we've already spoken to, like cimatics understanding the ether. If
<v Speaker 3>you can create coherent shapes, now you can do alchemy.
<v Speaker 3>Now you can produce any element that you potentially want,
<v Speaker 3>and you can potentially do it at very low energy costs.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah go, yeah.
<v Speaker 3>So the last time I was to say is that
<v Speaker 3>part of low energy nuclear reactions. I did this interview
<v Speaker 3>with eng eight low energy fusion company, and one of
<v Speaker 3>the claims they made was that they could potentially produce
<v Speaker 3>hydrogen at a much lower energy cost than what the
<v Speaker 3>conventional approach would be to it.
<v Speaker 1>Too.
<v Speaker 3>So you kind of have to keep your eyes open
<v Speaker 3>on some of these companies, Like you know, if you
<v Speaker 3>were to look at it, they may just look like
<v Speaker 3>completely conventional company, but they might then be doing using
<v Speaker 3>some of these electromagnetic physics type concepts to really be
<v Speaker 3>making more money than what you would be possible otherwise.
<v Speaker 2>When I think about fusion, I think of the big
<v Speaker 2>ask that it's like, all right, this is okay. I'm
<v Speaker 2>from nineteen seventy nine. I'm cynical. That's just the way
<v Speaker 2>it was. Growing up in Ohio in the eighties. Our
<v Speaker 2>team Cleveland Brown's always lost was all we were always
<v Speaker 2>it never worked out. I had to chag break out
<v Speaker 2>of that mindset. But I'm like, that's what feels like
<v Speaker 2>with fusion. It's like we're never going to get I
<v Speaker 2>don't want to say it. I don't even want to
<v Speaker 2>joke about it because I don't want to manifest it's happening. Obviously,
<v Speaker 2>we're getting fusion. People are fusing things. But do you
<v Speaker 2>think it's actually reasonably going to be like a power
<v Speaker 2>source in the next thirty years for the common man?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean it exists, I'll tell you that much.
<v Speaker 3>Are they going to give it to us? That's the
<v Speaker 3>bigger question. And I think that they are away in
<v Speaker 3>exactly what you just said, which is their way in
<v Speaker 3>the question of what's the risk of somebody using this
<v Speaker 3>and creating a weapon that wipes us all out, and
<v Speaker 3>can we stop it if they do? And do we
<v Speaker 3>have the deterrence in place to do it? But absolutely
<v Speaker 3>I think not only are we gonna get fusion, I
<v Speaker 3>think it's gonna get a lot weirder than that, is
<v Speaker 3>that one of the first things that is probably gonna
<v Speaker 3>happen is we're gonna have to start coming up with
<v Speaker 3>new new names for some of these energy sources. Maybe
<v Speaker 3>the hydrogen Revolution sounds like a good way. Maybe we
<v Speaker 3>just call it that, honestly, because I think it's gonna
<v Speaker 3>be more all encompassing. We're gonna see like fusion companies
<v Speaker 3>like Helium that aren't even doing ignition, that are producing
<v Speaker 3>excess energy, and people are gonna be seeing they're wondering
<v Speaker 3>how I mean. I was watching a debunker person who's
<v Speaker 3>like a nuclear physicists themselves, and they were like listening
<v Speaker 3>to the CEO of Heli and Fusion. They're wondering how
<v Speaker 3>all these claims can be possible when these people are
<v Speaker 3>struggling to make.
<v Speaker 1>A tokamac reactor, you know.
<v Speaker 3>But then you're also gonna see stuff like free energy
<v Speaker 3>microchips at the same time, like our low power devices
<v Speaker 3>everything up to like a cell phone. In the next
<v Speaker 3>five or ten years, like they're gonna be rolling out
<v Speaker 3>free energy microschips, Like these devices just aren't gonna be
<v Speaker 3>running out of energy anymore. And people are gonna be like,
<v Speaker 3>how is that possible? And they're gonna come up with them.
<v Speaker 3>They're gonna call it like like I've been joking, they're
<v Speaker 3>gonna call like space juice. They're gonna come up with
<v Speaker 3>some stupid, like made up name they're gonna call.
<v Speaker 1>It's just harnessing space juice. Don't ask questions, right like,
<v Speaker 1>and yeah, okay.
<v Speaker 2>It'll be like juice tapping into the piezo electric vibration
<v Speaker 2>of the ether or something.
<v Speaker 3>It's gonna sound something like really technical, you know, and
<v Speaker 3>then that's what they'll say, and then everyone'll just be like,
<v Speaker 3>I don't question why my phone never has to run
<v Speaker 3>out of energy anymore, you know.
<v Speaker 2>You know, sub atomic piazo electrics is a fascinating concept.
<v Speaker 2>I mean, just piezo electric in general that you can
<v Speaker 2>use like tensive vibration to get an electrical charge. And
<v Speaker 2>then if you can scale that down at the to
<v Speaker 2>the micro chip level, the chips themselves power just just
<v Speaker 2>by atmospheric you know, indenture create their own conductivity.
<v Speaker 3>There's probably like at least three different ways to do
<v Speaker 3>free energy from the micro scale that I found. One
<v Speaker 3>is using the Casimir effect, which Sunny White has been doing,
<v Speaker 3>and I think Garrett Model at the University of Colorado
<v Speaker 3>Paul Thibodeau is using like a thermal effect, like the
<v Speaker 3>thermal changes is vibrations, and even it can be in
<v Speaker 3>a stationary temperature, but just the thermal just vibrations. Brownie
<v Speaker 3>in motion he made a microchip that basically just harnesses
<v Speaker 3>that as well. So in addition to what you just mentioned,
<v Speaker 3>so there could be a multiple different ways, like the
<v Speaker 3>Pizo electric thing. People, anytime you have like a PhD
<v Speaker 3>physicist come on, especially if you're talking to them like
<v Speaker 3>on Tame Pool on a big show, you should always
<v Speaker 3>ask them what is electricity?
<v Speaker 1>Where does electricity come from?
<v Speaker 3>Because Pieso Electricity explains it, like for people who are
<v Speaker 3>not familiar. Pies electricity is like a quartz crystal. You
<v Speaker 3>can squeeze the crystal and it'll produce electricity. They use
<v Speaker 3>these in watches low energy devices, right, because you can
<v Speaker 3>just shake your watch and now you get electricity. The
<v Speaker 3>reason why that happens is when you squeeze the crystal,
<v Speaker 3>the positive and the minus charges in the lattice structure
<v Speaker 3>of the crystal separate. Normally, they're in an equilibrium the
<v Speaker 3>positive minuses. Imagine them being next to each other.
<v Speaker 1>When you squeeze the crystal, it pushes them apart a
<v Speaker 1>little bit.
<v Speaker 3>So what is electricity? Well, electricity is just the positive
<v Speaker 3>and minus charges being separated, just like with the pies
<v Speaker 3>of electricity. So anybody that understands electricity should be able
<v Speaker 3>to tell you at the basic level, all electricity is
<v Speaker 3>is positive and minus charge separated.
<v Speaker 2>Is it?
<v Speaker 1>And we can go ahead?
<v Speaker 2>Is it? Because when you separate the positive and minus charge,
<v Speaker 2>the elect they want to come back together, so it
<v Speaker 2>produces an electrical current between them.
<v Speaker 3>Bingo, you nailed it, right, So now you can see like, oh,
<v Speaker 3>if I just look at it like that, then it's
<v Speaker 3>a completely different view of what electricity even is. Electricity
<v Speaker 3>is like a breaking of a symmetry, right, It's like, oh,
<v Speaker 3>we're stuck in this symmetry. Oh if I just rip
<v Speaker 3>these things apart, oh, now electricity exists, like oh, and
<v Speaker 3>we should be getting taught electricity like that. That's a
<v Speaker 3>much more logical, intuitive way than like, oh, the power
<v Speaker 3>plant is like producing this electricity and then shooting it
<v Speaker 3>through the wires and then it's like coming into my
<v Speaker 3>house at the speed of light, which is not how
<v Speaker 3>it actually works.
<v Speaker 1>It just seems like how it works.
<v Speaker 2>Dude. I want to capture lightning. I think that we've
<v Speaker 2>been staring at it the whole time. If we can
<v Speaker 2>produce tethers that can like graphine tethers or some sort
<v Speaker 2>of meta material that can absorb that can conduct the
<v Speaker 2>eat into a bay station and then absorb it down
<v Speaker 2>at the station, Like you could have these like feathery
<v Speaker 2>tethers up in the atmosphere constantly pulling the static charge,
<v Speaker 2>so you'll never actually have lightning strikes anymore, Like you'll
<v Speaker 2>prevent them and you'll just be absorbing the current. And
<v Speaker 2>then it's just about having a battery that can capacitate it.
<v Speaker 3>I think it's even easier than that. It's like, where's
<v Speaker 3>the electricity from the lightning strikes? Even coming from a
<v Speaker 3>deep space.
<v Speaker 2>If you see those above, if you ever watch above
<v Speaker 2>the clouds, those those those sprites they call them, that
<v Speaker 2>go just God knows where out into the next the
<v Speaker 2>next realm of galaxy or whatever.
<v Speaker 1>And I'm not like, I like the electric universe theory.
<v Speaker 1>I think there's some problems with it.
<v Speaker 3>But that was one of the fun things that I
<v Speaker 3>learned from is that I like to hearing other people's
<v Speaker 3>point of views, because then you hear like, are the
<v Speaker 3>what are the electric universe? People say about like the
<v Speaker 3>standard model and their view, And one of the biggin
<v Speaker 3>ones that go is like, where's all this energy for
<v Speaker 3>all these lightning strikes coming from?
<v Speaker 1>Like where else on this planet equilibrium?
<v Speaker 3>Well, those are a huge amount of energy coming from
<v Speaker 3>and so of course they claim it's coming from the
<v Speaker 3>lactric currents that are connecting the Earth and the Sun
<v Speaker 3>and all the other planets and the solarcism, which I
<v Speaker 3>think actually makes a lot of sense. But then the
<v Speaker 3>point is whatever electricity is, whatever is causing those lightning
<v Speaker 3>strikes that happen, we should be able to tap into that,
<v Speaker 3>We should be able.
<v Speaker 1>To harness that.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, my view is that if energy is mass
<v Speaker 3>and we can do stuff like the dynamic Kasmir effect
<v Speaker 3>and just pull light out of the vacuum, then that
<v Speaker 3>means energy is everywhere. That means we don't even need
<v Speaker 3>the sun, and we don't even need to make a sun.
<v Speaker 3>We can just pull energy theoretically just straight out of
<v Speaker 3>the vacuum.
<v Speaker 2>So you're talking dynamic Kasmir effect you're talking about. Is
<v Speaker 2>it light appearing out of the vacuum? Is that what
<v Speaker 2>that is? So that it's sort of like sono luminescence,
<v Speaker 2>where if you create a bubble underwater with a certain vibration,
<v Speaker 2>you'll create light. And I think maybe what's happening is
<v Speaker 2>that the Higgs field. There's a vibration in the Higgs field,
<v Speaker 2>and that if it hits a certain frequency, it cracks
<v Speaker 2>and produces photons, and then those they basically it's like
<v Speaker 2>the photon is coming through the Higgs field. This is
<v Speaker 2>an old idea I had fifteen years ago. I don't
<v Speaker 2>know if it's actually real or not. And then that
<v Speaker 2>cools down that photose hotons can cool down into matter.
<v Speaker 2>But I don't that was just a rough kind of
<v Speaker 2>a sure if I.
<v Speaker 3>Mean the Higgs field is it is really like zero
<v Speaker 3>point energy, but like with tricycle wheels attached to it,
<v Speaker 3>you know, it's like they're like.
<v Speaker 1>The Higgs field explains like one percent of mass. You're like,
<v Speaker 1>but that doesn't really explain like anything then does it?
<v Speaker 3>But it is the idea that, yeah, there are these
<v Speaker 3>fields that we are living, this structured, this construct, you know,
<v Speaker 3>and so that would be open the door to zero
<v Speaker 3>point energy and open the door to this you know,
<v Speaker 3>space time, flexible solid that can be manipulated.
<v Speaker 2>But if if like you're saying, electricity is produced when
<v Speaker 2>you pull apart a positive and a negative node and
<v Speaker 2>you and it's trying to find itself, trying to pull
<v Speaker 2>come back together so it has its current point, then
<v Speaker 2>then a lightning maybe is that? And so the Earth's
<v Speaker 2>core would be like the positive or the negative charge,
<v Speaker 2>but it's both. I think it's both positive negative. It's
<v Speaker 2>an interesting there's but so what's the capacitor? Right?
<v Speaker 3>And remember when doctor U was saying, when we were
<v Speaker 3>explaining why is gravity and electricity so like, why are
<v Speaker 3>they the strength so different? And doctor U took his magnets.
<v Speaker 3>He took a string of magnets and the string of
<v Speaker 3>magnets can pick up the balls, right, But once you start.
<v Speaker 1>Folding the magnets over, you're equalizing the charges.
<v Speaker 3>And what's happening now is that now all of a sudden,
<v Speaker 3>the magnet can't pick up any balls anymore because it
<v Speaker 3>got so much weaker.
<v Speaker 1>So the earth is also a magnet. And so why
<v Speaker 1>are we.
<v Speaker 3>Seeing the electricity, you know, strike down from the sky
<v Speaker 3>to the earth. Is that you're seeing this this vult,
<v Speaker 3>this potential difference. And as that potential difference builds up,
<v Speaker 3>eventually it gets so strong that zapp you know, theus,
<v Speaker 3>the minus and the positive decide that it can break
<v Speaker 3>through the insulator. What's the insulator? The insulator is the air.
<v Speaker 3>The air is the insulator. In this case, air is
<v Speaker 3>actually an insulator. We have to remember that even the
<v Speaker 3>air is a medium.
<v Speaker 1>So that's why we don't.
<v Speaker 3>See electric strikes. Well, that's why we do see the
<v Speaker 3>electric strikes. And here's another one for you. The lightning
<v Speaker 3>is a plasma because what is a plasma. All a
<v Speaker 3>plasma is is a positive charge and a negative charge separated,
<v Speaker 3>ripping the electron off the atom leaven behind a positively
<v Speaker 3>charged ion and a negatively charged electron. So when you
<v Speaker 3>separate these out, are we just creating electricity directly when
<v Speaker 3>we do that? And this is why I always thought
<v Speaker 3>like the whole idea of fusion using plasma like it
<v Speaker 3>should be direct energy conversion, because literally electricity is just
<v Speaker 3>a separation of positive and minus charge. Now Here's one
<v Speaker 3>of one of the things I'll thought I'll leave you
<v Speaker 3>with on this is that the electric universe theory. One
<v Speaker 3>of their big questions is why is there a plasma
<v Speaker 3>corona around the sun. Shouldn't plasma if it's positive and
<v Speaker 3>negative charges separated, shouldn't it try to come back together
<v Speaker 3>and equalize. But if that was the case, then we
<v Speaker 3>shouldn't see this corona around the sun at all. There
<v Speaker 3>shouldn't be in a difference of positive negative charges being
<v Speaker 3>so separated from one another. So clearly I think there
<v Speaker 3>must be something else going on.
<v Speaker 2>I think it's that similar thing with what John Kansas
<v Speaker 2>learned in his experimentations in the lab, is that there's
<v Speaker 2>a frequency running through the sun that's lighting it up.
<v Speaker 2>It's causing it to give off the flame. That's what
<v Speaker 2>the corona is. It's exactly like his experiment. If you
<v Speaker 2>watch that video John Kansas, it's k n s us
<v Speaker 2>It's like a two thousand and seven video of him
<v Speaker 2>running a free He tells you what frequency it is
<v Speaker 2>to run it through saltwater get that hydrogen flame, that's
<v Speaker 2>my guess.
<v Speaker 1>Interesting, So so that.
<v Speaker 2>That would lead to me to believe that that the
<v Speaker 2>Sun then has the chemicals make up saltwater. Obviously there's
<v Speaker 2>hydrogen in there, there's sodium in there, there's a lot
<v Speaker 2>of chemicals in the sun.
<v Speaker 3>But it Yeah, and the Sun itself, you know, maybe
<v Speaker 3>it just reaches a certain critical mass and then I mean,
<v Speaker 3>that's I think that the standard theory holds, right, You
<v Speaker 3>just have this huge amount of mass and then you
<v Speaker 3>have this critical event happen, and yes, then we get
<v Speaker 3>ignition to occur, and then what's happening inside the sun.
<v Speaker 3>There's actually a lot of theories about that that, you know,
<v Speaker 3>could be something related. Vibration planks constant is like what
<v Speaker 3>we imagine like the smallest possible vibrational.
<v Speaker 1>Scale that's out there. That could be a cut off point.
<v Speaker 3>That's where they uses the cut off point for calculating
<v Speaker 3>the zero point energy.
<v Speaker 1>Actually, so there could be a connection to that. The
<v Speaker 1>other idea is that maybe the Sun is.
<v Speaker 3>Like a lattice structure, like maybe it's more like a
<v Speaker 3>solid like when you get inside of it, maybe everything's
<v Speaker 3>so compact that it's almost like a crystal structure, and
<v Speaker 3>so then what could be happening would be more like
<v Speaker 3>pies of electricity, or like maybe you have like this
<v Speaker 3>vibrational like lattice structure inside the sun in the middle
<v Speaker 3>of it, which.
<v Speaker 2>I that's a cool idea that would make sense as
<v Speaker 2>to why a frequency would cause some sort of dissertation
<v Speaker 2>like that. I think that's the right word. I like
<v Speaker 2>the way it.
<v Speaker 3>Sounds because it's a resonance effect, right. It'd be like, oh,
<v Speaker 3>if you hit it with a frequency, then you're going
<v Speaker 3>to see some type of counter resonance effect, just like
<v Speaker 3>the photoelectric effect, which was like when we shot light
<v Speaker 3>at a metal, we did not see a significant difference
<v Speaker 3>when we increased the brightness of the light, but we
<v Speaker 3>saw a difference when we increased the wavelength when we
<v Speaker 3>changed the.
<v Speaker 1>Color of the light that hits it. So it goes
<v Speaker 1>to show, Yeah, resonance effects are what really seems to
<v Speaker 1>explain the universe.
<v Speaker 2>I think that comes from how photons interfere with surface plasma.
<v Speaker 2>They seem to refract off of the surface plasma at
<v Speaker 2>the center of every plasma cloud and transfer information, so
<v Speaker 2>that I think that's how light transfers information to plasma
<v Speaker 2>and if you look deeply into surface plasma in the
<v Speaker 2>way that it changes the red and the blue shift
<v Speaker 2>of the plasma fields, but depending on how the light
<v Speaker 2>is interfering with it.
<v Speaker 3>So the plasma front, let's see, is there anything else
<v Speaker 3>I want to touch on on that front? So yeah,
<v Speaker 3>the other thing I was going to touch on is
<v Speaker 3>the dense Plasma focused paper that I discussed i think
<v Speaker 3>on the podcast that we did together, which was finding
<v Speaker 3>out that they were taking these plasmas and they were
<v Speaker 3>trying to turn them into drones or you know, trying
<v Speaker 3>to turn it into a propulsion concept very clearly in
<v Speaker 3>the papers. And so plasmoids have another name. They're called
<v Speaker 3>few reverse configuration FRC. This is actually what they're called
<v Speaker 3>by Helia in Fusion as well as TAE. They came
<v Speaker 3>up with a new name for them, which are apparently
<v Speaker 3>just terroidal plasmas that are being shot together at one another.
<v Speaker 1>These frcs, they have a distinct characteristic. They have a
<v Speaker 1>spheremac shape, so they're shaped like a plasma sphere, but
<v Speaker 1>they also have axial jets that shoot out of them
<v Speaker 1>because they're creating that plasmoid in the center. They have
<v Speaker 1>these axial jets.
<v Speaker 3>So at some point the Air Force, and I don't
<v Speaker 3>know who the first person was to think about it,
<v Speaker 3>but I'm pretty sure it's this guy Frank Mead, They
<v Speaker 3>were like, oh, well, if there's these axial jets, we
<v Speaker 3>can use this as propulsion and then we can have
<v Speaker 3>now some type of thing that's flying around. I think
<v Speaker 3>that the thing that really took off was when they
<v Speaker 3>were able to turn into a drone. When you're like, okay, now,
<v Speaker 3>like having a plasma propulsion is one thing. Great, you
<v Speaker 3>got plasma flying everywhere, but that doesn't sound very safe.
<v Speaker 3>You don't want to be I wouldn't want to be
<v Speaker 3>near on a plasma a fusion reactor, you know, flying around.
<v Speaker 3>But one once you turn into a drone, now you
<v Speaker 3>have no problem. Now no human needs to be near
<v Speaker 3>it anymore. So this is where I personally my view,
<v Speaker 3>I'm curious about your opinion that I think they figured
<v Speaker 3>out these plasma drones and they've been flying them around
<v Speaker 3>for I don't know, ten twenty years, maybe longer, who knows,
<v Speaker 3>And that's why I don't know how far back it goes,
<v Speaker 3>and people are seeing them in the sky and they're going, Okay,
<v Speaker 3>there's a light in the sky flying around I basically
<v Speaker 3>anybody who sees that's going to think it's an alien, right,
<v Speaker 3>And now they're going, oh, UFO alien. And then this
<v Speaker 3>seems to coincide in the last let's say ten years
<v Speaker 3>with this like emergence of balls of energy balls of
<v Speaker 3>light that everybody's talking about. Even Louel Zando wrote in
<v Speaker 3>his book about three balls of energy and three balls
<v Speaker 3>of light. So my opinion is that they governments figured
<v Speaker 3>this out. I don't know, Maybe they figured out from aliens.
<v Speaker 3>Maybe they didn't, not sure. What do you think about
<v Speaker 3>the idea that like humans could have figured this technology out?
<v Speaker 3>This is like the biggest point of contention in the
<v Speaker 3>UFO community right now is like could humans have figured
<v Speaker 3>this techniclogy? How could we have reverse engineered it? Or
<v Speaker 3>does it have to be aliens because you know, we
<v Speaker 3>can't understand this alien physics.
<v Speaker 2>Human all human. If we can figure out electricity, we
<v Speaker 2>can figure out anything, dude. Any this is warping shit.
<v Speaker 2>It's I think a lot of it is talking plasma,
<v Speaker 2>which is a term they gave to this idea that
<v Speaker 2>you can triangulate or hit a point in time into
<v Speaker 2>space time time. It's funny. A point in time where
<v Speaker 2>you'll hit it with a bunch of like lasers or
<v Speaker 2>something creates a ball plasma and then you move that
<v Speaker 2>around like a laser pointer and then it flies and
<v Speaker 2>how does it move so fast? And it's like, well,
<v Speaker 2>it's because it's a it's an illusion that we're created.
<v Speaker 2>It's a ball of plasma. But then now you're talking
<v Speaker 2>about plasma drones. I don't know. And now I'm just
<v Speaker 2>thinking of actual autonomous balls of plasma that are using
<v Speaker 2>their own jets to maneuver, that are being maybe given
<v Speaker 2>information from the base station. But how would they be
<v Speaker 2>being produced either an onboard fusion. Then you're talking do
<v Speaker 2>they have on board power or are they being created
<v Speaker 2>by this talking fusion?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I remember, like a year and a half ago,
<v Speaker 3>I was thinking that they were creating them the same
<v Speaker 3>way that you just mentioned with the talking plasma, which
<v Speaker 3>I read which is honestly amazing. The talking plasma thing
<v Speaker 3>they can do. I mean, the fact they get it
<v Speaker 3>to literally talk to you means they can modulate the
<v Speaker 3>frequency and the and the standing wave of it to
<v Speaker 3>like at will, like constantly it's a very impressive thing
<v Speaker 3>that they can do that. Then in my mind, they
<v Speaker 3>can make their plasma ball like whatever size they want
<v Speaker 3>and need it to be, and it wouldn't take that
<v Speaker 3>much onboard fuel to make it happen.
<v Speaker 1>I think that though, that what like the plasma.
<v Speaker 3>Drone would look like would probably be like a tube
<v Speaker 3>with a bunch of stuff hooked up to it, and
<v Speaker 3>then once you like shoot it, and then it just
<v Speaker 3>spins up. And once it spins up, it's just it's
<v Speaker 3>a plasma ball now, and it just looks like a
<v Speaker 3>plasma ball until it's turned off. And but I a
<v Speaker 3>lot of people believe that these orbs can be like
<v Speaker 3>shot out of like a cannon, like you shoot a
<v Speaker 3>plasma can like a plasma sphere out of a cannon,
<v Speaker 3>and now it's just like a self contained structure and
<v Speaker 3>it's self contained until it dissipates, which it's it's stabilized
<v Speaker 3>so it won't dissipate it or it has like a
<v Speaker 3>very long life span. And then this would be the
<v Speaker 3>idea of like the ether and simatics, where like you've
<v Speaker 3>created this geometric shape where it's like a perfect geometric
<v Speaker 3>shape that just doesn't lose any energy and is able to.
<v Speaker 1>Keep its form.
<v Speaker 3>I kind of struggle with that because, like especially in
<v Speaker 3>like them a Streets of Zero videos, these things are
<v Speaker 3>clearly moving with some intelligent control.
<v Speaker 1>It's not just oh, shoot it over that way, right,
<v Speaker 1>it's like homing in on things and locking in. But
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, what do you think?
<v Speaker 2>Well, while you were talking about shooting a plasma drone,
<v Speaker 2>as that would be your bullet would be the drone itself.
<v Speaker 2>I'm thinking of like a coil, just like the rifling
<v Speaker 2>we were talking about. Maybe it would be a series
<v Speaker 2>of rings, but it would give that that forward momentum
<v Speaker 2>of spin that would allow for some sort of energy
<v Speaker 2>propagation that could maybe blow it up like a plasma
<v Speaker 2>balloon for the for the you know excerpt for the
<v Speaker 2>for the journey that it has to go to until
<v Speaker 2>it either dissipates or hits its target. Maybe maybe the
<v Speaker 2>idea that because I was yeah, the idea that you
<v Speaker 2>would use that as the bullet itself and not the
<v Speaker 2>gun is pretty cool.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, and that's something I had never really thought of.
<v Speaker 3>But that Okay, you've got these plasma bullets, and now
<v Speaker 3>you might be able to use them for multi things
<v Speaker 3>as well. I mean they probably originated as like you said,
<v Speaker 3>like spoofing mechanisms, right, because some of these pilots when
<v Speaker 3>they see these UFOs, they don't see them on radar,
<v Speaker 3>but then they'll see them like briefly show up. And
<v Speaker 3>this is I think where some of this idea of
<v Speaker 3>always this spoofy mechanism. Well, the plasma actually will reflect radar,
<v Speaker 3>but if you were to change the wavelength of the
<v Speaker 3>plasma for a brief second, it may actually be it
<v Speaker 3>may show up, so it could look like it's like
<v Speaker 3>a ghost out there. But then you can turn it
<v Speaker 3>like plasma itself is a physical phenomenon. It's not just
<v Speaker 3>an illusion, right, It's not necessarily just a hologram. So
<v Speaker 3>if you can turn it into that, now you've turned
<v Speaker 3>into a weapon. Because once again, what is electricity. Electricity
<v Speaker 3>is just a separation of positive is charged.
<v Speaker 1>So if you can control that, if you can spin
<v Speaker 1>that up into a ball plasma that can shoot around,
<v Speaker 1>now you've got a literally lightning ball like you're zeus
<v Speaker 1>now like shooting lightning nut battle on people.
<v Speaker 2>If it's like if it's just like what we're talking
<v Speaker 2>about electricity, you're pulling apart the positive and the negative,
<v Speaker 2>so gas either you're heating it up it's or you're
<v Speaker 2>destroying the You're removing the pressure, so the gas expands faster.
<v Speaker 2>It'll be easier to get it hotter, it'll be easier
<v Speaker 2>to pull the proton and the electron away from it
<v Speaker 2>because it's less pressure or getting it hotter. So if
<v Speaker 2>you can in it within like the bullet of this
<v Speaker 2>plasma torsion, if you can reduce the pressure or enhance
<v Speaker 2>the temperature, you might be able to produce an electrical
<v Speaker 2>charge that way.
<v Speaker 1>And you know what the thing was that took off.
<v Speaker 1>It was the lasers is what allowed this to all
<v Speaker 1>take off.
<v Speaker 3>When you even look at Helium's field re verse configuration reactor,
<v Speaker 3>they shoot these plasmoids at each other's smok rings of
<v Speaker 3>plasma and then they shoot these like neutral laser beam injectors.
<v Speaker 3>And the thing that allowed this all take off was
<v Speaker 3>that they got these lasers to be super powerful. This
<v Speaker 3>chirped pulse amplification Nobel Prize twenty seventeen.
<v Speaker 1>That's where they found these.
<v Speaker 3>They were able to come up with these atto second
<v Speaker 3>lasers because the smaller the time frame that you fit
<v Speaker 3>the energy into the more the energy density goes up.
<v Speaker 1>It's not just the region in the space that you
<v Speaker 1>want small, but the time region. The time of the
<v Speaker 1>laser gets smaller, the pulse gets smaller, the energy density
<v Speaker 1>goes up, and.
<v Speaker 3>That's how they're able to get these plasmas to reach
<v Speaker 3>these super high temperatures supposedly. So it wouldn't surprise me
<v Speaker 3>if like the military had this laser technology that allowed
<v Speaker 3>plasma and all this stuff to happen, and then of
<v Speaker 3>course they just classified it because it's all weapons related
<v Speaker 3>related nukes.
<v Speaker 2>You know, I would have classified it if I built
<v Speaker 2>it in the if I was working for the government
<v Speaker 2>and built that, I'd be like, all right, well for now,
<v Speaker 2>because they're probably all like airing on the side of caution.
<v Speaker 2>And then if the Chinese are like, we have it,
<v Speaker 2>then we'll be like, well we have it too. I
<v Speaker 2>guess you know, nobody wants to say it first, yeah.
<v Speaker 3>We had that, like they're Chinese is gonna be like
<v Speaker 3>we figured out whorp technology trumps something like we figured
<v Speaker 3>it out ten years ago. Sorry, you know, And you know,
<v Speaker 3>if you were like a black project engineer, you worked
<v Speaker 3>on this, like you know, magic technology alien technology.
<v Speaker 1>Call it whatever you want to call it. Would you
<v Speaker 1>come out as a whistleblower?
<v Speaker 2>You know?
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? Why are we not?
<v Speaker 2>Not? No? Because that that it's it's it's like life,
<v Speaker 2>and it's like the Manhattan Project. I wouldn't have I
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't have blowed the whistle on that either if I
<v Speaker 2>was working for that. I believe in the ethos of
<v Speaker 2>the United States free speech, gun rights, property rights. I
<v Speaker 2>want to do whatever I can to uphold that. If
<v Speaker 2>it means giving us the best military on the planet,
<v Speaker 2>giving us an edge, you know, within the AI fusion race,
<v Speaker 2>I'm down.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you know what I mean. I agree the same way.
<v Speaker 1>That's why it makes this so hard. Is it like
<v Speaker 1>I don't even like doing this. But at the same time,
<v Speaker 1>it's like people deserve to know about this science, about
<v Speaker 1>the technology.
<v Speaker 3>That's why the first question is like where is the
<v Speaker 3>line between this? Because I also want us to have
<v Speaker 3>this technology. I want America to be the number one country.
<v Speaker 3>But I also like, in the view of this, you're like, Okay,
<v Speaker 3>we've got warp drive technology, maybe wormhole technology, gravy manipulation,
<v Speaker 3>free energy technology. You know, I wonder, you know, how
<v Speaker 3>we have to be able to get some of this
<v Speaker 3>to the public people, you know, I mean, at some
<v Speaker 3>point you can't hide this forever.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, relying relying on the government, or just because they're
<v Speaker 2>deep state and have access to the tech when they
<v Speaker 2>were kids and now they get to learn about it
<v Speaker 2>and their dads have money and now they have money.
<v Speaker 2>Just because they have it doesn't mean that's the best setup.
<v Speaker 2>It might be better for the populace to have it.
<v Speaker 3>So and that's the big catch twenty or that. I
<v Speaker 3>don't know if it's a catch twenty two, but that's
<v Speaker 3>a big struggle that we're in. Because I agree with you,
<v Speaker 3>I would I would never go whistleblower either. If I
<v Speaker 3>was in Black Project, I wouldn't even have a social
<v Speaker 3>media account. I wouldn't do any of this stuff at all,
<v Speaker 3>because I do think it harms national security. And I
<v Speaker 3>think that if certain countries, certain cultures have access to
<v Speaker 3>this technology, I think the planet's totally definitely doomed, no question.
<v Speaker 3>But you know, it's a moral conundrum because we are
<v Speaker 3>talking about the ability to kind of end poverty. The
<v Speaker 3>big thing for me is this, if America has this technology,
<v Speaker 3>why are we not Why we have so many homeless people.
<v Speaker 3>Why we have so much struggling on this plan. Why
<v Speaker 3>does our country not look like ancient Rome with like
<v Speaker 3>you know, colosseums and you know the Renaissance everywhere. You
<v Speaker 3>know that that to me is the struggle, is that
<v Speaker 3>I think that at a minimum, we should be able
<v Speaker 3>to leverage the fact that we have magical technology.
<v Speaker 2>You know. I think it's because well, one, they want
<v Speaker 2>to keep it secret. That's the main reason too, is
<v Speaker 2>because we don't have the batteries yet to capacitate the power,
<v Speaker 2>Like we can't run well, we have Tesla power walls.
<v Speaker 2>We're getting there, but like really really good batteries that
<v Speaker 2>you can charge once and then they run your house
<v Speaker 2>for sixty days or six hundred years or whatever. You know. Like,
<v Speaker 2>once we can build the batteries that can super like
<v Speaker 2>super capacitor batteries you know, graphium, cadmium, whatever the hell
<v Speaker 2>materials we're going to be using, probably crazy meta material
<v Speaker 2>cermats and stuff, then I think the fewion will be like, uh,
<v Speaker 2>what's the word functional, like for the common man once
<v Speaker 2>they can store the battery, because then you won't have
<v Speaker 2>to give them the fusion reactor. They'll just be able
<v Speaker 2>to tap it in, get the power and then benefit.
<v Speaker 3>See you're thinking about it pragmatically, like they're never gonna
<v Speaker 3>give us a fusion reactor. We're never gonna get a
<v Speaker 3>portable fusion reactor. Is then you could just turn it
<v Speaker 3>on blow somebody up. But I could see they're gonna
<v Speaker 3>give you a tap, right, They're gonna say here, you
<v Speaker 3>can tap into the energy and then you can fill
<v Speaker 3>up your local reserve. But it's not gonna be enough
<v Speaker 3>to annihilate the planet. You know, something like that where
<v Speaker 3>I think it was how putoff even talking about this,
<v Speaker 3>where it's almost as evil as, maybe even more evil
<v Speaker 3>than how they portrayed in the movies. Where he's like, guys,
<v Speaker 3>zero point energy is real, it's coming out. This is
<v Speaker 3>a high risk venture, but its high reward. And he's like, basically,
<v Speaker 3>everybody knows we can't just give everybody a you know,
<v Speaker 3>a zero point energy device in their home. The way
<v Speaker 3>to do it is like when your old generators have
<v Speaker 3>to be replaced, just throw the old ones out and
<v Speaker 3>we'll give you new, upgraded reactors and no it we'll
<v Speaker 3>just never have to explain where that energy is coming from. Right,
<v Speaker 3>And well, if you save some money on it. Well,
<v Speaker 3>you don't necessarily have to pass that savings on to
<v Speaker 3>the consumer, right, how does the consumer you even know
<v Speaker 3>how much you're you know how much it costs you
<v Speaker 3>to produce the energy. That's what I think is really
<v Speaker 3>going on. And that's why I look at companies like
<v Speaker 3>Heli in Fusion and I'm like, I've identified them as
<v Speaker 3>like this is a company that the DOE is backing
<v Speaker 3>and stuff. And then I go, well, why is Peter
<v Speaker 3>Teel like one of the major investors in this and
<v Speaker 3>he's connected to the CIA, and.
<v Speaker 2>Oh yeah Bolenteer too, that's a good sign for Fusion, Okay, yeah, yeah.
<v Speaker 3>And this is why I tell people like, look, this
<v Speaker 3>isn't stock advice, but when Helian Fusion goes IPO, just
<v Speaker 3>go look at Pollenteer stock price and what's happened to
<v Speaker 3>them as well? You know, It's like it feels like
<v Speaker 3>some of these companies are being kind of selected is
<v Speaker 3>because they know or they have the right connections. And
<v Speaker 3>to kind of like counter a point that Elon Musk made.
<v Speaker 3>Elon's like, why don't they compete with me? Well, just
<v Speaker 3>like you said before about like why don't they reveal
<v Speaker 3>this technology, lets happen, because then would be the technology, right,
<v Speaker 3>So that's why they can't compete with it. But they
<v Speaker 3>also don't care about being four hundred five hundred billion dollar,
<v Speaker 3>you know, richest people in the world. Give me one
<v Speaker 3>billion dollars and I'm good.
<v Speaker 1>I'll go disappear.
<v Speaker 3>You never have to know my name, right, So that's
<v Speaker 3>the way it seems to work behind the scenes. But
<v Speaker 3>if people pay attention, I mean, I think you can
<v Speaker 3>see it happening.
<v Speaker 2>So you're saying Elon's like, why won't they compete with
<v Speaker 2>my space program? Basically is where he's at. And then
<v Speaker 2>and they're but secretly building drones that can go underwater
<v Speaker 2>and fly into space exactly.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and I don't know the space part's weird, Like
<v Speaker 3>I want to broach this topic with you a little
<v Speaker 3>bit too. That, Uh, the more I research these plasma
<v Speaker 3>drones and stuff, I'm going like, did he even operate
<v Speaker 3>in outer space? Because I think they're using something called
<v Speaker 3>an air breathing system magneto hydrodynamic system, which means they're
<v Speaker 3>basically using either the air or the water is either
<v Speaker 3>a fuel source or is like a catalyst and the
<v Speaker 3>reaction so they don't have to have that stuff on board. Well,
<v Speaker 3>outer space doesn't have nearly as much as like the
<v Speaker 3>air or like water. So there's two ways to look
<v Speaker 3>at One would be that like, you don't need that
<v Speaker 3>much stuff in outer space because you're just like floating
<v Speaker 3>through the air, floating through space, right. But the other
<v Speaker 3>view of it is, well, even if you lose like
<v Speaker 3>a tiny bit of your matter your energy, then over
<v Speaker 3>a long distance you're gonna lose everything, but before you
<v Speaker 3>get there, right, So I don't know if they can
<v Speaker 3>really be used.
<v Speaker 2>It sounds like a local defense tool, Like I think
<v Speaker 2>it makes sense for planets to have local defense drones
<v Speaker 2>that are just plasma orbiting and protecting the atmosphere. That
<v Speaker 2>makes sense.
<v Speaker 1>That's what I thought those new Jersey drones were.
<v Speaker 3>Actually I was on with Clint Russell, you know him, right,
<v Speaker 3>That was he and I did like really great livestream
<v Speaker 3>where we were talking about that new Jersey drone thing
<v Speaker 3>back in December, and I was like, I think they're
<v Speaker 3>like a defense mechanism, Like what if they're just drones
<v Speaker 3>sit around their defense network, where like if someone shoots
<v Speaker 3>a hypersonic at us, our drones just intercept it.
<v Speaker 1>And like wormhole it to the sun or something.
<v Speaker 2>Or like an asteroid or something that drones.
<v Speaker 3>To absolutely right, like the Opofos asteroid that I think
<v Speaker 3>is like twenty twenty nine or something like that. I'm
<v Speaker 3>not afraid of that because we got plasma drones that
<v Speaker 3>are just flying around that can you know, intercept stuff
<v Speaker 3>anywhere that they that we need to.
<v Speaker 1>But this means too.
<v Speaker 3>This is something that I learned from old anime shows
<v Speaker 3>is that the smartest anime shows would be like the
<v Speaker 3>ones where the guys like trying to understand the villain
<v Speaker 3>and like what his power is and like what his
<v Speaker 3>weakness is in his power. That's how when I look
<v Speaker 3>at like the teleportation technology, I was like, what are
<v Speaker 3>the limits to this? Turns out there's a lot of
<v Speaker 3>limits to it. It's not just like oh I can
<v Speaker 3>just zapp and just now I'm on the moon and
<v Speaker 3>now I'm back. Turns out it's like a one way
<v Speaker 3>trip kind of situation, like you zapp here and now
<v Speaker 3>you're over here, but now you have to do it
<v Speaker 3>again if you want to go you know somewhere else.
<v Speaker 2>You know where I'm at with with wormholes, Maybe you
<v Speaker 2>have more to say is charged black holes. I'm not
<v Speaker 2>sure if you're familiar with the charged black hole. It's
<v Speaker 2>different than a regular black hole. It's like rotating, and
<v Speaker 2>I think it's been woken up. I think it's a
<v Speaker 2>teleportation mechanism. If you travel through a charged black hole,
<v Speaker 2>it will super accelerate you through that singularity. You'll go
<v Speaker 2>through so tight and be shot out so fast. Afterwards,
<v Speaker 2>you'll super accelerate towards it's the first star you hit,
<v Speaker 2>and then it'll slow you down and you'll stop in
<v Speaker 2>front of it. And I think that's literally people will
<v Speaker 2>aim towards stars between they'll put the charge black hole
<v Speaker 2>between them and the star and they'll go through it,
<v Speaker 2>and that will teleport them to the star. And that
<v Speaker 2>we can actually charge our black hole, Sagittarius B, I
<v Speaker 2>think is at the center of our galaxy. We have
<v Speaker 2>a black hole, but it's not charged up yet, So
<v Speaker 2>I think we can charge that thing and use it
<v Speaker 2>as a teleportation mechanism or whatever. It's a super accelerator
<v Speaker 2>basically not really teleporting, but it's at that speed, you know,
<v Speaker 2>it's hard to tell the difference. Yeah.
<v Speaker 3>Leonard Suskin and Juan Melosina they believe that the black
<v Speaker 3>holes are quantum entangled. But there's an interesting theory that
<v Speaker 3>I hadn't seen before I read it yesterday, which was
<v Speaker 3>that what if the black hole like doesn't have perfect
<v Speaker 3>entanglebl the difference between a black hole and a wormhole
<v Speaker 3>would be when you create a wormhole, like I'm zapping
<v Speaker 3>like you know, this airplane here and it's reappearing over here.
<v Speaker 3>But what if when the black hole pulls in matter,
<v Speaker 3>it like rips it out, shoots it out like a
<v Speaker 3>sprinkler like, so it's like creating like multiple entanglements like,
<v Speaker 3>but it's like they're not altogether anymore at that point.
<v Speaker 3>And what if that's the difference in that really a
<v Speaker 3>worm holes like a black hole, but it's like a stabilized,
<v Speaker 3>temporary black hole like this temporary rip you make, whereas
<v Speaker 3>a black hole is like this huge amount of mass
<v Speaker 3>that's just like anything comes in has wept in, shreded pieces.
<v Speaker 2>We have scientific community located any wormholes yet like.
<v Speaker 1>Well, I don't know how we would even do that.
<v Speaker 3>That's the problem because like even if you see a
<v Speaker 3>black hole like okay, well where's it coming out? Because
<v Speaker 3>what we what have we learned from entanglement.
<v Speaker 1>It could be anywhere. It could be like literally anywhere.
<v Speaker 3>So I think we probably will find some because I
<v Speaker 3>personally think that these wormholes and black holes exist. But
<v Speaker 3>the question is are they cosmological phenomenon other than black
<v Speaker 3>holes or are they purely like a laboratory produced phenomenon.
<v Speaker 2>Right, the wormhole? What is it? Exactly? What's the difference
<v Speaker 2>between a worm like? What is do you know what
<v Speaker 2>the theoretical working definition of a wormhole is?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it's just a bridge between two points in space
<v Speaker 3>and time. And so you obviously really we have to
<v Speaker 3>only imagine it metaphysically because we can't see an extra dimension.
<v Speaker 3>But usually they represent it as like two flat surfaces
<v Speaker 3>and then a tunnel between the two surfaces like this, right,
<v Speaker 3>And so it's this conceptual view that, like I was
<v Speaker 3>saying before, is that that space time is flat. Like
<v Speaker 3>I think it's been proven that space time is actually flat.
<v Speaker 3>We don't really agree it, and flat earthers are probably
<v Speaker 3>gonna have a field day with this, but space time
<v Speaker 3>is flat, we just don't perceive it as flat. And
<v Speaker 3>if it's flat, then you can just bend it like this.
<v Speaker 3>And now the points that were previously not connected are connected.
<v Speaker 3>Now that seems super weird to us because that's not
<v Speaker 3>how we see observe reality around us. But that's because
<v Speaker 3>all of space time around us is an equilibrium. It's
<v Speaker 3>all perfectly equilibrium. But if we rip that out of equilibrium,
<v Speaker 3>then we start to see these weird effects.
<v Speaker 1>But if it's true, if wormholes are real, then I
<v Speaker 1>think it proves Ben Riches right, that all point in
<v Speaker 1>space and time are actually really connected. We just don't.
<v Speaker 1>We don't perceive them as being connected.
<v Speaker 2>And like motion and time and space and speed and
<v Speaker 2>all that. If you're in deep space with no reference
<v Speaker 2>point and it's black everywhere all around you, if you
<v Speaker 2>start going faster, you won't know it because there's no
<v Speaker 2>there's no perceptual inertia. I don't even think there's inertia
<v Speaker 2>if there's no relative space. I don't think that's I mean,
<v Speaker 2>they're like, yeah, good, there is technically inertia, but you
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't perceive it so like, and then your distance would
<v Speaker 2>be shorter, but you wouldn't have realized it was because
<v Speaker 2>you were going faster and didn't know it.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it turns out like a lot of this stuff
<v Speaker 3>is illusion the illusion like cloaking or the illusion of distance,
<v Speaker 3>or when something gets smaller when it gets further away. Like,
<v Speaker 3>it turns out these effects, while they seem illusionary, they're
<v Speaker 3>also just physically real as well. So like if you
<v Speaker 3>contract or expand space because of relativity, you actually do
<v Speaker 3>change physical properties. One of the things that was being
<v Speaker 3>talked about, I think I Richard ban Durich, he was, uh,
<v Speaker 3>he was making ways because he was talking about like
<v Speaker 3>alien meta materials or something like that. I don't know
<v Speaker 3>about all his alien meta material claims, but he knows
<v Speaker 3>about electromagnetism and gravity, and he was saying that, well,
<v Speaker 3>if you have length contraction or length expansion from general
<v Speaker 3>relativity from you know, things moving at relative speeds, then
<v Speaker 3>you can have current actually increased from the perception of current.
<v Speaker 3>Like if I'm looking at an object, the electricity being
<v Speaker 3>formed will look like it's going up if you have
<v Speaker 3>length contraction or expansion happening. And he explains this from
<v Speaker 3>the perception of the electrons, and you're like, wow, okay, yeah,
<v Speaker 3>so general relativity actually starts to get really weird. And
<v Speaker 3>this could even explain like why do we have it,
<v Speaker 3>Like imagine this cube of space time. Like, if I
<v Speaker 3>squeeze this cube of space time, what's gonna happen. What
<v Speaker 3>I would imagine is whatever's inside this cube of space
<v Speaker 3>time is gonna get pushed out.
<v Speaker 1>It's gonna get pushed out. Squeeze that.
<v Speaker 3>So if I have contraction of space time, what do
<v Speaker 3>I think should be happening, Well, I think energy should
<v Speaker 3>be getting shot out, probably in the form of photons.
<v Speaker 3>So personally, that's how how my my view of the
<v Speaker 3>universe is. I think the zero point energy is filled
<v Speaker 3>with this invisible energy. That's an equilibrium I and if
<v Speaker 3>you squeeze it, you get light.
<v Speaker 2>Oh, well, that's son iluminescence. Then I guess you're you're
<v Speaker 2>squeezing on the bubble underwater. You're creating a vacuum. Well
<v Speaker 2>you're you're what is You're running a vibration through and
<v Speaker 2>creating a bubble, which then the pressure, the squeezing of
<v Speaker 2>the pressure, releases a photone.
<v Speaker 1>So sonal luminescence. You take water and you just shoot
<v Speaker 1>the sound, Uh, create a standing wave in the middle
<v Speaker 1>of your sound of your water, and the sound the
<v Speaker 1>sound will actually create light. Light actually gets formed, and
<v Speaker 1>it's because it creates a cavitation and implosive effect that
<v Speaker 1>produces light. Science struggles to understand why that's the case,
<v Speaker 1>and why how there could be so much energy that
<v Speaker 1>light is being released while like the glass that's containing
<v Speaker 1>the water doesn't break, or why the water doesn't boil.
<v Speaker 1>Why does the water not boil.
<v Speaker 3>You've got you've got light being produced in the middle
<v Speaker 3>of this, but the water's not boiling. Some people wonder
<v Speaker 3>is fusion happening in sono luminescence? And so I think
<v Speaker 3>that the reason why I love those experiments is that
<v Speaker 3>when I was digging through this, digging through the science,
<v Speaker 3>trying to figure out, like how are they are they
<v Speaker 3>really hiding gravity whatever, you find all these experiments that
<v Speaker 3>like have no like palatable conventional explanation. And that's why,
<v Speaker 3>I mean, part of the reason why I'm absolutely convinced
<v Speaker 3>that all this science is real is that when you
<v Speaker 3>look at the underlying thread of it, you find out
<v Speaker 3>that it goes back to Tesla, it goes back to
<v Speaker 3>Maxwell's original equations before.
<v Speaker 1>They got reduced.
<v Speaker 3>Is we threw out this scalar potential because we didn't
<v Speaker 3>see it, We didn't see it out there, kind of
<v Speaker 3>like how we don't see wormholes out there, but that
<v Speaker 3>doesn't mean they're not real. The math says that they
<v Speaker 3>should exist. Sure, so the scaler potential is real too.
<v Speaker 3>Maybe we just didn't we didn't, you know, find the
<v Speaker 3>right effect to see it. Maybe it's mostly a lab
<v Speaker 3>produced effect.
<v Speaker 2>And this is what the effect of what exactly that
<v Speaker 2>we're within.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the scalar potentials like the affe of the medium itself,
<v Speaker 3>so like the effect of and I believe it can be.
<v Speaker 3>I believe the scaler potential gets seen more when you pull,
<v Speaker 3>like you create an electric system and you shoot the
<v Speaker 3>voltage up super super high, like above thirty fifty thousand volts.
<v Speaker 3>Is now that scalar potential that was really really tiny before,
<v Speaker 3>now you can actually see measurable effects related to it.
<v Speaker 2>And a common example that as I was up hiking
<v Speaker 2>up in the clouds, I was up in the mountains,
<v Speaker 2>I was it was foggy. I didn't know it was
<v Speaker 2>foggy because I was up there. It just looked normal.
<v Speaker 2>And I was walking. I'm like, why am I dripping
<v Speaker 2>with sweat? Literally as if I'd been in the pool
<v Speaker 2>swimming in my clothing. I was dripping. My friend was
<v Speaker 2>like you're dripping like drip drip, drip drip like why
<v Speaker 2>because the medium I was in imperceivably wet. I didn't
<v Speaker 2>know because I was inside of it, I couldn't see it.
<v Speaker 2>Exactly the same kind of thing with fit with space time.
<v Speaker 2>There's so much potential energy in this medium that we
<v Speaker 2>don't perceive because.
<v Speaker 3>We're in it, and that's what allows for really all
<v Speaker 3>this science to be possible, of free energy, of over unity,
<v Speaker 3>of fusion. I think that if they're wasn't a medium,
<v Speaker 3>why we wouldn't even be digging it. We wouldn't even
<v Speaker 3>trying to do fusion. I don't think fusion would be
<v Speaker 3>possible if there wasn't a medium of energy. I mean,
<v Speaker 3>you'd have to be pumping in the you know, all
<v Speaker 3>your fuel source conventionally, which I don't know how that
<v Speaker 3>could ever achieve over unity from a conceptual viewpoint if
<v Speaker 3>space is empty, but you know, maybe we can do
<v Speaker 3>it that way.
<v Speaker 2>So yeah, oh, I just I appreciate that you talked
<v Speaker 2>about distance contracting and expanding distance and that producing an
<v Speaker 2>electrical charge, or even the perception of expanding and contracting
<v Speaker 2>distance that could produce an electrical charge. I'm going to
<v Speaker 2>sleep on that one. That's really right.
<v Speaker 3>You definitely want to check out the Paul Thibodeau graphing
<v Speaker 3>thermal thing, which is really cool because essentially what he's
<v Speaker 3>created is a battery that the batteries default state is
<v Speaker 3>not zero.
<v Speaker 1>The batteries default state is you know.
<v Speaker 3>Pick a voltage number, it doesn't matter, right, because what
<v Speaker 3>that would mean is that you can sap energy off
<v Speaker 3>of it and it always tries to go back to
<v Speaker 3>that equilibrium state.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, how crazy is that? Like a battery, chadgery battery.
<v Speaker 1>Nice job, Paul Thibodeaux. Yeah, I saw that one.
<v Speaker 3>I'm just like, wow, that was a type of And
<v Speaker 3>so this is why I try to tell people, like
<v Speaker 3>there's so many different conceptual viewpoints of free energy devices.
<v Speaker 3>One of them is just a battery that just never
<v Speaker 3>runs out. And so he's created an asymmetrical system that
<v Speaker 3>it's equilibrium is not zero. And of course every physicist
<v Speaker 3>that was in the presentation is going, how is this
<v Speaker 3>How is this not violating the laws of thermodynamics? And
<v Speaker 3>he says as well, because it's basically just harnessing Brownie
<v Speaker 3>in motion from the thermal ambient temperature. Like it if
<v Speaker 3>you do the equations, the math shows that should work.
<v Speaker 3>They built the microchip. Microchip shows that it works.
<v Speaker 1>What else do you want? Right?
<v Speaker 2>And they've also they created nuclear batteries. They were doing
<v Speaker 2>with like a small they have like nuclear waste. They
<v Speaker 2>put in glass or diamond or something and it produces
<v Speaker 2>exactly the same kind of piezo electric.
<v Speaker 1>You know.
<v Speaker 3>That's the stuff where I think you're talking about where
<v Speaker 3>they're using the word nuclear, I think a little everly,
<v Speaker 3>where like I think they're like doing transmutation and they're
<v Speaker 3>just been like, yeah, it's just nuclear.
<v Speaker 1>You know, because technically it is. Technically it is nuclear.
<v Speaker 1>But you're like, how are you doing it? How efficiently
<v Speaker 1>are you doing it? Right?
<v Speaker 3>Like, because you could theoretically be doing this super efficiently,
<v Speaker 3>making like tons of money and just producing stuff that
<v Speaker 3>would people would be saying is violating you know, the
<v Speaker 3>laws of physics, vitalized laws dermodynamics. But yeah, I think
<v Speaker 3>that there's doing it and they're doing it quietly, and
<v Speaker 3>then they've got contracts with other government or other entities.
<v Speaker 2>But breakoff. They'll break off like that little one for
<v Speaker 2>the public and be like, hey, look what we figured out.
<v Speaker 2>You can you can maybe charge your iPhone with this.
<v Speaker 1>Exactly.
<v Speaker 3>And now, you know, when we talk about the companies,
<v Speaker 3>I think I know where your politics are. You think
<v Speaker 3>you're kind of more libertarian, kind of like I am,
<v Speaker 3>you know, free speech, uh, freedom of you know, expression,
<v Speaker 3>et cetera. You know, recently the United States took control
<v Speaker 3>part of Intel because I think they're a micro chip manufacturer.
<v Speaker 3>I think a lot of what I've found out about
<v Speaker 3>this is like we're well past the days of like
<v Speaker 3>magnetic motors and these like free energy devices people were
<v Speaker 3>making that were like as big as a room. Now
<v Speaker 3>we're to the point of like people are making free
<v Speaker 3>energy devices on little microchips.
<v Speaker 1>So microchips are the future.
<v Speaker 3>There was actually somebody floating today the idea of Locking
<v Speaker 3>Martin being potentially nationalized as well. Apparently ninety seven percent
<v Speaker 3>of their revenue comes from the government. I didn't even
<v Speaker 3>know that about Locking Martin until today. So where do
<v Speaker 3>you stand on this, like, you know, nationalization of companies
<v Speaker 3>under national you know, security or national defense. I mean,
<v Speaker 3>if the technology is that powerful, if we have this
<v Speaker 3>crazy you know, alien technology zero pint any tesla technology,
<v Speaker 3>and is it right to nationalize them or is free
<v Speaker 3>market went over this is.
<v Speaker 2>I'm so glad you. I just posted this on Twitter
<v Speaker 2>before we went live, and that it's that in the
<v Speaker 2>twentieth century was basically the war between fascism and communism,
<v Speaker 2>and it was one or the other, pick aside, and
<v Speaker 2>the Western powers chose fascism with the Federal Reserve and FDR,
<v Speaker 2>and it was instead. It wasn't like Mussolini fascism. It
<v Speaker 2>wasn't that kind of violent kicking doors in Hitler fascism.
<v Speaker 2>It was British fascism. It was peaceful fascism, but it
<v Speaker 2>was better than communism, and it fascism won. And we
<v Speaker 2>live in a fascist system where our government can print
<v Speaker 2>fake money and does so many businesses with corporations behind
<v Speaker 2>the scenes that is indicative of a fascist behavioral but
<v Speaker 2>not on paper. They don't own any of the companies
<v Speaker 2>because that would be fascist. Well, anyway, Trump just did
<v Speaker 2>it blatantly in public for the first time. He's showing
<v Speaker 2>our fascist nature by buying using government funds my money
<v Speaker 2>to print fake money to buy He basically made my
<v Speaker 2>money worthless to print to buy a company. And now
<v Speaker 2>they're talking about going full communist and owning businesses. It's insane.
<v Speaker 2>Like we at least need a visage of a free economy.
<v Speaker 2>Because Intel stock slip cook Intel stock went up seven
<v Speaker 2>percent after he invested eight billions or ten billion. That's
<v Speaker 2>playing favorites in the market. What the hell's going to
<v Speaker 2>happen to the other chip manufacturers?
<v Speaker 1>Now, how's nobody talking about this? I'm saying, you're wondering,
<v Speaker 1>like we just took over part of a chip manufacturer
<v Speaker 1>and nobody's saying a word about are one hundred.
<v Speaker 3>Percent playing favorites? I mean, there's no debate. We're playing favorites.
<v Speaker 3>Of course their stock When I'm the first thing I
<v Speaker 3>did was look at their stock. I'm like, this must
<v Speaker 3>have shot sent their stock up. It's like so and
<v Speaker 3>I guess I can see it from national skier perspective,
<v Speaker 3>But I mean the public that's not been researching this stuff,
<v Speaker 3>they should be all over wondering what's going on here?
<v Speaker 3>Like what's the justification for doing this? And how do
<v Speaker 3>we if now that we've set this precedent right, why
<v Speaker 3>aren't we taking over Locked Martin. Why aren't we taking
<v Speaker 3>over Sierra Nevada Corporation? Why not taking over Battel Institute?
<v Speaker 3>Like there's so many companies that are defense contractors that
<v Speaker 3>are basically all their money comes directly from the US government.
<v Speaker 3>Why aren't they taken over?
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, because that would be purely fascist or a communistic
<v Speaker 2>dictatorship if they were to try to do something like
<v Speaker 2>that and ruin the free market. And like, the thing
<v Speaker 2>I remember from time to time is that most people
<v Speaker 2>are not really smart. There are small, a very small
<v Speaker 2>there are people that are really smart, and they're considered
<v Speaker 2>really smart because there aren't that many of them, so
<v Speaker 2>they're putting that category of really smart. And a lot
<v Speaker 2>of times people in the government that you get that
<v Speaker 2>same percentage. Maybe you get some people in government. They're
<v Speaker 2>very charismatic people in government, a lot of them, especially
<v Speaker 2>the ones that speak for a living. Charisma and intelligence
<v Speaker 2>are not the same thing. Intelligence and wisdom aren't the
<v Speaker 2>same thing. You might be able to remember what you
<v Speaker 2>were told to do and do it and have high
<v Speaker 2>intelligence and great memory recall, with no ability to discern
<v Speaker 2>if what you're doing is right or wrong because you
<v Speaker 2>don't have any wisdom. So we have to remember that
<v Speaker 2>just because they're people and they're given this badge of
<v Speaker 2>authority doesn't mean that they're good or intelligent or wise,
<v Speaker 2>and we have to keep these people in check.
<v Speaker 1>That's a big problem.
<v Speaker 3>How do you keep them in check? Especially if they have,
<v Speaker 3>you know, magical technology. Let's just assume that these disclosure
<v Speaker 3>people are all telling the truth and that there's aliens
<v Speaker 3>here and we've got this alien technology.
<v Speaker 1>Well, things have gone completely off the rails if that's
<v Speaker 1>the case. If they've got a free energy fusion technology,
<v Speaker 1>wormal technology, from aliens, from anything. How do you keep
<v Speaker 1>someone like that in check? You can't, right, I think
<v Speaker 1>they let the mask slip now where it's like, you know,
<v Speaker 1>we just dunked on Iran. Putin just came and visited us.
<v Speaker 1>When was the last time Putin came to America?
<v Speaker 3>He just came to America basically basically bent the knee.
<v Speaker 3>I don't people don't want to agree that he bent
<v Speaker 3>the knee, but I think he did. And then now
<v Speaker 3>we're also just you know, nationalizing chip manufacturers. So I
<v Speaker 3>look at this, I go, we're letting the mass slip here,
<v Speaker 3>and like, this is this type of stuff I would
<v Speaker 3>think would need to happen to put safeguards in place
<v Speaker 3>so that if we did want to release any of
<v Speaker 3>this technology, you know, we aren't going to be able
<v Speaker 3>to destroy ourselves and in America will feel safe that
<v Speaker 3>like China is not going to get our super advanced
<v Speaker 3>microchips or whatever this is going on.
<v Speaker 2>You think this the safeguard is purchasing the private companies
<v Speaker 2>so that the other because I'm like, fascism isn't always evil.
<v Speaker 2>This is another thing I wrestle with, and it's not
<v Speaker 2>always evil. Sometimes fascism can be good. You know, you
<v Speaker 2>want to make that dumb argument.
<v Speaker 1>It's true.
<v Speaker 2>Sometimes you can use fascist tactics to create a stable,
<v Speaker 2>healthy system for people. Even at the behage, we're still
<v Speaker 2>conquering and absorb being resources from overseas. That's probably how
<v Speaker 2>we're able to maintain fiat fascism. But it doesn't mean
<v Speaker 2>it's evil just because it's fascist. So there there is
<v Speaker 2>the argument that in the name of you know, survival,
<v Speaker 2>we have to come together use our private our government
<v Speaker 2>funds to buy what the fuck have we not done
<v Speaker 2>this test? You buy ten percent? First, Oh, it's not
<v Speaker 2>real communism, it's only ten percent. He doesn't have a
<v Speaker 2>control and share. Yeah not today?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, Well, I mean we just they can never that
<v Speaker 3>company can never fail now, right, because We've just bought
<v Speaker 3>ten percent of them, so they will obviously never fail anymore.
<v Speaker 3>So yeah, I mean, that's just it's ridiculous, the whole
<v Speaker 3>idea that we're just buying this stuff of these companies up.
<v Speaker 3>But I guess the last part would be, like, well,
<v Speaker 3>what really is even disclosure at this point? Like if
<v Speaker 3>we assume that there are let's just assume that there's aliens,
<v Speaker 3>we've got this technology or what have you, Like, how
<v Speaker 3>do you even define disclosure anymore?
<v Speaker 1>This is why I came up with this term called woke.
<v Speaker 3>Disclosure, because I think the woke disclosure people look at
<v Speaker 3>kind of what we laid out here and they come
<v Speaker 3>to a similar conclusion, like we can't have all this.
<v Speaker 3>There's certain stuff that's got to be kept secret for
<v Speaker 3>national security. But they got to do something. It's like COVID, right,
<v Speaker 3>we have to do something. It's like a cold virus.
<v Speaker 3>There's nothing we can do as a cold virus man.
<v Speaker 3>We have to do something.
<v Speaker 2>Make everyone wear masks.
<v Speaker 1>Just make everyone wear masks.
<v Speaker 3>We gotta do something, right, I feel like they are
<v Speaker 3>doing the same thing with the aliens. Are going we
<v Speaker 3>have to do something, Okay, just tell everybody aliens are real.
<v Speaker 1>Look, we can do that.
<v Speaker 3>That's not gonna hurt national security. No one's gonna make
<v Speaker 3>a super weapon out of that, right, just tell aliens
<v Speaker 3>are real. The problem with that is it's so stupid, Like, Okay,
<v Speaker 3>if aliens are real, how are they getting here? Like
<v Speaker 3>where are they coming from exactly? And how are they
<v Speaker 3>getting here? And what is the fuel source for their
<v Speaker 3>magical UFOs that are flying around defying gravity?
<v Speaker 2>Right?
<v Speaker 1>Like those are my first three questions.
<v Speaker 3>So this is the part where I think that the
<v Speaker 3>whole woke disclosure thing is like I think they just
<v Speaker 3>think they're better than us, and they know better than us,
<v Speaker 3>and they might even be right, honestly, but I hate
<v Speaker 3>that viewpoint of this idea of like we just they
<v Speaker 3>have to control our lives because we will we will
<v Speaker 3>blow ourselves up if we if we do, Like, honestly,
<v Speaker 3>for me, and I want to know your opinion, I
<v Speaker 3>just say, if that's the case, if it's between us
<v Speaker 3>blowing ourselves up with this technology or just living a.
<v Speaker 1>Lie forever legends, I'm gonna roll the dice. Man, We're
<v Speaker 1>just gonna blow ourselves. If that's the case, then that's
<v Speaker 1>how we go out that's the end of our story.
<v Speaker 1>I guess, yeah, that's honestly, what do you think.
<v Speaker 2>Like honesty and deceit? I used to think like honesty
<v Speaker 2>is the only way and deception is a mortal sin.
<v Speaker 2>It's not The Catholic Church actually says honesty is not
<v Speaker 2>a virtue. Lying is not a sin to the Catholics.
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they don't care. Uh it's so. I firstly,
<v Speaker 2>if aliens came here, they would not discern between our
<v Speaker 2>governments and our people. They would just show every They
<v Speaker 2>would just be here and everyone would be like what
<v Speaker 2>it would be? You know that It wouldn't be like
<v Speaker 2>we secretly had a message with the guy we think
<v Speaker 2>might be able to tell the world, Like what the fuck?
<v Speaker 2>They're here for power. They're here to That's why they're here.
<v Speaker 2>They're here to expand that's why they came. Uh so whatever,
<v Speaker 2>But I I just I agonize over this. This the
<v Speaker 2>thing about the plays, you know, like the common man
<v Speaker 2>and then the elite, the royal FA the royal and
<v Speaker 2>their subjects. The Romans called them the plebs and then
<v Speaker 2>the leaders whatever that. But what it is is generations
<v Speaker 2>of people with good nutrition developed very powerfully capable brains,
<v Speaker 2>good thinking, good intelligence, good wisdom, and then their children
<v Speaker 2>have good intelligence, and then they give they have There
<v Speaker 2>are family lines and communities of people that have had
<v Speaker 2>excellent nutrition over generations, so they're very equipped to organize
<v Speaker 2>and lead and run things. I get it. But that
<v Speaker 2>doesn't mean that other people can't. It just means that
<v Speaker 2>maybe they were dealt a bad hand coming in, or
<v Speaker 2>dealt like a non nutritious brain matter, you know, body now,
<v Speaker 2>But that then you gotta think, well, they're still animals.
<v Speaker 2>Humans are animals, and a dumb animal is a very
<v Speaker 2>dangerous creature. So you got to you gotta just play
<v Speaker 2>real cards as they're dealt, and that is a true
<v Speaker 2>fact of nature. So I hate the idea of keeping
<v Speaker 2>things from people, man, especially when I see someone that
<v Speaker 2>I know could be great and they haven't become great yet.
<v Speaker 2>But they're not great yet, and I can't treat them
<v Speaker 2>like they are.
<v Speaker 1>So oh, so what do you think? What do you pick?
<v Speaker 2>Then?
<v Speaker 3>If if it's been choices between ignorant bliss living the
<v Speaker 3>world that we're in right now, you know, our twenty
<v Speaker 3>first century world, or taking the risk that we destroy ourselves.
<v Speaker 1>But we get Star Trek.
<v Speaker 3>Technology you know, wormholes, warp drives, even replicators, not immediately
<v Speaker 3>but soon.
<v Speaker 1>Which one are you gonna choose? Well?
<v Speaker 2>Which would I interested in? The risky path? But we
<v Speaker 2>have to discuss the risk, what's the what's the what's
<v Speaker 2>the calculation here? Now, let's build a system of risk
<v Speaker 2>management and go from there.
<v Speaker 1>And that's where I.
<v Speaker 3>Think, that's where I would I think that's a good
<v Speaker 3>spot to kind of leave the conversation today, because this
<v Speaker 3>is what I would say that I would hope that
<v Speaker 3>you know, you would take from this as somebody that
<v Speaker 3>you know is on with Tim Poole all the time
<v Speaker 3>talking to these congress people that are looking at disclosure
<v Speaker 3>and what have I think it's got. The conversation has
<v Speaker 3>to become bigger than just aliens, right. The conversation has
<v Speaker 3>to become more about, Okay, what comes with that? Is
<v Speaker 3>what kind of technologies come with that? And then what
<v Speaker 3>are those technologies mean? If they really are free energy technologies,
<v Speaker 3>these technologies.
<v Speaker 1>That are like star Trek stuff, then what is that discussion?
<v Speaker 3>Like, how do we put those guardrails up so that
<v Speaker 3>we can get these technologies to humanity in a safe
<v Speaker 3>way where we mitigate the risk, Right.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, man, I'm thinking of I don't know why I
<v Speaker 2>think of the CCP as the boogeyman. I don't like
<v Speaker 2>having a boogeyman on. I don't think we need to
<v Speaker 2>have a boogeyman. I think that's just kind of human nature.
<v Speaker 2>We're so used to it genetically from always fighting against
<v Speaker 2>this animal coming to try and eat my family. I
<v Speaker 2>don't think we have to live like that all the
<v Speaker 2>time anyway. But I just imagined like a virulent, you know,
<v Speaker 2>angry regime that's hell bent on destroying everyone getting access
<v Speaker 2>to some superpower. But like I mean, if it's going
<v Speaker 2>to happen, you know, living in ignorant bliss doesn't necessarily
<v Speaker 2>make it not happen.
<v Speaker 3>I'll kick the can down the road, right, That's not
<v Speaker 3>gonna not really solve anything in the long run. Let
<v Speaker 3>me ask you about the question, Yeah, does the do
<v Speaker 3>you remember a time when China was in our adversary?
<v Speaker 3>Because I feel like I'm when I was younger, even
<v Speaker 3>in my twenties, like China wasn't even like our adversary.
<v Speaker 2>They were never our adversary. They did TMMN square And
<v Speaker 2>it was like what the thought, like it was obvious
<v Speaker 2>they were completely batshit psycho when they did, when they
<v Speaker 2>massacred all those students for rising up in protest at
<v Speaker 2>TM and Square, I thought that was like, Okay, these
<v Speaker 2>guys are off the book evil to do that to
<v Speaker 2>their populace, that's that's terrifying that they would govern do
<v Speaker 2>that their public. That's what I took in the early
<v Speaker 2>nineties from the CCP and then never had a problem
<v Speaker 2>with them. I've always loved I mean, I know Chinese
<v Speaker 2>products are shitty and cheap. I don't buy them. I
<v Speaker 2>try to buy them. I love China, the history of China,
<v Speaker 2>the Han dynasty, romance of the Three Kingdom is a
<v Speaker 2>huge part of my childhood. I read the novel twice,
<v Speaker 2>the game Lou Bay South South Dong Jao and all
<v Speaker 2>the characters I identify with Chokulong, this ancient teature of
<v Speaker 2>the Chinese people who invented the repeating crossbow, and like
<v Speaker 2>he could control the weather, you know, as the story says,
<v Speaker 2>he could call lightning and things. I love China, Chinese
<v Speaker 2>history and the people one on one when I meet them.
<v Speaker 2>I'm just always concerned with communism and central governments, you know,
<v Speaker 2>trying to centralize authorities insane to me, which is like
<v Speaker 2>buying intel with our government. It's insane to me. Okay,
<v Speaker 2>I agree, I don't think. I don't think. I don't
<v Speaker 2>even think there are a villain. And you know what,
<v Speaker 2>but Scott Horton on Lex Freeman just did a ten
<v Speaker 2>hour interview with Lex Freeman talking about what caused the
<v Speaker 2>War of pir basically starts with like the the Iranian
<v Speaker 2>regime in nineteen seventy nine, goes all the way. I've
<v Speaker 2>only watched a couple hours, but he said in the
<v Speaker 2>fifties and sixties, when they were developing counter nuclear war
<v Speaker 2>protocols in the United States, if the Soviets go to
<v Speaker 2>nuclear war with the United States, the plan was, we're
<v Speaker 2>gonna nuke every metropolitan city in the Soviet Union, and
<v Speaker 2>we're gonna nuke every metropolitan city in China because if
<v Speaker 2>the Russians in US are going to take ourselves down,
<v Speaker 2>there's no way in hell we're letting those commedy bastards
<v Speaker 2>take this planet. And that's this protocol is basically, if
<v Speaker 2>anything goes down, we're wiping all of China out. And
<v Speaker 2>I think the Chinese know that, yeah, and.
<v Speaker 3>I think they all know that, and I think that's
<v Speaker 3>the reason why you can't have this technology comes out,
<v Speaker 3>because if somebody has, you know, a super black hole weapon,
<v Speaker 3>then everybody's gonna make it a Mexican standoff, right, And
<v Speaker 3>now we're back at a point where anybody does anything.
<v Speaker 1>The whole plants destroyed.
<v Speaker 3>So man, and this is where I kind of wonder
<v Speaker 3>about the China question, Like, yeah, they are communists, no question,
<v Speaker 3>they're controlled government. But it's like, if you know, if
<v Speaker 3>you knew about free energy technolog if you knew about
<v Speaker 3>the dangers that this technology, and you were one of
<v Speaker 3>those elites like you probably would do this. I think
<v Speaker 3>most of us would do the same thing. That's the
<v Speaker 3>scary part. And so then it's a matter of just
<v Speaker 3>like how do we change the incentive structures, you know,
<v Speaker 3>in a positive way where we can have you know,
<v Speaker 3>some of this stuff an actual disclosure of information technology.
<v Speaker 2>Reducing fuel costs is a big part of it, which
<v Speaker 2>is why the hydrogen revolution excites me, whether that's through
<v Speaker 2>fusing hydrogen into helium or using hydrogen gas as a
<v Speaker 2>propellant or as an excitator or heat to get propulsion.
<v Speaker 2>Like the hydrogen revolution, reducing the cost of fuel will
<v Speaker 2>reduce the real national debt from thirty six trillion. On
<v Speaker 2>paper too, if if fuels a tenth of the cost,
<v Speaker 2>then our national debt may say thirty six trillion. It's
<v Speaker 2>a tenth of that in reality, and that's a rough,
<v Speaker 2>a rough calculation, but it might. You might pay one
<v Speaker 2>hundred dollars, but you're the value. It's easier to get
<v Speaker 2>one hundred dollars because it's so much cheaper for your fuel.
<v Speaker 2>That's the point. And then that reduces global tension, and
<v Speaker 2>then as humans will be able to reinvigorate the twenty
<v Speaker 2>first century tech what we do.
<v Speaker 1>I'm until Saudi Arabia is like, wait, you don't need
<v Speaker 1>oil anymore. No, we hate you. We're gonna blow you
<v Speaker 1>all up now.
<v Speaker 3>But no, they're smart enough to like get on board
<v Speaker 3>with this before, Like they're they're investing in this technology.
<v Speaker 2>I think, like, and honestly, you can use that flash
<v Speaker 2>jewel process I was talking about where you electrocute carbon.
<v Speaker 2>You can do that to oil. You can put oil
<v Speaker 2>in a vacuum and electrocute it and turn it into
<v Speaker 2>graphene and get hydrogen, so it's still useful carbon, Like
<v Speaker 2>you don't have to burn it for fuel. You can
<v Speaker 2>use it to create graphing and then it's even better
<v Speaker 2>fuel in a lot of ways, and with col too.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this is an awesome conversation. Ian, go ahead. Do
<v Speaker 1>you want to shout out you know, any of the
<v Speaker 1>projects anything you're working on? Oh?
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, while I'm working on a lot of music behind
<v Speaker 2>the scenes. I got a movie upcoming that I'm producing
<v Speaker 2>right now, and obviously I'm working with Tim Pool all
<v Speaker 2>the time. I'll be on Friday Timcast i RL on
<v Speaker 2>YouTube and Rumble Timcast i r L at eight pm
<v Speaker 2>Eastern Standard time. You can always follow me Ian Crossland
<v Speaker 2>on really any social media networks that you'll find me on.
<v Speaker 2>I do Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, x, you know, Instagram.
<v Speaker 2>Those are my top I think at the moment, Top
<v Speaker 2>five minds. Follow me on minds. Happy to be here,
<v Speaker 2>ashuay Man, this is great man.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this was awesome. So yeah, this is great.
<v Speaker 3>Let's meet up again sometime soon. Play some magic cards
<v Speaker 3>and let's be in touch and we'll talk more science.
<v Speaker 3>This is awesome conversation.
<v Speaker 2>Excellent, man.
<v Speaker 1>See I take it easy later