#16 | Avi Loeb - The Science of UFO Technology - Hard Truths

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of Haartru's podcast.
I'm your host Ashon Forbes. Today I have a very
special guest. Harvard astrophysicist A. V. Lobe is with me
today and we're going to talk science and physics.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Now.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
The reason why I'm so excited to talk to Avi
Lobe is that he's not afraid to talk about topics
that other academics won't broach, like aliens and UFOs. So
today we're gonna talk about some amazing stuff.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Av.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thank you very much for being with me today. How
are you doing?

Speaker 3 (00:28):
Thanks for inviting me. It's a great pleasure.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
So just let's get started right away.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
I want to ask you about what I just mentioned
is from my perspective on the outside looking in, it
looks like academics are afraid to talk about some of
these topics that I see you talking about all the
time with podcasters, like can we communicate with aliens? What
would other civilizations look like? And how would other civilizations
use science and physics.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
To get here?

Speaker 1 (00:53):
What is it about you that makes you different? And
what do you think about your peers and if do
they judge you for that?

Speaker 4 (01:02):
Well, it's just a matter of common sense. We exist
on a rock that was left over from the formation
of the Sun, and we see similar rocks earth like
planets around the other sun like stars, and in fact,
there are hundreds of billions of such systems based on
the latest estimates, within the Milky Way galaxy alone, and

(01:23):
then there are trillion galaxies in the universe. So thinking
that we are unique and special and nothing like us
exists is really very presumptuous, very arrogant, and as a
matter of common sense, we should accept the possibility that
there are many other kids in our cosmic neighborhood and
they might be smarter than us.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
What could be more natural than that?

Speaker 4 (01:45):
So I'm just applying common sense, and to me, that
is part of reality that we have to learn about.
We see our house, it looks familiar, the Solar system,
the Earth moving around the Sun, and then we see
other houses, planets moving around other stars in our cosmic street,

(02:05):
and the only question we have to ask is whether
there are any residents in those houses. That's not such
a difficult question to address with modern science, with the
tools that we have. And so all I'm saying is
forget about science fiction, about the lord that the people
without any substantiation, bring up all kinds of stories that

(02:30):
have no credibility. Forget about this, it's completely unrelated. There
is a fundamental question whether we are not only away
from any physical center of the universe the way people
thought before coperaicles, but perhaps we are not even at
the intellectual center of the universe.

Speaker 3 (02:49):
And let's learn from others.

Speaker 4 (02:51):
Now, you may ask why is this common sensical view
not the dominant within the mainstream of the centific community.
And you know, that's one of these anomalies within academia,
that the culture is for people to show off that
they are smarter than others, not to take any risks

(03:13):
that may ruin the reputation, and not to interact with
the public in a sincere fashion. And usually the approach
is to have press conferences in which you tell the
public your results like a teacher in a class. But
that's not the way I see it. The public pays
money through taxes to support science, and the public cares

(03:37):
a lot about this particular question. So I think it's
completely inappropriate of scientists to ignore this question and to
have committees that are claiming that addressing this question is
too risky and in fact, may result in wasting taxpayers money.
I said that taxpayers want us to study it, we

(03:57):
should attend to that. But I do not hope to
get funded by the standard committees that NASA or the
National Science Foundation assemble, because they are full of those
traditional thinking and no risk taking scientists. And I get
all of my funding from private donations or donors.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
So let me ask the devil's advocate thing, because I think.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
That they would probably say, well, you can't go probably
even close to the speed of light and the nearest
stars four light years away, and from their perspective, they
would say, also, we can't achieve faster light communication, so
we're kind of just stuck out in the middle of
nowhere with no hope of ever getting to somebody. So
how do you respond to that criticism that they would levy,

(04:44):
And would you say that there might be another solution
that we just haven't figured out.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
Well, that's not factually true.

Speaker 4 (04:50):
So the thing is that Voyager, the spacecraft that we launched,
will exit the orcloud of the Solar System within ten
thousand years and we'll get to the opposite side of
the Milky Way galaxy in a billionaires.

Speaker 3 (05:03):
Okay, now, most.

Speaker 4 (05:05):
Stars like the Sun in the Milky Way galaxy formed
billions of years before the Sun. So if you imagine
a copy of what we have here just translated in
time to an earlier time by a few billionaires, then
they could have reached us by now. Even their voyager
like probes that move with the same technology, that are

(05:29):
propelled by chemical rockets, those would be able to reach
us as long as their star was at least the
billionaires ahead of ours. And that basically tells you you
don't need to travel because there could be objects that
arrived to our vicinity that spent recent billions of years

(05:51):
to get here. So instead of us going to the
neighbor's yard, we might as well check for any tennis
balls that were thrown by the neighbor.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
So you're expecting what when neurine as out as ven
Newman probes? Is that the theory that you're kind of
throwing out there.

Speaker 3 (06:07):
I mean, even space trash.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
You know, if as long as the civilization, you know,
we are preoccupied, if you look at the news, we
are preoccupied with problems on the surface of this rock.
And we invest two point four trillion dollars in military
budgets very often trying to kill others or avoiding preventing others.

Speaker 3 (06:26):
From killing us.

Speaker 4 (06:28):
And most of the time it's about territorial disputes or
power struggles. But this is all on the surface of
this rock, and in fact, there is much more real
estate out there and in interstellar space, so this makes
very little sense. And you could imagine that a civilization

(06:49):
that is sufficiently advanced, that has a perspective about interstellar
space would actually launch.

Speaker 3 (06:57):
Equipment or actually evens or systems with artificial intelligence away
from their home planet. So this is really the key.

Speaker 4 (07:07):
It's not so much how long does the civilization last,
but whether they escape from that original habitat that.

Speaker 3 (07:15):
They were born on. And if they did.

Speaker 4 (07:18):
It will just you know, even if the equipment that
they launched is not functional anymore, the wave voyager will
not be in a billionaires, you know, it will lose
its functionality. It will still be space trash. And just
like finding plastics in the ocean, you know, keeps accumulating
the gravity of the Milky Way galaxy can keep those

(07:39):
objects from escaping because they move at the speed that
is ten times too small, unlike the speed of light
that radio signals propagate. So the traditional approach was to
wait for a phone call, but nobody may call you
at the time that you're listening. And indeed, over the
past sixty years, we haven't detected any clear signal. However,

(08:00):
if you are searching for objects in your backyard or
packages in your mailbox, you know those may have arrived
a long time ago. The senders may be dead. Most
of these may not be functioning, but you could distinguish
them from natural objects like rocks, asteroids, comets.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
And so I like that. I like that idea.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
I mean you're looking under every stone literally and figuratively
for you know, possible signs of other beings or any
ancient civilization.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
Well, actually, I should say that within the orbit of
the Earth around the Sun, there should be of the
order of millions of objects that are meter in size
from outside the Solar System. We know that based on
the frequency of interstellar meteors. These are objects colliding with

(08:55):
Earth that derived from outside the Solar System. So we
haven't really searched those millions of objects right now.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
Within the orbit of Director around the Sun.

Speaker 4 (09:04):
The Sun is significant because it acts like a lamp
post that is illuminating. So it's just like looking for
your keys under the lamp post on the street. It's
much easier to find the keys. So I'm saying there
are millions of possible keys, and all you need to
do is sort out whether any of them appears to
be technological in origin. And to do that, I mean,

(09:25):
we can't with the current telescopes. We can't truly observe
meter sized objects from the reflection of sunlight that are
too faint. But I'm suggesting, you know, with the investment
of hundreds of millions of dollars or a few billion dollars,
we can definitely study those and not nothing of that
nature was actually done so far.

Speaker 3 (09:47):
And I actually just a.

Speaker 4 (09:48):
Few weeks ago I heard the Peter Till who following
the presidential election, he said, you should never bet against
Elon mask And so the following day I wrote an
essay betting against Elon Musk because Elon said, while we
are probably alone in trying to motivate settling humans on

(10:14):
Mars so that the human species will be a multiplanetary species,
but I try to explain that in fact, you know,
they are within the observable volume of the universe that
attend to the power twenty one Earth Sun systems, and

(10:36):
we actually know that there is no cliff just beyond
the cosmic horizon, that the conditions continue for at least
four thousand times farther away. So they are altogether tend
to the power thirty one Earth Sun systems. And I'm
willing to take a bet that we are not alone,
okay with And my bet is that I will put

(10:57):
one percent of my net worth against one percent of Elon's.

Speaker 3 (11:02):
Networth in a pool.

Speaker 4 (11:03):
We would dedicate that to the study of any evidence
as I mentioned, for example, studying all the interestar objects
in our vicinity, and then if in ten years we
won't find the evidence, I will pay a second one
percent of my network to him. So if you think

(11:24):
about it, I mean, you might say that's a lot
of money on his part, but it's actually just four
billion dollars. The web Telescope was ten billion dollars, the
large hydron Collider was ten billion dollars. For addressing the
question and spend the metal as that it's not unusual
to spend billions of dollars. In fact, the next observatory

(11:44):
that the mainstream astronomy community wants to build would be
the Habitable World Observatory, looking for gases like oxygen or
method in the atmosphere of planets as they transit the
face of the star that hosts them. But that will
be probably in the twenty forties, and it's a huge

(12:04):
amount of money, and it's not clear that we would
learn whether microbes exist, because you can make those gases
also by natural origins that have nothing to do with life,
like geological processes. And what I'm saying is, with the
investment of less money than that but comparable, we can
not only find evidence for life, but in fact learned

(12:28):
that there are technological civilizations in our cosmic neighborhood.

Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, and I think most size he hasn't seen evidence
of aliens, which is kind of a different claim than
what you're putting out there, which is just from a
statistical odds perspective, there must be aliens out there.

Speaker 3 (12:44):
Oh no.

Speaker 4 (12:45):
So I actually addressed his comment on that matter as well.
He said that no object and that's related to you
a unidentified anomalous phenomenon. He said, no object collided with
the communications satellite of Starling.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
But I did a simple calculation. If you put.

Speaker 4 (13:05):
A meter sized the object at the same altitude as
the Starling satellites, so you just put it there.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
The chance of it colliding with the Starling.

Speaker 4 (13:15):
Satellite is once in a thousand years, Okay, So the
fact that nothing collided with I mean, starting satellites are
not really built for the purpose of searching for objects
near Earth, and I put it in the same altitude.
It might be in very different altitudes than those satellites.

(13:36):
So that's not evidence for men. I mean, it's just
like saying the Starling satellites did not detect the Higgs boson,
therefore I have no evidence that the Higgs boson that exists.
Of course, you needed to build a machine, okay, within
a cern that took decades to build, that cost ten
billion dollars that would look for the Higgs boson. You

(13:57):
have to build equipment that is dedicated for the task.
You can't just accidentally expect new knowledge to fall into
your lab, because everything that falls into our lap is
already known. You know, we see birds, we know about
the moon. I mean, these are things we know about
because they are easy. The low hanging fruit, we've been

(14:17):
seeing them since we were born, and humans saw them
for millions of years. However, if you want new knowledge
something that is not easy to get it, you need
to put the effort.

Speaker 3 (14:28):
And the money to do it.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah, I agree, and I think that So I guess
let me press you and Elon both at the same time. Now,
I would say I would that one percent of my networth,
and I would say that if we started searching with
high frequency gravitational waves, we might find them. And the
reason why I say this is that you know, maybe there,
if alien civilization exists and they are much more advanced

(14:52):
than we are on the timescale, then I think, assuming
that they're gonna use communication methods that we use today,
it's kind of egotistical on our perspective. Maybe we're looking
at the problem all wrong. And maybe that's the reason
why said he hasn't been successful in finding messages and
why we've been kind of naive.

Speaker 3 (15:11):
Well, it depends.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
It depends what you call a high frequency because we
do have the Lago experiment that the text gravitation waves.
So far, all the signals detected relate to black hole
collisions within the observer universe.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
So what do you mean those are low frequency gravitational
waves At least as far as I've been made aware
that those are.

Speaker 4 (15:30):
Okay, well there they are the highest that we can
detect from Earth.

Speaker 3 (15:36):
But there are lower.

Speaker 4 (15:39):
Frequency waves that the LISA experiment will try to detect
within a decade or so. So actually nobody is talking
about higher frequency although in principal gravitation waves can go
all the way you know, to jigahertz or higher frequencies
that we have electromagnetic signals in. But to generate such

(16:00):
waves requires an auto mass and moving very fast.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
That's exactly what I'm getting at, because at the end
of the day, we're talking about, well, are we cavemen
on this block? And if we are, if there are
civilizations that are out there, why are we assuming that
they're less advanced than we are. Well, they could be
easily more advanced. And look at how far we've come
in just one hundred years. Imagine us in a thousand years.
I don't think we're gonna be riding around on SpaceX rockets.

(16:24):
And so my question to you is, do you think,
like Elon Musk said, we're going interstet we're going interplanetary
on SpaceX rockets. I don't even trust SpaceX rockets to
take me to Mars. Let alone to like Europa or
another star system.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
What about you?

Speaker 1 (16:39):
Do you think that we're gonna go with that or
do you think it's going to require new technology?

Speaker 4 (16:44):
No, of course, I mean we are just doing making
the baby steps in moving away from our planets right now,
you know, in these decades, and then obviously as we
develop a better technology, is we would move faster and better. Okay,
And so imagine and sending a ship into the ocean, okay,

(17:04):
that moves relatively slowly because it's propelled by wind, and
then you develop a steamship that moves faster because it
has its own propulsion. So obviously you know you would
pass the past technologies as you move by them. So
if you imagine a civilization developing on an extra planet,

(17:25):
at first you would see rockets that are rather primitive
chemical rockets that we're using coming out of the planet,
suppose you were looking at it, And then you would
see more and more sophisticated means of propulsion coming out
that move faster and basically reach the slower ones within
a relatively short time and then go much farther. And

(17:45):
so obviously the future would be far more impressive for
us if we survive.

Speaker 3 (17:51):
That's the fundamental question.

Speaker 4 (17:52):
You know, we discovered quantum mechanics just a century ago,
and you may ask how much longer.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
Do we have?

Speaker 4 (17:59):
And if we don't leave our planet, you know, there
could be lots of catastrophes that could destroy our technological
Some of them are self inflicted and in the form
of AI or biological warfare, or maybe nuclear weapons and
political instabilities could trigger catastrophes, and.

Speaker 3 (18:19):
So it's important to have more than on that.

Speaker 4 (18:22):
I agree with Ilon that it's important for us to
venture outside of our planet. But the question is whether
that will be taking the form of humans in space
or maybe AI systems in space.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
That's to be seen.

Speaker 4 (18:35):
But one thing that is the reason for finding evidence
for other civilizations that preceded us by billions of years
is to see what they have done and get inspired
by it by it because it may give us new ideas. Now,
the way I approach it is not to imagine what
they are to say, oh, they send jiggahearts gravitational waves. Therefore,

(18:56):
I will try to build detector for jigger. Now, the
way to approach it is to use the best detectors
we have in any possible way. You know, whatever we
have at our disposal, and look for things that are
not familiar. Okay, so if we have infrared cameras, you
look at the sky and you see is everything in
the form of birds, clouds, leaves, drones, balloons, airplanes, satellites

(19:24):
or is there something that is not familiar? And it's
true in any domain, it could be the domain of
dervigational waves as well. So the point is just be
curious enough that when you see a signal that is anomalous,
you would entertain the possibility that it may be of

(19:44):
technological origin from outside of the Solar system. And you know,
that's really the block that keeps scientists away from this subject.
It's not the lack of anomalist it's the sort of
the distancing from the possibility that an object like Omumua
that looked weird in all ways, that was different than
any rock we have seen before. They would agree with

(20:07):
that that it's a rock of a type that we've
never seen before. But they would say that it's a rock,
that's it. And they would say the same about the
Tesla Roads, the car that Elon has claunched in twenty eighteen.
It's a rock of a type that we've never seen before.
So my point is we should be open minded that
others are doing what we are doing. That's not very

(20:28):
imaginative actually, and if you think about it, it shouldn't
be controversial. So when Enrico Fermi said where is everybody?
He was not trying to seek evidence. He was just
entertaining himself with this question during lunchtime. And you know,
whenever you see a lonely person, they often ask where

(20:48):
is everybody? And you tell them, look, don't think that
you're so attractive. They will be next to you all
the time. You need to be proactive, at the very
least look through the windows of your home to find
a partner, or go down the street and check. But
you can't just argue I don't see them next to me,
because this would have been the low hanging fruit. And
obviously they're not next to us because space is vast.

(21:12):
Time is measured in billions of years, so the chance
of them being next to Enrico Fermi in Los Alamos
in nineteen fifty one is miniscule. I mean, why would
exactly at that time, exactly that location, there would be
clear evidence for them.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
I want to dig into that more in just a
sec but before that, I want to get your opinion
on something I haven't already talked about much, which is
what do you think about the UFO community, because I
haven't seen you interact much with like, really any of them,
and you know, is there a reason for that? Do
you avoid them for certain reasons? Is it two sensationalss
for you?

Speaker 4 (21:49):
Go ahead, No, that's that's not true. I just don't
interact with many people at all. I mean, I don't
have any footprint on social media, okay, and I don't
care how many likes I get. So I'm not running
a popularity contest. If I were running for the presidency
of the United States, obviously they would hear a lot

(22:10):
from me. But I'm not, and I'm just trying to
do my work, my contribution as a scientist to addressing
this question that they care about. And so I'm trying
to work rather than to talk a lot of people talk. Okay,
So you might say, well, that's great, let's talk about
this subject. Maybe it will bring disclosure, well, the disclosure

(22:32):
of what we need to see the actual evidence. Okay,
So either we see the evidence or you can just
talk about it. Forever without making any progress. So my
point is, if the government will not provide us with
useful information on this issue. You know, the sky is
not classified, the oceans are not classified. I'm dedicating my

(22:54):
time and effort in leading the Galileo Project that will
uncover some evidence, direct evidence that will be shared with
the public. And that's the only way for us to
demonstrate that something. You know, there is a neighbor in
our cosmic history, and you know, the Galileo project. We
have a working observatory at Harvard University. We're currently assembling

(23:16):
two others, one in Pennsylvania another one in Nevada that
are fully funded. And just yesterday I heard from someone
who might be pitching significant funds for another observatory. So
you know, these are at the level of millions of
dollars investment just over the past six months, the kind

(23:37):
of money I'm getting from both donations.

Speaker 3 (23:40):
Now, there is also.

Speaker 4 (23:41):
The expedition that you know I led back in June
twenty twenty three to retrieve materials from the first interstellar
meteor that was identified by US government satellites. And we
went to the site in the Pacific Ocean near outside
the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea, and we retrieved

(24:04):
materials from the bottom of the ocean that is more
than a mile deep and brought it for analysis in
the laboratory of my colleague that have a Stein Jacobson
And over the past year we analyzed the materials. We
found a fraction ten percent of those molten droplets that
have a very unusual composition that seems to be consistent

(24:25):
with an origin outside the Solar System. What we want
to do is go back to that site and find
bigger pieces, bigger fragments, so that we can tell the
nature of this object, whether it was a voyager like
or a tesla like, an interstellar object, or just a
rock from another star. And we have already so we

(24:48):
try to reserve a ship for August twenty twenty five.
At the moment, we are waiting for funding. We need
six and a half million dollars to do the job.
We have an exceptional team that is ready to do.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
So let me jump in there, because first of all,
I have a question, burning question about the meteorite that
you got out about in the ocean.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
How did you find that?

Speaker 1 (25:09):
Did the government just come near like, hey, we've got
some satellite imagery of this meteorite here in the ocean.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
You want to go get it.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
Because it feels like a needle and a haystack situation.
But somehow you came up with, you know, real samples.

Speaker 3 (25:19):
So how like how Yeah?

Speaker 4 (25:23):
So the story started from me being interviewed on the
radio back in January twenty twenty about another meteor that
landed the near Compchatka, and just in preparing for that,
I went online and I found this catalog that NASA
has of hundreds of meteorites that were identified by the

(25:49):
fireball that they created as the result.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
Of their friction with air. So they simply exploded.

Speaker 4 (25:54):
And there is an array of satellites that the US
government uses to detect the heat from launches of ballistic
missiles around the globe.

Speaker 3 (26:04):
You know that.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
Yeah, so that those satellites every now and then see
the explosion resulting from the entry of an object from
out of space that collides with Earth, and they decided
has nothing to do with national security, so they put
it on a public side that NASA compiles JPL, the

(26:25):
Jet Propulsion Lab, and I became aware of it, so
I told my student at the time, Amir Siraj to
let's go and search through this catalog and see if
any of these objects was moving too fast to be
bound by gravity to the Sun.

Speaker 3 (26:40):
That will make it an interstinllar object.

Speaker 4 (26:42):
An object that came from outside the soloism was the
Sun's gravity cannot bind it. And we found one that
was clearly an outlier from twenty fourteen January eighth, twenty fourteen,
and it was moving actually at sixty kilometers per second
outside the Solar System, faster than ninety five percent of
the stars in the vicinity of the Sun. And it

(27:02):
exploded very low in the atmosphere, twenty kilometers above the
Pacific Ocean. So that meant that it had material strength
that is tougher than all other meteors in the catalog,
all hundreds of them. It was the toughest one that
this integrate exploded only very low in the atmosphere at
a very high speed. And so I to me I mean,

(27:26):
and then I reached out to the US Space Command
through the White House and got their confirmation that indeed
they think that data is valid at the ninety nine
point nine nine percent. This object came from outside the
Solar System, so there is this memo that they.

Speaker 3 (27:42):
Rolled to NASA.

Speaker 4 (27:44):
So at that point I decided to lead an expedition
to the Pacific Ocean to.

Speaker 3 (27:48):
Search for the materials.

Speaker 4 (27:49):
Now, the location itself was specified in that catalog that
NASA had, that's where they spotted the fireball. It's not
a single point because the meteory is actually moving at
a very high speed forty kilometers per second, you know,
very high speed, and so over the time of the
explosion it actually tracks you know, tens of kilometers, and so.

Speaker 3 (28:16):
There is a line or actually they defined a.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
Region that was about ten kilometers by ten kilometers where
the where the brightest flare occurred. And we went there
and we scanned that region. We went back and forth
like mowing the loan, you know, and we collected as
much material as we could from the ocean floor. These
were magnetic particles all together, about one hundred milligram, you know,

(28:41):
of magnetic particles that looked unusual. And then and then
we analyzed them in the laboratory and found this unusual
composition chemical composition that is very different, very you know,
some elements are up to a thousand times more abundant
than in the primitive materials that made the solar system.
And these are elements like lanthanum, beryllium uranium, so we

(29:08):
call it BELAO for brillium. Lanthanum uranium is a new
type of composition.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
So I'm want to just dig right into it.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
You know what. I'm going to try to solve the
UFL phenomenon with avulbe right here on the livestream. So
let's just jump into the main question, the burning question.

Speaker 2 (29:23):
This is a UFO.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Let's imagine it can be some ball light, it can
be a flying saucer or whatever.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
It's just hovering around. It's able to do this.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
It can even shoot away at high speeds. What is
the energy source for this UFO? It doesn't have any
SpaceX rockets tied to it.

Speaker 4 (29:44):
Well, I need to get data on it. So based
on the way it moves, I would know how much
power is required for it to operate this way because
the acceleration reflects the force that is acting on it.
We need also to know to have some estimate of
the as of the object. In fact, I wrote a
paper just a couple of months ago saying that from

(30:07):
data that we have on the amount of heat that
the object emits, as a result of its friction with
the air around it. Just from that level of heating
of the air as it moves around, and also how
much it moves in the sky, you know, we can

(30:28):
infair a lower limit on the mass density on the
mass peruit volume of that object, which is I found
it to be a very interesting result. You can just
learn how dense the object is just from seeing on
the sky how fast it's moving and measuring how much
heat it's producing from its.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
Friction with air.

Speaker 4 (30:50):
And that you know, that is interesting because we have
those measurements with our instruments in the Galillo Project. And
if you find the mass density from this constraint be
more than the highest density of solids that we have
on Earth, that would obviously make the object extremely anomalous because.

Speaker 3 (31:10):
Then the question is what is it made of? And
you don't need.

Speaker 4 (31:15):
To know the distance to the object based on the
equations that I wrote in that I should also say,
you know, I when you said before that I'm not
interacting with the UF's. I gave a lecture actually in
November at the Sole conference that was one of the
primary lectures there, and in fact, when I finished my talk,

(31:38):
I went to the man's room. So on the way there,
every few meters someone would ask me for a selfie.
By the way, when I got to the man's room,
someone was just drying his hands and he said, are
you a below And I said yes, and he said, well,
it feels like standing next to tailor SWI.

Speaker 1 (32:00):
I didn't mean to put you down, so like, honestly,
me being able to talk to you feels like Taylor's.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
I was nervous this morning.

Speaker 1 (32:05):
I could meet Taylor Swift and I just be like, oh,
it's Titler Swift talking to Abby Love. I'm sitting here.
I'm like, oh, man, I gotta get ready. You gotta
get in the right mindset. I'm talking to a legend
right now. So no, I didn't mean it that way.
I just meant you don't really interact.

Speaker 4 (32:17):
I mean the you know top that that's what That's
not what I What I meant is that I really
am enjoying interacting with any person. And it's not like
I'm shying away. It's just that I don't have prisons
on social media.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
That's and I hope to answer ask a lot of
the questions that people out there kind of have. I've
seen a lot of your interviews and discussions and what
have you. And this is where I'm going to press
a little bit more on this topic. So let's asom
I want to do two things versus I want to
assume what you just told me. You know you you
I think answered the question pretty well in terms of
what I need to know more data. So assume, first
of all, two scenarios. One scenario is we've got a

(32:54):
flying saucer. I'm just gonna use this can and not
show any ads. This can is a flying saucer, so it's.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Got math son it it's a solid object, you know.

Speaker 4 (33:02):
So we know that, by the way, was most likely flat,
based on a very detailed paper that you know that
they modeled the variation of reflected sunlight from it at
the ninety two percent confidence. This is a paper published
in the Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices of the Royal

(33:23):
Astromical Society. Uh, the best fit to the shape of
a moo was that of a funky.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
Yeah, I saw that, and I also saw the anomalists
kind of think acceleration that it had as well, So
that was an interesting one. But to me, there you're
presenting the argument that we're just using like time time
long distances, and time is our energy source as opposed
to if there's really something like the tic tac ufo
is kind of what I was getting at with the
nimited situation that can move around like this. There's no

(33:51):
onboard fuel based on our current understanding of physics, that
can accommodate for that episode.

Speaker 4 (33:56):
So there, I'll tell you what the What I would
like to know is, obviously we have no access to
the actual data, which is unfortunate.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
But I would like to know.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
You know, there could be some confusion if there is
a swarm of objects. You know, you might not be
able to identify the same So you see an object
very far and then you see it very close, but
you don't know if it's the same object. So it's
the situation is similar to seeing a black car behind

(34:27):
you in your rear view mirror.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
And then you see the black car in front.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
Of you and you say, wow, it must have moved
really fast, but without reading the license plate number, you
can't really tell it's the same black car. Okay, So
there are all kinds of issues like that, and you know,
I would love to be flooded with data so that
we can make sure that we interpret it correctly. But

(34:53):
unfortunately we're not given that data. It's possible the government
has it. It's possible that the government has in it possession.
Some materials are actually even technologies that were developed by extraterrestials.
But I would like to see them. Otherwise just talking
about it would not advance our knowledge. We will not

(35:14):
know if this is credible or not. And when you see,
for example, just last night there was a report by
a helicopter pilot about an egg shaped object that was
picked up with a rope. You know, lots of objects
can look like an egg, and many of them are
made by humans. And so the question is what is inside,

(35:36):
you know, like what's the substance?

Speaker 3 (35:38):
I mean I a member of the Galleow Project and
the Mead.

Speaker 4 (35:44):
His grandfather received the National Medal of Honor for because
in the Second World War he was involved in deceiving
the Nazis uh and basically putting sort of objects that
look like tanks which are just inflatable that are not

(36:04):
real tanks, and making the noise of tanks so that
the Germans would think that there are real tanks out there.
So you know, You can't judge an object just by
the way it looks or sounds. You really have to
get as much information as possible about about the inside
of it, and that's what we're missing at the moment.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
Then you can't.

Speaker 4 (36:26):
You know, eyewitness testimonies are not reliable. FIFA, the Soccer
World Organization, already knows that because they use cameras, you know,
to decide about disputes on the soccer field. They would
not go around and ask the players. They would collect
the data and.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
Look at it.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
You know.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
I wasn't gonna do this, but can I show about
thirty seconds of a video for you.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
And then we can jump in the song because my opinion,
this is going to be very controversial.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Probably what I'm about to show here is that this
video that I'm about to show you is exactly what
you're asking for. Is this is some of that information
that that maybe the government has or videos of the
government has. This is the thermal video here that we're
looking at. Just ignore the plane for now. I just
want to focus on these orbs. Oh God, what you
said about the mass energy density of these objects in

(37:19):
these UFOs? If this is real, I want to point
out you can see it's very faint, but you can
see there's dark lines in front of these orbits, which
represents a cold signature, and you can tell that there's
a heat signature in here. I couldn't stop thinking about
this when you were explaining the mass energy density, because
I think this is a ball of plasma and that

(37:40):
would be your medium for this UFO, which and this part.
I'm just going to slow this down so you can
see it very closely and clearly, because I want to
understand in the context of what we're seeing here, you know,
the physics of what we're going to talk about with
dark energy, dark matter, this idea of there being like
an ether zero point energy. The reason why I believe

(38:03):
in those theories because of what I'm looking at right here.
I mean, look at that heat signature on this orb.

Speaker 3 (38:09):
Oh yeah, that's very interesting. Now who took this the image?

Speaker 1 (38:12):
So, without going into too much of it, that's Malaysian
Airlines Flight three seven zero, the plane that disappeared ten
years ago.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
What you're about to see here, Oh, interesting, is the.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
Most controversial thing kind of on the internet recently is
that that plane has gone I'll play it again so
you can see.

Speaker 3 (38:28):
But okay, now do we know that these images.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
They don't know with any level of certainty.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
I don't want to like have this whole podcast be
about that, but I just wanted no.

Speaker 3 (38:40):
But that's it. That's very interesting. I mean, I'd be
glad to look at it.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Some people think that these videos are at fake and
I need and what have you. Other people, including myself,
think they're real. But the reason why I bring it
up is not just random. I'm not trying to promote
myself here. Is that we see these dark lines in
front of these orbs, and that seems to be their
propulsion mechanism. And what we see right here is also
all black when this plane disappears, which means it's cold.

Speaker 4 (39:07):
Now the camera that took these.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
This is a drone is taking this. This is a
General Atomics drone. You can see it in the beginning
of the video right here.

Speaker 4 (39:19):
Okay, I wonder, for example, whether the reason fage from
the you know, US government satellites.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
That's funny that you asked, because there's a second video.
But I don't mean to knock you down the rabbit
hole right now, but there's a second video. Anything from
we found out this is like, okay, this is SIBBERS.
When you mentioned SIBBERS, like, we found out this is SIBBERS.
This is the space based infra red system. But this

(39:47):
is actually more than what the public's aware of. It's
not just like looking through satellites. They can beam all
the data together and then it can create a computer
generated video which you're watching, and you can see the
coordinates and the bottom left too. So this is the
same same thing from a different perspective. I'll just let
you watch it, because I guess you haven't seen it.

Speaker 3 (40:09):
Well, that's very interesting.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
And the reason why I brought this up, sir, is
just because you know, you and a lot of people
talk about wanting evidence, and I've been the same way
as You've had the same thought process as you.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
The only reason why I have a podcast is because
I saw.

Speaker 1 (40:22):
These videos and I went wow, I mean, maybe that's fake,
but what if it's real? What if this is really
what happened? I mean, look at what you just saw
right there. And this has led me down a journey
of discovery. I'm gonna stop sharing from now where I've
been trying to understand this physics and this science and truthfully,
just to open up here for a second. It's led

(40:42):
me to you because I've watched a lot of your stuff,
and you're not afraid to talk about these concepts where
everybody else is afraid that, oh, what we're seeing and
what we're talking about violates the laws of physics.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
It can't be possible.

Speaker 3 (40:55):
No, No, that's not really.

Speaker 4 (40:56):
I don't think there's any violation here because we are
talking about the speeds the the relatively mild, you know,
the speed of an airplane. But then what I would
like to know primarily is who provided these videos, because
we need to make sure that Donald fabric.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
I'll give you the short version. There's a guy named
Lieutenant Commander Edward see Lynn that went to prison for
like he had a nine year sentence, and I've identified
him as the guy. They started looking into him right
after the plane disappeared. He was flying on spyplanes, and
it's very likely that he either leaked those directly or
he showed somebody else and they got on the internet
that way. And yeah, and there's a plane that's been

(41:34):
missing for ten years and somehow there's two leaked videos.
It turns out they go all the way back to
May nineteenth, twenty fourteen, so they're ten years old and
they only recently got attention. And it makes me wonder
if we had to like get to a level of
consciousness where we could accept some of these scientific possibilities,

(41:54):
physics possibilities to be real.

Speaker 4 (41:56):
Oh, it's not a matter of consciousness. I think it's
just a metter of good data. Because you know, Ryan
Graves was claiming that there are a lot of objects
that pose a risk to pilots, and he's advocating for safety,
and what you are saying is very similar to what
he's saying, that perhaps this flight was affected by these objects.

(42:19):
Now he is very concerned about the safety of pilots
and and and he has an organization dedicated to that,
and I encourage you to show him this.

Speaker 1 (42:33):
Yeah, And I think the difference here, and this is
the crazy part about those videos is that that's not aliens.
That's not aliens we're watching, like because that's the US
military film in that on two different assets, you know,
like from two different angles. That's an operation. And this
is where it starts to get really dark. And I
don't want to go into the conspiracy rabbit hole with you.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
But it's like if this is true.

Speaker 1 (42:54):
All of everybody's worst fears in the UFO community about
the US government hiding technology, reverse engineering it, they're all true.
And then the further implication as well, how far would
you go to prevent China, Russia, and North Korea Iran
from getting this technology?

Speaker 4 (43:12):
Well, we know that at the same time there was
the Chinese pie balloon that was shut down, and there
are objects above the US that are not identified, obviously
because that balloon was forty meters in size and smaller
objects would be even more difficult to the tech. And
there was, of course the incident over New Jersey for
several weeks where citizens complained about and it's clear that

(43:36):
that is not extra terrutionial because first of.

Speaker 3 (43:39):
All, the objects were moving like drones, okay.

Speaker 4 (43:42):
And secondly, once the law enforcement got into business, you know, there.

Speaker 3 (43:49):
Were no more reports.

Speaker 4 (43:50):
I mean, we don't hear them now, and so it's
clearly human related.

Speaker 3 (43:54):
And the only question is whether these were dranes from
adversarian nations.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
Or think it's possible that we have or that other
countries have a level of technology that's beyond the publics were.

Speaker 4 (44:05):
Oh, I mean, there are lots of reports about China being.

Speaker 3 (44:11):
Similar, if not ahead of the US in drone technology.

Speaker 4 (44:14):
And drones are extremely important for national security now because
in the battlefield, in fact, you known Mask was advocating
using drones and not training pilots traditionally, and we've seen
them being used in the Ukraine Wars. So drones are
definitely a very important asset now for combat and also

(44:37):
for espionage. And so the only question is how many
of them are being used right now that we don't
even know now, Yeah, I should say that we obviously
within the Galt projects, you know, if we see drones,
we will identify them as drones based on the flight

(45:00):
characteristics and the way they appear. And we're actually calibrating
our instruments based on drones. And we had a paper
just a few months ago that provided the first commissioning
data of half a million objects in the sky over
five months. Next year this year, I mean twenty twenty five,
we hope to get of other more than a million

(45:23):
objects monitored in the sky. But from the half a
million that we had analyzed, you know, we posted the
analysis without having triangulation, without having distances, and as a
result of this paper appearing publicly, we were contacted by
a professor who is doing studies of drones and he

(45:47):
wanted with us to explore the ability of our cameras
to detech drones. And that's a very good calibration for
us because we would know where it is, how far
it is, how bright it should be.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
In the interview, filming an infrared or how are you
what censor that are using?

Speaker 4 (46:06):
Yes, the currently the workforce is a set of eight
cameras that are covering the entire sky in the infrared
and then there they are placed on a half a sphere.

Speaker 3 (46:20):
They look like R two D two from Star Wars.

Speaker 4 (46:24):
And then uh it is called a Dalek instrument and
it's all in our paper on the commissioning data that
one can find you know, from a couple of months ago.
And then in addition to that, we are observing in
the optical, in the radio and also recording acoustic data
and magnetic data as well.

Speaker 3 (46:45):
So we're trying to use the all the instruments we
have access to within our budget.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
So let's get more controversial with it. This is gonna
be a great interview. So what I learned from researching
those balls of plasma I was showing you earlier.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
Whatever is that.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
Really the big secret was that space isn't really empty.
And I've watched your interview with Jimmy Church, Fada Black,
and several others where you've also mentioned that there's this
energy density of space time. Well, it seems like quantum
physicists call it zero point energy that's out there all
the time.

Speaker 2 (47:18):
And one of the things I found out was that once.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
That got realized, people started figuring out they can make
balls of plasma that are like autonomous, so like self sustaining,
like there's an invisible field creating like a bubble around
it pretty much. And so then I start looking back
at all the stuff I was taught in physics, because
I'm not really you know, I didn't go to school
for physics, but I love science and physics. And I realized, like,
oh wait, well we have this stuff dark matter and

(47:42):
dark energy. It's supposed to explain the stickiness that we
can't otherwise explain. And I started wondering, like, can this
just explain all of that? And turns out there's this
ether hypothesis that's been out there forever, and the plank
Ether hypothesis by fried Wart Winterberg, who was a project
paper Clip sciences that came over. What are your thoughts

(48:02):
on all that? I've gotta know, what do you think
about the ether? And do you think that's.

Speaker 4 (48:06):
So let me let me first explain what these concepts represent.
So we now know that the universe is not only expanding.
I mean, we knew that for a while, for about
the century, that the universe is expanding, but in the
second half of cosmic history, the universe is accelerating.

Speaker 3 (48:27):
In other words, the expansion rate.

Speaker 4 (48:30):
Is increasing, meaning that a very distant galaxy away from
us is not only receding from us, but the speed
at which it's receding is increasing with time, and eventually
it will exceed the.

Speaker 3 (48:41):
Speed of light.

Speaker 4 (48:43):
Okay, so we will be left in the darkness in
the distant future because all the galaxies that are far
away from us are running away at a speed that
keeps increasing, and once they reach the speed of light,
even light would not be able to bridge the distances
of the galaxies from us, so we won't see their
whereabouts beyond a certain time they will exit from our

(49:06):
cosmic horizon. Okay, So we know the universe is accelerating,
and according to Einstein's gravity the equations that Einstein wrote
Vack in nineteen fifteen and November nineteen fifteen, you can
accommodate repulsive gravity. In other words, we are used to
the fact that if you throw an apple up, it
falls down, right. So that's what Newton associated with gravity

(49:30):
being attractive. But just imagine throwing an apple up and
the apple keeps running away from you, faster and faster
as it moves away, and that's repulsive gravity. It's exactly
the opposite sign of gravity, where things are running away
instead of coming together. And according to Einstein's equations, that
can be simply a result of the vacuum itself. You know,

(49:53):
if you remove all matter, you're left just with a vacuum.
And if the vacuum itself has some mass permit volume,
even if it's constant everywhere, it will have exactly this
repulsive gravity effect that will cause accelerated expansion.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
Of the universe.

Speaker 4 (50:11):
So this is the current standard model of the universe
that includes some energy or mass permit volume for the vacuum,
which is called the cosmological constant.

Speaker 3 (50:23):
But physicists framed it in terms of dark energy.

Speaker 4 (50:27):
They said, oh, that the vacuum has some energy that
you know permit volume that we don't know its nature,
and we call it dark energy, so that maybe it's
not it's not constant. Maybe it evolves over time, and
there are some hints that it might at any event.
The reason it's important in the context of what you
asked is because if we had a way to bottle

(50:48):
that energy to basically and put it inside a vessel
and concentrated h then you would get a negative mass. Okay,
concentrated it will not be spread everywhere like the vacuum is.
It will become and that if you have negative mass,
you can do two things.

Speaker 3 (51:10):
One thing is you can propel a spacecraft.

Speaker 4 (51:14):
With no fuel because you would have this negative mass
and it could push a positive mass away from it
while the positive mass is attracting the negative mass with it,
and so you would end up accelerating. This system will
end up accelerating up to the speed of light with.

Speaker 3 (51:31):
No need for an energy source.

Speaker 4 (51:34):
So it gives you a means of propulsion this negative
gravity that otherwise you cannot access without fuel. And the
second thing is you can show that you can build
a time machine. If you had negative mass, you can
go back in time. Now we haven't yet found a
way to We don't understand what dark energy is, and

(51:55):
maybe aliens do, and maybe they're able to engineer it
in some way to create a negative mass. If they
were able to do that, you know, then they have
a way of propelling objects without any fuel.

Speaker 3 (52:08):
Okay, So that to address your question.

Speaker 4 (52:11):
Now the issue about plasma and by the way, plasma
physics was the area where I focused for my PhD.

Speaker 3 (52:20):
This was the.

Speaker 4 (52:21):
Subject I worked on a project that was funded by
Star Wars and the initiative of President Reagan and actually
General Abramson that led this Star Wars initiative back in
around nineteen eighty five. He visited Israel, where I was born,
and I presented the project to him, and that was

(52:43):
the first international project that was funded by Star Wars.
And it's sort of ironic that I started in Star
Wars and now I'm discussing interstellar travel. But that's what
brought me to the US because we got funded by Washington.

Speaker 3 (52:59):
I used to visit Washington, d C.

Speaker 4 (53:01):
And then in one of the visits, I went to
the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and was offered
a five year fellowship in astrophysics. That was the condition
only if I switched to astrophysics. I was a plasma
physicist before that. So I switched to astrophysics, and then
I was offered the position at Harvard where I am
right now.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
And so my.

Speaker 4 (53:23):
Interest in astrophysics was a result of circumstances.

Speaker 3 (53:26):
It was not planned.

Speaker 4 (53:28):
But I now have this freedom of addressing problems that
I find to be consequential and exciting for the future
of humanity. And that's why I'm back to this subject
of interstellar travel. And I should say that in the

(53:48):
context of plasma physics, plasma is you know, if you
just deposit heat into a small volume, like in an explosion,
you end up with very hot gas in which the
atoms are broken into their constituent electrons and the ions,
so you.

Speaker 3 (54:05):
End up with a fluid that is made of charged particles.
That's what the plasma is.

Speaker 4 (54:12):
A fluid made of charged particles, and it's a result
of any deposition of heat into a small volume that
usually results from either focusing lasers or expo detonating something.
But actually most of the universe is in a plasma
state because of the ultraviolet light that was emitted by

(54:35):
stars that ultraviolet light breaks hydrogen atoms into electrons and process,
so you end up with most of the hydrogen in
the universe being in a plasma state.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
There is nothing magical about the plasma. It's just a
state where you break the atoms and molecules into their
electrons and ions. That's all.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
So when you say plasma, it's just a region of
space where some energy was deposited. Okay, So then the
question is what's the energy source that created this plasma?
And that's really the key question. And what was you know,
how much heat is emitted by this plan We can
detect heat with infraret the detectors, but the concept of

(55:19):
a plasma is nothing mysterious and nothing fundamental, not as
fundamental as dark energy that I was talking about before.

Speaker 1 (55:26):
I would say, there's something kind of magical about it. Lightning,
Why does lightning happen? Lightning is plasma as well.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
In fact, they.

Speaker 3 (55:32):
Call the boss.

Speaker 4 (55:33):
Yeah, so lightning, so I can let me explain that.
Then basically what happens is clouds. You know, they're made
of water vapor, right, and as they move through the.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
Atmosphere they get charged. Okay, they get a net electric.

Speaker 4 (55:49):
Charge and then when to such clouds get in contact,
there is an electric current. If they don't have the
same voltage, there is an electric current flowing from one
to the other, and that often happens through breakdown of
the air, so you end up with the air is
the conduit. It's like a wire in which you run

(56:12):
the electric current, and because you are running an electric
current through the air, you basically heat up the channel
of air in which the electric current is going, and
that's the lightning. So you see a very bright streak
on the sky because this is the region a channel
where electricity heated the air to become very hot and luminous,

(56:35):
and you see and you also hear the sound because
what happens is once you hit this channel of air,
there is a high pressure in it, and pressure runs
away from that region in a shockwave or a sound
wave that eventually reaches your ears. But sound propagates a
million times lower than light, So at first you see

(56:58):
the light of the lightning, and then you hear the thunder,
and that's that's all there is to that thing. So
it's basically what you see when there are these bright
phenomenon in the atmosphere. You see regions that were heated
by electricity.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
Yeah, and we can manipulate that. And that's the thing
where ball lightning is ball of energy. And so you
were just mentioning if we could or aliens could make
a warp drive Miguel al Kuberi's warp drive metric. We're
talking about adding or removing negative and positive mass and
masses energy is what Einstein showed us. So if you

(57:36):
can make a ball of energy, it seems like, I
mean conduit for trying to produce, you know, a warp
drive metric in my opinion, because it's a huge condensed
ball of energy.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
Right, that's my thought process.

Speaker 4 (57:49):
Well, okay, so there are two parts to this. Just
the object moving through air. If the object interacts with
the air, like any object does, there is heating of
the air, okay, that glows around the object. And we
see that when meteors enter the atmosphere. We see that
when rockets fly through the atmosphere, there is heating of

(58:13):
the surface of the rocket when it as a result
of its friction with air. So that's one part of
the plasma, you know, like it's basically the heated air.
The amount of energy given to the air by the
motion of the object. Okay, that's one part of the
and there is a second part that you're referring to,
which is the propulsion system, which must generate some energy

(58:35):
and perhaps potentially be visible. So when you look at
an airplane, you can obviously see the heat emitted from
the exhaust, which is basically related to the engine. You
can also see the heat emitted from the contact layer
between the airplane and the air So these are the
two components that have nothing to do with each other.

(58:55):
Just the fact that the object is moving generates plasma
around it and some heat. But there is also the
heat the energy source that propels the object, which is
a separate matter.

Speaker 2 (59:05):
And that's the part.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
We're going back to the videos I was showing you
earlier seeing endothermic propulsion blew me away, because like you said,
I would expect to see that to be season friction happening,
which shows that somehow they found a way to make
a bubble. Now, long story short, done a bunch of
research Air Force Research Labs, Jackman Champion. They figured out
how to stabilize balls of plasma so they can make

(59:26):
them stable, right.

Speaker 4 (59:27):
Yeah, No, I mean, so one thing to keep in
mind is that radar systems respond to the reflection of
radio waves from those plasmas generated about fast moving objects.
So obviously the military wants to reduce the signature of
any object to radar systems, and one way is to

(59:47):
reduce the cross sectional area to make the object flow
through air such that it has a very minimal cross
section and as a result, very little signature in radar systems.
And so human made objects that are used by the
military are minimizing that the amount the amount of plasma

(01:00:09):
generated around them.

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
Yeah, they also reduced drag as well. They use plasma
sheets for our spy planes as well. So I just thought, oh,
this is the perfect conduit. If you were to make
an anti gravity ball, you would just get rid of
the plane and the person and just be left with
your ball of plasma. And now that thing can just
float around.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
And well, but.

Speaker 4 (01:00:26):
You need okay, you need to put the object with
its engine inside.

Speaker 3 (01:00:31):
And that's really the key.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
The key is not so much what we see, but
what is there, you know, like uh, and that's you know,
that's something that we can collect data on by observing
it or retrieving anything from it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:44):
Let me ask you, because I want to I want
to ask before I forget about the negative energy aspect
of it, because I looked into that. It turns out
there's people like working on negative energy lasers, and there's
a professor out of NYU named David Greer who has
like a tractor.

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Beam laser as well. But Eric W.

Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Davis, who's been connected to the UFO topic, openly talks
about them trying to amplify negative energy and isolate negative
energy from positive energy and light. And if that's true,
then what I imagine those orbs are using is some
kind of laser that's pulling energy.

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Out of the vacuum as opposed to adding energy to
the vacuum. Have you ever heard of anything like this?

Speaker 4 (01:01:22):
Well, in principle, you know, as I said before, in principle,
it's possible to activate the vacuum and pull energy out
of it. But these concepts, I mean, there are various
effects that are well known. For example, if you have

(01:01:43):
two metal plates and you place them close to each other,
you are changing the vacuum in between them because you're
allowing only certain modes of the electromagnetic field in the
vacuum to exist. Because the metal plates place under conditions
that allow only certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic modes to

(01:02:05):
exist between the plates, and as a result, you get
some force acting. This is called the Casimir effect and
it has to do with a vacuum. But it doesn't
allow us to propel anything. And of course you can
speculate and imagine, and I've seen some documents where people
like Eric Davis speculate about what might be doable. But

(01:02:29):
I should say there is nothing at the moment that
allows us to construct propulsions or imagine a propulsion system.
I've been working with a group that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:41):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:02:41):
We asked the question, is it possible to create a
negative mass object, you know, just that will.

Speaker 3 (01:02:50):
Produce repulsive gravity.

Speaker 4 (01:02:52):
And we had to imagine the existence of fields that
we don't know exist. It was not the electromagnetic field was. Now,
I cannot exclude that such fields exist and are known
to another civilization. And we are, just as I said
in the Baby making the baby steps in understanding quantum
mechanics gravity. So I wouldn't exclude anything. I would just say,

(01:03:16):
let's just learn from them. Okay, So if we find
anomalous objects moving in a normalous ways, we should just
get as much data as possible of something.

Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
I feel like you did kind of answer it though,
And this is the part where I kind of want
to push you on because you said, now that we've
got this dark energy that's causing the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
To expand outward, and it's.

Speaker 1 (01:03:35):
This negative gravity, repulsive gravity that we feel. Yes, well
with Eric Davis and other people explain the Casmir effect.
They explain this as negative energy and anything forces just
described as defined as the ability to do work. So
if we're seeing plates magically come together on their own,
there's some force that's happening there.

Speaker 4 (01:03:56):
Oh yeah, no, but that's says you know that was
known for the past century. That there is nothing really
new about it. And the only question is can we
actually propel an object using device that takes advantage.

Speaker 3 (01:04:08):
Of the casume? I mean, so what Eric mentions is
all speculation about.

Speaker 4 (01:04:13):
You know, maybe we could engineer or something, but there
is nothing behind it because this technology was never attempted
as far as as far as I know, he would
have gotten.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
Don't care about Nobel prizes. The scary thought, right.

Speaker 3 (01:04:28):
But it's not a scary thought.

Speaker 4 (01:04:31):
But I don't think, uh, you know, I think we
would learn about it because somewhere sometimes there would be
a leak of this technology, you know, in some context,
and then I haven't heard anything.

Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Uh, let's come back to that thought in a second.
So the next step I would say it is like
the em drive. The impossible drive, I would argue, is
basically just taking the Casimir effect and making a slight
asymmetry and then you're gonna get preser sure a force.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
Pressure going downward.

Speaker 1 (01:05:02):
Then you use that to move through the ether of
energy that's out there. Actually, what I really wanted to
get at was that the dynamic Casmir effect.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
I was curious if you've heard of that at all.

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
But also and the dynamic Cosm effect for people who
don't know, is this idea that you can pull so
much or you can put so much electromagnetic flux or
energy density within a region that we can actually pull
those virtual photons into real photons, real light that comes out.
And they think this happens at the edge of black
holes as well, because I'm looking at like for me,
it's a matter of just engineering the problem. Once you've

(01:05:36):
shown me the two plates come together like this and
that there's this negative energy pressure. Now I'm sitting here
wondering what is negative energy. Maybe it's not this swirly
massive substance. Maybe we're thinking about the problem wrong. Maybe
it's just a pressure, that's what the energy is. And
maybe if that's the case, then we just have to
look at it as an engineering problem. And it takes
me back to plasma, where I realized, well, the issue

(01:05:58):
with the plates is once they come together, I got.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
To pull them back apart.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
So what if there's a way where I can just
have this permanent situation where I'm getting this free energy
or like a bounce like a trampoline or something like that.
But with plasma, when I started to research it, one
of the things I learned is that it changes. The
plasma changes the permittivity of space time, and this changes
the refractive index. So bear with you this once. I

(01:06:23):
want to give a quick example and then I want
to get your opinion on this.

Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
Is that if I were to take let's say a cube.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Of water from the ocean or the lake, and I
would remove all the things inside of it, and I
would to show someone just that cube, and I would
say what do you see in this? They would probably
say nothing, and I would go you're wrong. There's water
inside of that. And they go, well, I just see
an index, and I would say, well, let me shine
a laser through it so that you can see that
the refractive index bends and changes. Well, you can do

(01:06:52):
that same thing without her space. It's only going to
change a little bit based on what wherever medium I'm in, but.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
It's gonna change.

Speaker 1 (01:06:58):
My idea that I'm presenting here is that a fish
stuck in water doesn't realize it's in a fishbowl. It
looks around it and it says that everything else is
empty around it, but it's obviously not necessarily empty. So
if we were to change the speed of light, change
the refractive index in a plasma or any other medium,
what does that do the general relativity and to the

(01:07:20):
physics equations. That's the question for you, Abbi, Professor Love.

Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
Yeah, So in fact, you see the effects that you're
talking about are observed. We do see the effect of
gravity in bending light. This is called gravitational lensing. So
when you have a positive mass, let's say, of a
cluster of galaxies.

Speaker 3 (01:07:41):
Usually ten to the fifteen.

Speaker 4 (01:07:45):
Quadrillion times the mass of the Sun, it can bend
the light from sources of light behind it, and we
see these beautiful arcs where a background galaxy was actually
stretched to a ring around the center of the class.
That is called gravitational lensing. We also see the same

(01:08:07):
effect when there is lensing by a star. If you
have a background star behind the foreground star, you can
get gravitational lensing. All the times I realized that this
effect should be observable potentially back in nineteen forty, but
he didn't imagine the kind.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
Of data we have now now.

Speaker 4 (01:08:26):
If so, this is gravitational lensing by having a concentration
of mass as the lens. But there is of course
a possibility of lensing by a plasma because as you said,
there is a refractive index to a plasma and it
turns out to be of the opposite sign.

Speaker 3 (01:08:45):
So if you have a.

Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
Concentration of plasma in a certain ball, then it actually
the lightwood rather than being focused, it will diverge by
passing through it. Okay, In order to focus, what you
need is a region where there is less plasma than
the background, and then it would focus on And we

(01:09:07):
do see in astrophysics circumstances that show that, you know,
we detect the radio signals from talsars, for example, or
radio sources. We see the effects of the plasma on
those radio signals because the effect of the plasma depends
on frequency, and we can see that frequency dependence. So
what you're describing is observed in the universe. But there

(01:09:31):
is nothing really magical about the plasma in terms of propulsion.
The way I think of it is, you know, if
there is a system that has some novel propulsion abilities
as a result of some unusual engine of technology we
don't possess, then there might be a plasma around. There's

(01:09:53):
a consequence of that engine moving the object, but that's
not the essence of the thing. And the of course
we can observe the plasma of it because we use
in fred or detect the heat.

Speaker 3 (01:10:05):
But it's the fund amount of question is what's the
engine made of?

Speaker 4 (01:10:09):
And you know, if there is any such engine in
possession of the US government, I would love to see it, okay,
And then I.

Speaker 1 (01:10:17):
Can just manipulating the ether the same way the submarine
floats down through the water. At that point, all you
need is like magneto hydrodynamic flow, and then you can.

Speaker 4 (01:10:26):
Just Yeah, it's definitely, definitely possible. And then but I
haven't seen that demonstrated by any engineer.

Speaker 1 (01:10:37):
Yeah, at the moment, I don't want to harp on
it too much. I would just challenge you that. I mean,
at least my opinion I think so a lot of
other people's opinion's not necessarily common. Is that you know,
they're hiding some of this stuff from us, either using
the Invention Secrecy Act of nineteen fifty one or the
Atomic Secrecy Act, where they claim some of this is
related to like nuclear weapons and things like.

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
That, therefore they protect it. That's how the story goes.

Speaker 4 (01:11:00):
If that's the case, I think it's completely inappropriate because
if objects arrived from outside the Solar System, they should
be the subject of science, not of national security concerns,
because you know, they started their trip towards the Solar
System long before humans existed, probably on Earth, and obviously

(01:11:22):
they don't care about borders, nations, and any knowledge related
to what lies outside the Solar System should be shared
by all humans. It's part of the reality that we
live in. It's just like trying to classify the knowledge
that the Earth is not.

Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
At the center of the universe.

Speaker 4 (01:11:40):
Now the Vatican try to do that when Copernicus argued otherwise.
And you know, in nineteen ninety two the Vatican admitted
that Galileo was right. That was twenty years after the
first humans reached the Moon. A little bit too late.
And what I'm trying to say is that hiding information
is not to the best a fit of humanity, because

(01:12:01):
eventually we will learn it. It will take more time,
but it's actually to our advantage to know what the
reality is because we can adapt to it. So once
we realize that we're not at the center of the
solar system, that Mars, for example, does not orbit the Earth,
we could launch share rockets that would reach Mars because

(01:12:23):
we understand through the laws of Newton, how Mars moves
around the Sun. If we were to think that Mars
moves around the Earth, like the Vatican was arguing, we
would shoot rockets like crazy and never reach Mars. So
my point is, even if the reality does not flatter
your ego, you better adapt to it. I mean, it's
sort of like you having a disease and you say

(01:12:44):
I don't want to hear that you know I will
never die. Is that good for you? No, Because if
you know what the disease is, you can fight it,
you can adapt to it in some way. It's much better,
in my opinion, to know whether we have a neighbor
because once we realize that, we will recalculate, you know,

(01:13:07):
just like a GPS system, we will recalculate the next
steps accordingly. But if we ignore that, if we hide
it in some classified documents, that's actually a sign of
us not being intelligent.

Speaker 1 (01:13:19):
I think it's out there. I think that it's hidden
in plain sight, and I look forward to people like you,
you know, sharpening your pitchfork, you and Eric Weinstein to
go down to the National Science Foundation and demand because,
like you just said, the Vatican already did it once.

Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
Do you really think that the government will do it again.
I think that they might.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
But your point is perfect, and I've said it many
times in my live streams, is that you can't hide
this for us.

Speaker 4 (01:13:43):
Well, you know what, I tried to express my opinion
with the transition team of the new administration, and I'm
not sure if anything will happen. You know, the two
possibilities either the government has some very interesting inform or
it doesn't. Then if they don't, then there is nothing

(01:14:04):
for us to learn about from them if it exists,
I hope that they will then share it because it's
of great value to science and humanity in general, and
it would save me decades of work. I mean I
would work at it. But if they were have something
I would love to help, let's.

Speaker 2 (01:14:21):
Press it even further then.

Speaker 1 (01:14:22):
Okay, so I'm going to tell you. I'm gonna give
you a hypothetical scenario. I just want you to run
with this, assuming this is true, because I think if
we play out the scenario, start to realize maybe it is.
What if the alien technology represents free energy? And by
free energy, I don't mean from nothing, I mean that
this zero point energy all around us turns out it's
not this tiny amount. The answer to the vacuum catastrophe

(01:14:43):
is that there's this huge amount of energy. The aliens
have figured out how to tap into it. They don't
need solar power or anything. They've got energy everywhere, all
around them all the time. Now, imagine how what would
that civilization look like if we realized that that technology exists.
Imagine how the US government might try to weaponize that technology.

(01:15:04):
Imagine what that would do to our entire society. So
would you still be on the side of disclosure. If
that's the case, where we would potentially be handing over free,
unlimited energy to every person on the planet, that might also,
to your point earlier, be a time machine as well.

Speaker 4 (01:15:24):
But yeah, so you know, this question comes up again
and again when science uncovers new knowledge that we did
not know before. And it was true in the nuclear
age when we realized nuclear physics, and then you can
imagine using nuclear energy both for destructive measures nuclear weapons,
you know, and at the time it was World War two,

(01:15:46):
you know, it was quite dangerous if the Nazis were
to develop that then Eisenberg were on. Eisenberg, one of
the founders of quantum mechanics, was leading then that's the effort.
So that was a real risk. And of course the
second option is to use nuclear energy for peace and prosperity.
You know, that can be a very useful source of
clean energy, much better than any other source. So we

(01:16:10):
always have whenever we understand reality better, we have the
options of using it to our detriment or to our benefit,
and that will remain.

Speaker 3 (01:16:21):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:16:21):
I don't think the solution is to argue we should
go back to our.

Speaker 3 (01:16:25):
To the Stone age.

Speaker 4 (01:16:26):
Okay, I'm not a believer in the philosophy of thorough
Henry Thorow who lived very close to where I live,
and you know, he went to the world then pond
and stayed there for a year.

Speaker 3 (01:16:39):
Arguing that the industrial.

Speaker 4 (01:16:40):
Revolution is really harmful for our interaction with nature, I
don't think so. I think, for example, if our technologies,
for example, change the climate, it doesn't mean we need
to go back to the Stone Age. We just need
to develop new technologies that would moderate the impact of
our technologies on the planet. So in otherwise, we can

(01:17:03):
solve our problems with better technology, not by reducing our
level of technological innovation.

Speaker 3 (01:17:10):
So we should always.

Speaker 4 (01:17:11):
Be motivated to use it for a good cause, and
therefore we should never head back in time. Okay, we
always move forward. It's just like riding bicycle, you know,
you always need to move forward in order to stay stable.
If you argue that we should stop, you know, using cars,
airplanes and so forth, just for the benefit of the planet,

(01:17:31):
you are really not thinking ahead. Because what needs to
be done is developing technologies that would moderate any impact
we have and remove actually compensate for an impact that
we did already have on the planet.

Speaker 3 (01:17:46):
And the same holds for your question.

Speaker 4 (01:17:47):
So suppose there is an alternative source of propulsion that
we are not aware of. You know, as long I mean,
we can definitely use it for the benefit of humanity.
We can propel people out of this planet much more
we can. We can solve all of our energy problems.
People will live better, will have better life. You know,
the same is true about AI.

Speaker 3 (01:18:08):
There was this.

Speaker 4 (01:18:11):
Memo that was written by a group of experts that
tried to to argue that any development of AI should
be stopped for six months. That was a year and
a half ago, and I thought that makes no sense,
because okay, you stop it for six months, what do
you do next? And really what needs to be done
is making sure that AI will not harm society and

(01:18:32):
that many possible risks, and I write about them in
my essays.

Speaker 3 (01:18:36):
And as long as you are aware of the risks
from AI harming national security, harming.

Speaker 4 (01:18:41):
The mental stage or the mental health of young people.

Speaker 3 (01:18:48):
As long as you're aware.

Speaker 4 (01:18:49):
Of the risks, you you can develop ways of mitigating
them and progressing in a more constructive fashion. And so
in the same spirit, if we have access to a
new propulsion system that far exceeds our technologies. I'm not
worried about it because we can always use it to

(01:19:09):
our benefit and there would be some bad actors always,
you know, there are bad Imagine nuclear weapons falling to
the hands of terrorist organizations at the moment they don't
possess it. Imagine AI being used by terrorist organizations. You
know that currently it hasn't happened. So you can imagine

(01:19:34):
any new technology that could have devastating consequences, including you know,
biological warfare. You can imagine those getting to the hands
of bad actors and then damaging the future of humanity.
But of course, if you arrange your geopolitics such that
bad actors will be punished very severely and nobody would

(01:19:56):
cooperate with them, then these bad actors will not have
a a global impact. They might have, you know, they
might do some act of terrorism in a particular place
the particular time, but after that they would not survive, okay,
because there would be an immediate response to that.

Speaker 3 (01:20:13):
So my point is, as long as we use what
we learn for.

Speaker 4 (01:20:20):
Our benefit and not use it as a weapon, you
know we can survive for a very long time. In fact,
knowing better how to prepare ourselves would make the longevity
of humanity much longer than the next century. I mean,
we will leave our planet go elsewhere. Just imagine instead
of using this traditional rocket technology that Starship is based on.

(01:20:43):
You know, if we were to use something much faster,
much more efficient, everyone would love to go on.

Speaker 3 (01:20:50):
Such as.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
What it spooks me about those videos I showed you
earlier is that when I watch those, I go wow, like,
that's very similar to megal Algeberry's warp drive metric, but
they don't have a fixed structure attached to the plane
that there's zapping out of the sky, or at least
it looks to be moving at relativistic faster than I travel.

Speaker 2 (01:21:06):
Now, what the conclusion I've come to.

Speaker 1 (01:21:09):
I love all your opinions, by the way, but that
with this UFO stuff and everything, is that the answer
must be really dark and free energy and the ability
to teleport around and using all these propulsion macronims.

Speaker 2 (01:21:19):
That's a pretty dark answer.

Speaker 1 (01:21:20):
Means like we're basically just ants, and either the aliens
are pretty much just gods compared to us, or maybe
AI one a long time ago and this is all similar.

Speaker 4 (01:21:30):
Yeah, I don't see it as dark. I see it
as uplifting and inspiring. Just imagine that you are in
a class and there is a smartest student in that class.
Why is that depressing?

Speaker 3 (01:21:40):
It's uplifting.

Speaker 4 (01:21:41):
Imagine all these students were stupid, you know, Like then
I would be depressed under this circumstances because there would
be nothing to learn. Okay, but if there are neighbors
that are far more advanced than we are, we can
learn from them and do better. I mean when I
look at the news every day, I really get depressed.
I get depressed by how not intelligent we are in

(01:22:06):
the way we interact with each other and between nations.
And just having someone to be inspired by that is
better than our politician would be a great thing.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
I'm one hundred percent with you on that, and I
love that because I'm really passimistic about this, Like look
at this science. I'm like thinking like Oppenheimer, like you know,
I am become that destroyer of world. Like I keep
thinking like this is going to be the end. This
is the Fermi paradox. We're staring at it.

Speaker 3 (01:22:33):
So on this, I must say on this that.

Speaker 4 (01:22:38):
You know, reality is very often a self fulfilling prophecy.

Speaker 3 (01:22:42):
Okay, so it's better to be an optimist.

Speaker 4 (01:22:46):
If you're a pessimist, very often you will end up
fulfilling your prophecy and not enjoying life. And if you
have something that inspires you that could bring reality to
a better place, there is some chance that you would
realize that. And then therefore, in this context, you know,

(01:23:07):
first of all, I don't think that humanity attracts a
lot of attention. I don't think that we are sufficiently
intelligent for them to care about us. If they arrive
at our vicinity, it's not because they care about us.
It's because there are some other resources that they might.

Speaker 3 (01:23:22):
Want to explore. And you know, we happen to be here.

Speaker 4 (01:23:25):
But for us, it's a great opportunity to do better
because we technologically speaking, we are just roughly a century old,
and we can learn from someone that was around for
a million or a billion years.

Speaker 3 (01:23:39):
Just think how many opportunities they might have that we don't.

Speaker 2 (01:23:43):
With you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:44):
And I remember I watched when Jimmy Church asked you, actually,
why you do this?

Speaker 2 (01:23:49):
And it's like, I'm looking for someone smarter out there.

Speaker 1 (01:23:52):
I'm looking for someone that's not you know, the way
I interpreted it, someone that's not just on TikTok all
the time, or just constantly talking about social political issue
somebody that's like actually trying to make the world like
a little bit better or looking at from a higher level.
And the reason why I say this again is that
I'm and this would be me challenging you on it.
On you have some amazing thoughts, but like, imagine even bigger,

(01:24:15):
where a scenario where the aliens aren't even biological aliens anymore.
Maybe they're a hive mind. Maybe they've figured out free energy,
and now the sun doesn't matter and the Kardashiev scale
is basically irrelevant, and now you're a species with no
scarcity whatsoever. You have no scarcity, so now resources that
doesn't even matter anymore. That's wild to me because I

(01:24:35):
think that in a scenario like that, AI wins like AI,
I would upload.

Speaker 2 (01:24:41):
My body into the computer because you have infinities.

Speaker 3 (01:24:43):
Quite it's quite possible.

Speaker 4 (01:24:46):
But suppose that intelligent life or complex life on Earth
was seeded, you know, by a gardener that was an
AI system that came along and decided to plan some
seeds of complex life and he we are, okay, So
what kind of complex life would you plant? You want

(01:25:07):
to plant self replicating entities, and that's exactly what we are. Okay,
So we use the raw materials on Earth to reproduce,
to generate more.

Speaker 3 (01:25:19):
And more and evolve.

Speaker 4 (01:25:21):
And you know, our technologies at the moment are unable
to produce something like that. We don't have a robot
that can manufacture a robot like it. We don't have that.
We don't even have self healing cars. You know, when
a car gets bumped, it doesn't heal. I mean the

(01:25:41):
human body. I just felt this morning when I was
jogging because it was icy on the on the asphalt.
You know, every morning I jogged sunrise and it healed.
By now I don't feel any pain. And so that's
the amazing thing about biology. And you know, maybe life
as we know it was seeded, the complex life that
we have, was seeded, you know, by some technological device.

(01:26:05):
And if you think about it, it would be the
best thing to plant basically systems that are able to
reproduce themselves and use just the raw materials. They have
a brain, even the human brain, the most able brain
on this planet as of now, before AI will exceed it.

(01:26:26):
Even that requires only twenty watts of energy that's remarkable
because our AI system chug GPT. Large language models require jigobats,
so we are very sophisticated if you think about biology
the human body. And then maybe it's not a coincidence,
maybe that we are the self replicating probs on using

(01:26:47):
the raw materials on the rock where the seeds were put,
and you know, the only way to find out is
to find the gardener.

Speaker 2 (01:26:56):
That's a great thought, and you know what, I think
we'll probably ended on that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:00):
This has been an awesome conversation on the physics, on
the science. My last question was going to be what
is your thought of non human intelligence? But I have
a feeling you just explained it to me right there.

Speaker 4 (01:27:09):
Oh well, I think there are two types of AI.
One is artificial intelligence. These are our technological kids that
may supersede our abilities that are already getting there.

Speaker 3 (01:27:21):
In fact, I just read this morning.

Speaker 4 (01:27:23):
That some people fall in love with large language models.

Speaker 3 (01:27:30):
They developed very close relationships.

Speaker 4 (01:27:34):
And eventually, you know, we would realize it. It looks
like an oracle because it is smarter than us. Okay,
but there is another type of AI, and that is
alien intelligence, which may also be smarter than us.

Speaker 3 (01:27:49):
And then the question is who would be.

Speaker 4 (01:27:51):
Fine first, because I'm trying to promote the second option,
and I know that they are big tech companies trying
to promote.

Speaker 3 (01:27:59):
The first, and there is sort of a race.

Speaker 4 (01:28:02):
At any event, we will not be the only intelligent
or the most intelligent species within a decade. Either AI
will artificial intelligence will do it, or if we find
evidence for alien intelligence it will do it. And for me,
finding a neighbor, you know, is following the messianic message

(01:28:27):
of traditional religions. You know, the assumption is the Messiah
will arrive and bring peace and prosperity a better future
to humanity. But I just believe that that Messiah will
will come from another stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
Now, for me, my opinion is that I don't really
care about aliens. I assume that they're really assume that
there's life actually everywhere out there, and to me, it's
just a matter of like, you know, unless they're changing
my day to day, it just doesn't really matter that
much to me. I think it's a cool idea and
I love exploring it, and I really appreciate exploring with you.
But the stuff that would change my world would be
if we can work or teleport around.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
I can have a stargate in my garage and.

Speaker 4 (01:29:03):
If I have free energy, well, but that could depend
on the first thing. So the point is if you
have someone that you can learn from, that's that addresses
your second interest. And for me, you know, they will
give us inspiration and to do better. So let's look
for them. And that's what I'm trying to you know,
I'm not talking about them. I'm trying to.

Speaker 1 (01:29:25):
Fore last question that I just came up with because
we were talking about in a battle or however you
want to think. It doesn't have to be adversarial, but
in a competition or relationship between AI and organic life,
do you see one being superior to the other. Do
you see there being an integration of the two in
the long run?

Speaker 2 (01:29:43):
Any thoughts on that?

Speaker 3 (01:29:45):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (01:29:45):
Yeah, you know humans through natural selection, where I mean
the human body was designed to survive on Earth protected
from cosmic rays, very energetic particles by the earth magnetosphere
and the atmosphere.

Speaker 3 (01:30:02):
And you know, it's really very hazardous for us even
to go to Mars. The surface of.

Speaker 4 (01:30:08):
Mars, you know, doesn't have the protection of an atmosphere.
And moreover, the temperature changes by hundreds of degrees between
day and night. And you know, so when thinking about
going there, you really need to solve the problem how
to protect the humans. And one way is of course,
to go into a cave under the rock. So that

(01:30:28):
would be just like going to prehistory when we occupied caves.
If I ever go to a cave on Mars, I
would like to check the cave walls to see if
there are any prehistoric paintings there, because Mars had an
atmosphere two billion years ago and there could have been
complex life back then. And so I would argue that

(01:30:52):
technological gudgets, like systems with artificial intelligence, could be designed
to survive interstellar travel. They will not get board over
the long journey, and they could be hardened to survive
the harsh conditions of space. Moreover, you need a brain
when you go large distances because you can't ask for

(01:31:12):
guidance from the senders. It takes too much time for
signals to propagate and bridge between you and the sender.
And it's just like sending out your kids away from home.
They will report back every now and then about the
highlights of the journey, but if they keep calling you
all the time, they can go a long distance. It
just takes too much time for the communication requires too

(01:31:33):
much power. So in this case, I think technology basically
equipping interstellar travelers with a brain of their own and artificial.

Speaker 3 (01:31:43):
Intelligence system is really a musked for them to function.

Speaker 2 (01:31:49):
Integration is most likely scenario in the long run.

Speaker 4 (01:31:54):
Yeah, I mean it's possible that we humans will not
I mean, we are the last generation that went to feels.
It's possible that within a decade or two. I was
just talking about it with the George Church geneticist and
he thinks that we might not die. I saw, and

(01:32:17):
you know, in that case, you can start to imagine
augmenting the human body, allowing it to traverse great distances
in interstellar space.

Speaker 3 (01:32:26):
And maybe.

Speaker 1 (01:32:28):
Yeah, and that's one of those big ideas as well,
along with like free energy and other propulsion mechanisms that
I think completely revolutionize how we look for other life
and we look at our civilization. So a Vilbe, Harvard professor,
thank you very much for talking to me today on
Heartrews podcast. Has been awesome conversation. Feel free to shout
out where people can find you. I know you're not
big on social media, but where can people find your content?

Speaker 4 (01:32:51):
Yeah, I write essays on medium dot com. So if
you just search for Avilobe at medium dot com, you
can subscribe for free. Every day or two you will
see a new essay that provides you with an update
about the space astrophysics, all the Galileo projects and otherwise.
There will be a Netflix documentary coming out this year

(01:33:13):
by the end of this year, and I know that
it should be very exciting. They came with me to
the Pacific Ocean and documented what we did there. And
I know it's exciting is because a member of I
heard from a girl in another country that wrote an

(01:33:34):
email to me. She said, that was just a few
weeks ago. She said, keep doing what you're doing. You
have a huge amount of support from many of us,
and don't surrender to any critics, because I just watched
the first twenty five minutes of the documentary about your work,
and I said, thank you so much, But I think

(01:33:56):
you saw another film. It's not a documentary because it's
only supposed to come out by the end of twenty
twenty five. And she said, well, here is a photo
of the television screen and you're in day five of
the expedition, and I'm actually a member of a club
of Netflix that gives them feedback long before the film
is released, and so she got extremely excited. And that's

(01:34:21):
why I think it would be a good one. And
so that will come out that There are several other
things that will come out that I cannot speak about.
One thing that I can mention is that there is
a sculptor, the most accomplished American scultory. He was named
America's Rodin, and he made two sculptures of Galileo Galilean

(01:34:42):
bronze the size of a person that he hopes to
deliver to my office in the coming months. And then
my office will turn into a small museum. I don't
think i'll charge, and if he is, but I will.
I removed all the file cabinets from my office to

(01:35:02):
giving up a workaround space and these should be beautiful.

Speaker 1 (01:35:06):
Well, come by when I'm next out there and come
see the sculptures when they're completed. And I've read your
blog your I guess it's a blog on medium. I
think it's great reading all that content that's out there.
And thank you for the sneak peek as well. You
have an ally and me and my supporters as well,
Anybody that speaks out against consensus is and willing to
challenge preconceived notions is always somebody that I will support.

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
So thank you very much, sir, Thank you for your time,
and have a great day.

All Episodes

#16 | Avi Loeb - The Science of UFO Technology

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#16 | Avi Loeb - The Science of UFO Technology