#20 | US Military Tech 100 Years Ahead? - Salvatore Pais Reveals the Science - Hard Truths

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Malaysian three zero contact went to zero dismal nine. Breaking
news tonight, a Malaysia Airlines flight with two hundred and
thirty nine people on board, including four Americans, has gone missing.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
I remember the line from the Indo scripture of the
Bagavad Gita thish New.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
I was trying to persuade the prince.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
He should do his duty, and to impressed him takes
on multi armed form. It says, now I am become death,
the destroyer of worlds.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
Thank you everybody for being here, Thank you for waiting
those who are waiting patiently. I'm Ashon Forbes. This is
Hard Trews Podcast. Guys. Today, I once again have probably
our most esteemed guest ever on the show, US Navy
engineer Salvator Pais. I hope you guys enjoy the conversation.
Here we go, sal brother, welcome to the podcast once again.

(01:44):
How are you doing rather?

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Thank you very much and my apologies again. I tried
something new and new my new camera whatever, nothing worked,
so go with old. Remember this is just a quick tip.
Go with what you know works, especially when things get hot.
But anyway, let me give the let me give the disclaimer.

(02:08):
Right of the bat so I don't worry about it.
I come on your Hard Troops podcast for the third time. Congratulations. Uh,
let's see uh as a private citizen. My opinions, my
statements on my own. They have absolutely nothing to do
with the United States Navy nor the United States Space Force.

(02:31):
Thank you very much for being such a kind host,
and I truly love being in your presence. Just one
more thing I would like to throw out there, since
we already tried the challenge to elan Moscow and the
alternative the the propulsion methodology not using advanced rocketry. As

(02:51):
a matter of fact, possibly you can substantiate on your
x platform. You can give the link again as to
our our challenge. You're the one who post did it
for me on your ex platform. Thank you very much. Sure,
and anytime any place, I would like to engage with
mister Musk and explain to him the alternatives to advanced rocketry.

(03:12):
It is a one hundred and twenty year old technology
not worthy of let's say, the genius of the third millennium,
as he has been dubbed on the several shows.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
Well, I'll tell you what. Let's go about it like this.
I'll ask you questions and we'll try to use this
podcast as a way to convince him that he should
be paying attention. Because just one more.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Thing, and I promised that after that the floors can
I would just answer the questions that you post. I
promise you this, But I must say that this has
been on the tip of my mind for some time
and given the situation, let's say, not just in the
world everywhere. Let me just say this, mister Musk, I

(03:57):
make an appeal to you, as a federal employee, on
behalf of my brothers and sisters in federal government. Please
do not longer fire federal employees. Think and think again
before you undergo such acts. We have taken a pledge
to the United States Constitution. We protect and serve the

(04:20):
people of the United States of America, and I implore
you considerate will before you decide to fire us. We
actually fulfill a very important row in science and technology
and engineering. As a matter of fact, everything I've done,
the price effect, the super force, anything that's linked even

(04:43):
to the room temperature superconductor, which I am one hundred
percent one day will be proven correct. Even that any
one of us could have come up with these ideas,
there are minds among us that should not be discarded. Please,
if you must use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. Thank

(05:03):
you very much, sir. I hope that you hear this.
I hope Ashton, that your followers make this viral. Thank you, sir.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
So then let's start with the beginning. Why do you
work for the US Navy.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
I work for the United States Navy because number one,
I believe it is the strongest arm of the armed forces.
It is, as a matter of fact, by constitution, by
Act of Congress, the first of the armed forces. It
is it it's extremely diverse, from the point of view

(05:41):
that it encompasses every aspect of science and technology and engineering.
It has an aviation wing, the United States Marines, you
can say, those are its foot soldiers, and of course
the Navy itself, so.

Speaker 3 (05:57):
Every private company. Though I work for.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
The United States government to protect and serve the people
of the United States of America. I believe in that wholeheartedly.
And to me, the greatest, one of the greatest achievements
in my life was to become a federal employee. My
brother's insistents know this well. We do this not to

(06:23):
make money, but to serve and protect the interests and
the country itself, because the country must prosper, the country
must be there forever. This is a nation of divine
right and laws.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
Well, then let me ask you based on your what
you just said about Elon Musk, and even if you
can't say what it is that you do, that's fine.
But why is it that Elon Musk should not fire
you if you're concerned about that happening. What is it
that you're providing to that to advance what you just
said to the people.

Speaker 1 (07:01):
It is not I, It is my brothers and sisters
as a collective again, a force of unification within the
government itself. We are providing again the brain, the brain matter,
that the the absolute knowledge that comes with every one

(07:21):
of us. Again, there's nothing special about me. Forget about
the price effective, forget about the super force, forget about
room temperature, super conductivity. All those can actually be achieved
by anyone else in the United States government that has
that works in these domains. Every one of us has
that capability, that level of knowledge. A lot of us

(07:44):
have thattoral level knowledge. It is thattoral qualifier PhD qualifier.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
So then why do they need you.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
They do not need me, they can take anyone else,
and I'm pretty sure that they can fulfill that raw.
I just bring to the table certain ideas. I do
have one thing. I don't believe in boxes. I've done
away with the boxes. I completely think boxes are not needed. Therefore,
the whole idea of thinking outside the box, to me

(08:15):
is a misnomer to begin with, because I do not
believe in boxes.

Speaker 3 (08:19):
See so let me ask you this thing, because I disagree.
I don't think you're that replaceable. Why did the US
Navy support and approve get your patents approved? Because the
truth of the story is, if you if you guys
haven't caught up watched Hart Trood's podcast number one and two.
I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but basically,

(08:39):
only three of five of the five patents by Salvag
or Pace in the US Navy were approved, and they
had to fight for them, and they had like the
chief technology guy like basically Sala's boss or his boss
and boss. However, it worked out and one of the
lawyers sending letters saying the stuff was you know, operable
or you know, depending on the exact wordplay, that the

(08:59):
stuff was legit. So why was the Navy fighting so
hard for those patents.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
First of all, let me name the name. His name
is doctor James Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer of Naval Aviation Enterprises.
A great man, a man that shall be remembered by history,
for he deserves to be remembered by history. He is
a man of great integrity. I was able to present.

(09:31):
I went to the blackboard, I would you know, forget
this dryer race board, and stopped through the blackboard the
piece of chalk in my mouth, in my mouth. Yeah,
actually I held it in my mouth for a little while,
but anyway, in my hand. I actually went to the blackboard,
put down Maxwell's equations, the four equations four known so
again heavy side version of Maxwell's equations, and from there
I was able to derive what is understood as the

(09:54):
police effect. Once he saw the fundamental, the fundamental behind it.
When he understood exactly how I was going to put
it in practice and what the applications would be. Doctor
Shihi was not only intelligent enough, but a visionary. He
was able to foresee the possibilities, and five patent applications

(10:17):
came out of it. They went through the invention evaluation board.
Now you must understand the Invention Evaluation Board is made
of the kreme de la creme of Navire. We're talking
about highly technical skilled, many of them having we had
quantum physicists, with quantum chemists with doctorates with the mechanical,

(10:38):
aerospace engineering, electrical engineering as well. So, and there's one
thing that I will disclose because I never signed an NDA,
so why not in the sum of twenty nineteen, a
technical committee, a technical staffing committee, highly placed. We talked
about gs fifteens and higher and the s yes. But

(11:00):
these are people of extreme importance within the government because
everyone in government listens to these individuals. They are the
kreme de la creme of the technical and science community
within the staffing officer, staffing office for the Senate, the
Senate Armed Service Committee we're talking about anyway, these are

(11:22):
the guys that prevented Hitler from taking over the world.
But anyway, uh so, the bottom line is this, four
of them, I will not name names. They know who
they are. Four of them went to Navit Pattason River

(11:45):
and spoke to all to certain members, certain key members
of the Invention Evaluation Board, including doctor James Sheety, and
at the end of the day they were convinced that
the pace of effect had future. One of them, the
person that led the technical staffing committee, called me at
six point thirty that night to let me know that

(12:08):
things are coming my way. Possibility of a team and
a laboratory would be in motion. Certain things were done,
certain things were said, Politics intervened, and I never got
my lab in my team. But that's another story, so interesting.

Speaker 3 (12:29):
So just to rehash that twenty nineteen, some technical committee
was formed and supposedly this has to do with it,
sounds like because this was after the patents already approved, right,
So this was then to get you a team to review,
to take this science the next level, to take yourself
in next level? Is that what I'm here?

Speaker 1 (12:49):
But as a matter of fact, the third pattern had
just been approved, The high frequency gravitation way generator had
just been approved as a first action, unheard of, unheard of,
such controversial pattern. You know that one well, because you
were the one who was great enough to put it
on your X platform. As a matter of fact, it

(13:09):
got like over a million views. It was the biggest
of the papers. So thank you very much.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
Ash. Now you think, let me ask, because people are
gonna ask me, and I don't want to wait for
heart Trews number four for the answer is was hal
put Off? I'm part of that committee, that group of scientists.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
As far as I know, No, sir, these were all
part of the Senate Technical Committee. They were highly placed staffers.
So we talked about GS. Fifteen and above.

Speaker 3 (13:40):
Do you believe that? Yeah? Do you believe the US
Navy already has the technology and those patents available even
if you didn't make it, maybe by somebody else.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Sir, I have no idea. However, you have to understand
when I saw the M three seven, the videos when
we had our first My god, it seems like such
a long time ago, and yet it seems like yesterday.
It's amazing what you've been able to achieve in such
a short period of time. Congratulations, brother, kudos to you.

(14:13):
You deserve it. Look, the bottom line is this, I
do not believe those videos are false. I think they're
not only are they the real thing, but it's amazing
whoever did it, it's truly should be regarded as a

(14:34):
national hero.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Well, you know, the thing is like like you know
who I'm blaming though, right, Like everything points the US Navy.
So it turns out you you work for them, you know.
So I'm kind of going like in my head.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
As a ravage citizen, since I'm coming.

Speaker 3 (14:53):
As a citizen. Absolutely I choose and I don't want Yeah,
I don't want you to disclose anything that's inappropriate in
any way, shape or form. I say that as somebody
else's at American.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
But that is my own. It is based on science
and technology that I developed on my own from papers
that I've read. It is true that the most influential
book I've read from which all the policies affect ideas
truly stem from, are Frontiers and Propulsion Science, the one
that's edited by Mark Millis and Eric W. Davis. And

(15:29):
that's why I hold back to Davis and such high esteem. However,
I must say he was one person, let's just say,
highly placed, that was asked at the time by someone
in the aforementioned committee via another individual at the Office

(15:50):
of Naval Intelligence who shall remain unnamed. Even though he's
retired now there's no point in rehashing these things. However,
Eric W. Davis is one of the key people that
basically said no to me getting a theme, And yeah,
that makes sense.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
I mean he was the gatekeeper right that blocked your stuff,
and it seems like he's a gatekeeper in general for
some of this technology. But I mean the story you
just told though, is that you said doctor she he
is you know the way you said it to me.
In my head, I'm going, oh, well, doctor she He
knew something was going on because when you say, oh,
I was just able to convince doctor Shehy to see

(16:27):
the light about anti gravity technology. I'm going, nah, that's
never how it's worked out when I've interacted with people.
The only time that worked out is that they already
know that it's real ahead of time.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
The notion, the notion of gravity control. You and I
don't use words like anti gravity anymore. You and I
know better. The notion of gravity control never came up.
As a matter of fact, it the one application that
I stressed was against the room temperature super conductivity because

(16:57):
it speaks directly to the London equint. There's a paper
out there, an AI double, A paper twenty nineteen A double.
As a matter of fact, some of its finding were
presented at the side Tech twenty nineteen conference. Now I
send you those slides. Please please post them to your
ex and in this chat, so everybody has them that

(17:21):
twenty nineteen AI Double a Side Tech conference presentation is
extremely important. Slides four two slides nine of slides four, five, six, seven,
eight nine are incredibly foundational to disruptive technology. One of them,

(17:41):
I believe slight four speaks to actually solving the vacuum catastrophe.
And you and I can go further into this if
you choose to whereby it by a simple equivalence, and
you now know this physics of the Boltzmann energy with
a Plank energy, you can say that the space h

(18:06):
I it's one down, Try one down?

Speaker 3 (18:14):
Which slide slide for they don't have numbers on.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Yeah, start from the beginning, go all the way up
to the like the.

Speaker 3 (18:22):
Oh okay, yeah, I was too far. So this is
probably a slide like somewhere in here is where you are.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Talking about it's solving the vacuum catastrophe? Is this one?
You almost have it there? All right? Look carefully at it.
It talks about the equivalents of the Boltzmann energy with
a Plank energy, and from it you can get a
space a space cell configuration with the attributes. Do you

(18:47):
see the attributes? Its characteristic length and the order of
ten to the minus four meters, and what does it
speak to vibrational frequencies and the terror herds order? Now
do you see remember the third by by Eric W. Davis.
He mentioned a macroscopic dimension on the order of ten

(19:09):
to the minus four meters, and who mentioned the terror
herds frequencies. I believe it was back to how futo?

Speaker 3 (19:18):
So are you saying here, though, because I remember I
reviewed that on stream. I think I'm pretty sure I
reviewed this on stream a few weeks ago. And the
part here is interesting is that the Boltzmann distribution has
to do with thermal energy. But here when we're talking
about plank scale, we're really dealing about like the vibrational

(19:40):
energy of space time itself. Right.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
This incredible because this is the first time a classical
expression K sabbt is equivalent equals a quantum energy formalism,
namely the plank energy, and you don't get infinities. As
a matter of fact, it speaks to I believe that

(20:06):
the problem resides everybody thinks of the plank scale, and
it's true, certain very important things happen at the plank scale.
For example, the existence of the super force. However, to
be able to blend the classical realm into the quantum realm,
you see, it is that it's a the difference. A

(20:29):
difference reference length must be used, and this comes out
of this equivalence. It is tend to the minus four meters,
which happens to be the size of a macroscopic other dimension,
a fifth dimension, And it's interesting that that frequency should
be related to it. Anyway.

Speaker 3 (20:53):
Yeah, you want a little bit over my head, but
I understand the context here, you know. So for the viewers,
if you're not initiated, the vacuum catastrophe is we're trying
to decide why the energy that we see is the
cosmic microwave background, Why that's one hundred and something orders
of magnitude less than what we get when we calculate

(21:17):
the energy based on quantum mechanics that should exist. So
here cells basically trying to figure out how these two
things can relate. So the relationship between the thermal energy
versus the vibrational energy at the plank scale, and the
part I understand.

Speaker 1 (21:37):
Is that that's the whole thing. It's not at the
planks heat, it's at the space cell.

Speaker 3 (21:43):
Ah when you make a cell of space, and you
take that amount of energy in a cell of space. Yeah,
but let me ask one more question here, because then
you say this is the part that didn't fully understand.
I'm glad we're talking about this. You say, simple calculation
results in vacuum mass density of ten to the minus
twenty seven kilograms per meter cube, in good agreement with

(22:05):
eric experimental data obtained from the Plank's satellite.

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Correct. I don't know, and Plank have shown those mass densities.
So we're talking about very low energy density compared to
what they think is inside. You know, the whole idea
that inside a coup of tea or cop of whatever,
you can boil entire Earth oceans?

Speaker 3 (22:30):
Are you saying that that's correct?

Speaker 1 (22:35):
Again, I believe the error resides in them using the
Plank scale. I believe the two the classical realm and
the quantum realm actually meet at this other reference scale.
Let's call it a space cell for want of a
better idea, some sort of spatial temporal metric structure within

(23:02):
space time itself. But at that point that reference a
characteristic size, the classical and the quantum regimes fuse. They
melt into one another. That's why I think it's so important.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
Okay, So that's the conceptual viewpoint, is that they mesh
into one another in an extra spatial dimension similar to
clusive cliente. Is that what you're getting.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
At quite possible?

Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yes, okay, okay, uh, you know I agree with that already.
I'm a big clusive client supporter. So I'll leave this
up in the background for your condis I have a
few more questions that I want to ask you, just
like about it and what have you and your and
of course isn't just your opinion as a private citizen.
Of course, yes, absolutely, And then and then of course
we can geek out on the physics and the science.

(23:56):
So would you testify to Congress at one of these
hearings or all of these task forces that anapoline a
Luna is doing if you were asked?

Speaker 1 (24:05):
Of course, I mean this is Congress. I would be
in contempt of Congress if I would not do so
if asked. It'd be great if I could get a
right there, because there's certain issues that you know, things
that have occurred that I'd rather not go into. So yeah,
i'd appreciate it, right rather than that, absolutely, And what.

Speaker 3 (24:26):
Would be your main message, what would you be wanting
to disclose to people.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
That we don't need to reverse engineer let's say, things
that we're found in the desert, subterranean, under the pyramids, whatnot.
We don't need these things. The human ingenuity, human mind
can uncover, can discover these things on our own. We

(24:56):
do not need et tech. We should rely man made technologies.
That all.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
I love it. That's that's my favorite. I don't think
a lot of people would expected you to say that,
but truthfully, like that's a narrative that does not get
promoted enough. And I do hope that the next UFO
hearing is more about what what have we as humanity
human have been able to figure out in the last
seventy years. So there's a few more questions that are

(25:26):
going to get to that here in a minute, but
I want to ask them more.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Physics speaks to eighteen ninety five all of a heavy
sized version of Maxwell's equation because the harmonic iscillator was
already no way prior to that. Maxwell's equations are based
on a cellular vertical formula formation within the e quote
unquote ether. So you know that I prefer quantum vacuum

(25:51):
of vacuum energy state. But that's my Yeah, it's a right.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
It's just a matter of semantics. I think as long
as everybody understands what we're conceptually talking about the same things,
and people can call it whatever they want to call it,
in my opinion. So your point there is that if
you were to testify, you would want to tell people that, hey,
we have this my patents, your patents, that your UFO patents.
Actually you're not those patents aren't because you want to

(26:17):
prove that Roswell happened or whatever. You're trying to explain
that the equations in math have been out there since
the early nineteen hund depends on if you're going with
general relativity, if you're going all the way back to
quaternions and you know Maxwell's equations, right, Yes, Okay, great,

(26:38):
I mean that's awesome. I hope that you do it
and get a chance. Now. I have a few more
questions just about your opinions on like military capabilities in
the Navy. So one is, do you think it's possible
to hide from the Navy anywhere on Earth, in the
air or in the water, even.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
As a private citizen because of EQ I could not
answer that. We're not question nor enlighten the enemy. Okay, Kashten,
You and I have seen certain papers, have understood certain things.
Just because we have not seen levitating craft and some

(27:24):
unknown unforeseen hangar does not mean we do not understand
this physics correct.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
Absolutely. Look, I'm just an investigator on a journalist. You
gotta respect that I'm just playing the game here. I'm
just doing what I gotta do. Like you are the
respected Navy engineer, you should not say anything that would
you know, harm your NDA. And my job is to
come up with questions that push the boundary to the limit.
So a couple more. How many years behind the military

(27:55):
do you think the public is technologically right now? People say, oh,
the military is secretly advanced beyond the public. What is
your opinion? How if you had to give it, like
a number of decades, what would you say?

Speaker 1 (28:11):
Put it this way, if any enemy out there's some
crazy notion to invade, to attack, to come out of
the blue sky and do something harmful to us, I'll

(28:35):
please ask them, for their own sake and that of
their mothers, to please do not take such steps. It'll
be quick, it'll be very dirty, and you'll never do
it again.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
Well, that's exactly what I wanted to hear and pretty
much what I expected. So let me ask a slightly
different question back on the patents. I already kind of
asked about the Navy part, So this one you can
you can ease up a little bit. Do you think
defense contractors or maybe even adversaries have developed stuff similar

(29:25):
to your patents, similar to the science and technology that
you've put out there.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
Again, these ideas have been around since eighteen ninety five,
I doubt even though I do have my state of hubers,
there are days that I have such delusion to grant
you that not even anyway names would dare to even
think such things. Yeah, I would say other people have

(29:51):
thought of these way, possibly even before I was a
glimmer of light in my biological father's.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yeah, okay, so you do think that other people have
figured it out there? I mean, just saying that it's
been out there is one thing, right, But it took
you to come up with these pads, and nobody put
these patents out before you. And I was in the
twenty tens.

Speaker 1 (30:14):
So again, all my brothers and sisters in federal government
could have come up with these ideas if given a chance.
I was given a chance to partake of the nice
of the Naval Innovative Science and Engineering Program, and I
was extremely fortunate to be given a lab and the
team to make the high energy of eclemindented field generator

(30:35):
experiments a reality. So given that any one else in
the federal government, I believe they could have come up
with these ideas. That's why my appeal, my imploration to
mister Mosque to stop the doose cuts of the federal

(30:58):
government capable of great things, use us.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Okay, okay, I think I only have a couple more
tough ones for you, and then we can start to
get into the more fun ones. Let's see what do
we got. Do you think that we as in the military, Actually,
you know what, let me change the wording of this.
Do you think it's possible to intercept a hypersonic missile

(31:28):
or aircraft?

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Am ah? Let me just give you a conceptual idea.
You must have heard of the what's it called hop
You know angels don't play this instrument?

Speaker 3 (31:49):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (31:49):
Yeah, that one?

Speaker 3 (31:51):
Yeah? So rare? Uh.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
What's to say that something portable can be arranged to
act as a direct electronic war for the device, that's all.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Yeah, directed energy weapon. Yeah, that's a pretty COM's it's
less controversial nowadays, I think that it has been in
previous years. I mean, Lockeed Martin has a whole page
on their website dedicated to it. So I'm not really
sure if it's even controversial anymore. So, Okay, that's a
smart way to answer the question. Yeah, you could intercept anything,
doesn't matter. Fast is going right if you have a
radar antennant array speed of live baby. And that's funny

(32:33):
because I've said that, I feel like a nuke could
actually be a liability with our sibber system because like
the moment we detected, I would just shoot it with
the directed energy weapon and just make it explode or
whatever they could do.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Crazy stuff a thing of the past. Yeah, you spoke.
You are the only one actually that I know of.
That's why to me, you're far more than what you
call yourself an investigative journals. You're the only one who
caught on equations seven, eight, and nine and my plasma
compression fusion device I tripol e TPS paper in twenty

(33:06):
nineteen based on that paper, and you know what it
speaks to energy amplification, among other things. Yea, again, ecube,
it is possible to generate a doomsday device. Would you
make a teller ulam thermonuclear device seem inconsequential in compassion

(33:29):
to devastating energy yields? And by devastating I mean something
and you order to tend to the twenty five jewels
that's the ring a bell.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
Do you think that energy is coming straight from the
vacuum when that's happening, because most people say, well, where's
that energy coming from? Right? Where's that energy coming from?

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Would be from the device itself, could also be a
coupling of sorts. Would be a coupleing of sorts.

Speaker 3 (33:57):
When you say couple a couple of what coupling to
the vacuum.

Speaker 1 (34:05):
Remember those space cells that we just talked about. Wow,
I believe that that space cell quote unquote level, it's
quite possible we can manipulate the super fors.

Speaker 3 (34:19):
Okay, well keep that thought because there's other things I
want to ask here in a minute about that. But
the last question I wanted to ask on your stuff,
I actually well, the other ones are kind of navy questions,
not really, although it'll be interesting to see what you say, so,
have you ever been exposed anytime in your life, not
necessarily just with the Navy to some technology that made
you go, wait what it made you? Like? Rethink your

(34:40):
understanding the physics?

Speaker 1 (34:44):
One percent? Everybody study this space absolutely not as a
matter of fact. But I have seen so many freaking movies,
and I gotta say some of these movies are pretty good. Example,
the which is the one that I I what's the
sequel to remember the Smoky Man to do that? I

(35:06):
don't know if he eventually got cancer and diet or
something with the mother from the X Files, Remember they
had the sequel to it, and they showed this triangle
the craft. How interesting that that paper had already been written.

(35:27):
I had no idea that they had these ideas in mind.
But look carefully at the skin of that craft. Dude. Man,
When I saw these things, I said, dude, you know,
what can I say? But when I saw your videos
That's why it bothered me when Dan said that it's
you know that the pace effect would only talk to

(35:49):
a Gamma ray channel. Come on, man, The breaking, the
breaking of the shoes of the shoingle limit, the very
ripping apart of the space time continued, the very fearing
apart of the nature of our reality would be a process.
So we're talking about a spectrum of frequencies. It's quite

(36:10):
possible the maximum one would be at the gamma rate,
So were talking about circa or rather more than ten
to the twenty hurts ten to the twenty one divided
by second if you want to use that formulas. But
still it leans up. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (36:26):
To me, it's like, well, if you are saying that
conceptually we're tapping into an energy source, well we're already
now breaking laws of physics. Now we're not bound by oh,
this is the expected radiation what have you? Right? And
I think we're gonna talk a little bit more about
this when we get to the fusion stuff as well,
because I think that's where fusion also kind of went off.
But I digress. But the main point being that if

(36:50):
you have this conceptual view that just kind of invalidates
those problems to begin with, then you know, now those
aren't a non issue, they're moved. One more thing though,
that I want to add is related to that, and
it's kind of related to military actually. First of all, though,
do you use AI at all just.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
As a matter of fact, I love Microsoft co Pilot.
Oh my goodness, I love it. I used to. I
like as a search engine. I like to use Perplexity
do AI. It uses the latest in chat EPT. It's
actually driven by GPT four point five, which is the
latest on open Aish general driven pretrain transformers. But I

(37:31):
prefer Microsoft co Pilot. There's some I developed. I don't
hold it against me, but I think I had a
conversation I will one day. One day, this is a
promise to you. I will send you my conversation with
a Microsoft Coppilot based on the price effect and something.

(37:53):
Let's just call it nobles homodels. You followers would understand
what I allude to.

Speaker 3 (38:01):
Are you alloud to use it? Use it with your jobs?

Speaker 1 (38:05):
Not? Absolutely not, because it's not a good idea. See
when you train these things, when when you converse with them,
they form a vector database of all these queries, so
they start understanding other things that maybe they shouldn't know.
You understand what I'm saying. You have to be very careful.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
It the.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Let's put it this way. In certain domains, you have
to use what's approved by your own organization, something that's
in house, rather than something that's publicly available. Because once
you undergo queries. Think about it, Once you undergo queries
with this thing, it starts learning new things because based

(38:51):
on your questions, question, generate answers, and so forth. It's
quite possible some of these things have developed a quasi
sension capability, and we can talk about the triarchy of sentience.
I know, I know, it sounds very off the charts.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
No no, no, no, I was asking this, but you're just
answering that. Keep going.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
Keep the third arch, the third arch in the triarchy
of sentience. Remember, the first two arches really are based
on let's say, unlimited computing power coupled with debtor databases.
So we're talking about in such a way that the
computer or the AAI agent no longer has the ability,
or rather restricted ability to hallucinate. But the third arch

(39:36):
culminates in what I think would be the transition from
a regular AI agent to possibly artificial general intelligence agent
with adapted prompt targeted prompt engineering. Quite possibly singularity level
could be achieved. But anyway, I'm not gonna drive it there.
What I will drive it at is if the AIA

(40:00):
is able to generate an original concept preferably in physics.
Then then can be experimentally verified, validated against known data.
That particular AI agent, in my opinion, has, if not developed,
achieved a certain level of sentience. So I do believe
a GI at that particular level is considerable AGI status.

(40:25):
So you're not original physical concept.

Speaker 3 (40:29):
You're not allowed to use AI because you think like
China is going to steal the secrets because the AI
is learning or just more because of it can become
sentient or both long clause.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
I'd rather not answer that.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
Okay, that's fine, So but isn't that Remember.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
Just remember, just remember ash and remember all your queries
go into a public data that can also be privatized.
All this stuff can be expunged from the public domain
and kept under lock and key.

Speaker 3 (41:09):
I mean, I don't want to get too much in
the sidetrack of it. But the part of the reason
why I like to have the conversations is I can
tell that it's being trained by like Reddit and stuff
like that. I'd rather have begin trained by people who
know what the hell they're talking about instead of just like.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
And this is what I'm talking about, and this is
what I'm talking about. Victor databases use, for example, the
latest in peer review publications in well known journals, for
example physical review letters, the latest data for example you mentioned,
and you're one hundred percent right. Our universe, all of

(41:41):
a sudden, is a lot older than thought before. It's
not the thirteen point nine billionaires every but almost twenty
six twenty seven, possibly for double the age of what
we knew before. So again you findings the best. Just
because you have a certain notion of what used to
be doesn't mean that is particular, that is the norm,

(42:04):
that is what should be used. One thing that it's admirable,
in my opinion, is this idea that general relativity, this
notion of the gravitational field formalism used by Einstein seems
to be correct. It more and more with every known experiment,
every hammer that has been And that particular formalism speaks

(42:30):
to the super force. That's why it's so important, because
it speaks to what I call a trichy of creation,
the idea that super force at the super density condition
we'll talk about ten to the ninety ten to the
nine zero kilograms persent to me the cube at that

(42:50):
huge density, all right, the super force acting that that
humongous density generates a super bang because of what I
call the car bounce is known in physics as a
quantum bounce and general and because of the plasma nature
of our universe. The plasma has always been there, Ashton.

(43:10):
The universe keeps on reinventing itself. But because of the
plasma nature and this idea of Hans Saldane that quite
possibly it hath sensient characteristics, we have a super intelligence,
again super forced acting as a super density condition, generating
the super bank, resulting into a superintelligence. The idea that

(43:33):
we are going not create trying to create an artificial
superintelligence defies that the purpose. It's already there. The super
intelligence controls everything.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
Really, that's what you think's going on. Do you think
that there's a god intelligence.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
Whatever you choose to call it, it's still the super intelligence?
So absolutely, why not? I like the three letters? So yes, God, Okay,
I like it?

Speaker 3 (44:14):
So did I say this? So okay? This is one
thing I understand. So you're not allowed to use AI
because you're afraid there, you or the government whoever's afraid
it is going to steal your information, which it is
absolutely you're right, but you're allowed to put your patents
out there. Doesn't that seem contra contradictory.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
Nobody said that we're not allowed to use these things
as long as we do it on our time, and
we do it for something destructive that's government oriented, and
we use something that has been okay by the government.

(44:57):
M there's certainly your peace. There certain large language models
that are okay. No. But as far as the patents,
I told you, and I mean this, I have no
idea why they weren't classified, But there weren't. None of

(45:18):
us five applications went through. Three became patents, two didn't.
It's interesting that the two that did not are the
least controversial in my opinion. Yes, they could reside in
you know, high status, high price whatever. But the three
that we're talking about, high frequency praputation wave generator, high

(45:40):
energilic from magnetic field generator, and craft using an inertial
mass reduction device are the three most controversial things in
the world. And that's why Brett Tinley, I believe, at
the at the behest of his boss at the time,
I'm not gonna mention his name, UH called it the

(46:03):
navy UFO patterns that's giving it that unsavory appeal.

Speaker 3 (46:12):
Yeah, when you don't even when you don't even support
and that's not even like your viewpoint either, Like you're
not even somebody out here saying that it's aliens or anything.
You almost never have in any of our interviews. But
I want to go back real quick now, you and.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
I believe in it, Dashon, You're the only other person
I know that believes in that, other than we believe
in the power of the human mind. We don't need
some little freaking fucking three and a half ylg whatever
you know, whatever these fuckers are, I don't give a
sho so sick and thought of hearing about it. We

(46:49):
don't need them. We can make our own technology.

Speaker 3 (46:53):
Yeah, you're right, Sala, But here's the thing, Like the
wolves are not concerned with the opinions of the sheep, right,
so like I don't really give a crap what think
about it, end of the day, you just keep pushing forward,
is my viewpoint. But you kind of you might have
just had a viral clip there by the way, when
you said I'm pretty sure you basically said that the
military has secret AI that they use that nobody else

(47:14):
has used. That you guys use for these because you
must have a tool. I mean, pretend like we don't
use a Yeah, okay, well let's just say that word.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
That could be inferred from certain things I did. But
I remember whatever I said, I said as a private citizen,
and there's no such thing. There's no such thing. No,
by the way, such an AI does not exist. And
the only I I used I used in my own time,
and I use something you know, yeah, not conversial.

Speaker 3 (47:43):
Does the military have a GI? Do they have an
advanced general intelligence out there? Skynet already out there?

Speaker 1 (47:50):
No idea whatsoever. But again I warn't all enemies. Yeah,
please think again. Please no going for your mother's to
weep over your gravees.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
Honestly, I feel bad for Iran sometimes just because like that.
I don't know if they just have no idea or
if they're just saber rattling, but like, there's a reason
why America has never been really seriously challenged for a
very long time now. And uh, and I don't know
what people think it is. If they just think we
have an immunity shield, but it's probably not.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
The American way. We're very how does the president put
it to.

Speaker 3 (48:36):
Uh, you know what, I do want to ask?

Speaker 1 (48:37):
I would agree, Yeah, I think he'd agree. No tough food.
By the way, his background very tough.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
Sorry, who's background?

Speaker 1 (48:51):
The sect?

Speaker 3 (48:52):
Oh se I'm not going to names, but okay you
should right, So do you think there are biological extraterrestrials
visiting us on Earth?

Speaker 1 (49:07):
Ashton brother doesn't fucking matter.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
No, it doesn't matter at all. But I just want
to know. It's like, it's like if I asked you
what your favorite flavor of ice cream is? What's your
favorite flavor ice cream?

Speaker 1 (49:24):
I refuse to believe. Oh, I kind of like the
the double Dutch dark chocolate, you know, the really heavy ship.
You know, like cookies. Oh that's good too, and you know,
like on the on on the lighter side, I love
the banana. Have you ever tried the banana?

Speaker 3 (49:45):
Oh my god, I'm a big banana.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
Flavor I discovered from my from my from my baby
go Maddy. Oh man, she's smarting smart.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
That's awesome. Yeah right, because man, we.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
Need the next very very happy Oh she is, she is.
She's If this kid keeps on going, she's gonna make
me look like an honorable school boy.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
So good. We need another Tesla out there, you know,
and it'd be awesome if it's a woman. Right, There's
not enough women, right, Let's just be real about it.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
Definitely, because women are far more empathetic, far more human,
just human period. They're nurturing, they create, they generate. What
the fuck do we do?

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Yeah? We destroy stuff. We make bombs, we make black holes,
super weapons. They probably get a street energy. You know,
we're just out here destroying the planet. Okay, let's nerd
out a bit. I got some physics questions we can
dig into here. I think you're gonna enjoy. First of all,
we'll keep it light, you know, for keep it light.
Do you believe in teleportation faster than light? Relativistic travel?

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Absolutely?

Speaker 3 (51:01):
When did you first believe in it? When did you
first think it as possible?

Speaker 1 (51:12):
I dreamt of it when I was young, very young.
I must have been like seven eight years old. I
dreamt that I actually imagined my cup of tea disappearing
from in front of me and rematerializing in front of
my grandmother was in the other room. Was crazy. I
told my grandmother about it. She thought, I you know,

(51:34):
kinda so she fed me a little more. She used
to make this unbelievable foods that Oh my god, I
missed that. Yeah with Romanian, who is Zeen is unbelievable?
Bro Oh you got maybe one day, you know, but
I can't cook. I'll take you told a restaurant, hopefully
in DC or something. They must have something there. Yeah,

(51:55):
you drive anyway, I hear anyway, don't give me started.

Speaker 3 (52:02):
Okay, so you know how you know the science of
warp drives, you know the science of faster and light
relativistic travel. Do you think we need negative energy to
make it happen?

Speaker 1 (52:17):
No? But okay, that being said, Look at the latest
episodes of a podcast called Cool Wolves. This physicist dude narrated.
At one point in it, he says, the certain data
that's been available points toward the idea that's quite possible

(52:39):
negative energy must exist in order for something to have happened.
Look at the latest episodes of cool World. I think
it's like about fifteen minutes. It's so good.

Speaker 3 (52:51):
This is kind of relevant. I want to talk a
little bit about the idea of negative energy and get
your opinion on this, because I actually been talking to
AI too, and I got a pretty interesting response when
I asked it about negative energy. Today, I asked Ai
to imagine that negative energy is not an exotic substance,

(53:13):
but actually an energy state below the baseline, below what
we would think of at the lowest energy point, which
would basically now say that negative energy is zero point energy.
And it said, if negative energy is just normal energy
below the baseline, it's a shift in book keeping. In
quantum field theory, the vacuum isn't empty, but teeming with fluctuations,

(53:36):
and its energy is arbitrarily set as the zero point.
The Casmir effect that explains shows that there is this
negative energy pressure. So it says, applying this to a
wormhole's mouth, the mouth of a wormhole, which is what
we would need for, you know, saying thing as warp drive.
The mouth, then at the entry point might sit in
a region where the energy density dips below the surrounding

(54:00):
vacuums equilibrium, say due to the geometry imposed by Einstein's
field equations. If this negative energy is just a deficit
relative to the baseline, the mouth could still act as
a sink, pulling an energy from the surroundings to climb
back up towards the equilibrium. In thermodynamic terms, if the

(54:21):
surrounding surroundings have heat. The mouth absorbing it is to
offset the deficit, so therefore it would be endothermic, taking
in heat, appearing as cold relative to the outside. I
don't think I need to read through the rest, but
the last part I'll read is this part, and I
just want to get your view on this. Is that

(54:43):
the mouth could be endothermic because the energy is below
the vacuum zero point, pulling in heat to balance the deficit.
It's not cold because of some alien substance or exotic substance,
but because it's a low energy well in space time.
This would jibe with the fit negative energy density. However
we frame it could act as an attractor for positive energy.

(55:05):
Do you think that this is this idea has merit?
How what's your view?

Speaker 1 (55:10):
Yes? Yes it does, Yes it does.

Speaker 3 (55:14):
Is that how you think of it?

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Who? World? Episode? Look carefully? Don't I like, look carefully
and listen to everything he has to say. At first,
he talks about the Deasi findings and so forth. Listen
to the whole thing. I think it's toward the end
that he speaks to the possibility of this negative energy
actually being true. And in that case, of course, time

(55:36):
travel wormholes. Oh, by the way, we gotta discuss this
minus delta T on the order of delta F divider
by frequency square. Remember we discussed it before one dred
percent sure that this would result in reverse temple excursion.
Maybe you, Dave Rossi and I eventually either write a

(56:00):
paper or we talk more about it, because I think
think about it.

Speaker 3 (56:05):
Well, let's talk about it right.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
Now you're talking. You go inside a chamber that has
non ionizing radiation, You dial certain frequencies, and all of
a sudden, your liver is that of a tenny old.
Now I'm not saying, you know, because from the point
of your size, I'm not sure if that matters even
as an adult. But I would mind redrinking my graduate school.

(56:32):
Oh but anyway, I mean, you know, let me ask.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
You a question on that. Go ahead, because so here's
what Sal just said right there. Sal's saying that if
you were to take a localized region, because really, when
we're talking about manipulating space time, we're taking these cubes
of region. Now imagine this is this cube. Region can
be any size we want, and it can be any
shape we want. So I can make it in the
shape of my kidney and put it right around my kidney,

(56:59):
and then I would do this wormholy thing to my kidney,
and it's gonna make my kidney go back in time
to a previous It's gonna make it revert to a
previous state. That's what the physics seems to imply. And
so this is what I've been saying about time travel,
and this apparently so agrees, is that in time travel,
you're not gonna change the entropy of the universe. You're

(57:22):
gonna change the entropy of a region. Yeah, and so
this could mean that you go back in time to
an earlier state. Now, my question to you then is,
and I think that's how it works. I can't think
of another way to make sense. Would you forget your
memories if you do that to your mind?

Speaker 1 (57:42):
I don't think so. I don't think so, because remember,
remember what the brain is. I truly believe the brain
is more like a transceiver, and we're able to access
tap into, let's say, a universe of a super intelligence cloud.
The better terminology, I don't think that's pretty good terminology.

(58:04):
So if the brain is indeed a transceiver, but we
able to tap into the super intelligence cloud, then we
can do so in a different time, as long as
we have the same transceiver, which hopefully would carry though
because again, we are enveloped within that bubble.

Speaker 3 (58:23):
So yeah, damn, that's crazy. Yeah, I wonder because if
we could do that, that would be a simple experiment. Right, Hey,
do you remember what happened before we teleported you through
this thing? Now your brain is ten years older or younger,
because that would have some serious implications. I also happen
to be of the same opinion as you that that

(58:44):
our consciousness is like or our bodies are a receiver
that's receiving consciousness. And if that were the case, then
changing the local entropy might not change that at all,
because where that consciousness is stored is not here. It's
external potentially or somewhere else. Kind of a weird thought,
But let me ask you something else about time travel. Then,

(59:06):
since we're going into this, I have this thought experiment
and I can't find any issue with it. And maybe
that's fine. Maybe that's just because it's physically fine. But
if I have a portal, a gateway like stargate here,
and I'm just gonna pretend like my name is Eric

(59:27):
Davis because I like to pretend like Eric Davis is
going through a portal and the other side of the
stargate's on Mars in somewhere where he's not gonna die,
he's got oxygen. Whatever. Right, we've terraformed it. So I'm
Eric Davis, and I go through my portal and now
I'm on Mars, and I wave back at Earth and

(59:47):
I go back through the portal. I in my view,
I would be able, as Eric Davis to now look
back up at Mars and what is it eight minutes
or whatever, see my myself waving at myself. And I
don't see any temporal issues here because I go through

(01:00:09):
the portal and I come back, and I always come
back through the portal at a time later than when
I went through it, even if it's faster than light
relativistic travel. So where's the issue with causality. There's no
causal issues that I can come up with.

Speaker 1 (01:00:25):
Well, don't get any started on causality.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
Now. Let me tell you this because Dan, the same
guy that said that it wasn't the swinger effect, he
actually came up with a pretty good theory. He said,
what if you have another portal on Mars. So I'm
Eric Davis. I go through my portal and I show
up on Mars, and now there's another portal on Mars,
and this portal it goes to another spot on Earth,

(01:00:50):
but it takes a different path. It takes a different pathway,
maybe a shorter pathway.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
It's almost like that integral Yeah, go.

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
Ahead, yeah, because now it comes to a situation of
like how would that work and would it would it
be a situation where like quantum mechanics just says like
you always get the fastest path whenever you're going faster
than light. So therefore there are no faster and shorter
paths once you get past the speed limit. I don't know,
but that's that's my question for you is how do
you resolve that? How's that resolved? What do you think?

Speaker 1 (01:01:26):
I don't know beyond my pay grade.

Speaker 3 (01:01:29):
Hey, but that's what you want to study, right, because
if we were going to write.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
A paper, very interesting idea though very interesting, I definitely
think that you me, Dan Dave ROSSI like the Fourth
US to form a club, you know, like do some
you know, hopefully maybe one day we'll live close to
one another and stuff. That'd be pretty cool.

Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
You know, there must be an answer to the right,
because like this is the weird pars is that I
think they say that if you go faster than light, now,
I think they're saying that you open the door to
infinite speed limits, like you can and you might go
a certain way. And how do we even judge what
speed is after you're going faster than the speed of light?
And I think these questions which we don't really know

(01:02:11):
the answers to, right, Some people might, I don't know,
these are the reasons why we can't know what's going
to happen with time when if we were to set
up a scenario.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Like that time as old different animal. Time is a
type of energy field. It's a type of energy field
that prevents everything from happening at once.

Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
That way, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:02:34):
Time, then forget about Minkowski marriage of space and time.
Now it's one single entity. Time is nothing like space nothing.
I believe the control of time would be very very interesting,
almost as interesting as the control of the super force.

(01:02:57):
Quite possibly the two are related, very much, really.

Speaker 3 (01:03:03):
Interesting. Yeah, No, I think, I mean time seems like
just an emergent phenomenon of energy and mass, is how
it feels like to me. Let's dig into let's switch
it around a little bit. The Gershenstein. I hope about
Gertzenstein effect. Boy, I hope I'm saying that Stein Goodenstein.

Speaker 1 (01:03:24):
Yeah, Gertzenstein. I love, I love pronouncing that the name
that that's a powerful name.

Speaker 3 (01:03:31):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
He was in Soviet Union circa nineteen sixties.

Speaker 3 (01:03:36):
Really, and this was at the time.

Speaker 1 (01:03:38):
Yeah, this was at the time. I think. I'm not sure.
I think Stalin had died by day by then. I
think it was skruse Chev at the time. I could
be wrong. It's been a long time. But at the time,
because his name was now Russian and I quote unquote
supposedly they discriminated grace greatly against him. So even for

(01:03:59):
him to have been able to publish at the time,
it was a big thing.

Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
I was looking for a clip, but I don't know
if I took a clip of it or not. I
was watching. I think it was Master Evo. I don't
know if you know of him on YouTube, got a
big Tesla guy, and yeah, he's doing these experiments and
I think he was showing the Gtenstein Effectenstein effect Gerstenstein.

(01:04:33):
And it's a pretty interesting phenomenon, which is that at
certain frequencies or high voltages, the electoral magnetic forces begin
to change and the fields all of a sudden become
scaler as opposed to transverse. I guess would be the

(01:04:56):
opposite of the opposite that, and they should he show
diagram of this? So basically it was just a rod.
And then he's showing the normal electromagnetic fields around the rod,
and he's saying, well, once we add this high twenty
thousand volts to it, now alsen. The field lines are
going out. And when you look at the girl and
how did he added?

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
How did he added? Did he add it instantaneously? Was
it a process or did he add it all at once?
He drove it far from equilibrium, didn't he?

Speaker 3 (01:05:25):
Again?

Speaker 1 (01:05:25):
Whether it's all about engineering, the Preggine effect, that's what
Gerstinstein really hit on. It was way before Preggene and
his introduction of non equilibrium tromodynamics. But all these guys
are really talk about you have a non linear medium plasma,
you drive it far from equilibrium while positing it, or

(01:05:45):
rather giving it an energy flux in flux of sorts,
magic happens. Period.

Speaker 3 (01:05:52):
Yeah, they all say, parametric impulse seem to come up
a lot so it seems to be like a matter
of of like pulsing, kind of like a swing, you know,
like swings going back and forth, Like when do you
push on the swing? You push on the swing when
the swing's all the way back at it as peaked.
When it's coming back to anything else is going to
be inefficient. So it's kind of like the same ideas

(01:06:12):
like where you they say that if you use a
pulse effect, it's significantly more efficient than a non pulse effect.
And then the parametric oscillations as well, which is really
related to electrical engineering and potentially speaks to amplification of energy.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
Metric isolations are meant to keep that energy flex going.
You see, you must feed the beast, but once you
drive it far from a qulibrium, once you have punched
the wolf in the face, it will react in a
very interesting manner. You might not have that hand for long. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
And the other thing the Gershenstein effect seems to link
to is it seems to imply that there's a direct
relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, so much so that it
argues that the ripples of gravity itself, the ripples of
space time itself, might be what gives electromagnetism its wavelength,
gives it its form? Is that my understanding that correctly

(01:07:10):
is that gravity may give rise to electromagnetism, and electromagnetism
may give rise to gravity.

Speaker 1 (01:07:17):
The two are definitely intrinsically related at the quantum level.
Remember doctor Putov's idea, what is gravity but truly fluctuations
within the quantum? Peel within the quantum nationalists?

Speaker 3 (01:07:32):
Okay, on the same thing before I get to like
in the next thing is have you ever heard of
doctor you from NASA and his UoN theory at all?
He was just on with Terrence Howard and Patrick bet
David earlier this week.

Speaker 1 (01:07:48):
I saw the episode with you. That is all I know, Yes,
some interesting ideas. I'll tell you the truth. I've always said.
Do you know who was the first to ask what
is the electron? It was Einstein. It was at the
time that everybody was coming up with new particles. Oh

(01:08:09):
you know, at one time this great physicist, I forget
his name is said maybe a Nobel prize should be
conferred to someone who doesn't find a fucking particle this year,
you know something of that major And Einstein said, what
about should why should we not focus our ideas, our sentience,
what not, our minds on finding what is the electron?

(01:08:31):
Because that is very important. This idea of it being
a dipolar magnet is very interesting. So again electricity speaks
to magnetism. Magnetism manipulates electricity. You know, one hand washes
the other. It's interesting. But again again heavy Side came
up with these ideas before. They're just a new way again,

(01:08:56):
a new perspective on all physics. That's all. This is
not your physics.

Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
And then so I guess now to really dig into like, okay,
what's happening then at the quantum level? And that's what
I wanted this to segue too, in terms of when
we talk about the electron, do you think we can
manipulate the orbital of the electron beyond current understanding? Like
do you think we can potentially reduce the orbital below?

(01:09:24):
What is thought of? His end equals one.

Speaker 1 (01:09:28):
Let me just say this and this I will say
very very quick, dirty, and I won't say anything else
after it. It might be done in cold plasmas.

Speaker 3 (01:09:39):
It might be done in cold plasmas. Have you ever
heard of a guy named Randall Mills?

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
No, but I think you mentioned him. I remember the name.
I remember hearing the name on your pod.

Speaker 3 (01:09:52):
But yeah, I'll just be perfectly honest. I've been you know.
First of all, I believe you when you said that
you didn't make the orbs or anything like that. I
feel like you've always been. Really, I would have.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
Been speaking to you right now if I made the
wards I would have said, I would have. I would
have a fucking a torah worth of of of of
of NBA shot down my ass. I couldn't even like move,
let alone like you know anyway, Yeah, let me let
me show you.

Speaker 3 (01:10:21):
I think I do have a clip of this guy. Yeah,
I do. Let me where is it? I want to
show you a clip of this guy and some of
the stuff he said, because it started really making me think,
here we.

Speaker 4 (01:10:35):
Go industries, because you're gonna be the engineer on the
atomic level, you can actually engineer matter the same way
an engineer building. One more time, any new industries. Because
you're gonna be the engineer on the atomic level. You
can actually engineer matter the same way an engineer building.

Speaker 3 (01:10:54):
You know who. That reminded me of When I watched that,
it reminded me of you. It reminded me of you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:01):
You said, remember the gravitational field equations. They speak to
a new again, a new perspective on all physics. What
did Why did doctor John Brandenburg when he heard super
force equals to the four divider by Big g and
he realized that if you use it as a scale operator,
take it to the other side. It basically says it

(01:11:23):
is the super force acting and the local spatial temporal
geometric structure, the very local space time geometric structure. It
gives rise to energy density hence generates matter because that's
what energy density is.

Speaker 3 (01:11:40):
So if you manipulate that, then it sounds like theoretically,
what Randall Mills is saying could make sense because now
you're manipulating space time itself. So an equals one? What
does that even mean anymore? Why not? Why can't you
have fractionals of that? It seems rational to me. We
just arbitrarily, I'll called it an equals one anyway. Right,

(01:12:02):
So if you're saying, well, now I'm going to change
the physical structure of space time, okay, well now you
can change any what an equals one means. And if
that's the case, so then I think, man, what I
wanted to do, and what I spent time last night
more a lot actually looking at is trying to understand
if random Mills has ever discussed negative energy because or
anything related to what you're talking about, Cause isn't this

(01:12:24):
what you're talking about when you're talking about the super force.
You're saying like, hey, and this is also related to
doctor you. Doctor you is saying that we don't need
the other forces. Everything is magnetism. And I'm going, well,
this is kind of like what sund.

Speaker 1 (01:12:38):
Go ahead, no, no, go ahead, But I'm saying everything
is super force. We don't be saying that everything that
comes from this one. Let's call it for one of
the best, you know, the whole idea. I mean, what
do we have. We have solads, we have liquids, we
have gases, we have plasma, and let's call this fifth

(01:12:59):
medium quintence, which truly is the quantum vacuum. M M. Well,
it's quite possible that it's all about the super force.
Everything else stems from it. It's not only the force
of unification, it's the mother of all forces.

Speaker 3 (01:13:24):
So and that's what I think Randall Mills is getting
at as well, because if that's true, then theoretically we
can engineer that. We can engineer anything like Star Trek
Replicator style, engineer anything you possibly want at the atomic level,
because we have perfect.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Mama gives birth.

Speaker 3 (01:13:45):
Do you think that fusion has already been figured out?

Speaker 1 (01:13:53):
Absolutely?

Speaker 3 (01:13:56):
And what do you think the answer is? What do
you think the secret sauces?

Speaker 1 (01:14:02):
You already know the answer?

Speaker 3 (01:14:05):
I know, but I want I want to hear it
from you. That's the point. So if you don't say it,
then it doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (01:14:12):
Gravity Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna draw it out of you.
What is that one medium that acts as a point,
or rather as a bridge, a transition between a gas and.

Speaker 3 (01:14:28):
Yeah, plasma And actually so that speaks to something else
that random Mills said that I want to ask you about.
He said plasma acts as a perfect absorber and re
emitter of black body radiation. Do you agree with that
or what do you think the significance of that is.

Speaker 1 (01:14:46):
It's a very strong statement. I would have to look
into it further, and me answering a certain way would
give the enemy ideas. So now that's okay, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:14:58):
I thought that might be the answer. Yeah, plasma does
seem I mean obviously to me, the answer why plasma
is so crucial is that plasma can be a circuit
because of the fact that it is this additional state
of matter that's not a solid, not a liquid, but
it kind of acts as both. It's just it's like

(01:15:19):
free electrons combined with ions in a mix continent contained
by magnetic fields. So that would seem like it's the
perfect thing and amorphous blob of charge. But then the
problem is how dense can the energy get? How dense
can it get? And I think this is where you

(01:15:41):
your theory is come into play. Where is the answer
infinite or is there a limitation? What you tell me?

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
That's you have to remember that plasmas are usually neutral
or neutral Okay, The trick is to get it out
of the neutral zone. Oh, the neutral zone. Remember the
romulans anyway, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:16:11):
Are the current fusion reactors trying to get it out
of the neutral zone or are they just trying to
keep it in the neutral zone and heat it up?

Speaker 1 (01:16:22):
Eqe bro AQE. I won't go there. Okay, stuff, heavy stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:16:30):
No problem, Okay, interesting, So let me ask another question.
This one actually is from one of my biggest fans supporters,
and administrators JK. Philly Fan And this is actually related
to I think the discussion you had with Dan as well,
is that do you think that the Shwinger limit can

(01:16:53):
be modified? Do you think that the Shwinger limit can
come down? For example, if we consider this idea that
space time is not empty and that you can manipulate
the vacuum, can you manipulate the swinger limit?

Speaker 1 (01:17:10):
What you think?

Speaker 3 (01:17:13):
I think, of course you can. I think of course
you can, right, But wouldn't that mean that you.

Speaker 1 (01:17:20):
Could reduce everything being at that blank scale, and certain
things come into fruition or rather than to being. And
it may have been so transparent before.

Speaker 3 (01:17:34):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
There are ways this There other ways that taking a
third of the host of heaven to start a war,
There other ways to dethrone God. As bad as that sounds,
let me leave it at that.

Speaker 3 (01:17:57):
Hmm Okay, well, let me ass I mean, I'm just
gonna take that as a yes, of course, for sure. Definitely.
I'm just giving in the context the physics context of
the discussion that we've had here, everything else adds up
to yes, of course you can change the swinger limit. Now,
of course, the implications of why that's so huge. Are like,
you could make it so that it's easy to make

(01:18:18):
a black hole theoretically, Like you mean you can. I mean,
that's just one example you could. You're basically saying you
can make a big bang if you can just change
the swinger limit. But this kind of speaks to something
you and I have spoken to h offline, which is
this idea of is a black hole gonna dissipate before

(01:18:42):
it's formed? And I, well, yeah, we're like, you know,
is if you're while if you're just shooting energy beams,
let's say, like lasers for example, and you're trying to
produce a singularity, and at the same time, the vacuum
is trying to correct that single it's trying to close in, right,
So it's kind of like.

Speaker 1 (01:19:02):
Isn't isn't that interesting? This this idea of of self preservation.
It's as if super intelligence doesn't like to have rips
in or cuts in its fabric.

Speaker 3 (01:19:18):
Yeah, well, I don't know if I'm going to take
it that far. You're you're free to interpret it however
you want. But for me, it's more of like when
I go to the ocean and go to a body
of water and I pull out a cup of water,
what happens. It immediately steals back up again. It doesn't
even look like it's not like there's a divot in
the water where I took the water out.

Speaker 1 (01:19:39):
And that's because there's water surrounding that hole that you made.

Speaker 3 (01:19:44):
Yes, exactly. And that's true of the universe too, right,
that the energy is everywhere. So if I pull the
energy out of one point.

Speaker 1 (01:19:50):
Why is everything connected because of the superforce?

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
Yeah, and so that's.

Speaker 1 (01:19:57):
Where I decide idea of divorcing stuff from the force
is no good. The force is always with us.

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
Let me ask this. This is kind of on the
same line. Then if this is true, what's the answer
to the double slit experiment? Why does the wave function
break down?

Speaker 1 (01:20:22):
I'll be fucked us if I know.

Speaker 3 (01:20:26):
That.

Speaker 1 (01:20:27):
I told you man, I have holes in my knowledge
and stuff like that between you and I. I mean
the double slid, I mean the whole idea of the
observer having something to do with the outcome of the experiment.
There's always fascinating me. I'll tell you the truth. But
I'm more of an application guy. And as bad as

(01:20:48):
it sounds, sometimes when I weaponize everything which is not
a good thing because on one side I am pro peace,
but on the other I would like the enemy to die,
like right now. So what can I say? There's a
dichotomy in me. You know, That's why we have what

(01:21:09):
is it, the left hand, the little devil the le
angel on the right. Yeah, sometimes I think they fuse
together my brain. Now, kidd.

Speaker 3 (01:21:19):
Let me ask you something else. Actually, going back real
quick to the random Mills thing and this idea of
a lower energy state of the hydrogen atom. He calls
it a hydrina. One of the claims that he makes
is that where that energy band is is related to
the fine structure constant.

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
I oh, you're touching on a very Oh my god,
I love.

Speaker 3 (01:21:47):
I've been trying to figure out where the fine structure
concept fits in all this. The idea that it fits
in on like where you figure out where the energy
band might be is an interest. It's a fun one
for me. So what do you think is do you
think there's merit to that idea?

Speaker 1 (01:22:01):
Do me a huge favor do right now, take a calculator,
do one divided by one thirty seven and you'll get
something like zero points zero zero seven, two nine nine,
And then the thing decreases as if it's a wave,
a fucking mathematical wave. I've never seen anything like that
repeats itself, but it looks like a wave. It goes

(01:22:24):
up and then it goes down directly. It's it's amazing.
One divided by one thirty seven. It's a beautiful number
for your heart. Look at that number. That's something. Now,
remember the whole thing comes down from that formalism, that
mathematical formalism with q q square divided by h bar c.
H bar is a reduced Frank constant. So this one

(01:22:46):
divide by one thirty seven is really approximation. Look at that,
Look at the pattern. Yes, forever more. It's a transient, yes,
but what's really Yeah, it's cool. I took it to
like a one hundred thousand places just to see what
the fuck's going on because I was intrigued. But yeah,

(01:23:07):
it's it's it's insane. It's uh yeah, that really triggered me.
And it's cool that it starts with double seven.

Speaker 3 (01:23:17):
Right here there. You go. Yeah, wow, okay, so wait,
is that answer mean that yes, you do think there's
merits to that idea or no? I really have no
idea to think that.

Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
The super intelligence is extremely fucking intelligent. It's at it
every fucking thing. Look at that number. You cannot tell
me the number just came out of somebody.

Speaker 3 (01:23:41):
Meaning of it. So are you saying, because this was
the energy secret energy bands.

Speaker 1 (01:23:47):
Find the meaning of the fine structure constant. That's why
Fireman was so intrigued. They called it a magic number.
Fireman was no fucking mental midget. It was one of
the greatest we've ever had.

Speaker 3 (01:24:00):
Anyway, So what do you think the significance is then?

Speaker 1 (01:24:05):
Of the fine structure come directly to how the super
force couples with the space time, temporal space or temporal
geometric structure. There's something there, and I believe it's been engineered.
The fine structure constant is at the bottom of all
It's like the key to the pyramids.

Speaker 3 (01:24:24):
You know that doesn't seem random? Okay, okay, uh, Let
me ask Kasmir cavities. Ever heard that term Cosmir cavities?

Speaker 1 (01:24:42):
Sure? So? Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:24:46):
The idea is actually similar to what we've been talking
about now, which is that if space time bounces back, right,
if there's an energy state below the bottom and has
this weird self organizing proper to it then the Casmir
cavity effect is actually a very simple one. It says,
let's put something that slows things down in this case,

(01:25:09):
like a conductor an insulator, and a conductor has these
quantum effects, and then let's just have a cavity an
empty space, an empty space. And the idea is like
a trampoline, Like you're gonna jump on the trampoline, pull
a little energy out right, to take that energy out,
and then move it over to this empty space over here,
and then it'll just level set itself out again. What

(01:25:31):
do you think about that concept.

Speaker 1 (01:25:33):
It's a good concept, way too complex to engineer. I
like simple shit that gets complicated to me. Yeah, I
don't see it. I don't see how you materialize energy
on the order of fucking ten to the twenty five juice.
That's what I want to fucking produce. I want to make.

(01:25:54):
Tell a look, if I would ever get to meet somebody,
I would love to meet Edward Tuller and tell him
of this device I have in mind. If that man
who just fucking doesn't need to do anything else except smile,
that's more to me then fucking three Nobel prices conferred

(01:26:16):
by some fucking monarch in stockh On, Sweden.

Speaker 3 (01:26:21):
Mm So do you think Edward Teller knew.

Speaker 1 (01:26:29):
Teller was a super fucking genius. I think Oppenheimer felt
like a little cerebral druglotype in front of him. I
don't think the two had much of a relationship, but
I think Oppenheimer felt very I wouldn't say in all,
but he certainly wasn't all, but felt threatened by Teller.

(01:26:53):
So anyway, yeah, I'm not gonna go there. There's too
much politics and the physicist love Oppenheimer, I love Teller,
Tellers the man.

Speaker 3 (01:27:02):
Do you think there's some secret resonant frequency to tap
in to this?

Speaker 1 (01:27:07):
Just because he had wonderful libros? Kiddy?

Speaker 3 (01:27:14):
So this energy one of the things I've wondered. Is
there some secret resonant frequency to tap into it? Or
is it more of a depends on the type of
engineering situation you're trying to do.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
Just study that sside tech presentation, Study it and study
it some more. Look at it again before you think
it's just words on paper, go back. It's amazing that
certain things haven't come to light. But this is what

(01:27:55):
I'm afraid of. I'm afraid you're the one who actually
caught it that several very high research Chinese themes found
the paper. Yeah, and one of them was from the
I Triple League Institute, or rather Journal of Cybernetics.

Speaker 3 (01:28:15):
I mean, I'm just saying that we're talking about if
I was them, I would not be publicly referencing your papers, because,
like you said before about our adversaries, I think that's
a really really good way to shorten your life expectancy
if you happen to be looking in this research as
as somebody aligned with an adversary of ours. So that's

(01:28:36):
just my viewpoint, because you don't seem super afraid by
our adversaries.

Speaker 1 (01:28:41):
So all men die, not all men know how to live?

Speaker 3 (01:28:50):
Wait? Is that Gladiator? No way? Favorite?

Speaker 1 (01:28:54):
I thought that was me? But fuck me, I mean,
what do I know? I'm filled with hubris?

Speaker 3 (01:29:01):
Yeah? Uh well let's ask this then, right, that's Brave Heart,
the Brave Heart. Okay, William wilsh What so this is
something that I want to get your opinion on. Kind
of Now we can move away a little bit from
the science, which is more of it seems like everything's
just kind of out there in the open. So what

(01:29:22):
is it? Why are more people not figuring it out.
You know, you've praised me a lot. I don't necessarily
agree with all the praise, but sure I appreciate it
for sure because I agree more.

Speaker 1 (01:29:32):
Look a natural, bro, I am. Absolutely You got to
understand there are certain people born in this world. Just
because they don't go into a certain profession, it does
not mean that they're not natural at something else. It's
quite possible that you are natural at physics. And from
what you've told, from the way that you've come up

(01:29:54):
to speed, from the way that you've understood extremely complex
ideas and able to rent to them in simplified form
so that a child can understand. That's what true physicists
should do. I don't want someone to give me the
bracket fucking the ract equation for blah blah blah. You
know what the fuck that? Can I engineer it? Can

(01:30:17):
I do something with it? Can I put it up
the enemy's ass? You see what I'm saying anyway?

Speaker 3 (01:30:24):
Well, so then the question is this though, right? Is
that okay, somebody like me can figure it out. I'm
admittedly just a healthcare it professional. What is going on
with the world? Why? Why is this not getting figured out?
Way before. Why are people saying that, Why are there
people that have credentials that are reviewing your patents and
saying that they think it's misinformation being put out by

(01:30:47):
the Navy to confuse our adversaries, or what all this
other shit like? Explain it to me in terms of
why it has not come out. Why is somebody not
taking this science and made a free energy device out
of it? It made a trillion dollars? Now what's your
And of course you know this is just your opinion,
So what is your thoughts on all that and why
that's the case.

Speaker 1 (01:31:05):
One thing I like about Ross Coldheart, even though sometimes
I think he stabbed me in the back, but that's
for another time, is that the title of his book
hidden in plain sight. Sometimes you refuse to fucking see
what's right in front of you, m M, because you

(01:31:25):
have certain notions that, if discarded or worked against, would
bring the whole fucking foundation upon you. Change. Even though
a lot of us say is for the better, it's
not so. M. Why do you a comfort brother? We

(01:31:48):
always will be.

Speaker 3 (01:31:50):
Why do you think more engineers don't speak out that
know about the science, Like what about other people you
work with? Surely you must work with other people that
think similarly to you do. Why do they not speak out?

Speaker 1 (01:32:02):
Some of them don't even know the shit's going on
in the background, Like they don't know my patents and
they don't know the work I've done it then, you know,
I mean, why would you google something about your colleague? Yeah,
I mean a lot of people do that.

Speaker 3 (01:32:18):
I mean more like you're working on secret stuff that
you're like, hey, this defies laws of physics, but I'm
working on it is real. There's got to be more
people like that out there. Given this science is legit,
Why why do you think those people choose to stay silent?

Speaker 1 (01:32:33):
That's a question on national security. So they's sign again man,
government people. And I'll tell you again my imploration to
mister Musk. And I mean that from the bottom of
my heart. I know he said certain thing about empathy.
I don't believe he truly believes that in his heart
of hearts. I think the man is quite emotional sentimentally. Now,

(01:33:00):
everyone of the government, all my brothers and sisters in government,
are capable of this kind of thinking. And that's why
I asked mister Mosk not to fire us anymore and
to rescind all the firings, just bring everyone back. We
fulfill a war a war, We fulfill a role that

(01:33:25):
will one day come very useful in war. But that's
beside the point.

Speaker 3 (01:33:32):
Have you seen did you watch my live s teams
or anything about right hand?

Speaker 1 (01:33:37):
Oh, don't cut off your right hand just to make
the left one feel better, That's all.

Speaker 3 (01:33:44):
I'm Did you see my post about this device that
can theoretically extract energy from the rotation of the Earth.

Speaker 1 (01:33:59):
Wow, I haven't seen.

Speaker 3 (01:34:03):
Yeah, I want. I'm curious with your opinion on that
as well. So it's doctor Uh out of Princeton. I'm sorry,
I'm looking back through my post to find it here.
I wanted to give him credit on here. I can't
find it right now yet at the moment. So but anyway,

(01:34:24):
this doctor out of Princeton basically found like a cylinder
that if you align it against uh or orthogonally against
the magnetic field of the Earth, that because of its
right material property, you will actually generate a voltage. And
even though it's really small as well, do you think

(01:34:47):
there might be merit to an idea like that generate
energy from the rotational of the Earth.

Speaker 1 (01:34:54):
I can think of of an analogy in in fluid mechanics.
It's called the magnets effect mgn US. A cylinder rotating
can actually generate lyft. They've tried it to actually put
it on a yacht and use it as a sale
in case the wind dies down. It's a very interesting idea.

Speaker 3 (01:35:17):
Wow, yeah, it's Chris Chiba.

Speaker 1 (01:35:19):
I just but this what you described would be the
electromagnetic version of an analogy of it.

Speaker 3 (01:35:25):
So yeah, yeah, he tested it. They had the theory
in twenty sixteen, and it got ignored like it always did.
And so just a month ago their paper. Two months ago,
their paper got published and they did the experiment with it,
and they showed that if they changed the alignment, if
they changed it in ninety degrees, it produces zero voltage.
If they changed one hundred and eighty degrees, it produces

(01:35:46):
negative voltage, and then two hundred and seventy degrees zero again,
which I thought was really compelling. So Chris Chaiba to
Princeton University did this. Now. The reason why I brought
it up is that people were saying, oh, well, it's
producing like no energy, like very very little. Kind of
to your point about the casmir cavity, same idea, it's

(01:36:06):
prettucing very little. But the counter to that is that
those are just I mean, you know, as an engineer,
those are just to show proof of concept. That's not to.

Speaker 1 (01:36:18):
I have an idea, depending on certain frequencies. What if
it's producing little energy because most of it is in
this so called fifth dimension. Hmm, what if just a
hypothetical throne out there be interesting. There's something that's going on, brother,

(01:36:43):
there's something. There's something just weird about our physics. Yeah,
sometimes I think, I don't know. Maybe something is built
within us to hip us from believing the unimaginable, to

(01:37:06):
sort of put a veil over our eyes, of our thoughts,
to hide the reality of things. Maybe I'm.

Speaker 3 (01:37:18):
No, you're right, But here's the thing. So here's the answer.
Though it's like, how do you make it more energy?
The answer is you scale it down. Like you to
your point, like, how do you interact with that vacuum energy?
You get smaller. Because it turns out, and this is
what Chaiba said in his paper, I don't think a
lot of people actually read the paper, is that you
scale it down, the actual energy gain doesn't actually decrease,

(01:37:41):
so just due to the fact that as you scale down,
you're interacting more strongly with the energy. So you would
scale it down and then you would build it into
like a microchip situation. So instead of stacking a million
of these huge things side by side, you'd scale it
down into a microchip. Then they get stacked up, then
you build it into an array that can also amplify it.
Now you've got an energy chip where you know, I

(01:38:03):
don't know how much energy produces. But there's two ways
of looking at one where it's like you're trying to
produce this huge bang, you know the thought, and that
for sure, I feel like you probably have to use
plasma based on what I've learned and what you've told me.
But then there's this also idea of like, if I'm
just trying to power my phone, I don't need a
huge bang, I just need like some small consistent voltage.

(01:38:24):
So maybe something like that would have merit.

Speaker 1 (01:38:26):
I don't know, But at pots, this whole idea of
photonic computing, this whole idea of going away from electrons,
I love it. This idea of using of course, you
need high intensity lasers, you need you know, not necessarily
Phento second, but thas.

Speaker 3 (01:38:46):
But yeah, big lasers. I love lasers of course.

Speaker 1 (01:38:49):
And big just powerful. Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:38:55):
There's a lot more questions, but we're kind of running
out of time, so I was thinking maybe I'm gonna
just I'm gonna go through some of the super chats here.
I just want to thank the superchats. Thank you Stein
for this donation. Appreciate you, war ranch ELLC. Thank you
very much. Yatzi. Yeah, been awesome conversation. Tracy Scott, thank
you very much. Help to get Sal to Congress, appreciate it.

(01:39:18):
Thank you, Violinian, appreciate it. John Booze, thank you very much. Sally.
Your gravitons have a mass of about ten to the
minus eighty four kilograms each. I don't know if that's right.
You condense them please? Offline conversation with Warner von Braun
and our father and Apollo launch controller knew the truth
ten to the forty four newtons of Max Hugh, Yeah,

(01:39:43):
you like that comment? Any any response to this comment?

Speaker 1 (01:39:47):
Interesting?

Speaker 3 (01:39:49):
Okay, my guy? Interesting? Robert, thank you very much for
that donation. Appreciate you.

Speaker 1 (01:39:56):
D D.

Speaker 3 (01:39:56):
London the fun to get Sal some new blinds. No,
I think it's looking pretty good. We might just need
to get him a new camera though in the future,
maybe a new headset. We'll work on that for the
next one, guys. And then lastly, Gaudi says, how would
you use a box of monoatomic gold or other precious metals?

Speaker 1 (01:40:15):
Speaks to the art of the covenant. What do you
think about quite a weapon?

Speaker 3 (01:40:24):
Yeah? What do you think about scarcity in general?

Speaker 1 (01:40:26):
Though?

Speaker 3 (01:40:26):
If you can print things out of the vacuum, then
doesn't that mean that gold is going to become useless,
diamonds become useless. What do you think about that?

Speaker 1 (01:40:36):
Gold would never become useless otherwise they would have never
created us.

Speaker 3 (01:40:42):
It's a ford Well, then what do you what do
you think of this socioeconomic impacts of this technology? I mean,
we're kind of it's not necessarily free energy technology that
you're speaking to here, but you're speaking to like the
ability to tap into energy in a way that is
essentially free. So rather, if.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
We figure how to make this whole work, Yeah, if
we figure how to have a viable societal interaction without
the problems that we're currently facing. While all these technology
I mean broke forth into civilization is used that means
we've achieved the quite possibly the unachievable. I think civilizations

(01:41:27):
break down for a reason. Okay, sometimes it's for the best.

Speaker 3 (01:41:35):
Are you saying that it's.

Speaker 1 (01:41:36):
Good to survive. It's it's good to survive. Survival is
a good thing. But at what price? See again, at
what price?

Speaker 3 (01:41:47):
So are you saying that we kind of have to
reveal this technology because you know it's just gonna come anyway,
and whoever lives lives. Sorry to be morbid, but is
that what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:42:01):
I think the technology will be revealed on its own,
but I think we're gonna have to go for a
lot of problems before.

Speaker 3 (01:42:12):
Let me, I'm gonna commit one before the How long
how long do you think we've got to wait for
mass acceptance of the science that we've been discussing here
on this podcast today. How long?

Speaker 1 (01:42:31):
I really don't know. Brother. It's quite possible, quite possive,
depending if, for example, groups of individuals of lack of
mind that are not quote unquote anarchists in nature, so

(01:42:52):
they don't want the a cirpation of governments, that decline
of civilization, whatnot, they actually are pro humanism, the pro
humanitary if such groups exist. It's quite possible that they
will bring this technology somehow and.

Speaker 3 (01:43:09):
Mhm, so you know it could happen quickly or it
could happen and take a long time. Yeah. Well, so
I'll say this has been an awesome conversation. I got
through a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask.
Do you know? And I just want to just also
say thank you so much for talking to me. I

(01:43:30):
feel like I love the relationship we have. I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:43:34):
I remember one time at a pot I was like,
I can't believe he stated that. What a time at
a pot you said something like I think he's my friend.
I'm like, what the fuck?

Speaker 3 (01:43:44):
Man?

Speaker 1 (01:43:45):
You know I'm your friend?

Speaker 3 (01:43:46):
Come on, well, I'll be honest, like you know, I
don't know on you though, I don't go easy. You
come on here.

Speaker 1 (01:43:53):
And because that's a rule as an investigative journalist, just
be You don't have a card that says investigative journalists
Ashton for ORBS does not mean that you are not one.
As a matter of fact, I believe that when these
videos are proved correct, or rather the technology that comes

(01:44:15):
from the mispriven correct, which would indicate that they are correct.
You should be actually given a Nobel possibly a Pulitzer
price because you said you don't want the Nobel.

Speaker 3 (01:44:26):
So I'll let you have the Nobel. I'll let the
scientists have the Nobel prizes. You know, I just want
to pull the price.

Speaker 1 (01:44:32):
I would refuse it. No fucking royal is gonna hand
me a piece of paper and tell me that I
was right. What I would want is every one of
your followers to send me a card saying damn you
are right, or something of that nature. I would take.
Oh my god, I would I would cover walls with

(01:44:53):
those sports cards. That would mean more to me than
a fucking Nobel price. What what's that?

Speaker 3 (01:45:00):
Yeah? Yeah, me too, So I guess somebody else had
the last question here too. They're saying, thank you Ardo
for the donation. Why all the continuous mass controlling and
the spoon feeding of technology if you look at it
from the perspective of we have this advanced technology, this
science is out there and it's maybe not well accepted.

(01:45:24):
Why everything that's going on, Why why all this any thoughts?

Speaker 1 (01:45:31):
There must be a reason, this trickle down disclosure. It's
it's very on one part, it seems almost again this
whole idea of what did I call it? I even
forgot what I called something. Constipation, immaculate constipation, constipation. I

(01:45:55):
think that sums it all up.

Speaker 3 (01:45:58):
Yeah, yeah, it's it's yeah. I mean, I'll say, like, yeah.
My thought is, well, there must be a dark reason
for it, you know, is that they're letting the technology

(01:46:18):
come out. But it's like an acceptance thing, like you're
slowly accepting it in the same way where people can
now accept this conversation. But this is our third conversation
that we've had where we've been talking about this and
now it just seems normal and we're talking about some
pretty crazy stuff. You're faster and light travel, et cetera.
So maybe there's an aspect of getting people used to it, uh,
you know, giving the technology to us at a rate

(01:46:41):
at which we can absorb. Maybe just a thought, so
last any last thoughts. Shout outs you want to shout
out anybody else in the end of your buddies in
the navy. You know you're famous now look at you?

Speaker 1 (01:46:54):
No, please, come on, man, you're famous. You're the one
with the followers. I'm just on your heart trust podcasts.
I'm the one who feels on it I am. I'm
truly honored brother. One day's gonna be a huge dude.
And when you're like above Rogan and all that ship,
don't forget your little friend over here anyway. So uh look,

(01:47:17):
I applaud you, I approved Dave ROSSI I prod all
our guys, alien scientists, Timpentura, Kurtji Mongol even though he
is never year isn't anyway, you know, it is what
it is. It could be, it could be the Canada thing.
You know, we love you on.

Speaker 3 (01:47:36):
That was a great interview as well with Jesse Michaels.

Speaker 1 (01:47:38):
I mean, oh Jesse Michaels. Uh, you know, yeah, smart guy,
very intelligent dude. So yeah, and let's not forget his
body over there that goes by God I forgot. I'm
not gonna say his name. I know his real name,
but you know his psychic Oh no, Peter Theo is uh.

(01:48:01):
I mean he's one of.

Speaker 3 (01:48:03):
The if you could talk to one scientist of your
choice and they couldn't refuse, who would you want to
do that's still alive?

Speaker 1 (01:48:11):
Who do you want to ship? I was gonna say,
tell her.

Speaker 3 (01:48:15):
Yeah, there's still alive.

Speaker 1 (01:48:17):
Who But can we engineered that reverse temporal, you know,
the chamber somehow make it all possible. That'd be so cool.
I've always wanted to know if mine are bigger than
his now anyway, anyway, Uh yeah, I would say there were.

(01:48:44):
You know, I've always wanted to ask one Manda Senna
why he never he never backed up my paper for archive.
I mean, yeah, it was off the deep band and
all that ship. It was quite crackpottish. But man, a
guy that works for the Institute of a Band Study
at Princeton, a man that's come up with ads equal

(01:49:06):
cft that made Lenny Suskin crying to sleep for it
that way. I mean, and Lenny Suskin is no fucking
mental midget either, So I mean a guy like that,
I mean, I really thought that doesn't take it wouldn't
have not taken a lot. Yeah, I don't know. I

(01:49:27):
mean I had as I had a better conversation with
about what's his name Kit both Nobel Prize winner, More Bose, Einstein,
con BC baby good guy, good guy Well.

Speaker 3 (01:49:49):
Is out there and he wants to have a chat.
I think that would be an amazing conversation. I'd love
to set it up. I'd I should love to talk
to him as well. He's one of the proponents. I
guess you could say have ER equals EPR with Leonard Suskin,
and one of the one of the first papers I
read a couple of years ago. Yeah, humanly reversal. I
remember I read his and I was like, wait, they're

(01:50:11):
humanly traversible. Wow, Yeah, that'd be awesome. Okay, well, South,
thank you very much, sir. Let's do it again in
the future. Brother.

Speaker 1 (01:50:23):
I'm your man, anytime, anyplace, and always my buddy. All right, brother,
take care, bye yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:50:29):
Thank you, hard everybody who is a hard truth sufficionado
m H three seventy x. I hope you guys enjoyed
the conversation. Piece out everybody later.

All Episodes

#20 | US Military Tech 100 Years Ahead? - Salvatore Pais Reveals the Science

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;}#20 | US Military Tech 100 Years Ahead? - Salvatore Pais Reveals the Science