Video Transcript
Dr. Park is senior work and you're on everyone's radar. Let's just say Helion and TAE are meant to be Nvidia and AMD. We're not allowed to reveal breakthrough fusion until we say they can. However, your last stream, you're on the money. Okay. >> [snorts] >> Now, let me just show you how completely surpass how how much we have surpassed um standard physics at this point. >> [snorts] >> Where is it? Here, this one. I read this article. Sabine was posting this article about, "Guys, what if we're wrong about dark matter?" Hello, academic physicist. What if we're wrong about dark matter? What if it turns out that dark matter thing doesn't even really exist at all? Well, spoiler alert chat. Basically, the answer from everybody's perspective, if dark matter doesn't really exist, is that the ether must be real. That the only other answer is that we have to go back to the ether. That's what basically everyone's viewpoint is. So, here you go. I read it so you don't have to. And you can really pretty much sum up these people's opinions in one sentence. That's just how surface level their analysis is. And it's basically like listening to deep people support DEI. Like they've just got a script and a talking point that they've been told to read off of, and it hasn't changed in 25 years. Hasn't changed one iota in 25 years. And it's just so easy to beat these people's arguments. That it's just become sad. Here we go. So, first dude's like, "Disproving the existence of dark matter is a tall order." Can you imagine ever putting those words on a piece of paper and having them be attributed to you? First of all, dark matter is literally a thing we had to invent because we looked at galaxies, a woman looked at galaxies and realized that they were rotating on the edges far too fast given our understanding of relativity. If you just do the math, no way that works. But So, what am I saying? When we visually, experimentally looked at the data, it disproved our theory. That alone would have been enough to throw out a physics theory. In fact, that's that's how little it took for them to throw out the ether. They found one thing that they thought was wrong with the ether, and they threw it out. When the same thing happened for general relativity, they said, "No, we're not wrong. We're not wrong. It's just that there's dark matter. It's cuz of dark matter." And you say, "Well, what's dark matter?" They go, "It's literally a thing they invented because they can't explain why that's happening." And they still can't. To this day, they still can't explain what dark matter is, where it comes from, and nobody's ever measured it before. There's no such thing as dark matter. Literally not a thing that really exists, no physical thing that exists, just something we came up with. And again, this is factual. I'm not speaking I'm not saying an opinion here. We factually made up this thing called dark matter. So, when someone says, "You have to disprove it," nobody has to disprove dark matter. It doesn't even exist. You first of all have to show me the dark matter cuz show me some dark matter. There isn't any. It doesn't literally is not a thing. So, first person's a complete idiot, and they don't even understand how logic works. Cuz you're telling me I have to prove your unfalsifiable position. That's not logic. So, I don't know who that first person is, but they get an F. Sabine Hossenfelder says, "If dark matter doesn't exist, the observations that led to astrophysicists to conclude it exists won't go away." Wow, thank you, Captain Obvious. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Uh you're right. Turns out those galaxies not spinning the correct speed is not going to go away, no matter what. The observational experimental data that shows general relativity is wrong is not going away. You need to figure that out. And if you can't figure that out, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory. I got one for you, it's called zero-point energy. Turns out it explains all these things very easily. She says, "We would therefore need something else to explain these observations." Uh chat, can you think of anything else that could explain these observations we see in the sky? Anything that can explain inertia, mass, gravity, dark energy, dark matter? Oh, zero-point energy can explain all of those things. All of them. The reason why the stars spin at that speed is cuz we live in a medium. Where is the extra energy coming from? The extra mass to make those stars go faster? We're in a medium. There's an extra dimension. That's why. That's why we don't have There's no mathematical stable solutions for three bodies in orbit over a long period of time. Over a long period of time, any three bodies in orbit of one another, something's going to get ejected out. So, how come they exist? We look at this We look out there and we see them. So, what's Where is the Where is the disconnect? Oh, it turns out we live in a medium, and that medium is like a sticky substance. That's your dark energy. That's your dark matter. That medium is why you think that we had this Big Bang that spread space-time faster than the speed of light. There's your answer. So, for the people that say, "Hey Ashton, you don't know what you're talking about." Well, here you go. These are your top physicists, and I'm knocking them down one at a time. If they can respond, I can't wait to watch their videos. >> [clears throat] >> Stacy McGaugh says, "When we apply the law of gravity taught to us by Newton and Einstein to the matter we can see in these systems, we come up short. The observed motions imply more mass than meets the eye, aka dark matter." Now, in a sane world, if you told somebody, "Hey, I got a theory, but I went ahead and just checked my theory, and it doesn't work." You would say, "Hey, you're wrong. It was a good shot. You were pretty close. You're pretty close, but you were wrong, and you should try again." But, we don't live in a sane world. We live in a world where that happens, and people go, "I'm not wrong. The universe is wrong." They go, "The universe is wrong. We just have to invent dark matter. Now, we're right again." And you wonder why a healthcare IT consultant has to teach you physics three times a week? Cuz we're a planet of retards. And this is where I just have to say, "We tested relativity. Observations proved us wrong, so we invented and made up a fake term instead of admitting we're wrong." That's called insanity. And then one caller says, "The bias towards its existence was enormous." Exactly. This was the problem. There was a massive bias towards the existence of dark matter. Even if Maxwell's equations provide a recipe for self-propagation of electric and magnetic fields. Oh, sorry. So, the previous time they were trying to say that there was a bias towards the ether. Yes, the bias towards the ether was that anybody could realize that all waves require a medium. Tesla realized that everything was about energy, frequency, and vibration, and he realized there must be a medium. Hell, even Einstein with spacetime view, that space was a malleable solid that had structure to it. And this is where the scalar potential comes into play. You would say, if they say any argument about Maxwell's equations, that's the worst argument anybody against the ether can ever make. If they say, "Hey, Maxwell's equations prove there's no ether." You go, "Fuck you, dude. Ever hear the scalar potential?" They literally had to delete a part of Maxwell's equations because there's an extra term in there that's absolutely real, but only comes into play when dealing with this extra dimensional extra dimensional scalar potential. Because the scalar potential, as anyone will point out, is just a magnitude. They say, "Ashton, a scalar is just a magnitude. You don't know what a scalar means." Yes, I do know what it means, and that magnitude is relevant only if there's an extra dimension where that magnitude could reappear over here by some type of quantum entanglement effect or quantum tunneling effect. Then suddenly the scalar potential becomes very relevant. And that scalar potential can also help us explain gravity. So, there you go. Knocked them up Uh, brought them up shot them back down. Basically, the ether is coming back and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if you were relying on a experiment from 1887, I got bad news for you, chat. That [ __ ] is done. interference pattern on the moving the rotating plane is positioned vertical to the earth's surface. We are now moving the entire >> my favorite part. I'm just going to mute this. This is my favorite part. And then I have a video of a dude that took the Michelson-Morley experiment that you can just watch with your eyes. He All he did was take it level and flip it vertically so that it would be clearly interacting with gravity, right? Higher, lower you are, less or more gravity. And you can see these are lasers where you can see the interference pattern is shifting. Those are laser beams. And the only thing happening is that this thing is spinning around and the only difference is how much gravity there is when you're either closer to the surface of the earth or less when you're higher up. And they say, "Ashton, Michelson-Morley disproved the ether." And I say, "Well, what do you think gravity is?" And I say gravity is the displacement of the ether by mass, which is also why the Michelson-Morley experiment does work when you turn it vertically. Hm. Anyway, I'm literally eager to debate anyone, any PhD physicist, or anyone who just feels like they know more about this, because my arguments pretty much uncontested. I think there was somebody in here. Oh, yeah, here we go. Here it is, chat. Some randos' time to shine. You say, "Ashton, why Why you going to elevate some random person with probably like 10 followers? May even be a bot. Because I'm an equal opportunity hater, chat. Here we go. I said, "Now is your time. I'm going to debate some random person." Some random person in the comments. Oh, they were crashing out, chat. We're not going to reach all these We're not going to read all these crash outs, just the ones that matter. Asserting that dark matter doesn't exist is just plain stupid because dark matter is literally just a label we use to refer to a constellation of observations. It's like saying, "No, you didn't make those observations." No, that's not what it's like saying at all. Applying a label to dark matter is like putting a band-aid to a problem you don't want to deal with anymore. You made up a term called dark matter because your theory general relativity uh Newtonian gravity fell apart. Fell apart when we tried to observe it. And so if the overall argument is, "Hey, you don't have any argument to stand on when you try to claim the ether is real." My counter argument is, "My theory explains more about our reality than your theory does." And it's not close. I can explain to people logically and consistently how inertia, mass, gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, all of them work in the model of the ether. In your model of general relativity, you can't explain any of those or where any of them come from. Think about that. So if the overall argument is, "Hey, you have to prove to me the ether's real." I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove to me general relativity is the answer cuz it's not looking good right now. >> [snorts] [sighs] >> So then we make an argument about you can't uh dark matter is the option that correctly predicts gravitational lensing galaxy cluster dynamics and cosmic microwave background. So, classic fallback, they say, "Well, our theory explains these things." And I don't think this guy knows about ether theory because he would know that ether theory actually explains these things as well. So, if you can change the permittivity of the vacuum, then light it would make sense for light to be red-shifted that we see when we look out there. In fact, if you believe in a tired light hypothesis that energy can energy is like lost back to the ether, then that could also explain the red-shift that we see. It would be It would mean that not everything all started at one particular point. It would mean that the Big Bang isn't needed anymore. It could also be Big Bang could exist, but it is not needed in an ether theory anymore. Gravitational lensing then is not an issue. Gravitational lensing is totally covered by the ether. So is galaxy cluster dynamics. In fact, like I said, the three-body problem, you can't even explain cluster dynamics using general relativity. You have major problems. Any three or more body system should fall apart and become unstable under your theory. Cosmic microwave background just isn't even needed. You use cosmic microwave background to quantify the amount of zero-point energy, but that's not the true amount of zero-point energy. The true amount of zero-point energy is like 80 magnitudes higher, maybe even higher than that, maybe infinite. >> [snorts] >> So, it's not the cosmic microwave background cosmic microwave background isn't wrong, it's just irrelevant. It may be relevant if we need a cosmic reference frame if we're going to use adaptive optics and we need something to compare to to be able to tell where two points are. That might be useful. Cosmic microwave background might be useful for that. And then people say, "Well, if you were in a medium, you would have a preferred frame and you would see drag." We do see drag. It's called gravity. It's called time dilation. The reason why we don't see it and experience it is cuz we're all on the same planet Earth. We all experience basically the same amount of gravity. We're all experiencing basically the same amount of frame dragging. So, therefore, everything all of our interactions feel normal to us. But I promise you, if one person was at a black hole and one person was at Earth, it would look like one person's moving in fast forward and the other one's moving in slow-mo.