Terrence Howard Physics - Science or Fiction?

Video Transcript

# Terrence Howard Physics - Science or Fiction? Malaysian 370 contact 120 decimal 9. Good night. Malaysian 370. Breaking news tonight. A Malaysia Airlines flight with 239 people on board, including four Americans, has gone missing. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Oh, I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu. is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty and to impress him. Takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become death, the destroyer of [Music] worlds." Oh. Oh, we're we're back. We're back. Welcome everybody to the live stream. Thank you guys for being here. I'm your host Ashton Forbes. Guys, super excited. Thank you if you are a newly watching person on pill.net and or on Rumble. Hopefully Rumble's working. Gosh, it's tough to get it figured out, guys. Avengers Assemble indeed. Guys, TGIF. Thank god it's Friday, guys. I just want to say there's a lot of working class people out there that are just on a hope and a prayer that there might be something better out there. There might be a way forward. And to those people, I want to say you're the reason why I'm here. I think there is a way forward for all of us to better all of our situations at the expense of only a small few that are hiding the knowledge and the power that would free us all on this entire planet. I truly believe that. Now, before we get going tonight, I need to turn off my fireplace because it's making noise. Uh, it's really disappointing you can't see the fireplace without changing the angle of the camera. But you know what? Just got to say feel very blessed that I have a a beautiful electric fireplace. Cheerly for looks, but it also sometimes emits heat. Okay, guys. Tonight, oh, thank you for that donation right away. Uh, just watch this today. like my videos. Thank you very much. I appreciate that donation. AI is a great place for uh to work for me currently. And I Excellent name, too, by the way. Clearly, they was just typing a random sentence into the username and that's that's what we came up with. Probably forgot to copy and paste it. Okay guys, we have a lot to go over. So, I have a lot of other topics, too. I'm just going to push them for next week. decided that P uh Terence Howard is on Patrick Bad David today and I wasn't sure if it was going to be as important enough to discuss, but I think we're actually at a point now where we are pushing we are pushing disclosure and people are just trying to keep up with us. Even Terren Howard is talking about anti-gravity and all this other stuff today too. And I'm like, we got to be careful here because he is encroaching on our space and it's going to confuse people. And if he discredits the overall movement, then it's going to make this even more difficult. Now, end of the day, I don't really care. Everybody's entitled their opinions. Terrence Howard is as well. People can have splinter views, zero point energy. I'm not going to gateep it. I'm not going to have any purity tests about this. But I do want to express my opinion where I think we deviate and where we see eye to eye. So the reality of it is the spoiler because you guys know me. I don't like to keep things hidden till the end. I agree strongly with some of the stuff Terren Howard says. Other parts of it I disagree pretty strongly as well. And overall, I think that Terrence's attitude, like kind of as if he's got it all figured out kind of attitude, um maybe that's not really the right way to approach it, but like the way he goes about it, I can't really understand conceptually a lot of the things that he says. And what I've realized about science in the last year and a half is that a lot of it is about how you communicate your ideas. If you can't communicate your ideas in a way that people understand, it doesn't matter at all if you've got it right or not. You know, and that's where I think Terren Howard kind of falls apart on this. So, I think it's important to have a nuanced take on the Terren Howard situation. And just because I don't understand the concepts that he's explained, doesn't mean he's wrong. Just means I either he's not explaining in a way that I can understand it or I can't understand the way he's explained it. Whatever it is, right? I don't know if I would say his attitude is narcissistic. I would say it's more like a little bit misguided and and enlightened at the same time. Like I was thinking about this earlier in terms of like narcissism is narcissism is more like the greedy kind of aspect of arrogance. I would say what Terren Howard is is he's like the hitting on 19. He's hitting on 19. He's like, "Oh, I think I've figured out that there's this additional aspect to the universe." And then he's saying, "Well, I'm going to solve everything with this." Well, okay. Well, you got this part wrong and that part wrong and this part wrong, but overall, I guess the concept is still right. You know, it's like, okay. And this is the problem I have where it's like I'm not Yeah. And also, some people also just think they're Jesus. Like, this definitely happens there. There are people that like they realize this and they think they're like the savior. So, the last thing I want to say on this before we get into just jump right into this interview and start watching it is there are multiple people who've already come up with patents that already explain a lot of this. So, nobody out there is going to already be the first. That's already that ship's already sailed in terms of like who's the first for all this. And it reminds me of I think it was the Clemens or Clemens or whatever. He's got a patent about 0 point energy that is really explain 0 point energy. Great. A lot of people have patents that explain 0 point energy. You can't patent a law of the universe. You have to actually make something that's doing it. So those patents are great if your whole only point is to explain how the universe works. But if Terrence Howard or some of these other people that are just like patenting ideas of zero point energy think that those are like legally binding. If someone were to make something based off of the same concepts, then that's never going to hold up. So those are my views of the patents. And I think generally people should not look at patents as, oh, this person has a patent. That means it works and they're an expert. In the case of Terren Howard's patents and some other patents that I've seen, they're just conceptual ideas. In the case of like Salvador Py's patents, the Navy actually like built prototypes for those things and tested them. and some of the experimental tests are publicly available from foyer requests. So quite a bit different and you have to judge each patent alone on its merits in terms of is this something that's just theory or is this something they actually have a working device or that they've done experimentation on etc. Okay, there you go. That's my nuance take. Now we're going to go ahead and we're just going to get uh get controversial with it. So, we're gonna go right in. And right off the bat, Terrence Howard talks about topology. And I actually think he does a good job right here. I think he explains topology. Now, I apologize right off the bat. I just took some notes and some time stamps. So, if I'm a little bit off on these timestamps, please forgive me. See what we got here. Let's Let's Was bathwater was [ __ ] the Howard comma. Oh, and this just reminded me that man, Terren Howard has a lot of bad blood with Eric Weinstein. Like a lot. Holy crap. He has a lot of bad blood with him. Uh, and honestly, probably should. Like, that is pretty disrespectful back and forth. So, whatever. We're going to skip over that. We're just gonna focus on the science today and not get into too much of the drama. Yeah. I can't I can't really blame him. You know what I'm saying? Okay, here we go. Let's Let's do it. He said that afterwards you guys get on together. He did this after our thing that might be good is this lynch pin, but he got there by a mistake, which I clearly showed that it wasn't a mistake, the 109.47. Um, but he said that everything I did was just by accident and nothing had value. So, we were able to take the Howard comma, which is the geome the resonance created from the Lynch band. We were able to take the tetrian wave conjugations which is the shape of the fractal in itself and we were able to take the mirrored all shapes and literally rebuild the entire world the way that according to well not rebuild the world but this this is a good example of what I'm talking about right here right like where it's like okay we figured out some shape thing great but now what you're rebuilding the wheel you're rebuilding all the physics that's the part where it's like yeah it seems like you took it a little too are world we we've been able to take those same things that he called bathwater and apply them to the threebody problem and solve a 300-y old problem that Newton couldn't solve that point care couldn't solve because they needed a finite space they needed curve multiplication they also needed to reimagine how the prime numbers behave they needed to understand that gravity was just an effect of electricity but how could we take the things he said was bathwater and solve the biggest problems in math math and in physics. Okay. Um I think I missed the topology. I'm going to go back a little bit and and see and just uh make sure because I I think I might had the wrong time here, but let's see. Um but one of the things that he just mentioned is like, oh, we solved the threebody problem. The way he's saying it is almost like we solved the math on it. Like did we? I feel like you should just be able to conceptually explain it because to me the answer to three body problems is really really simple is if there is an ether filled with energy that's what's keeping everything stuck together that explains the three body problem I think and it's just that simple. Let's see if he says the topology thing earlier here. Gave him I showed him I went to his house two days later and we did we had dinner and I took buckets of of proof of geometry um of all the lynch pans and their configurations all the wave conjugations and their configurations. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that was that was a different thing I'm talking about the topology thing. Okay, never mind. Here we go. Jeez. Okay. Okay. Um, now the first thing here we're going to go into is the 1 * 1 equals 2. Well, so then what's 1 1.1 * 1.1? I don't know. Is it bigger than two? It would it would have to be anytime action times an action has to increase in volume. No, but but so if 1 1* 1 is two, that would mean that 1.1* 1.1 would be would need to be bigger than two, right? It would have to be. Why why wouldn't it be? It's only the mathematics that they're using the identity principles, the Jim which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics. That's the thing that holds them back because they want to keep things back into a balanced place. They want instead of allowing the expansion that happens with most numbers, they just want to repeat. They just want to get back to even for a basic simple guy like me. Like let's just say if I have a a$110 cents in a stock and that goes up 1.1%. What is it? A110 cents in a stock, but it goes up 1.1% rate of return in my stock portfolio. What's 1.1 of a110? Look it up on the calculator. It's a buck 21. So, so for example, so and and if I get a 1% rate of return, you know, on one, you know, if I if I if I do the percentage on the basic, okay, so I got to give a lot of credit to Patrick VDavid here. He just answers the question from a logical perspective. And this is the last guy. Patrick Bed Dave is probably the last guy on the earth that you want to come at with one time one equals two. Patrick Bad Dave is like, "Dude, I started my own business and if you're telling me you can cheat the number system, then there's arbitrage and I can make infinite money." He's like, just look at it from a math perspective on and that was a great example. stocks, investment, rate of return. 1* 1 cannot equal two from a mathematical standpoint. Otherwise, you would have arbitrage. And he points it out with a really simple example. Now, he just changes, you know, 10 times higher, 10 times lower, doesn't matter. Right? This is the problem with the idea of 1* 1 equals 2. And the thing about it is this. We just use numbers and math to explain our universe. You're not going to be able to rewrite the number system. That is tried and true and proven. Now, you might say that I'm interpreting the equations in a different way. Okay, that's a different thing. That's a different thing. That's not saying 1* 1 equals 2. That's a different thing. And this is one of things where you can't just say like for me to say free energy is a misnomer. That's fine. Free energy is a brand name. In this case here, you're trying to redefine math. That's not going to work. And I think we're going to let this play for another minute. I don't want this to this goes on for like three or four more minutes, but if not, I'll just get to it. But Terence Howard actually at some point here clarifies his response. So, it is important for us to hear Terrence out in his side of the story. 1.1* 1.1 is still getting me 1.21. So, to me, the basics of the 1* 1 equals 2 that throws even a regular guy like me off. Well, you've got to remember in multiplying volutrically, you're wrapping things back around, right? Like in a pool, in a swimming pool, the pond, the ripples go out, hit the edge, and then they come back. The returning waves are added to the expanding waves. Each returning wave is going to become multiplied even more. The pressure doesn't just expand out and keep going out. It's coming back. So you have to include the contraction. You have to include the returning wave. So that's why the volumetric would be different. But like even with what you just did, like if I asked you what's 10 times 10 times 010 it says 01. Right. Right. But we know that10 is a dime. Okay. Okay, we know that a dime times a dime, 10 dimes time 10 dimes equals a dollar. Should equal a dollar. Not necessarily. 10 time 10. No, I know what you're doing. I know what you're doing. But but that is a whole number. A dime is still 10 cents. So 10 dimes is a dollar. So it's not the same in the dollar. Okay. Just to clarify for the people out there, 10 times 0.1 is different than 0.1 times 0.1. I don't really understand. What Terrence Howard just said there was just completely wrong. I hope people don't focus on just that part because whatever. It's a gaff. But okay, basically he's completely wrong on this part. Anyway, I think we go for like one more minute. I'm pretty sure he explains his side here. Sense. I see what you're thinking. Like 0.1 equals a tenth of a dollar. I'm saying there's a problem with a decimal system. Yeah, but if I if I if I have if if a to you that doesn't seem off that if if if this was if you turn it into physical things, that's what I'm saying. Let's turn it. The problem with our math is they've reversed. They've they've allowed it to be all imaginary. It does not have any physical resemblance. It's all fiat where it should be. No, but I used to invest. The way I look at it is to say what's uh um what's uh a point 1%. Okay. I couldn't find the part, but basically I think that was as close as we're going to get where Terren's view is he's looking at it not from the mathematical perspective. He's looking at it from the laws of the physical universe perspective where if you change one and one to two different actions, you can't have a situation where you had less actions than you had before. But this is addition and I don't know, none of it really makes any sense. So my advice would be for Terren to give up on the 1* 1 equals 2 part. Now good news is there's no more of that. That's the beginning and we don't have to deal with any more of that. Now, the next thing he he mentions his extracting energy patent here, and I want to pull it up as uh right after I I play the clip. This is um about 29 minutes into the video to deal with or deal with water. You have cars for the land, but you don't have anything that is ubiquitous to all of these mediums. And that's what Lynchpan is able to do. So when I say it's the end of cranes, it's the so you have that we've innovated flight, we've innovated geometry by having unlimited bonding, we've innovated lighting, you know, we've innovated with um our energy systems and what I wanted to share with you um one of the biggest things that I talked about with the Howard Kama, it's ability to pull energy directly from the Vanderwalss or from the zero point. You know, we've already provided a a means to do that to where you don't have to pay for any energy anymore. Okay, so where is it? I have it, right? Um, [ __ ] Do I not have the link for the paper? Oh, yeah, I have it. Okay, hold on. Let me switch my screen. So, somebody was sharing this. I think it was uh ZPE Disclosure. Shout out to ZPE Disclosure. Also, uh, quick shout out to uh, Good Morning UFO, also known as Alien Girl, and to Vetted. They've just been, you know, smaller content creators that are they're moving up. They're they're awesome. So, shout out to those guys. Okay, here's the paper right down here. You guys can see this. Maybe not. Okay, I'll just read it. Harnessing vacuum flux energy via super fluid Vanderwal's oscillations for continuous superconducting power generation. March 11th, 2025. Terrence Howard, Christy Steelely. So this is the framework for extracting zero point energy from the quantum vacuum using Vanderwal's oscillations within a super fluid medium. Something about this lynchpin rule 1* 1 equals 2. And then it says we calculate the frequency and energy states required for energy harvesting and propose three direct coup uh coupling methods. Interestingly, one of the coupling methods mentioned is Josephson's junctions. Huh? That's been mentioned a lot of times. And then it says that they can achieve power densities that are really, really high. 10 the 6 watts. What is that? 100,000 watts per cubic meter. Very high energy densities. So, uh, we're not going to too much into that, but I just want to say that looked at it and it's got the right words in there, but it doesn't really like add up to much for me. So, if you want to know my opinion, my my way too soon opinion from looking at it and having seen a lot of papers and stuff like that, my spider sense doesn't go off that it's super, you know, mind or uh, you know, uh, mindbending or whatever that we have to take a look at. So, okay, let's get back to the interview. Now, a couple minutes later, it talks about breaking molecules apart. thought this was interesting here. Actually, this clip is wild here. So, let's just see what it says. I'm just gonna let him play. So, whatever [ __ ] that was being spoken by those chemists, they do not know what they're talking about. And the problem with utilizing actual burillium is it oxidates. So, immediately the cover the surface of it gets covered and so the reaction stops. But if you use the frequency of burillium to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen and have small little apertures for the hydrogen to go through because the hydrogen is a smaller waveform, then the oxygen will separate and the hydrogen will separate and they'll both be usable. We proved that. Okay, this is pretty wild. This part's pretty wild. And yes, please smash the like if you enjoy physics, science, quantum mechanics. Now, one of the things that we've been talking about a lot is negative energy. Negative energy. And we've been saying that Tom Bearden, for example, said we can tickle the vacuum. We can tickle the vacuum and the hydrogen and the oxygen will just fall apart. And then we have hydrogen, liquid hydrogen that we can use for fuel. So that this would allow water to be transmuted or like fishing to occur at low energy costs much lower than what we think is possible and that we can use that energy for fuel. And now here's Terren Howard saying something really really similar. Terren Howard saying we can tap into the resonant energy or resonant frequency of the element. And if we tap into the resonant frequency of the element, we can cause it to collapse. We can cause the hydrogen oxygen to fall apart. We can already do it, yes, but we do it at high energy cost. Here we're talking about doing at a low energy cost utilizing negative energy. And if you want to know more about negative energy, I actually pushed back the topic of the live stream where we were going to look at potential lower states of energy of a hydrogen atom than are currently accepted right now. Because if negative energy is a thing, then what is it really? What is its physical mechanism? What if the physical mechanism is lower states of an atom like a hydrogen atom than what we believe are currently possible? That could be one answer. So Terren Howard's response here on negative energy, I'm just going to say it closely mirrors what we've been saying, what Tom Bearden's been saying, and what other physicists and engineers have said about the concept of negative energy. Though I don't think I hear Terren Howard say the words negative energy at all during this this interview. One more uh donation here from Joe Martinez. I assume ZPE tech could uh be an ace in the hole for the US if economic order is threatened. Economic order is not a concern for the United States. Money only has value because we perceive it to have value. They don't care about that. The economy will always keep running. Government doesn't care about that. In terms of control and power, yes, zero point energy technology is an ace in the hole where if anyone were to seriously threaten you, you have the ultimate trump card. Ultimate trump card. At this point though, other countries have figured it out. No question. How do I know that? If they hadn't figured it out, somebody would have told me to stop talking a long time ago, and nobody has. One of the questions I get the most is, "Has anyone told you to stop talking?" And the answer truthfully, no, not really. Not directly, not anything like that. So, I'm just going to keep pushing it. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you very much for that donation. I appreciate it. Let's keep going. So, next part um is about Elon. Actually, Elon Musk, his entire approach to dealing with society first and foremost. Um, and he's so right off the bat, you know, this is a a good thing, too, is that Elon, like Terrence right away praises Elon, says Elon's a genius. His approach to society is also generally philanthropic. He wants society to get better. Okay? Even so, that doesn't mean somebody knows all the right stuff, right? Okay. Here we go. himself to be very capable um as far as finding out where a problem lies and then attacking that problem and bring the right people to it. Um I think he would have been very benefited. I was surprised when I didn't get anything from him after I did the Joe Rogan and showed the lynchpin because of what he's trying to do in space. Um one of his problems though that I see affecting him is he believes in the vacuum. He believes in the finite infinite universe, you know, where there's no pressure changes between the planets that there's just this great vacuum there and doesn't recognize that this is just like being underwater. You know, where we are at the surface of the water is like the Goldilock zone. This is the Goldilock zone on our planet. Well, within the solar system, there's a Goldilock zone where the Earth sits. And this fits for us. You go out 147 million miles away from the sun where Mars is. The nitrogen is expand. Okay, I'm going to stop him there. He was making a great point and then he went and started and took it like way too far again. Right? He should have just stopped at Elon Musk thinks space is a vacuum. Right? This is again Terren Howard classic hitting on 19 right here. So you've made the point Elon Musk thinks space is a vacuum. It's not really a vacuum. And if it's not really a vacuum, it's a medium. That means there's going to be relative pressure differences, right? More heat on this side of the screen means it's going to flow to this side of the screen. Pressure. That's gravity. Gravity is a zero point pressure. And Terren Howard even correctly says we're basically like sitting on the ocean of the energy. The analogy to the dimension that we cannot see is that we are sitting on top of this ocean of energy in the real world. If you want to think of it like that, we're sitting on top of that ocean. And then for some reason after that, he starts talking about how this explains, I don't know, some weird distance between the planets or something like that. Like, bro, stop. Stop. You were great. You were great. You had it. You were good. Boom. Okay, here we go. Bandit to such an extent. The hydrogen. But, you know, I'm not gonna I'm not even gonna I'm just going to stop him there. We're going to go to the next one. Uh here's another interesting point. Actually, this is another great point. Here we go. So, I mean, funny part about this is when I started adding up after I listened to this how many things I agreed with versus disagreed with Terence Howard, overwhelmingly agreed. I just have disagreements with the nuance and in some cases very much disagreed. So, I think it's a matter of polar him being polarizing. Right. you re I really agree on some parts, disagree on other parts. I think his patents kind of [ __ ] in the sense that yes, the science is real, but you haven't really figured anything out that you can practically create. Um, let's keep going. Is this the right part? Yeah, here we go. Yeah, that's just in one. That's just in one. So, their ability to this one so it's basically about harvesting asteroids. Okay, here we go. Harvesting asteroids for money. So the ability to mine these asteroid belts, you know, gets rid of all the mining on the planet. They want to get to Mars so that they can do some mining, but they don't realize that we don't need any of that stuff anymore. Why not? Because what the lynchpin brings by the resonant quality of the lynch pin, that resonant, the Howard comma, what that allows you to do is now have the universal template to put into any situation and open up. That's why it's used for faster than light communication, subspace communication, all the things that we've now put in the paper that I couldn't do before. When I first went to Eric and everyone, I was like, well, I'm I'm shy in the mathematics, but I have the geometry, I have the patents, and all this. Okay, let's just stop him right there again. So, why is he trying to make it about the Howard, bro? Like, you don't need that for the answer to the question of why we don't need to harvest asteroids. Okay, let me help him out here. Like, why am I not just on Patrick Bet David? We can have an actual conversation that makes sense for normal human beings. Why do we not need to harvest asteroids chat? Because we have free energy. We have the ability to transmute elements using fusion. We don't need anything. That means the end of scarcity on planet Earth. That means we don't need the sun for power. That also means we don't need asteroids for minerals either. Abundance is all is our future. Scarcity is over. That's why we don't need asteroids. We don't need to talk about why the Howard comma is the answer to tapping into the frequencies. We don't need any of that. Although if you want to know the details in the quantum mechanics, Terrence Howard shouldn't be the one going into the details of them. We are going to listen to Randall Mills who's also heavily discredited actually but he at least has companies and scientists and big amounts of money and research and stuff like that behind him. So next week we will talk about how it could be possible that we might be able to basically engineer reality uh create a Star Trek replicator. That's what we're talking about. Star Trek replica Star Trek replicator, right? and Salvatore Pais on on Sunday as well. We I will probably bring this up with him as well. So, check out the interview on Sunday as well. What? What? What just happened? What the I didn't even know donations could go that high. Did you mean to do this? Thank you, Infinite Paradox Buddha. I need to share some information with you. I want to whistleblow some advanced physics with you. I have documents to share with you. I'm a physicist, engineer, and inventor. I will give you the keys to share with you all to build and create all these devices. All my pads were classified by the government. This is what I'll say. First of all, thank you very much for your donation. Extremely generous of you. And I will take your information. Uh the way that I'll do this is I'm going to create a Discord invite right now. And you join this Discord. You got 24 hours to join it. don't figure it out. I don't know. Message. First thing you should do is friend somebody in the Discord so you can direct message them if you struggle. Okay? And then here's a situation. I'm going to post the link to you so you can see it here in a second. Now, if this is just situation where you're a private inventor or whatever and you've got the secrets, well, a lot of people do. Stand in line basically for that part. I'm just giving you the hard truth right now. And if this is a situation where you worked for Loheed Martin north of Grumman and you built stuff for them, something like that, then yes, absolutely. I want to talk to you for sure. We can do it off the record, whatever. I just want to I just want to know more about what's going on, right? But the truth is there's a lot of people out there who tell me, message me all the time that they have the secrets to this or that, this universe, this thing, that thing, blah blah blah. Happens all the time. So, thank you very much for that donation. Biggest donation ever, actually. There's the Discord invite where you can send me the information or better yet, have my admins and other people take a look at your information if you're willing to share it publicly or privately with them and we'll happy to look through it. Any information that can help get us to disclosure quicker, I feel like I have a duty to help share. Okay. Thank you guys very much. Okay, huge donation, guys. Yeah, best thing to do is actually go to JK Philly fans. My right-hand man. Honestly, I trust him more than anybody else. So, DM JK Philly fan, get in the Discord or send it to me. Appreciate it. Okay, guys, let's get back onto track. We got sidetracked by a massive donation, which is awesome. Um, so we don't need that. Now, the other thing is dimensions. Dimensions are important, right? I've said many times that the way that this physics works, we don't see the energy around us. We don't see it. Why don't we see the energy? Because it's essentially trapped in a quantum dimension, the ether. Uh Kuza Klein in 1926, unified electromagnetism and gravity using an extra dimension. Tom Bearden said Kuza Klein's right. Others have as well. I happen to agree. I have no reason not to. So, it seems like a really simple answer to me. Where's another dimension? Just because we don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. That dimension represents this energy that we're sitting on top of whatever inside of however you want to think of it. Okay. Now, let's see Terence Howard explain it. 48 minutes. Yeah. No. and what I'm doing. And and this is our first introduction here too to um Dr. U. I think I think Dr. U is his name from NASA. This guy we're we're going to hear more from him later with I'm contrasting the linear projection and attempt to multiply linearly just repeating in comparison to multiplying volumetrically. So you're right in in adding dimensions and these necessary dimensions are dimensions that you exist in. Nothing exists in a two-dimensional space. Even a three-dimension like you talk about one dimension, two dimensions, those things are not you cannot measure them until it has height, width, and depth. So, it's all becomes basically imaginary as far as the real world goes until it has at least the three dimensions of height, width, and depth. And then it needs your fourth perspective in order to be able to measure it. So, when they're talking about one and two dimensional things, I'm just looking at, okay, another imaginary thing because it has to be in motion. It has to have width. It has to have depth in order for us to be able to consider it. But they consider two-dimensional space or our mathematics. It's all based on reductionary um attempts to reduce things living things down to dead things. Dr. You read the white paper. You read all the So again, another classic case of taking it way too far. Like all we need is an extra dimension. I don't know about this taking living things and dead things and whatever you're doing here Terrence Howard, but that's just it's just way too far, guys. And this is actually what I generally rail on people for who are like into sacred geometry is that to me when you are starting to try to explain every nuance of every esoteric thing based on your physical view, you you've taken it too far and you're going to just discredit yourself at that point. I mean, probably way before that, but definitely at that point, you know, just don't hit on 19, guys. Even if you want to, you've got the answers figured out right there. Why? Why take it further? Why take it further? Uh, hopefully this guy got in the Discord. Infinite Paradox Buddha. Hopefully got in Discord. Hopefully got in touch with JK Philly fan. I'll check with you before the end here. Now, I'm going to go to a clip here. We're going to switch over and go to a clip because I want to go to the NASA guy. Now, the NASA guy now is the real highlight of this interview. Let's just be honest. This guy was good. Hard to understand, but that's fine. His English is good enough. Let's go and listen to uh Wait, which one? This one. Here we go. Uh the first thing so basically here he is agreeing with Terren Howard that our model of the electron is incorrect that particle physics is incorrect in this view that the electron is some particle that's not correct that's not how at this point we know that's not correct. We've imaged the electrons and what we see when we image the electrons is patterns. We see patterns. We don't see a little dot. We see patterns. Huh? So we fundamentally don't understand something about our universe. Uh the first thing talking about the fundamental wrong. This is this is a secret to current physical community is something we get wrong by we made electron model wrong. This is a electron is elementary particles in in physics is found that elemental particle cannot be subdivided do not have a another detailed structure or something and we get if we get this wrong and what happens next. So if we get the electron wrong, I will explain why we got it wrong if you have the time. Yeah, I can will help. And then if we get the electron word wrong, we get the called the planetary uh atomic model. You know the model with similar model the planetary with orbiting free electrons. You get the model wrong. So what I find is there is no free orbiting electrons around the nucleus at the nearly speed of light forever constantly. That's completely wrong. So what's the implication of this one? So first we got the electron wrong and then we got the the model wrong. atom what happens if this atomic model have no orbiting orbiting electrons no free was a principal orbit entire quantum mechanics build on this model were completely out of water because their found okay so that's an interesting claim I think the NASA guy was doing great but quantum mechanics is not wrong quantum mechanics is not wrong now maybe there are certain aspects to it that can be fleshed ed out better might be misinterpreted but certainly not wrong. No, I think we have a really good idea of what quantum mechanics is. Uh but where we run into struggles with things like the uh double slit experiment where we see quantum teleportation and that's the stuff where it's like okay well how how do we describe that effect? So but I agree with him. Obviously electrons are not little balls spinning around a nucleus. And because I don't want to forget it here, I think we're going to get to it, but I'm just going to spoil it here right well as well. Is that what he's getting at is what if we're thinking about atoms wrong. What about when we're thinking about electrons, we shouldn't be thinking about a positive posetron and electron is two separate things. What if they're the same thing with just different orientations, different spin, some different property about them? If you look at it from that perspective, then maybe this idea of the electron isn't right at all. Maybe there's another conceptual view that still provides the same answers, but better explains what we see happening. that I think is going to end up being true is that our current view, our current perspective is going to advance and the people that I think are critical of particle physics are going to end up being right. Fundamentally, everything is waves, not particles. It's waves. Everything is a lot weirder fundamentally than how we want it to be from the macroscopic level. We know that for sure. Even the people that believe in the classical view of physics would say that the distance between atoms is 99% empty space. How does that make sense? Make that make sense. Right? Because everything's forces. It's not really actually physically stuff that's there. It's forces. Electromagnetic forces to be specific. So let's go back and finish this clip up on the electron. Their view of the electron. They saw it as a particle as an individual thing. When it's an entire cloud, it's an energy. It's a wave of energy. That's what the electron is. It's the discharge coming from from um accumulated electrical potential. the discharged electricity, the devitalized electricity is what we're calling this electron or this this magnetism. And they're seeing it as a particle when it's just a wave form. That's honestly not the worst interpretation I've ever heard. So Terren Howard here is saying that the electron isn't this particle. This it's a discharge of energy coming from the atom all the time. the discharge of energy coming from the atom all the time. And this is an interesting view. Why? Because that's essentially what Hal Pudof's saying in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. He's saying the hydrogen atom is exchanging energy with the zero point field all the time. He's saying it's exchanging energy with the 0 point field all the time. So for the electron to just be a per perpetual discharge of energy maybe interesting. We had a couple donos real quick. Thank you Jordan. Appreciate that $5 dono. Uh and the followup as well. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you Jordan for following supporting and uh cute baby. Assuming there's a real baby on there, not an AI. Fly Ether, who makes honestly, shout out to him for making some of the best clips out there. Check out Fly Ether if you guys are not for uh we're watching his clip right now actually. Uh forever forward Ashton, Dr. Whaponu. Oh, that's his name. Weeping. Yeah. Blows up the peer review process at one uh 117. I skipped over that. Um, I added it in there. Thanks, uh, fly ether. Appreciate you, brother. Keep it up the good work. It's a pressure condition. It's a I'm going to expand my statement say why we get the electron and why is so significant. Okay. So from I believe from the 178085 the French physicist uh kulum pro you know uh proposed the kulum's law it says there are two type charges one is negative one is positive and the like charge repel unlike charge attract this is a fundamental law it's great discovery however it's wrong the mistake The mistake is he described the two charges uh carried by two separate particles instead of having everything being both positive having both attractive. Yo, Terren has got to chill here, man. Let my man talk. Why is he interrupting every 5 seconds, bro? And and detractive things. It's a How can you particle? I'm sorry. This is a brilliant you know discovery and the root cause of our physics. So now people would say how do you know elect how can we get electron wrong? An entire modern technology is built on electrons right? So that's why all the inter interpretations are are needed to be re ridden. U so let's assuming electron is a negative charge and proton is a positive charge. Now what happens if we split electron into two halves hypothesally split geometric split what do we get two negative charge particle two negative charge that come together and make put the two negative charge particle together no negative things are always going to push each other away they're always going to push they're always going to push so I think what he's saying there is that our view that they're separate particles can't be correct. It must be that it's one particle and there are a negative aspect to it or a negative polarity to it and a positive polarity to it just like electricity, right? And he says, well, if you cut it in half and you combine together, how would that work out? Now, I don't really agree with their concept there on the last part, but fine. We're not going to pu push too much into it. I think the overall idea, I get it. Now, let's go back to the overall interview because at 58 minutes here, he also says another follow-up thing. Do you have a guess? Hydrogen everything. Oh, you are talking about, you know, in I'm talking about in terms of what type of a particle? Not now that magnets. Yes, magnets is the one it carries both negative and positive charges and I will explain you know some misconception about charge and magnetism. Oh yeah but so so-called we so-called electron is actually bipolar magnets. Why does this matter? Soal electron is actually a dipolar magnet. [Music] Yes. Because if you split a magnet, then it's gonna both of them are still going to have two poles. So if I have a magnet, uh, imagine my phone is a magnet, right? Excuse me. If I were to split it in half here and then separate them, they would both become magnets. Again, two poles. So he's saying an electron is like a dipole magnet. Wow. In fact, at one point here, he says an electron is just like a metal. A metal. And now you realize, oh wow, what what is a magnet? Actually, guys, what have I said that a magnet is? Not this isn't just me. just you know from science and research is that a magnet a permanent magnet is where all the electrons are lined up. They're all lined up in the same orientation. Why? Because that creates the powerful magnetic field that we know as a magnet. Because all the alignments are aligned and they're all little magnets. So if you add all the little magnets and you stack them all up, they'll create a powerful macroscopic magnetic field. Isn't that beautiful? How we go from the small an individual electron being a tiny magnet to the big where a piece of metal can be a magnet if all the electrons are aligned. Pretty cool, huh? Pretty cool. Okay. So, let's go back to this real quick. Um, let let me expand. Let's let's let's say please because of we assuming electron is a negative charged particle. So, then you know this this great news build his B model, right? Yeah. Build B model say hey we have a positive charge nucleus and we have a negative charge electron how can we can we measure them because we assume is neutral neutralized right how can measure them with with a negative particle and positive particle and one assumption is they are not can they cannot in contact once they are in contact that's create matter antimatter annihilation so if they are not in contact how does atomic model has to work to prevent negative charge and neutron and and and uh protons in the nucleus attract from each other. It has to be rotate. that has create a revolution or we kind of and this is what I was saying the spin is is not because so I mean that's pretty genius right let's just run that down guys you're you're learning more physics here than you would learn in high school physics easily which is that if you have a positively charged neutron and a negatively charged electron orbiting it as somebody said in the chat they should attract act. And what would happen if they came together? They would annihilate. They would annihilate. That's what happens when positive and negatives come together. They annihilate. So they say they must be kept separate. Okay. Now we have a conceptual view. We have our nucleus and we have our a negatively charged electron and it must be spinning around our nucleus. Why? The spin is what prevents it from collapsing and falling in. Why is it not falling in? Because it's spinning around the around our little sun, right? This is why the big universe looks like the small universe. It's like a planet spinning around the sun. Pretty neat. Pretty neat. This is an important concept to understand for Monday when we start talking about how we might change the electron orbital because then you start to learn Schrodinger's equations show there are certain energy bands around the nucleus where the electron can only exist in those bands and that's like the Goldilock zone of planets around the sun. At least the analogy would be to that. So on Monday, we're going to talk about what if there are different lower energy states than what we think are possible. It's going to be fun. Okay. So that's why I really like this discussion and it's going to get a little bit deeper here, too. So I'm gonna give uh you here like, you know, nine out of 10 for sure because of some spinners. suspend is coming from the the balance of of part whatsoever in in in atomic model there's no only what the parts may vibrate it's all vibratory oscillations that's how light created vibration everything is resonance nothing there is no solid matter there is it's not a force-based universe it's a harmonybased universe and therefore that's why everything has the prime resonant frequency by which it bonds or break bonds you can manipulate anything into anything else by creating the right harmonic or resonant conditions. That's everything that we've been talking about. It's we don't need the reason it's important is now you're able to manipulate the universe without hurting the universe. We don't have to use barbaric measures anymore. We can now take the sub energy that's coming from the another thing to carry these charges that I just have the patents but also the super grand unifying super symmetry plus now the equations that prove everything that I've been saying that's why I wanted you to see the papers before and the threebody problem solving that now with the idea of the proton and the at some point here he says something about they got rid of the ether but I maybe I skipped over it the energy of the electron now we're able to manipulate the universe's energy by rebuilding the planet Saturn without gravity. Now we can use that. Now we can manipulate the energy of the universe to create any condition we want. Now that's the end of oil. That's the end of big tech because they have to change everything out. But that's going to happen anyway because we're behind the gun. Are you considered a rebel amongst your peers? Would they consider you a rebel or no? Um I believe uh some generally outside my circle they at university and conference any have a serious talk with a phys physicist they would agree with me after normally half hour or one hour conversation they would agree with me. Let me let me extend the So what he's saying there is just that like there's a big gap between it's actually sad academia is in last thought I made some notes about this. What was I going to say? Um you've got NASA people. He's saying that when academics come to me he's like I try to explain it to them and then usually they leave and they're like yeah okay I get it. I understand your conceptual view. You've got random people like Terren Howard who are more on the mark than the academics are. Random people on the internet like me and all you guys that are more on the mark about physics than people at major professors at major universities in physics. The academics basically just in last right now at this point. The last people to figure it out. And it's kind of ironic that the last people to figure out gravity and zero point energy are going to be the gatekeepers of the process themselves of the peerreview process. And that should be the death nail to the current iteration of the peerreview process and hopefully should bring in something new. Because if your process is so terrible that you gatekeep out like the biggest scientific discoveries ever, then obviously your process is just straight up broken, right? Academia needs major overhaul. This idea that, oh, the academics just know what's real and what's not by virtue of having a piece of paper that says they're a PhD. We got to do away with that mentality. Not in 2025. not in 2025 where college is just payforplay nonsense, right? Um, and you don't have to like Terren Howard, uh, but he's not necessarily a sham. He's just telling his view of the world, guys. Everybody's entitled to their view of the world. And I don't know if this is Ken Wheeler, but Ken Wheeler suffers from some of the same exact problems that Terence Howard does. cockiness, overconfidence, lack of looking at other people's perspectives. It is what it is. Uh Mike M, thank you for this donation. Ashen, given that we live in a Goldilocks planet, do you believe in a divine creator? I I think there has to be a creator, doesn't there? There has to be a creator. Now, I don't know if it's going to be a bearded man, a a white bearded man, but there has to be a creator. This universe has to be a construct of some sort. I I doesn't feel random. To me, this universe feels created and very structured and organized. It has rules and properties to it. So, to me, there must be. So, I would consider myself to be spiritual for sure. Uh if not necessarily religious. I just don't really I'm not a huge fan of organized religion in general, as you can see from my stance on a lot of the stuff in the UFO community where I feel like they make it religious. Um, War Ranch LLC, thank you very much. feel like they are waiting for a big event like World War and then release more tech. Well, look at guys. People did not think the atom bomb was real. People still don't think the atom bomb was real. They think we faked the atom bomb. No one's going to believe something like that until you use it. So, absolutely, most likely we are going to need another war to happen. a serious war, not these [ __ ] wars like the proxy war in the Ukraine or the Israelis and the pal and like the Palestinians and or the you know um the other Arabs like fighting and killing each other whatever the Muslims and the Israel and the Jews killing each other and what have you. These are all side distractions. If there was a real war were to break out against actual major powers, then you're going to see the magical tech start getting deployed. when people when there's real threats. If people don't realize this, the United States controls this world that we're on and they have for many decades now. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it's been a one-man show. Everybody else is just catching up. That's reality. We do whatever we want. And the other countries know it behind the scenes. They're not going to admit it up front because they want to appear like they have control, but they know it. Okay. Thank you for those donations, guys. Let's get back to our main event here. Okay. So now he explains how the electron works. This is actually pretty good. Your questions you ask good questions. What's the significance if electron are not a single charged particle is actually dipole magnet. So there's impossible have atomic model with something orbiting around a positive charged particle. It was naturally connected. So in in in real Adam like all the images with technology we all see tech just like a lettuce shape of the the the sesame ball you know letter shape they have a they have elasticity that means they have a distance but they they cannot separate you know they have elasticated to recovery um so the significance is if there is no principle orbit right so there is no such concept quantum jump quantum leap which is a very very controversial odd concept at the during the year you know uh news proposed this one because in in reality the solar solar let's use a solar solar system you don't see a planet jump into another orbit out of nowhere planets don't just Mercury doesn't jump into Venus's orbit that's what he's talking so again this is really interesting here now it needs to be contextualized so people can understand and again this is related to the conversation on Monday about energy states on orbitals of a nucleus the electron energy state and their orbitals He's saying if we don't look at it like something spinning around the nucleus, if we look at it more of like a wave function, then this idea of jumping from one orbital to the next, this no longer makes any sense. What do you mean we're jumping from one orbital to the next? And then here Terrence Howard saying, "Do you see a planet jump from one orbital to the next?" No, it's not something that happens. But at the quantum level, that's how that's what we see when we measure. We can see there's these different energy states of a hydrogen atom where the electron can like be in this energy state. So what could that really mean? Actually, someone just said it in the chat. Maybe it's some sort of vibrational mode of the hydrogen atom instead. Like there's the ground state is one vibrational mode and then the other excited state is a different vibrational mode of the same atom because everything is waves. Right? Now that's beautiful. Why? Because of simatics. because of simatics which is this idea where at certain sound frequencies patterns begin to form. So what if at different frequencies we just see different patterns in our nucleus and the electrons guys to me this is I got to say conceptually strongly agree with that viewpoint strongly agree and the reason why this is a major breakthrough I hope you're paying attention and you come back on Monday the reason why this is a major breakthrough is that if it really is just a matter of manipulating the frequency that and if we also agree that 0 point energy means that what we think of as the ground state is not really the lowest that there's all this still to go then that means when we say n= 1 is the ground state orbital of the electron around our atom there is theoretically ways to get lower we should be able to theoretically get a lower ground state, a lower or lower electron orbital state if we manipulate the frequency. We manipulate the frequency theoretically, why can't we get lower? Pretty crazy. I can't wait to talk about it on Monday, guys, cuz it also means just a last spoiler I'll say is that what would it look like if you did that? I asked AI for like two hours last night reviewing it and the answer was plasma. It would create a plasma. Going to be interesting conversation, guys. Okay, let's finish up our talk for tonight, though. Let's go back to that. I think I want to let this guy talk for like one more minute. Talking about Oh, actually, no. I think we're No. Um, let's go. Uh okay so he kind of talks about the ether here pretty good very last particle an object go ahead yes uh we have a different definition understanding about the universe you mean the universe consider space a threedimensional space and time and time right uh of course in ter's explanation you have a boundary I believe he was talking about the boundary so he mentioned about the ether the so-called the ether I do believe light have nothing to do with a particle. Light is a wave. In order for wave to propagate wave need a carrier which is if we do not use uh either so I would say is electron is a magnetic of it's a mag magnetic medium electromagnetic medium. So now let's talk about he said the boundary I said the universe of threedimensional space is infinite and the time is infinite. However, I did not mention say hey the medium the light carrying electromagnetics the medium has to be infinite. So for let's say for each solar system we may have a concentrated medium has a boundary. So it traveling to somewhere coming back you will see that one right? Yes. Does not exclude entire universe does not have a vacuum space without even medium. So what happens that to that location you will never see light. Wow. However, whenever we can see light from the big band 13.8 billion years ago, since we can see the light, so we know there is filled with the medium throughout our visit. Wow. So, first of all, 13.8 billion. Better go check the newest scientific papers, guys. We're talking about 26 billion years nowadays. the cool kids are in terms of age of the universe, but the real the coolest kids, you know, the coolest kids know the universe is probably infinite. And that's what actually he's saying there. Really controversial from a NASA guy to say that the universe he thinks is infinite. And that also he says he's basically saying the ether is real. He's saying it's an electromagnetic medium. So guys, what's an electromagnetic medium? Uh the zero point energy field. He's talking about the ether. He just doesn't use that term. And and what he's getting at there is that if the universe is infinite, if this energy is infinite, then what did I just say? The energy is infinite. And there was a part in here that I kind of skipped over where they talk about reormalization. Reormalization was when mainstream physics said the math says there should be infinite energy and they said well we don't see that with our eyes so we're just going to fudge the numbers and just renormalize it literally this is real by the way but when you think about it conceptually like you did right there I mean you the the NASA Okay, you realize inf energy being infinite is the most logical answer. There is probably infinite energy. The universe is probably infinitely large and we're probably sitting in infinite energy. And that means we should be able to tap into that infinite energy anywhere we're at. Anywhere we're at. That's the thesis of the the main the main story here. Now, let's jump ahead to him. Uh thanks Etherfly saying that I guess he rips on academia here. Let's take a look matching it to a universal um conformed system. So if you add in to that um let me see Dr. Do you question for you do do you from you know working with NASA the government how often do you guys use whether it's for papers credibility things that you question how often do you guys use grock or open a chbt we are not allowed you're not allowed um I believe in you use reliability in the uh you know integrity of use use this third you know use this commercial software uh that's not really vested uh you know this accuracy and so I I believe we have to write exactly use our load all of the writing or something. I I believe it still has a reservations. Amen. I've been very interesting. Yeah. All of the stuff that we've been doing, the reason that we were forced to go to the I route was um like like I said, I brought all of the wave conjugations. I brought them to the actual geometry to people like Eric by peer review. Is that is that how it's seen in your world where a peer review is another person that's a qualified doctor you know schooling engineer they've done the right thing to look there that's in that's the common practice in in established physics community but I believe this is a data keeper to silence gatekeeper to squash to suppress really wow different opinion yes and this is a very convenient tool say how many peer review you have how many sidings you have if you do not they they hard very hardly even get you to to go through the publication if you cannot be publicated, right? So, how can you get a cited get a peer reviewed, right? The only peer review you submit a paper, they submit they send those what is several review board members. You know what they have if you disagrees with their fundamentally concept you said entire quantum mechanics is not true and even relativity is hypothetical is uh you know of course you will you will not get daylight. No, but they want to keep their entire livelihood is based upon maintaining their current status quo. So, both of them are right here, right? I mean, I just railed against it. Academia sucks. They're like the worst right now. Peer review process has completely failed and it's just become this big gatekeeping process about do you know the right people? If so, we'll scratch your back. And there should be no surprise that under any type of system like this, we get no progress. It's just a big scam. People are just reaping money for research and they're not producing any results whatsoever. And they're being protected by other people that have produced no results over their lifetime. And in some cases, people have won Nobel prizes for science is going to be proven wrong. Going to end up being proven wrong. People that are still alive, they're going to be alive. So of course those people have a negative incentive to let other people prove them wrong, right? And then these encrusted ideas get put in and anybody that goes against those ideas and beliefs, they don't get their their paper peer reviewed. They don't get some anybody to sign off on their paper. They don't get it published. So Terrence Howard does have a good point that he should be able to get his stuff peer reviewed, but the reality is there is no peer review process. People think that like you just upload your paper somewhere and then some a credentialed PhD like just reviews it one day. Peer review doesn't mean anything anymore. This certainly doesn't mean that if that's what people are thinking in their head, that is what happens. Peer review generally just means making your paper available to the public scrutiny. And there are big wide ranges of scientific papers, things from like experimental science versus just research science and other people just coming up with theories and mathematical equations. So you have a big swath of different types of scientific papers, whereas Terren Howard's is really just theory, right? Just a theoretical paper, which is great. Sure. if I if I didn't already know all about zero point energy and have theories by people that are much more credentialed and have been writing the papers for decades and decades and decades like Hal Pudof right little spoiler about Hal Pudof from um my Twitter earlier found uh JK Philly fan found this scientific paper and in it Robert Forward The Robert forward that figured that we should be able to produce infinite energy from the Kasmir effect said this about how Pudaf, the person that started all this by saying that gravity and inertia are caused by vacuum fluctuations. That's what Robert Forward said about Hal Pudof. He said he's the person that started all of this by saying that gravity and inertia are caused by vacuum fluctuations. Okay, that's in a scientific paper by Robert Ford that is signed off on by Franklin me. I don't talk a lot about about Franklin me, but he is almost certainly like the smoky man in the Air Force that was running all this research with Tal Pudof. Yeah. Wow. Funny part is like not a lot of people really understand the significance and the context of this, but like a lot of this stuff is like I feel like if more people understood this context, my life would actually probably be in danger. But people don't really understand the context and the significance, so no one really cares. It's pretty hilarious. Like that post by Robert Ford's basically saying Hal Pudof is definitely the final boss. Like he is the number one expert in the world on zero point energy. No question. Nobody can say that they had dudes that were like figuring out how to extract energy in the 80s and writing scientific papers for the Air Force Research Labs saying that Hal Budof that you that he is the the number one guy. telling you guys, I'm right about PA Pluto for sure. He's the dude. Okay. Um, back to Did I lose the Oh, where'd it go? Um, yeah, they talk a little bit about how we see science and how we see theories here. I'm going to just kind of skip ahead a little bit this and let's just go I want to go back to uh my guy here um the NASA dude because he's the bomb. So here he talks a little about James Clerk Maxwell. Now this is I'll explain why this is important once we get to it here. Let me give you my version. Um before James Clark Maxwell they trade electric electricity and mechanism completely separately and what James Clark Maxwell did is unify them as every connection. So it defined you know one of his equation defined electric field are time varying of magnetic field. Let me explain in my own discovery please. The so-called electrostatic electro field this is a secret in my theory called yuan theory of everything static electric field is exactly magnetic field and dynamic electric field that means what time varying of magnetic field is when you have a magnets magnets has magnetic field right magnet in motion that's what called time varying whenever you have a moving magnetic field that's called electric field that's generating electricity And the thing with our universe is they measure things as if it's as if it's dead. But everything is in motion. Everything is alive and in. Okay. So the thing I liked about that was the idea of the timevarying magnetic field. So you know when I've heard that when have I heard the whole idea of a time varying field? Uh with respect to alternating current with respect to alternating currents. Are we converting wind? Are we converting kinetic energy into electricity when we are spinning our magnetic when we're spinning our copper coil through our magnetic field to produce electricity? No, what's happening is the mag the uh copper coil is changing its orientation through time as it passes through the magnetic field. Huh. And that causes electricity. What the the phenomenon we know of as electricity. We should have been trying to tap into that. We should have been trying to understand the the root cause of the phenomenon of electricity like Tesla was. And Tesla figured it out. And and that's why I am going to keep promoting the hell out of that energy from the earth. It's basically just a tube. It's just a tube that can pull energy from the Earth from the rotation of the Earth. Tesla figured stuff like that out. Knew that we could just harness ambient energy from the Earth, from space itself. He knew that. Um, I'm going to skip the next part about Terren Howard, but about his like what does he want? I think it's really important is that he says he wants to change the planet. Wants to change the planet. use the technology to build a better world. I agree. Couldn't agree more. In fact, uh for me, my number one cause is homelessness and poverty that we can end that suffering. And there's a lot on this planet. And then there's a lot of talk about suppression and whether or not Terren Howard's paper kind of solves the world. [Music] Um and this discussion that gravity is nothing more than an effect of electricity. An effect of electricity. Now the NASA guy actually here does a good job of explaining this. So I'm going to let him explain why we don't even need the four forces. Now why is this important is on Sunday I'm going to talk to Salvatore Py and he's basically said that the super force gives rise to all of the other four forces and that we can engineer reality. So S's been saying a lot of stuff that's very similar to what these guys have been saying here on this podcast and to what Randall Mills was saying regarding using this to create a replicator Star Trek replicator. So here we go. uh uh documented right and without gravity and without gravity and this is a very important I I wanted to uh before the ending I wanted to make sure audience understand what that means and also I want to add another things before we end this one is without quantum mechanical model the fundamental force only one fundamental force and I want to try to explain why we do not need strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and the gravity. Please. Okay. Why we don't need the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force or gravity? That's damn NASA guy came out here to play. He's not he's not messing around like this. For him to come out here on Patrick McDavid like this this boldly, this is pretty solid. Like he's the real MVP. Terrence Howard is fine, but my man here is the real MVP of this podcast. No question. Let's let him cook. So remember I said that there is no called a solar solar uh called planetary model. So there is no orbiting electron. So all electron and the neutron and the proton they're all made by magnetic particles. So they all have charge. Of course the neutron would say hey cancellation a positive and negative cancellation become a neutron. But that's that's not important. The most important thing is since every particles are magnetic particles. So they are not they are not going to happen. When magnets contact you have a called a like charge repel because magnetic magnetic force is coupled north uh north and south is a couple whenever you two magnets in contact what happens if you see now we have a like charge repel it rotates eventually always in contact that's the most stable structure that's why we see all matters all atoms are in the one piece they are not not separate super so what that means Okay, Mr. Man. Okay, he's cooking over here. Okay, so he's basically saying he's like, if I have two magnets and they are repelling each other, what's going to happen? One magnet's going to rotate and then they're going to attract and then they're going to cancel out, become neutral, right? And he's saying this is why everything comes together. This is why we have stuff come together. Because any two things, everything is a magnet. Everything is a magnet. And when we have two sides that come together that attract, they come together. And if they don't orient, they'll reorient and come together. And then when that happens, what happens? It's neutralized now, right? If I have a posit one positive charge, one negative charge, they come together. Now I have some mass here and it's neutally charged. That's just this is basic math, basic physics. This is why guys, you don't need to have some advanced degree. This doesn't take advanced calculus to understand. It's just plus one and minus one. Can you understand that? Then you can understand physics. Let's let him keep cooking. We do not need a strong force. The strong force is is is mentioned based on single charged particle single charge see nucleus made by protons and neutrons. They all like charged particles or you know even no charge but how can they how they overcome magnetic called electrical repulsion. So that's why they create artificial force. So this dark matter and dark energy. So, so everything naturally in contact. So, then we do not need a strong force and we also do not need a weak neural waker force explain the radioactivity. So, so alpha you know decay. The particle basically the particle fly out from the nucleus. You know in quantum in current theory nucleus does not have electron, right? So this is pretty wild man. This is super this is actually super controversial cuz he's basically saying here we don't even need our whole view of particle physics. He's saying if we just look at everything as a dipole then things are just going to come together. like he they're saying like what this strong nuclear force this stuff that's like keeping things apart. He's like we don't need any of this anymore. And then Terrence Howard is saying yeah they had to invent dark matter and dark energy to explain why are things stable. Essentially what he's getting at is why are things stable when they shouldn't be stable. We had to invent this idea of dark matter and dark energy to explain this stability. He's going it's a matter of we're looking at the problem wrong. Space isn't empty. These things aren't particles. These things are waveforms in a medium. Waveforms in a medium. And if we change that perspective, we still use the same physics that got us to this point. And it takes us to the next level, manipulating gravity, pulling free energy from the medium itself. But in radiation wake nut radiation we have electron ejected from nucleus it does not happen. So, so basically the nucleus the the so-called ejection of particles from nuclear the nucleus itself is a magnetic particles and under external uh external interaction somehow suddenly turn the particle become originally becomes opposite attract suddenly become a light repulsion and of course in India so weak nuclear force explain this radiative can be easily interpreted by magnetic repulsion wow So magnetic repulsion can explain radiation. Why? Because a nucleus, what is a nucleus? It's just a bunch of combinations of positive and negative charges that have come together to create this big neutral overall neutral body. And he's saying, well then what is it when an electrons getting shot out of the nucleus? What's really happening? What's actually really happening is that one of the negatively charged aspects of this big nucleus is being ejected is being ejected. This is actually I love I don't know how is this not just the answer. It's leaking an electron. And so then when it leaks an electron, what happens? Now you have a free electron and what's left over? What's left over is now a positive slightly positively charged ion because now you've lost one electron. It's no longer neutral anymore. Isn't it just really simple? Isn't physics just really easy? Sometimes I would think we make physics much harder than it needs to be. Like everything's just positive and negative charges. And he's going to give us an amazing analogy right here. I think I explained that just really really well. Not to toot my own horn, but that was a great explanation. Now I was just going to I'm going to let this play. And radiation is is more easily explained as being um discharged electrical potential or devitalized electrical. Skip I'm targeting college student or high school student. Okay. So I try to explain so what gravity is now remember one thing gravity force is different than all other three fundamental force based on the quantum theory right model of physics say gravity is a unilateral attraction only force there's a lot of repulsion right so we say oh ant gravity is not possible that's all wrong okay so so what is gravity based on the current definition gravity is unilateral attraction force you know one thing so gravity is not functional force do you agree Grab your mic. Oh, so gravity is not a fundamental force. Just based on that one. All fundamental force. It's an emerging binary. It's an emerging force. I like the term. So emerging property of a mass system. So emerging from what we are talking about force. You have emerging from a force. It's resonance. Resonance steals the vibration. Yeah. So what is gravity? I actually forgot what he says here. So gravity is not a fundamental force. Extremely important to understand. Gravity is an emergent phenomenon. And the simplest way to understand gravity is once we realize space is not empty. You can imagine my screen here is space, right? This is space. If I have more space over here or more stuff in this space over here, energy mass in this half than I have over here, I'm going to have a flow. I'm going to have a gradient between the two points, between the two sides. That gradient is what we think of as gravity. And when I add a bunch of mass, it displaces the zero point energy, if you want to think of it like that. and creates this suction effect that we feel of as a pressure gravity. gravity. Now let's see what he has to say. Space energy chat mode is still not force yet. I know you you're almost there. Okay. Sometimes people say electromagnetic force. I would say simplify to magnetic force. But that again is motion. All of these things happen as a result of their motion. Motion require force because of existence. So so this is a natural bone of magnetism in every single matter particles and that one cause interaction means what combine them or repel them right interaction. So so what I try to say is uh then let's reframe this called gravity is not fundamental force that's number one gravity is a emergent property of a particle system of magnetic force. So we can say uh gravity is a second effect of electromagnetic body. Gravity is a secondary effect of an electromagnetic system. And what is our electromagnetic system? The zero point energy. The zero point energy is an electromagnetic phenomenon. The zero point energy. He's saying it without saying it. But honestly, I I could never have asked for if I had interviewed that guy and that's what the responses he was giving me. I every single one is a yatsi. You got a NASA guy out here basically saying 0 point energy is real. Our particle view is incorrect and the implications of that he doesn't really dig into very much but are huge. Um saying that the ether is potentially real. I mean absolutely. Wow. So, let's break down what the claims were here today to figure out what we think the goal, what the conclusion was of this discussion. After this, they kind of just talking to some other stuff. We'll get into the moment of Zen in a minute. After this, I I I'll try to find out where it is. Oh my god. Uh, so I made a list here. the one times 1 equals two. Maybe we shouldn't have led with the 1* 1 equals 2. Probably turned people off. I think 1* 1 equals two is wrong. The explanation is that he's using a physical interpretation of 1* 1 equals 2 instead of a mathematical construct. And of course, if you do that, you're going to have people attacking you. Um, his extracting energy from the vacuum patent, I give it 50/50 because conceptually I would say it's correct, but it's nothing special. A bunch of people have come up with conceptual patents that can extract energy from the vacuum. At this point, you got to just kind of do it or your thing has got to be unique or extremely detailed in a way where you know like I mean we're reviewing devices that are literally pulling energy from the rotation of the earth. Okay? So, if you're not up to that, that's where the bar is at for us. It's pretty damn high if you want to be considered for free energy influencer Ashton Forbes looking at your stuff. Okay, next one is the idea that molecules could be broken apart at low energy cost, negative energy potentially. That one I'm going to go ahead and say he might be right. He might be right. Everything tells me even though I don't have hard proof that we should be able to achieve negative energy states that this will allow for like a hydrogen to break apart from an oxygen atom in water molecule for example and other molecules. I'm going to say that Terren Howard is right about Elon Musk as well. I believe that Elon Musk thinks that space is a vacuum and that that's where Elon Musk is goes wrong. I know a lot of you think that Elon Musk is lying. He knows about zero point energy, knows about all this stuff. I just I disagree. I got to go with my gut on this one. So, I'm going to agree with uh Terren Howard on that point. I'm also going to agree with him that we do not need to be harvesting asteroids. I think being afraid of an asteroid is [ __ ] We are not going to get wiped out by an asteroid, chat. We are well beyond being able to be wiped out by an asteroid. That's not going to happen. The asteroid, any asteroid big enough, we're going to see it. The smaller asteroids could maybe cause some damage, the ones that we can't see, but that's not going to take us out. We also don't need to be mining resources on asteroids. The rationale is if we can tap into the zero point energy, if we can tap if we can literally do what Terrence Howard says and tap into the resonant frequency of specific elements, then we've opened the door to Star Trek replicators and producing whatever we want at the atomic scale. Star Trek replicators. Why the hell would we ever go try to get a asteroid that has diamonds on it? We don't need that [ __ ] We can just make diamonds. We can make gold. We don't need any of that. Okay. Um, and then let's see, the rest of the points are mostly actually related to uh Dr. U. I I presume he's a doctor. Um, from NASA points about the electron. Our model of the electron is I think we can safely say incorrect. The particle view of the electron is incorrect. we have imaged the electron and we know it's not a particle. So that seems pretty non-controversial. I think the more controversial aspect is whether or not every electron is a little magnet and I think that absolutely they are. So I agree with NASA you Dr. you that they're all little magnets. And if we don't think of a posetron and electron as different particles and think of them as the same thing, maybe with just different spins or different properties to them, then I think that all of physics at the m the quantum scale makes more sense. agree strongly with Terrence Howard's view that the ether is correct and getting rid of the ether is what caused a lot of these problems. I this is something that doesn't matter. This claim Terren Howard believes that space is actually limited. He says that he doesn't believe space is infinite in this interview. We didn't watch it but he says that the NASA guy says he thinks it's infinite. I disagree with Terren Howard on that. I think that space is infinite. That's my personal view. don't really have. It's just a belief. That's my view. Um I agree that the peer review and academic process is lacking and failing us, but I don't believe that Terren Howard is being suppressed. I don't Terren Howard has more access to people and things than most people ever will. And now that he's gone on Joe Rogan, he's had more eyeballs on his stuff than most people will ever get. The reality is Terren Howard's stuff just doesn't really make a lot of sense. AI says that. Other people that read it say it. And the sad hard truth is this is that it's not just you have to figure it out and it makes sense in your own head. You also have to be able to explain it in a way that it makes sense to other people. That's the truth about physics. And this is also true of people who are genius PhDs and what have you as well. If you can't explain it in a way that it makes sense to other people, then you don't understand it well enough yourself. Shouldn't just be about you it making sense to you. It should be like how do I explain this in a way that it makes sense to other people. That's what it is. It's about a physics is about a shared mutual understanding of our reality based on observation. Oh [ __ ] chat. I am cooking right now. Okay. Um, I agree with Terren Howard that we have to have the world change. I literally think every day about this technology, the implications of this technology, the dangers of this technology, but ultimately we can't wait. We have to change the world. What are we waiting for? Humanity is not going to change. So, we have to let this technology come out and see where it's going to take us. I love the idea that we don't need the four fundamental forces and potentially we just came up with these forces under a flawed conceptual view of the atom and of electrons and that maybe there's just one force, the super force. And maybe that force is what gives rise to everything else we see. And if we can engineer that force, that would be like saying we can pull energy directly out of the vacuum. That's what that would be saying. If you can just manipulate the orbital of the hydrogen atoms anything you want from a physics perspective, from a chemistry perspective, that's what it would mean. So guys, I hope you guys enjoyed this review. I try to keep my reviews as impartial as I can. Um, and I think that there was a lot. If you if you add up all those things, overwhelmingly I agree with Terren Howard. The downside is when I disagree, I pretty vehemently disagree with his views. And also, I think that if you're going to have a conversation like that, I want to hear more from the NASA guy. I don't need to hear more about this is why this is so important. We get it. I just want to hear the hard physics, more of the physics discussions. I thought every time the NASA guy was talking, it was amazing. I was learning new things. It was helping me understand stuff. Um, and it was great. So, in fact, I might reach out to him. Maybe he'll come on my show. We'll see you guys. So, tonight guys, uh, our moment of Zen. Trying to figure out how I'm going to find it. Um, let's see. Oh, yeah. Okay. Oh, here we go. Here's your moment of cart. Here's your moment of zen, chat. Hopefully, this works. Terren Howard talking about losing your man card, chat. Your moment of zen. What Heath had to do in order to get to where where he was at. There's a lot of things that people do that end up sitting and they can't get over it and they got to keep getting high hoping to get it out of their head. You know, when you lose your man card, that's the only thing I can think of. You lose your damn man card. What is that? What do you mean by that? You give up your ability, your right to being a man. A man don't take it. A man gives it. So when you give up that man card, you don't get that back. Are you saying what I think you're saying? No, I'm saying what what I'm saying. You don't get that back. You get you you come into this world as a man one time. You give up that right for anything, for fear of being hurt, fear of somebody doing something, for wanting to gain something. When you give up that man card, right, you lose some spiritual energy that has always been pushing through. Like if a woman gives up her Well, chat, that was your moment of zen. I hope you enjoyed it. Have a great night, everybody. I'll see you guys on Monday, guy. Actually, I'll see you guys on Sunday. Hard truths episode. Number three with Salvador Pais, guys. 400 PM Eastern time. Sunday. We're doing it live chat. F it. We're doing it live. Check us out. Peace everybody. Later. Love you guys. [Music] Out in the fields where the skies are wide, talking about a journey through the cosmic ride. Einstein and Thorn, they set the stage for a trip through time across the space age. Wormholes connect distant points in space. Traversible paths to a far off place. No black holes pull, no crushing weight, just a cosmic tunnel to a distant gate. In wormhole, stargates, negative energy travel through the cosmos, it's our destiny. MH370, where did it go? Boner trip 7 through a wormhole, but we're talking wormhole. Stargates, negative energy. Travel through the cosmos, it's our destiny. MH370, where did it go? Boing triple 7 through a wormhole [Music] [Applause] [Music] flow. Exotic matter. Negative energy is the key to stabilize the wormhole for you and me. Quantum vacuums squeezed so tight, creating conditions for this wondrous flight. Static fields and lasers in the lab they play. Generating forces in a new kind of way. Gravitational squeezing cast force negative zones we need to stay the course. Stalking wormhole star gates negative energy travel through the cosmos. It's our destiny. MH370. Where did it go? Boing triple 7 do a wormhole float thin shell formalism plate so fine spherical geometry we realign energy conditions that we must defy for a stable wormhole let's give it a [Music] try forces balancing The plate creating the throat. Open the gates from Earth to the stars in a single bound. A shortcut through space profound. Engineers and dreamers hold the key to future worlds and what we could be. With science in hand, we forge ahead through the cosmic paths that we now tread. [Music] We're talking wormho, stargates, negative energy. Travel through the cosmos, sitting star destiny. MH370, where did it go? Blowing trip 7 through a wormhole flow from the fields to the stars. We break the chains. Understanding the universe, we make the gain. Little Hula Crump shines, bringing truth to light. Through his music, we'll explore the night with wormholes and stargates. Our path is clear.