"They Stole My Patents" - Terrence Howard RAGES On Tech Theft, Science Clash & Marvel Drama | PBD Podcast | Ep. 571

Actor Terrence Howard joins Patrick Bet-David to discuss his departure from Hollywood, revolutionary scientific theories, and his battle for recognition in the academic world. A mind-blowing conversation that challenges mainstream physics. ------ Ⓜ️ MINNECT WITH TERRANCE HOWARD: https://bit.ly/42k9hZ2 👕 GET THE LATEST VT MERCH: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BZbD6l⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3BZbD6l 📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/41rtEV4⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/41rtEV4 📰 VTNEWS. AI: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3OExClZ⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3OExClZ 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g57zR2⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4g57zR2 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A 📱 CONNECT ON MINNECT: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4ikyEkC⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4ikyEkC 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3ZjWhB7⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3ZjWhB7 🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BfA5Qw⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3BfA5Qw 📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! ABOUT US:Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive, save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states. Chronic migraine means 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox, onabotulinumtoxin A, is a chronic migraine treatment that prevents headaches in adults. It's not approved for adults with migraine who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Botox prevents, on average, eight to nine headache days and migraine probable migraine days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

• 0:46Speaker 01

  Huh, I'm having fewer headache days this month.

• 0:48Speaker 00

  Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 1:27Speaker 02

  So after I'm done here today, I'm going to put online the equations necessary to have unlimited energy just to say [BLEEP] you to the world.

• 1:38Patrick Bet-David?

  Interesting. Okay, so can we get Dr. Yu out here, Rob, if you don't mind?

• 1:42Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:43Patrick Bet-David?

  You guys have never met?

• 1:44Speaker 02

  Never met.

• 1:45Patrick Bet-David?

  And you're currently working for NASA?

• 1:47Speaker 02

  That's correct. I don't have the degrees he has, and guess what he doesn't have? He doesn't have an understanding of how the universe works.

• 1:56Patrick Bet-David?

  You don't think Eric Weinstein has an understanding?

• 1:57Speaker 02

  He has no understanding.

• 1:59Speaker 04

  Entire quantum mechanics built on this model.

• 2:02Speaker 02

  He's wrong.

• 2:03Speaker 04

  He's bringing another dimension.

• 2:05Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:08Patrick Bet-David?

  If another country gets their hands on this.

• 2:10Speaker 02

  It's an end of America.

• 2:11Patrick Bet-David?

  What have you found?

• 2:12Speaker 02

  If I have to go to China, they won't hesitate a moment to use Lynch pad, which they're forcing me to do. Do you know that they took away my passport?

• 2:21Patrick Bet-David?

  Why does this matter?

• 2:22Speaker 02

  Puffy invited me.

• 2:25Patrick Bet-David?

  Are you saying what I think you're saying?

• 2:26Speaker 02

  He's like, I think he's trying to fuck you. That's what my assistant said. I was like, oh.

• 2:30Patrick Bet-David?

  I had no idea we're gonna go this direction with the podcast.

• 2:32Speaker 02

  If it's wrong, you'll never hear from me again. I'll walk away. But if I'm right.

• 2:53Patrick Bet-David?

  So for most of us, when we think about Terrence Howard, we think about an actor, we think about Iron Man, we think about different movies he's been in, right all over the place. But one day in 2019, when he retires, he talks about he has some findings. He has certain patents. He has 90-plus patents, goes on Rogan's podcast, talks about it openly. Then Rogan brings Weinstein, Eric, they have a great debate together. And it was interesting saying, I need peer review. And Eric says, you're not a peer to review what you have. And then Terrence and I start speaking, and he says, I want you to put my white papers through any kind of AI to look at it and have some folks look at it. So I said, Terrence, why don't we do this? I'm gonna invite a guest. He didn't know who it was going to be.

• 3:34Patrick Bet-David?

  We invited a current NASA employee, 17 years with NASA, Dr. Yu, physicist, spacecraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids and structure branch. He comes in, they sit down, they go through things, and I thought he was gonna correct them on everything, but he actually agreed with them on a few different things. And then we also talked about his career, we talked about Iron Man. He said something on Diddy I've never heard him say before, never. I've never heard him say before. And we talked, he says, I've never done movies like this. And the reason why, you never give up your man card. I'm like, Terrence, what do you mean man card? He said, you know what I'm talking about. I said, are you saying what I think you're talking about? Yes. Then he tells a story of the time Diddy invites him over to his house.

• 4:17Patrick Bet-David?

  And it got so weird that, well, you're gonna have to watch it for yourself. Having said that, enjoy this podcast with the one and only Terrence Howard with an appearance by Dr. Yu.

• 4:43Speaker 05

  My handshake is better than anything I ever signs, right here.

• 4:47Patrick Bet-David?

  You are a one of one?

• 4:48Speaker 02

  My son's right there.

• 4:49Speaker 05

  I don't think I've ever said this before.

• 4:56Patrick Bet-David?

  How you doing?

• 4:57Speaker 02

  I'm incredible right now.

• 4:58Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah?

• 4:59Speaker 02

  Greatful to be here. It's been a long time. You guys have asked me to come a few times, but I wanted to come when I had something special to talk about.

• 5:06Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, and I'm excited about it, and we're doing it the right way today. The reason for it is because when you and I were speaking, we're going back and forth, and Pat, can you read this? Can you read that? Can you read this? And I'm and I'm reading it, it's as if I'm reading a different language, right? Because this is not my space. I'm not in this business. I'm not in, in, um, I, I, I'm good in numbers when it comes down to financials, but different when the numbers that we're talking about here. However, I, uh, we reached out to a couple of people to come down while we're having this conversation. And we wanted to get somebody qualified, so we got ahold of Dr. Weiping Yu, okay? PhD, just to kind of give you a proper introduction, this is his business card from NASA, okay? He's been with NASA for 17 years.

• 5:51Patrick Bet-David?

  His business card says physicist and spacecraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids and structure branch. In a minute, we're gonna have him come in. He's been involved in a lot of different conversations. He knows Eric Weinstein. He's seen the conversation that you had with Eric Weinstein and with Rogan, which was great. The four hour one that you guys did. So we'll get into that here in a minute, okay? And I'll bring him on and he'll grab a seat right next to him. We'll get into it. However, uh, for, for the audience, if you don't mind, because the first time I heard about you going this direction, I'm a big fan of your work. When you came in, the first thing I said is the character Harvey was a

• 6:30Speaker 02

  Gordon.

• 6:31Patrick Bet-David?

  From fighting, right? The way you would speak, the way you would move. But this is the first time we saw you talking about you leaving Hollywood, Rob. If you want to play this clip, go for it.

• 6:41Speaker 06

  Garrett Howard here. You made huge headlines when you said, after you complete these 15 episodes of Empire, you gotta walk away for a while or forever?

• 6:50Speaker 02

  For good. I'm, I'm, I mean, everyone keeps trying to tell me, don't say it's forever, but I've spent 30 Seven years pretending to be people so that people can pretend to watch and enjoy what I'm doing when I've made some discoveries in my own personal life with the science that, you know, Pythagoras was searching for. I was able to open up the flower of life properly and find the real wave conjugations that we've been looking for for 10,000 years. Why would I continue, you know, walking on water for tips?

• 7:22Patrick Bet-David?

  You can possibly interrupt. So what got you to the point of being ready to say this to the world? Because this changed the game.

• 7:30Speaker 02

  Well, we had introduced linchpin years before and was talking about linchpin being the common factor, the universal constitution, but no one would take it seriously. We talked about this grand unifying supersymmetry of the linchpin, that it showed how the universe behaved in contractive or expansive places. We had showed the ubiquitous nature of linchpin. Nobody would take it seriously. So then we decided to, let's now challenge the idea of gravity. And we, in comparison to a resonance model, like the universe is not based upon force, but based upon resonance, you know, but based upon harmonic frequencies. So we

• 8:13Speaker 02

  decided to, let's put the linchpin in the proper place and let's, since we are saying that this is the common factor that everything comes from, let's put a number of linchpins in rotation and see if we can rebuild the planet Saturn. Well, we were able to do that without gravity, without dark energy, without dark matter. How can, and without animation, literally rebuild the planet Saturn in a simulation with the hexagon at the top of it. And we were like, okay, they will take this seriously. So when I went to the, we did this the day before I came to the Emmys. So I was just so excited to say, hey, we don't have to worry about this god gravity.

• 8:54Patrick Bet-David?

  You did what the day before?

• 8:55Speaker 02

  We had did the rebuilding the planet Saturn. That's at the very beginning of my book. The same thing, same thing I showed on Joe Rogan. And I'm like waiting for people to respond, but they. Immediately took it like, oh, he's crazy. He's talking about he's gonna build the planet Saturn. No, I was rebuilding it in a simulator, the same way they've rebuilt planets or tried to rebuild the solar system or galaxies with dark matter, dark energy and gravity. I was able to do it without that and I thought that would mean something. But I forgot, you don't attack somebody's god. Gravity has been their god for a long, long time.

• 9:33Patrick Bet-David?

  Who's god? The traditional scientists?

• 9:35Speaker 02

  Scientists, all of the world. It's, gravity is their god.

• 9:39Patrick Bet-David?

  If I'm, if I'm on a set with you doing a movie, which you've been on many, many sets with some of the greatest actors of all time and you're in the list of some of the greatest actors of all time, yourself. Would I meet this Terrance? Like, if we're sitting, we're not shooting, we're sitting, we're waiting for something. Are you speaking to me like this or no?

• 9:57Speaker 02

  This is the only Terrance there is. You know, I love, I love acting. Um, I love the emotional play associated with it. But what's more important right now than saving the planet, than saving the people on the planet, saving the animals on the planet, saving our entire solar system. We don't know what our responsibility is cosmically, but we have to get past this reef right now. We keep getting pushed back to the beach by the desire to suppress and to control everything. So the only Terrance there is, is the one that's trying to change the world. That's trying to provide the free energy, that's trying to provide the, the new geometry

• 10:40Speaker 02

  that will allow us to fit with the universe instead of competing against the universe.

• 10:45Patrick Bet-David?

  Which actors that you had conversations like this with were also interested and could hang with you?

• 10:51Speaker 02

  Nick Nolte.

• 10:52Patrick Bet-David?

  Nick Nolte?

• 10:52Speaker 02

  Nick Nolte.

• 10:53Patrick Bet-David?

  The great Nick Nolte?

• 10:54Speaker 02

  Nick Nolte, he's, we've had wonderful conversations. We're doing a film called Investigating Sex, um, in Germany. And we spent two months having the deepest conversation. He actually inspired me to keep going further. Before, he was just talking about the B12 shots and how it affects your body. We had deep, deep conversations, him, Jeff Bridges. Jeff Bridges is an incredibly deep thinker. I would love to talk to Mel Gibson, because Mel, I see his mind always jumping.

• 11:28Patrick Bet-David?

  You haven't.

• 11:28Speaker 02

  I haven't, have never had the pleasure of meeting him.

• 11:30Patrick Bet-David?

  You've never met Mel Gibson?

• 11:31Speaker 02

  Never met Mel Gibson.

• 11:33Patrick Bet-David?

  That's an easy one to happen. I mean, it's a couple of guys that know him could make the phone call.

• 11:37Speaker 02

  Yeah, I enjoy, I enjoy his neuro synaptic reactions.

• 11:43Patrick Bet-David?

  Meaning the, the way he views the world from a different lens?

• 11:47Speaker 02

  I love his rhythm of his mind, how it clicks, so. People like that, but most people respond, you know, in a quizzical way. But when you're challenging their status quo, when you're challenging, you know, their basic arithmetic. Because if you were to look at, at a, at a grid of one times one equaling one, you know, it would be, it'd be a straight grid going out with just boxes. On a flat plane forever. Our universe doesn't behave that way. Our universe behaves by everything wrapping itself around, multiplies volumetrically. So what I've been talking about for the longest time is allowing our math to match what the physics work. What does the physical world look like? How does it behave?

• 12:31Speaker 02

  We can't imaginary, throw imaginary structures out there unless, unless the real structures aren't making sense. And the structures that they have as straight lines, platonic solids, they've been wrong for, from the beginning. Because there are no straight lines. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The greater the action, the greater the reaction. The greater the reaction, greater the resistance. The greater the resistance, greater the curvature. Which means everything is curved. So measuring the universe with straight lines and with flat planes is an illogical and irrational thing to do. If you're measuring curved, living, moving reality. And that, that is what they refuse to change.

• 13:12Speaker 02

  They've stopped believing that the world is flat, but they're still using flat mechanics to describe the universe.

• 13:19Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, so you go on Rogan first podcast, you guys talk, and then that leads to you going back with Rogan with Eric Weinstein, the four hour one that you guys did, right? And even, I think Neil deGrasse Tyson did a video reacting to all the stuff that you had, Brian Keating did as well. I asked Brian Keating about the one document that you sent to me, I forwarded to him, and he read a look through it, and you know, and I'll preface what he said, you know, it's, he's trying, really trying to figure things out, going and right, and he made a video talking about one area that he was wrong, I don't know if you've seen that video or not. But he seemed very much willing to sit down and have the conversation, but you know,

• 14:00Patrick Bet-David?

  it almost seems like when even watching Weinstein, Eric with you, it's like, look, we love what you're doing, and, and you know-

• 14:07Speaker 02

  But stop doing it.

• 14:08Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, but stop doing it because peer review, you're not one of our peers, you're not qualified enough to get a peer review, but we'll give you an opinion on this, right? That was kind of like the establishment side towards you. What was your biggest takeaway after your four hours with Eric and Joe, and what's happened ever since?

• 14:24Speaker 02

  Well, I gave Eric a great deal of grace, you know, he was a little rude and cut me off a lot of times, but that's, that's the nature of being in the position of authority. I had hoped that he would evaluate the geometry I 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, of all the linchpins and their configurations, all the wave conjugations and their configurations. The wave conjugation, so you understand, is the electric part of the world, is how plasma, is the contractive part, the, all shapes are the expansive stuff that describes radiation's work.

• 15:06Speaker 02

  The linchpin is the constitution between the two, it's the friend, it's the translator between the big and the little. And I took all these things to his house, I thought he would evaluate them, I thought he would send them throughout his friends, and then I watched him go on Piers Morgan and literally say-

• 15:25Speaker 02

  That ninety-nine percent of everything I said was bathwater was bullshit. The Howard comma.

• 15:32Patrick Bet-David?

  He said that afterwards or pre you guys getting on together?

• 15:35Speaker 02

  He did this after our talk on Joe Rogan, but before our meeting when I went to his house. So I let that go, him saying that ninety-nine percent of everything I was doing was bathwater. And then he said, "The one thing that might be good is this linchpin." But he got there by a mistake, which I clearly showed that it wasn't a mistake, the one on nine point four seven. 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 resonance created from the linchpin. We were able to take the tetrahedron wave conjugations, which is the shape of the fractal in itself.

• 16:18Speaker 02

  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. We've been able to take those same things that he called bathwater and apply them to the three-body problem and solve a three-hundred-year-old problem that Newton couldn't solve, that Poincaré couldn't solve. Because they needed a finite space, they needed curved multiplication. They also needed to reimagine how the prime numbers behave. They needed to understand that gravity was just an effect of electricity.

• 16:58Speaker 02

  But how could we take the things he said was bathwater and solve the biggest problems in math and in physics? When he said it had no physical application, no chemistry application, no application towards mathematics. But we solved all the biggest problems with it. And that's why I gave it to you ahead of time and asked you to run it through your AI.

• 17:19Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, and we did that. I guess the most basic one, okay? So if I go to someone like you, who's an outsider coming in, in the scientist world, right? The mathematics world, and you make certain claims. First question the academia is gonna ask is, what is your qualification? What is your education? Where did you go to? And it seems like some of these guys came out and said, "Well, that school this, the school that." I don't know which one it was, South Carolina or whatever it was, the school, the degree, all this stuff.

• 17:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, I, cause I went to, um, I took over, went over to South Carolina University. Um, and I took them over the, um, at the time I had a company where we were growing diamonds. Um, through, um, not high pressure, high temperature, but through, um, chemical vapor deposition. And the conversation I was having with them, and they were talking about giving me an honorary degree, was should have been in chemistry, because that's the stuff that we were doing. We were transmuting one thing into another thing. So when I went on that other show and I had my, um, honorary degree that was given to me, I had no idea it was in, I had no idea it was in humanities. I thought it was going to be in the thing that I went to talk to them about.

• 18:31Patrick Bet-David?

  So, so, so to them, so to say I'm a, uh, you don't have a PhD from South Carolina, it's an honorary, right? So it's not like, okay. So you, to, to, to act, to the folks who went to school, to see all these different theories, what do they tell you when they explain it to you? What do they say to say, cause I, right now I just went online and I typed in, which scientists agree with Terrence Howard? Okay? And mainstream scientific response, Howard's reus are widely rejected by academic and scientific communities. His interpretation of math and physics are generally considered mathematically incorrect, scientifically unfounded, right? Independent and fringe thinkers, they gave some, uh, folks that are from on the YouTube side that do. Why do rejection claims? One times one equals two.

• 19:14Patrick Bet-David?

  And, and that's the most basic one, right? Where it starts from there and it goes to some of the other theories that you have, that you guys have spoken about. Help me understand how, in your mind, to, to the average person who hasn't put amount of time that you have put in, credibility after one times one times two, one times one equals two, how do you come up with that conclusion?

• 19:36Speaker 02

  Well, if, if I was wrong, then they wouldn't have made such a big stink about it. But the fact that I was able to show them with their calculator. That because they have one times one equaling one.

• 19:48Patrick Bet-David?

  Right.

• 19:49Speaker 02

  An action times an action without a reaction. And as a result of it, you get this contradiction with the square root of two being cubed, having the same value as a square root of two times two, which should say a red flag, a herring right away that there's something wrong with the mathematics. With that being the problem that leads into the distribution of prime numbers, because the number two, any, any, any prime number, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number, always is going to end up in a composite number. But, except with the case of the number two. That's the only prime number that you subtract from another prime number and you end up in a prime number. Why?

• 20:32Speaker 02

  Because the prime, number two is a composite number. But they've changed that by trying to force that into a prime because they want it one times one to equal one and the square root of two being 1.414, they say that times itself will equal, so it's all convoluted. None of their stuff makes sense. If I was a student, a mathematical student, or a calculus student, or an algebraic student, and I come in and I show a proof where, okay, one times one equals one, and the proof of this is the square root of two having a contradiction with being cubed and multiplied by two, that's a loop. Hi, everyone. My name is Terrence Howard.

• 21:15Speaker 02

  I'm an actor, but in the field of science also. So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on MINECT. The QR code is down below, and let's have a great conversation.

• 21:29Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, so then let me ask you-

• 21:30Speaker 02

  That's a problem.

• 21:31Patrick Bet-David?

  So then what's 1.1 times 1.1?

• 21:36Speaker 02

  I don't know.

• 21:36Patrick Bet-David?

  Is it bigger than two?

• 21:37Speaker 02

  It would, it would have to be. Anytime, action times an action has to increase in volume.

• 21:43Patrick Bet-David?

  No, but, but, so if one, one times one is two, that would mean that 1.1 times 1.1 would be, would need to be bigger than two, right?

• 21:51Speaker 02

  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 would just want to get back to a repeat.

• 22:14Patrick Bet-David?

  Even for a basic, simple guy like me, like, let's just say if I have a, a, a dollar and 10 cents in a stock. Okay? And that goes up 1.1%. What is it? A dollar and 10 cents in a stock, but it goes up 1.1% rate of return in my stock portfolio. What's 1.1 of a dollar 10?

• 22:40Speaker 02

  Look it up on a calculator.

• 22:41Patrick Bet-David?

  It's a buck 21. So, so for example, so, and, and, and so if I, if I get a 1% rate of return, you know, on one, you know, i- i- if I, if I, if I do the percentage on the basic 1.1 times 1.1, it's still getting me 1.21. So to me, the basics of the one times one equals two, that throws even a regular guy like me off.

• 23:07Speaker 02

  Well, you've got to remember, in multiplying volumetrically, you're wrapping things back around.

• 23:12Patrick Bet-David?

  Right.

• 23:13Speaker 02

  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 volume metric would be different. But like, even with what you just did, like if I asked you, what's point 10 times point 10? .10 times .10 says .001, right?

• 23:49Patrick Bet-David?

  Right.

• 23:50Speaker 02

  But we know that .10 is a dime.

• 23:54Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 23:54Speaker 02

  We know that a dime times a dime, ten dimes times ten dimes equals a dollar, should equal a dollar.

• 24:01Patrick Bet-David?

  Not necessarily.

• 24:02Speaker 02

  Ten times ten.

• 24:03Patrick Bet-David?

  No, I know what you're doing. I know what you're doing, but, but that is a whole number. A, a dime is still ten cents. So, ten dimes is a dollar. So, it's not the same, in the dollar sense, I see what you're thinking, like .1 equals a tenth of a dollar.

• 24:18Speaker 02

  I'm saying there's a problem with the decimal

• 24:21Patrick Bet-David?

  No, but

• 24:21Speaker 02

  system.

• 24:22Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, but if I, if I, if I have, if, if a dime is .1 of a dollar, let's simplify it, right? But if you tell me, give me ten of .1s, that equals one. So, that means I got ten dimes. But if you do .1 times .1, then you get, uh, what, uh, .01, right?

• 24:44Speaker 02

  .01.

• 24:45Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, but that's a, that's a difference. So, to me, the basics of the math, when you went there, one time

• 24:50Speaker 02

  That doesn't go off to you? That doesn't seem off that if, if, if this was, if we 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

• 25:09Patrick Bet-David?

  No, but I just do investments. The way I look at it is to say, what's, uh, um, what's, uh, uh, uh, .1% of, you know, a, a penny? What's .1% of a penny?

• 25:25Speaker 02

  What's the value of a penny?

• 25:27Patrick Bet-David?

  What's .1% of a dime? It's a penny, right? It gets smaller, right? So, that's the, I don't look at it from the physics.

• 25:36Speaker 02

  Wait a minute, 10% of a penny would be, of a dime would be a penny?

• 25:40Patrick Bet-David?

  That's right.

• 25:40Speaker 02

  10%.

• 25:41Patrick Bet-David?

  So, .1 is 10%, right? So, if you go to the investment side, the argument of one time ones in investments, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, insurance, it stops right there. But you're going out there and saying one times one equals two, and, you know, that's

• 25:57Speaker 02

  We're saying that as far, since, since our econ- economics are still based on this linear, flat plane geometry.

• 26:04Patrick Bet-David?

  Right.

• 26:06Speaker 02

  You can still use the one times one equaling one to perform their economic growth and their economic reactions. But if you're dealing with universal interactions, you have to... Our money may go out linearly and we may measure it on a flat plane, but as far as the universe behaving, how energy behaves, energy curves and wraps back around itself. Energy doesn't follow a linear path. And all of the stuff we're talking about in physics and science is about energy. We're not talking about a fiat system where they can have arbitrary rules for the money, that anything can happen with the numbers.

• 26:48Speaker 02

  Something times nothing can equal nothing and violate conservation of energies when I... If you're saying one times zero, or you can divide... You can multiply by zero, but if you divide by zero, it creates an infinity. And division is supposed to be the inverse operation of multiplication. So what you're supposed to be able to do, multiplying, you're able to reverse that with division. So if you cannot divide by zero, then you cannot multiply by zero. All of their rules that they break so that their economic pathway can remain consistent, you want to do that, do that. But if you're talking about saving our planet, you're talking about how the universe behaves

• 27:30Speaker 02

  and how the energy of the ether behaves, then there's very specific associations to the numbers. Each number is alive. Each number has value. It's not imaginary. It's not intangible. It is going to have an effect. So we have to multiply it according to how the universe does it.

• 27:50Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay. So, okay. So I look at it more from the investment side, the math side, the financial side. But that's your theory? And by the way, Terrence, the reason why I think it's... Folks like you are important. Very important because anybody that challenges the status quo that puts the establishment against the wall to kind of have to prove themselves, I love it. I think Bobby Kennedy did that. And Bobby Kennedy wasn't a scientist. He was a lawyer. And Bobby Kennedy got a lot of people in the health industry to be like, wait a minute, are we supposed to believe 100% of what Fauci is saying? We're not supposed to sit there and believe everything Fauci is saying. And he's not a health guy. So the credibility from the health institution was like, I'm a scientist, I'm Fauci.

• 28:35Patrick Bet-David?

  Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Bobby doesn't know what he's talking about. So I would like to see something happen here where we're seeing a lens. This is why I suggested for you and your wife to watch the, what was it?

• 28:48Speaker 02

  Yes, the Stephen Greer.

• 28:50Patrick Bet-David?

  Stephen Greer documentary.

• 28:51Speaker 02

  The last century, the lost century.

• 28:53Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. So let's go through that. Do you mind just taking a moment and share, you have a certain number of patents? I don't know what the number is, say 30, 30 something patents.

• 29:05Speaker 02

  No, it's right now, we have over 90 something separate patents. We have 30 different trademarks and copyrights, but most of this stuff are hard patents.

• 29:17Patrick Bet-David?

  And the patents, are they all in the States?

• 29:19Speaker 02

  All in the States. Well, I've got them worldwide. You have to, you start at five of them here, but a lot of them are redundant patents in other countries.

• 29:28Patrick Bet-David?

  What is this, Rob?

• 29:29Speaker 05

  That's just how many according to ChatGPT.

• 29:32Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, 94 patents with 60, okay, perfect. So you've got 94 patents. What, what, what new findings? You know, what, what have you found where the average person can benefit from? And if you're sitting there, you said this is worth in the trillions of dollars and you and I are speaking before, you're like, if another country gets their hands on this.

• 29:53Speaker 02

  It's an end of America.

• 29:54Patrick Bet-David?

  What have you found?

• 29:55Speaker 02

  Well, we've been able to innovate, the first thing that everybody already knows about is the tangential flight with linchpin. We have provided tangential flight, the ability to fly around your own center of mass, and unlimited midair bonding. I mean, it's the end of cranes for the linchpin because no matter how large the project is or how small it is, linchpins can modulate and cover over air, over land, over sea. You have flight vehicles that deal with, you know, that are able to deal with the air or deal with space or 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 linchpin is able to do.

• 30:39Speaker 02

  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 our energy systems and what I wanted to share with you, one of the biggest things that I talked about with the Howard comma, its ability to pull energy directly from the van der Waals or from the zero point. You know, we've already provided a means to do that, to where you don't have to pay for any energy anymore. The same thing when I talked about beryllium, utilizing beryllium, even though there was some idiot chemists that came out and said that what I said concerning beryllium was

• 31:23Speaker 02

  wrong, but I dare them to compare beryllium to, or beryllium's reaction to oxygen, the same way that magnesium behaves with sulfur, the same way that selenium behaves with, magnesium sulfur, selenium behaves with, God, I just lost my thought.

• 31:47Patrick Bet-David?

  Selenium?

• 31:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, no, because...

• 31:50Patrick Bet-David?

  Can you pull it up?

• 31:51Speaker 02

  Well, no, no, magnesium, magnesium, you have...

• 31:55Patrick Bet-David?

  Can you pull up the charts, Ron?

• 31:57Speaker 02

  Yeah, really quick. The way that selenium...

• 32:03Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, if you can just pull up the periodic table and zoom in.

• 32:05Speaker 02

  Selenium's relationship with calcium.

• 32:07Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 32:07Speaker 02

  The same relationship that...

• 32:10Speaker 02

  The same way that selenium will mitigate what's taking place inside of calcium, the same way that sulfur will mitigate what's taking place with the magnesium. Oxygen, being the equal and opposite made of beryllium, will mitigate what's taking place with beryllium. And they will always have a strong attraction to each other. So whatever bullshit that was being spoken by those chemists, they do not know what they're talking about. And the problem with utilizing actual beryllium 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 beryllium to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen,

• 32:53Speaker 02

  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've proved that. Science has proven that. Natural phenomenon has proven that. But they want to ignore that.

• 33:13Patrick Bet-David?

  Establishment scientists has proven that?

• 33:16Speaker 02

  They see it in everything... in all of their reactions. That's why they're using a lot of the chemists in a number of the interactions that they have. They'll use beryllium for a particular purpose, because it will cause oxidation. And then they have a means by which to reverse that polarization, pushes, you know, whatever was oxidated onto it. And now it opens up the door again for the beryllium to work. There's a number of means for it. They've seen it work, but because it is in opposition to the oil and industry world, they're fighting it. And so I brought the proof. I brought the simple proof, and I've provided for you guys. I've... on my website, on Terry's Lynchpan,

• 33:58Speaker 02

  there will be a... there's the white paper on how beryllium behaves, and how oxygen behaves.

• 34:05Patrick Bet-David?

  Who's broken that white paper down?

• 34:07Speaker 02

  It's just gone up to my thing. Nobody refu... I can't get anyone to do a peer review. I've sent it off to publishers. Publishers refuse to review it, because Eric Weinstein, Brian Keaton, people came out, said the Dunning-Kruger effect. The amount of pain and suppression that's come my way, because all I've tried to do is provide the proof out there. Nobody wants it.

• 34:31Patrick Bet-David?

  The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people, Robert just completely disappeared on the screen.

• 34:36Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 34:37Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah. People with low competence in a specific area tend to overestimate their abilities while highly competent individuals may underestimate their skills. This occurs when a lack of meta cognition prevents those with low competence. So they're saying you're low competent in this topic. That's what they're saying.

• 34:52Speaker 02

  In this topic. This is what Neil deGrasse came out and said, and so now he owes me an apology. Why? Because with those same things that he said had no value, now we've already put them into a white paper and we've been able to solve the seven millennial problems and the three body problems with the same equations or substances that he said created the Dunning Kruger effect.

• 35:17Patrick Bet-David?

  So everything you sent me, all the, everything of the white papers you sent us.

• 35:21Speaker 02

  All those papers.

• 35:22Patrick Bet-David?

  All of them. Every one of these I have, right? Every one of these was sent to Dr.

• 35:26Speaker 02

  Dr. Yu.

• 35:27Patrick Bet-David?

  Dr. Yu has it. He's looked at them, he's, so he'll come out here in a minute to give his perspective on this, and he's from NASA. But before, before we go there, there is a part of me that believes, you know, there are inventions that the government didn't want to bring out because God forbid if they did, it would decimate multi-trillion dollar industries, oil being one of them. I fully believe that.

• 35:50Speaker 02

  It needs to go.

• 35:51Patrick Bet-David?

  Huh?

• 35:52Speaker 02

  It needs to go.

• 35:53Patrick Bet-David?

  It needs to go. But, you know, who's gonna release it? I don't know. I mean, look how long it took to find out who killed JFK. Look how long it took with Epstein and some of these lists that we are looking, who did what to MLK. They're still hiding it, right? So for them to release it. When it comes on to Musk, what is your opinion on Elon and, you know, him being a net positive to society? Do you have an opinion on Elon?

• 36:18Speaker 02

  Well, I, I think Elon is a genius in his entire approach to dealing with society first and foremost. And he's proven himself to be very capable as far as finding out where a problem lies and then attacking that problem and bringing the right people to it. 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 linchpin because of what he's trying to do in space. One of his problems, though, that I see affecting him is he believes in the vacuum.

• 37:00Speaker 02

  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 Goldilocks zone. This is the Goldilocks zone on our planet. Well, within the solar system, there's the Goldilocks 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 has expanded to such an extent, the hydrogen has expanded to such an extent, there's no way to contain that into the body, the flesh of the body, which is necessary in order for us to keep living.

• 37:45Speaker 02

  Oxygen, everything expands. You'll never be able to bring them back, these 147 million miles, back to where the Earth is. You're not going to be able to do that. Well, the 93 million miles where the Earth is. So, anyone that goes out there, that's a wrap for them. Because, you know, 15 feet underwater, what happens to the nitrogen? It compresses, or 15 feet out of the water, it expands, and it keeps expanding. So, anyone that tries to go out to where Mars is at, at that low-pressure system, where everything becomes mono or diatomic, everything is expanding itself out, you are dead. There's no way, the spaceship would have to be so tight, or a suit would have to be so tight, that you would not have any motion.

• 38:29Speaker 02

  But the amount of expansion will not allow you to be able to come back to the Earth. Like, if you took something from the bottom of the ocean, and you bring it all the way up to the top, and then you try and take it back to the bottom of the ocean, what happens to it? It implodes at the change of pressure. We are made for this particular pressure condition, and 93 million miles away, you're not going to be able to have a human being on Mars, plain and simple. We don't have the proper pressure-conditioned bodies.

• 38:56Patrick Bet-David?

  You don't think so?

• 38:57Speaker 02

  No. It's impossible. You're just going to expand out and blow up. You will blow up.

• 39:03Patrick Bet-David?

  Well, this kind of, doesn't this kind of contradict, though, because on one end... You're saying it's possible to have zero point energy where oil industry and all this other stuff and the industry is saying you're out of your mind, you don't know what you're talking about, there's no way, you know, and, and then, yeah, well, here's what Lynchman, this is what we could do. Elon is saying, I want to go have, you know, life on Mars or on another planet. And you're saying there's no way that's possible.

• 39:31Speaker 02

  No, there's life on Mars, but the life has changed. The life, the life force changes. The system of water, H2O, changes as you go further out. Two, two atoms of hydrogen, one atom of oxygen. I guess the further out you go, what happens to the next one? Does it become two atoms of carbon and then one atom of sulfur? It, it all continues out. The water life principle remains consistent. That's why on, on, on, in Uranus or, or those far out planets, they still have precipitation as rain, but now it's, it's methane that's coming down. And it's just the water or the H2O, like what I was saying on Joe, was

• 40:14Speaker 02

  that the relationship between carbon and hydrogen are the same as the relationship between carbon and silicone and the same between silicone and between cobalt. It's the same tone, it's just under a different pressure condition. So you can manipulate the entire universe by changing the motion and pressure conditions because it's all waves. It's not a physical thing. So as far as our bodies are concerned, if you wrapped an entire ship in molecular excitation and changed to where they are no longer part of the system, now you can be out there. But using our traditional methods, you cannot do that. You have to wrap it in frequency.

• 40:57Patrick Bet-David?

  How much have you followed what he says on how he's planning on doing that?

• 41:00Speaker 02

  Um, he's just trying to get the, the people out there. And I think what they want to do is mine that asteroid belt. That's what they really want to do. And that's what with Lynch.

• 41:10Patrick Bet-David?

  You think the purpose is mining?

• 41:11Speaker 02

  Is mining the asteroid belt. There's, there's, there's one asteroid out there called, um, Psyche that's worth 10 quadrillion, 10 quadrillion dollars worth of, worth of, of tungsten and tantalum and, and rare earth metals inside of there. That's just in one. That's just in one. So their ability to-

• 41:30Patrick Bet-David?

  Said this one?

• 41:31Speaker 02

  Psych, yep. So the ability to mine these asteroid belts, you know, gets rid of all the mining on the planet. They wanna 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.

• 41:46Patrick Bet-David?

  Why not?

• 41:46Speaker 02

  Because what the linchpin brings by the resonant quality of the linchpin, 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 shy in the mathematics, but I have the geometry, I have the patents and all this. So what Eric Weinstein gave me was a book on differential equations and gauge theory. Well, what I was able to do with that?

• 42:26Speaker 02

  Now I understand the math enough and using AI as a guide, you can plug into it and give it the information necessary. Because I'm sure the very first time that they started the quantum computer or the supercomputer, the very first thing they tried to do was solve the three-body problem. But it couldn't solve it. And they tried to solve the seven millennial problems, but they couldn't solve it with those computers. But we've been able to solve it by using, by changing the paradigm, by changing to curve multiplication, by using a finite space, by redistributing the prime numbers, and by utilizing the actual curvature of the universe. We've been able to fix all of those problems.

• 43:10Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, so let's stay on that. Because just yesterday, we're having a very innocent conversation. Here's what the conversation was. Conversation is one of our guys says, oh my God, this is crazy. I mean, I don't know if Terrence knows what he's talking about and all this other stuff. I won't give his name because, you know, he's out there. And so another guy says, I don't know, man. I think some of the stuff he says is. So how do you think the pyramid was built? What do you mean? How do you think those big rocks where you think it was just, you know, big slaves picking it up and putting? I think so. You think men put that up? You don't think they didn't have access to something back in the days? And how come we've not had? So he started kinda going through this, so then you see the debate, right? Your opinion. How was the pyramid built? Based on what you know?

• 43:51Speaker 02

  Well, there's a number of different conflicting ideas on it. But I just saw something very recently on Lost History. Where they were showing that the bubbles inside of the granite, or inside of a lot of the material there, they have these little bubbles that come as a composite. That it was not big blocks of granite that was necessarily brought up there. That they were actually mixing all of this stuff together. There's that approach. But then the idea of using resonance. Something that we've always been able to use. You know, you can, the same way you're able to blow on a sheet of paper or hum and see something vibrate.

• 44:36Speaker 02

  That's something flowed. That's something that's always been been used. And the amount of songs, like if you think about the Jericho, the walls of Jericho, and they went around it seven times, singing, hitting a particular tone. And using harmonic or sympathetic harmonies to either break or to bring things together. There's a number of ways of using frequency. That's how I think all of that stuff was built. I think it was done using harmonic resonance.

• 45:07Patrick Bet-David?

  Interesting. Okay, so can we get Dr. Yu out here, Rob? If you don't mind?

• 45:11Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 45:11Patrick Bet-David?

  Can we get him out here? Okay. Dr. Yu, if you're back there, please.

• 45:17Speaker 02

  Come to the table.

• 45:18Patrick Bet-David?

  His energy is unbelievable.

• 45:20Speaker 02

  I know, I've watched.

• 45:21Patrick Bet-David?

  You are right here, sir.

• 45:22Speaker 02

  I look at him.

• 45:24Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 45:26Speaker 00

  Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is. Responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions. Chronic migraine means 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox, onabotulinum toxin A, is a chronic migraine treatment that prevents headaches in adults. It's not approved for adults with migraine who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Botox prevents, on average, eight to nine headache days

• 46:11Speaker 00

  and migraine probable migraine days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

• 46:14Speaker 01

  Huh, I'm having fewer headache days this month.

• 46:17Speaker 00

  Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxin as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 47:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Great to have you. You met earlier. Pleasure having you on. So, Dr. Yu, if you don't mind, I have your business card here, okay? If you can take a moment. Here it tells me, Wei Ping Yu, PhD, physicist, supercraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids and structures branch. If you don't mind taking a moment and introducing your background, your experience, what you've worked on.

• 47:25Speaker 04

  Okay. First of all, thank you for having me on. And it's great.

• 47:32Patrick Bet-David?

  Terrance wants to fix the...

• 47:33Speaker 04

  He's a perfectionist.

• 47:34Patrick Bet-David?

  Yes, yes.

• 47:35Speaker 02

  I love Ty being right.

• 47:37Speaker 04

  Yes, my name is Wei Ping Yu. I'm currently with employee by federal government, NASA.

• 47:45Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 47:45Speaker 04

  So I'm the physics based on the training. I have a PhD in engineering physics and I have did a lot of fundamental research. And so when I'm the founder of called the Yuon Theory of Everything. Try to bring the bridges between relativity and quantum mechanics. And try to find out a unified unified theory of everything. Just like a Linchpin theory, right? And yeah, and uh.

• 48:18Patrick Bet-David?

  Have you guys ever met before?

• 48:19Speaker 04

  No.

• 48:19Patrick Bet-David?

  This is the first time. This is very important for the audience to know, you guys have never met.

• 48:23Speaker 04

  Never met.

• 48:23Patrick Bet-David?

  And you're currently working for NASA.

• 48:26Speaker 04

  That that's correct. I'm currently working for NASA. But let me make a disclaimer. So all the views and the opinions expressed here represent purely on my own. And does not reflect any of those of my employer, NASA.

• 48:44Patrick Bet-David?

  Fantastic, and I appreciate you saying that. So you know Eric Weinstein? Have you guys have you guys spoken before? Have you guys met before?

• 48:52Speaker 04

  Eric Weinstein called me, so we were talking about on the phone for for about fifteen, twenty minutes. While I was traveling in California.

• 49:00Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, and did you have a chance to watch the exchange with, you know, Terrence and Eric Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast?

• 49:08Speaker 04

  Yes, briefly.

• 49:10Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 49:11Speaker 04

  It's a very interesting exchange, yes.

• 49:14Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, so you we have a document here. I think it's even a maybe a this is this is that was sent by you right to us.

• 49:24Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 49:24Patrick Bet-David?

  It it what was your impression from you hearing the exchange between Eric and what Terrence was discussing? Was there anything where you said there's some credibility to what Terrence is saying here? I don't know if I agree with him, you know, because you would be to the marketplace. You're part of the establishment scientist, you know, you're you've gone through the school and you've gone a different route than he has. What was your impression of the exchange between the two?

• 49:48Speaker 04

  I I know one of the focuses is on the statement, you know, Terrence made by one times one equals two.

• 49:57Patrick Bet-David?

  Yes.

• 49:57Speaker 04

  And I believe a lot of focus on this statement, in my view. I be, I, of course, on my conventional view, I, I would disagree with, with the, with your statement. However, I notice, you know, the definition of one time multiply one is a different between traditional class than in, in Terence's talking. He's bring another dimension, okay? Bring another dimension, three dimensional or some kind of things into this one. So I believe the difference is probably the definition and the model in, in our own mind, the difference.

• 50:42Speaker 04

  I do not believe fundamentally, uh, some, some kind of difference. If we have more time, discuss the detail, but not on the setting.

• 50:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, and what I'm doing 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.

• 51:35Speaker 02

  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.

• 52:05Patrick Bet-David?

  Doctor Yu, you read the white paper, you read all the papers here that he sent, right? We sent you yesterday.

• 52:10Speaker 04

  I don't know.

• 52:10Speaker 02

  Flip through, no.

• 52:11Speaker 04

  I hope you throw them into the AI, because I'm like, this is a lot of stuff.

• 52:15Patrick Bet-David?

  Did you have a chance to look through some of it?

• 52:16Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 52:17Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, what's your impression of what Terrence is saying here? And how much credibility is there behind it?

• 52:22Speaker 04

  Oh, okay. So I would say, I'm not talking about the credibility. I do not believe when the credibility based on the education and how many degrees or how many years, even years of working in the field. I believe this intelligence could come out instant. Like Terrence mentioned, from the gift of divine, is that right? Something, and instantly, like me working in physics field for decades, I just got to recognize there's something fundamental wrong, which something happened, you know, in Terrence's interview, he mentioned about something fundamental wrong with current physics, which I actually agree with.

• 53:06Patrick Bet-David?

  What's that?

• 53:08Speaker 04

  Okay, let me first talk about the first thing. The first thing, talking about the fundamental wrong, this is a secret to current physical community. Is something we got it wrong by we made electron model wrong. This is, electron is elementary particles. In physics is found that elementary particle cannot be subdivided, do not have another detailed structure or something. And we got, if we get this wrong, and what happens next? So if we got the electron wrong, I will explain why we got it wrong, if you have the time.

• 53:46Speaker 02

  Yeah, I can help with that too.

• 53:48Speaker 04

  And then if we get the electron wrong, we get the called planetary atomic model. You know the model, with similar model, the planetary with orbiting free electrons? We got this model wrong. So what I find is there is no. Free orbiting electrons around the nucleus at the nearest 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. What happens if this atomic model have no orbiting orbiting electrons, no free called

• 54:33Speaker 04

  it was a principle orbit? Entire quantum mechanics built on this model.

• 54:39Speaker 02

  Is wrong.

• 54:40Speaker 04

  Were completely out of order.

• 54:42Speaker 02

  Because their foundation 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 accumulated electrical potential. The discharge electricity, the divitalized 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 waveform. It's a pressure condition. It's a resonant that resonant thing that can be manipulated by other frequencies that you don't need actual force, but you can create the conditions to change and affect a waveform.

• 55:26Patrick Bet-David?

  What are you gonna show something? You brought some props?

• 55:30Speaker 04

  I'm gonna expand my statement, say, why we get the electron wrong and the why is so significant.

• 55:37Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay.

• 55:38Speaker 04

  So from, I believe from the seventeen eighty eighty-five, the French physicist Coulomb, you know, proposed the Coulomb's law. It says, there are two type of charges, one is negative, one is positive. And the like charge, repel, unlike charge, attract. This is a fundamental law. It's a great discovery. However.

• 56:05Speaker 02

  It's wrong.

• 56:06Speaker 04

  That's fake.

• 56:09Speaker 04

  The mistake is he described the two charges are carried by two separate particles.

• 56:18Speaker 02

  Instead of having everything being both positive, having both attractors and detractive things. It's a dipole, it's not a monopole in the way they're seeing it. How can something, this is something that always got me. How can, you can say something is charged, positively charged. How can it be negatively charged? How can you negatively charge something? A negative charge is a discharge. Means that it's coming out of it in comparison to attracting into it. So their entire terms of a negatively charged particle is wrong. It's a discharging particle.

• 56:55Speaker 04

  Can let me strengthen your idea.

• 56:58Speaker 02

  Yes, I'm sorry.

• 56:59Speaker 04

  This is a brilliant, you know, a discovery and about the root cause of our physics. So now people would say, how do you know, how can we get electron wrong? Entire modern technologies built on electrons, right? So that's why all the interpretations are needed to be rewritten. So let's assuming electron is negative charged and proton is a positive charged. Now, what happens if we split electron into two halves? Hypothetically split, geometrically split. What do we get? Two negative charged particles?

• 57:42Speaker 02

  Two negative charged particles that come together and make a positive.

• 57:46Speaker 04

  Put the two negative charged particles together?

• 57:48Speaker 02

  No, negative things are always gonna push each other away. They're always gonna push, they're always gonna push each other away.

• 57:55Speaker 04

  It violates Coulomb's law. It cannot exist in this universe or if there's other universe.

• 58:02Speaker 02

  It cannot. And think about Kirchhoff's law regarding the black body. Now, this is where Planck, if you could look up Kirchhoff, this is where the Planck model came from. Max Planck was working off of his model. And part of the radiation from Kirchhoff's law was that a black body, it's always going to radiate into these individual cavities, and these cavities are not going to be dependent on the temperature of the walls, they're going to be dependent upon the temperature of what came in there. That was all wrong. Kirchhoff's entire law is wrong, and that's what Planck was based off of. But you'd look at the Planck model and think about, it talks about if you want to do a

• 58:45Speaker 02

  Planck charge and all of these things, you have to use, you have to use gravity, gravity's included in there, and the speed of light is included in there. But gravity at the Planck charge, at the Planck point, is not supposed to be an effect. It's not supposed to, when you get down to the quantum area, gravity is not something that's able to affect those small areas, so why is gravity part of Planck's constant? Or the speed of light, which we know changes constantly depending upon the medium that it's going in there. So having the speed of light as a constant, having gravity as a constant, and Planck's

• 59:25Speaker 02

  charge lets you know that this is, the Planck's charge, that Planck's entire Planck number is false, because they've changed the speed of light, now they've attached it to another thing in order, instead of, so that the speed of light doesn't fluctuate, they've attached it to the measurement itself, so it's always going to be the measurement. That's wrong. That's fudgery. Rupert Sheldrake talked about that, and about morphisms, with the speed of light being fudged and changed. So all of their principles are seemingly fudged.

• 59:59Patrick Bet-David?

  Who has questioned this over the years? Like, what scientists?

• 1:00:03Speaker 02

  Dirac, Feynman, all of them questioned it. That's what they were like, all of this renormalization makes this stuff bad.

• 1:00:11Speaker 04

  So now, you are running at the speed of light, okay? I'm gonna just try to bring the audience on. So if we say it's wrong, very easy to say. What is right? What is really we talk about the electron, really? What is?

• 1:00:31Speaker 04

  He mentioned about it. So if we cannot have a single charged particle, what happens?

• 1:00:37Speaker 04

  The so-called electron, oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

• 1:00:44Speaker 04

  Are carried both positive and the negative charge as a one particle. Now I want to question the audience. What kind of particle in this world? I know everybody since three years old, you you know this this term. What carry both of the charge?

• 1:01:05Speaker 04

  Do you have a guess?

• 1:01:06Speaker 02

  Hydrogen, everything.

• 1:01:07Speaker 04

  Oh, you are talking about, you know, in chemical terms.

• 1:01:10Speaker 02

  I'm sorry.

• 1:01:11Speaker 04

  I'm talking about in terms of what type of particle, not not that. Magnets.

• 1:01:17Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:01:19Speaker 04

  Magnets is the one it carries both negative and positive charges. And I will explain this, you know, some misconception about the charge and the magnetism. Oh, yeah. But so so so so-called, we so-called the electron is actually bipolar magnet.

• 1:01:38Patrick Bet-David?

  Why does this matter? What does this reveal?

• 1:01:43Speaker 04

  Oh, let let me expand, like, let's let's let's say.

• 1:01:48Patrick Bet-David?

  Please.

• 1:01:48Speaker 04

  Because of we assuming electron is a negative charged particle. So then, you know, this is this is a great news boy. Build his boss model, right?

• 1:01:59Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:02:00Speaker 04

  Build the boss model say, hey, we have a positive charge nucleus. And we have a negative charged electron. How can they can we measure them? Because we assume atoms is neutral neutralized, right? How can measure them with a with a negative particle and positive particle? And when assumption is that 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 this atomic model has to work?

• 1:02:33Speaker 04

  To prevent negative charge and neutron and and and protons in the nucleus attract on each other, it has to be rotated. It has to rotate, create a revolution or we can spin.

• 1:02:46Speaker 02

  And this is what I was saying, the spin is is not because of some spinners. The spin is coming from the the balance of of action and reaction. Because of the resistance, the spin has to occur. Because everything in the universe is balanced, in order for it to interact, it has to spin around it, and that which means that it is a finite and confined space, because otherwise it would just keep moving away from each other. But the fact that it spins tighter.

• 1:03:12Speaker 04

  So rotation is required to create a centrifugal force to balance magnetic electromagnetic attraction. So that's where comes the Bohr's model. And this model is built based on negative charge particle and the positive charge, positive charge nucleus. If both nucleus and electron protons are magnetic particles.

• 1:03:37Speaker 02

  They are.

• 1:03:38Speaker 04

  Are they gonna have this rotating? Do they need this rotating? No, they are naturally connected. So atomic model, so what I find, atomic model has no rotation part whatsoever in in in atomic model. There's no rotation, it only what the parts may vibrate.

• 1:03:58Speaker 02

  It's all vibratory oscillations.

• 1:04:00Speaker 04

  Obviously, that's how light created.

• 1:04:03Speaker 02

  Everything is resonance, nothing, there is no solid matter, there is, it's not a force based universe, it's a harmony based 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 subspace in energy that's coming from the, another thing, they've gotten rid of the ether.

• 1:04:49Speaker 02

  Now, this entire thing, and so they've created all these other particles to carry these charges, all these particles to carry these charges that used to be carried by the ether. They got rid of the ether, and then it was like, but white, light has to be carried on a wave. The ether has always been that way, but what we've proven with the wave conjugations, back to the other question you asked, the wave conjugations, the linchpin, and the all shapes, mirror all shapes, these create the conditions of the ether. They define the ether in itself that allows all this stuff to move, and what they're angry about is not that I just have the patents, but also the super grand unifying supersymmetry,

• 1:05:31Speaker 02

  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 three-body problem, solving that now with the idea of the proton and 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 gonna happen anyway, because we're behind the gun.

• 1:06:08Patrick Bet-David?

  Are you considered a rebel amongst your peers? Would they consider you a rebel, or no?

• 1:06:14Speaker 04

  I believe some generally outside my circle, they, you know, because I basically keep my discovery in-house, and everything, I, when I do did a lot of lecturing or public speaking to university and conference, any have a serious talk with a physicist, they would agree with me after normally half-hour or one-hour conversation, they would agree with me. Let me, let me extend your questions, your asking questions. What's the significance? If electron are not a single charged particle, it's actually a dipolar magnet.

• 1:06:58Speaker 04

  So there is impossible have atomic model with something orbiting around a positive charged particle. It was naturally connected. So in a real atom, like all the images with technology, we all see tech. Just like a lettuce shape of the sesame ball, you know, the lettuce shape. They have a elastic that means they have a distance. But they cannot separate, you know, they have elastic to recovery. So the significance is if there is no principal orbit, right? So there is no such concept of quantum jump, quantum leap,

• 1:07:39Speaker 04

  which is a very, very controversial, odd concept at the time during the year. You know, Newsboys proposed this one. Because in reality, the solar system.

• 1:07:53Speaker 02

  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 about. None of these stuff, there was none of these huge jumps that they were predicting with the electron model.

• 1:08:07Patrick Bet-David?

  Can you pull that up, Rob? Because I fully understand what he's saying, but I want to visually show it. So orbit, meaning if there is one's not gonna.

• 1:08:15Speaker 02

  Electron orbit, yeah. You look up the electron orbit.

• 1:08:19Speaker 00

  Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions.

• 1:08:48Speaker 01

  I hope I don't have to cancel again tonight.

• 1:08:51Speaker 00

  Chronic migraine means 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox, onabotulinum toxine A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It is not approved for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. Botox, the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment, prevents, on average, eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions,

• 1:09:35Speaker 00

  including ALS Lou Gehrig's Disease, Myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton Syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 1:09:51Patrick Bet-David?

  Go to images.

• 1:09:55Speaker 02

  And they believe that electrons spontaneously jump into That's a good one. Yeah.

• 1:10:00Patrick Bet-David?

  Who's they?

• 1:10:02Speaker 02

  Eric Weinstein, the standard model, their whole thing.

• 1:10:06Speaker 04

  Standard model of particle physics.

• 1:10:10Speaker 04

  It's all based on the quantum.

• 1:10:12Speaker 02

  But you have to match it. You're supposed to match it to natural phenomena. Can you imagine if the Earth, out of nowhere, just jumped into Mars's orbit? What that would do to the solar system? And have you ever experienced that in observing any of the other solar systems? Because what's large happens on the small. And what happens on the small happens on the large, because it all has to fit together. You can't have imaginary stories of, okay, this happens in the quantum space, but it's prevented from happening in the macro space.

• 1:10:46Speaker 04

  Can you, can I?

• 1:10:48Speaker 02

  Yes, please.

• 1:10:48Speaker 04

  Enforce this concept. This quantum jump is different than solar orbit, say Mercury suddenly due to eternal force, drift to different orbits. It's totally different concept. In quantum mechanics, everything's fixed and this jump cannot be continued through space and time. It's not space time, okay. Through space and time, it cannot say somehow from this one to other one, you cannot go through the space, you cannot have a time difference. It happens instantaneously. How that happens? It is you have to, the matter has to, like Earth, has entirely disappeared, become a

• 1:11:31Speaker 04

  virtual pair and the instant appear on the other.

• 1:11:35Speaker 02

  It has to vaporize and become a different pressure condition so that it can now fit into the next pressure condition. Solid things fit in solid spaces and tight, tight, high-pressure system. Vacuous things fit in low-pressure conditions. And in order for the Earth or for anything, an electron, it has to change its condition and that's, that happens. It's called, it's, it's, it's called condensation. Everything happens in the condensation of one pressure condition compared to the next pressure condition. And that condensation flips to the next space, it remains consistent. That's the crystallization and that's what they've been lacking, having the platonic

• 1:12:15Speaker 02

  solids, utilizing them as a base, this Cartesian space that doesn't fit the universe, how it behaves. They're now getting blocks to where they can fit, make something fit linearly, but by the time, but when we're talking about space and space is curvature, you can't do a straight line out here because everything is going to orbit this way. The reason the three-body problem was a big problem because they could never dictate how the orbits were going to behave. They could do it with two bodies, but anytime you added a third body, it went into chaos. Well, us being able to solve the three-body problem, which I can't wait till you get a chance to look at and go through. But that's why I was asking you guys, please put it into your AI and see what the AI says.

• 1:13:00Speaker 02

  Because the AI says, all of the AI says, all it's lacking now is being verified. That we've actually solved the problem, but what that allows us to do now is have, being able to move in space because we can predict where these orbits are going to go. It's no longer a chaos-based world because now the world is based on harmony. It can be predicted and they've made money from the loss and from the lack of understanding. And we are able to solve the Heisenberg problem. We're able to manipulate the Schrödinger equation, the Dirac equation, all of those papers we've done. From the Howard Coma having the right geometry. It was, they missed the geometry. That's what they've been missing this entire time and the fundamentals.

• 1:13:45Speaker 02

  Like, what's your thoughts on the universe? Is it finite or is it infinite? Or is it infinite?

• 1:13:51Speaker 04

  Of course, it's infinite.

• 1:13:52Speaker 02

  You think infinite?

• 1:13:53Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 1:13:54Speaker 02

  Now, I say it's finite and this is the reason why. If you were to take anything inside the universe, let's say a pebble and you drop it into a pond and again it expands out. If the universe was infinite, that would just expand out forever and would never come back. But because of the fight, but once the pebble, once those expanding waves hit the edge of the pond and start returning back, they're hitting more expanding waves. And now they're creating these standing waves. These standing waves are the first geometry. So the proof of who we are, the fact that we have shape, happens not because we have shape

• 1:14:35Speaker 02

  from something inside pulling in, it's the returning waves that's meeting these expanding waves because we're in a confined universe and that confined finite space having, if everything inside the universe has a boundary and that boundary is expanding, then this bag holding these, this universe, this bag of bounded things would ultimately be bounded by the very last particle, an object. Go ahead.

• 1:15:07Speaker 04

  Yes, we have a different definition, understanding about the universe. In me, the universe considers space a three dimensional space and the time, and the time. So, right, of course, in Terrence's explanation, you have a boundary. I believe he was talking about the boundary, so he mentioned about the ether. The so-called ether, I do believe a 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 ether,

• 1:15:46Speaker 04

  so I would say is electromagnetic, is a magnetic of, is a magnetic medium, electromagnetic medium. So now, let's talk about the, he said the boundary. I said that the universe is three dimensional space is infinite, and the time is infinite. However, I did not mention say, hey, the medium, the light carrying electromagnetic medium has to be infinite. So for, let's say, for each solar system, we may have a concentrated medium has a boundary. So you're traveling to somewhere, coming back, you will see that one, right?

• 1:16:25Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:16:26Speaker 04

  Does not exclude, entire universe does not have a vacuum space without even medium. So what happens to that location? You will never see light. However, whenever we can see light from the Big Bang, thirteen point eight billion years ago, since we can see that light. So we know there is filled with the medium throughout our visible universe.

• 1:16:54Speaker 02

  I want to share something. One of the papers that I sent over to you guys, this was the abstract, and it was the necessity of a finite universe, a wave-based mathematical framework. This is what.

• 1:17:09Patrick Bet-David?

  Which one is this?

• 1:17:10Speaker 02

  This is the necessity of a finite universe.

• 1:17:13Patrick Bet-David?

  Rob, do you have that? I do.

• 1:17:15Speaker 02

  Right there. Let me read it. It says the abstract is, "This paper rigorously demonstrates why the universe must be a finite system by employing a wave-based multiplication paradigm, the energy conservation principle, and the fundamental mathematical relation of one times one equaling two. We present mathematical proofs illustrating how finite systems inherently violate, no, how infinite systems inherently violate energy conservation. Furthermore, we derive equations from wave mechanics to show that the wave reflections and conjugations naturally confine energy within a closed harmonic structure, linking

• 1:17:59Speaker 02

  the universe to a hypothetical, or hypothesis, to observable cosmic wavefronts." Basically, proving ultimately that a finite, an infinite universe is mathematically impossible because of conservation of energy laws. Because if you have an infinite universe, then you can't have, then there's no such thing of having a finite amount of energy in a particular area. When you get to the smaller, the small confined spaces, you end up with problems when you have an infinite universe. And that's one of the things I think's been holding people back, but you just said it correctly. The medium is finite.

• 1:18:43Speaker 02

  The potential reactions are infinite reactions, but the medium, the space we're in, is a finite space, I would think.

• 1:18:52Patrick Bet-David?

  Rob, can we put that through OpenAI? Which, if you wanted us to put one through OpenAI, which would it be?

• 1:18:57Speaker 02

  Either one, either one.

• 1:18:58Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, put that one through OpenAI. See what kind of...

• 1:19:00Speaker 02

  And ask what it says, considering the necessity. That's what I love. Let's, let's get a, let's...

• 1:19:09Patrick Bet-David?

  Do you have it around?

• 1:19:10Speaker 05

  Yep, the necessity. And what would you like me to ask ChatGPT?

• 1:19:13Speaker 02

  Just ask it to evaluate, is it right or wrong?

• 1:19:19Speaker 04

  I wouldn't put my face on ChatGPT's answer.

• 1:19:25Speaker 02

  Well, I couldn't get an evaluation from, from any of the, you know, authorities out there, all the universities.

• 1:19:33Patrick Bet-David?

  There we go. After evaluating the document, necessity of finding a universal wave based model, here's a breakdown. Interesting idea presented. The paper introduced a wave based mathematical framework to argue the universe must be finite. It builds a, on Linchman geometry, Tetran shapes and Howard coma ideas largely associated with turns out to use this concept like wave reflection, standing waves and energy quantization to support those claims. Critical issue, scientific inconsistencies, core mathematical flaw, one times one equals two. This claim contradicts fundamental arithmetic and is not accepted in any legitimate mathematical system. Multiplication is defined such as one times one equals one. Redefining this would add rigorously peer reviewed mathematical framework makes the rest of the paper logic untenable.

• 1:20:16Patrick Bet-David?

  Two, unverified concept, terms like Howard coma, Tetran shapes, Linchman geometry are not recognized in mainstream mathematical or physics. These concepts do not appear in peer reviewed journals. Misapplication of physical laws. The paper refers to wave mechanics, conservation of energy and quantum equations, but applies them in non standard or speculative ways. For example, replacing Planck's content with Howard's coma consonants unsubstantiated and lacks empirical validation. And last but not least, citation issues. The reference include real scientist Einstein, Planck alongside fictional or pseudo scientific collaborators, Howard, Sealy, Yi, Yi, Yi.

• 1:20:57Speaker 02

  Yi.

• 1:20:58Patrick Bet-David?

  Yi.

• 1:20:59Speaker 02

  At all.

• 1:21:00Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, at all. There's no known peer reviewed body of work by these authors. Verdict not specifically, not scientifically valid.

• 1:21:08Speaker 02

  That's what they would say. Now, if you put in, that's why the stuff that I sent you, I wanted to send, put, you have to put in the curve linear thing into AI so it has the full.

• 1:21:22Speaker 02

  So it has the full basis in which to to evaluate it. Because one of the things that the the computers or the AI has been lacking. It's its foundation is all based off of the Cartesian space, off the one times one equaling one, off of off of a redundancy inside of a system instead of matching it to a universal conformed system. So if you add in to that, um, let me see.

• 1:21:56Patrick Bet-David?

  Doctor, your question for you, 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 Grok or OpenAI ChatGPT?

• 1:22:10Speaker 04

  We are not allowed.

• 1:22:11Patrick Bet-David?

  You're not allowed?

• 1:22:12Speaker 04

  Uh, I believe in use use reliability in the integrity of them. Use use this third, you know, use this commercial software. That's not really vested, you know, is the accuracy. And so I I believe we have to write exactly, use our own research.

• 1:22:33Patrick Bet-David?

  Wow, so so so academic scientists, you know, with the establishment side, you guys don't touch OpenAI?

• 1:22:41Speaker 04

  Oh, uh, let let me rephrase this one. Not OpenAI, they have their own AI. Initially, we are not even allowed to install ChatGPT on our government computer.

• 1:22:51Patrick Bet-David?

  Really?

• 1:22:52Speaker 04

  Yes, but however.

• 1:22:53Patrick Bet-David?

  Why though? Why? Why? What's the reasoning? Is it because they want you to do the work of what it's doing?

• 1:22:58Speaker 04

  Because ChatGPT is based on the authority, but opening, it's not really give you scientific results, it's only based on somebody's results cited. It does not create, you can, it so far, it does not create anything new, uh, you know, in in terms of solving the mystery in physics. It cannot do that.

• 1:23:23Speaker 02

  Ken, you asked him to please upload all of the papers that I sent to you into into the AI, so it'll have more than just that one paper.

• 1:23:35Patrick Bet-David?

  Rob, could you do that?

• 1:23:36Speaker 05

  I can do that. It only allows you to upload 10 at a time. That's the biggest problem, so.

• 1:23:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's only like 10. How many we got there, like 10 that we gave you?

• 1:23:44Patrick Bet-David?

  I think you're more than 10.

• 1:23:44Speaker 05

  Yeah, I'm at about 21 different documents.

• 1:23:47Speaker 02

  Oh, um.

• 1:23:50Patrick Bet-David?

  It's fine, just do ten out of ten, twice.

• 1:23:53Speaker 04

  Uh, just let me finish your thoughts. Uh, but, but, uh, we after, uh, after a year or two. And then we do have a new, uh, you know, uh, lead tech, tech, technologist, you know, don't mention about it, give us a training on use AI to write, to, to, to, to improve them writing. So I believe it now, uh, so we do allow to use casually, but not in, in, in science, scientific writing or something. I, I believe it still has a restrictions.

• 1:24:24Speaker 02

  Amen. I've been.

• 1:24:27Patrick Bet-David?

  Very interesting.

• 1:24:28Speaker 02

  Yeah, all of the stuff that we've been doing, the reason that we were forced to go to the AI 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 Weinstein, and they did nothing with it. Instead of evaluating it, I thought he would share it among his friends and talk about it. No, they just said it there, even though it was four grand supersymmetrical system.

• 1:24:55Patrick Bet-David?

  Let me ask a question from you, Dr. Yu. When, because the argument was made that peer review, you're not a peer to review it, like you're not a qualified peer to review. Is that, is that how it's seen in your world? Where peer review is another person has a qualified doctor, you know, schooling and you, they've done the right thing to look there.

• 1:25:14Speaker 04

  That's in, that's the common practice in, in established physics community. But I believe this is a gatekeeper.

• 1:25:22Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:25:22Speaker 04

  To silence, to squash, to suppress.

• 1:25:27Patrick Bet-David?

  Really?

• 1:25:29Speaker 04

  Different opinion, yes. And this is a very convenient tool, say, how many peer review you have, how many sightings you have. If you do not, they, they hard, hard, very hard, I'll even get you to, to go through the publication. If you cannot be publicated. Right, so how can you get aside and get a peer reviewed, right? The only peer review, you submit the paper, they submit, they send it to those, what is about several review board members. You know what they have? If you disagree with their fundamentally concept, you said entire quantum mechanics is not true? And even relativity is hypothetical, is, you know?

• 1:26:13Speaker 04

  Of course, you, you were, you were not get a daylight.

• 1:26:17Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:26:17Speaker 04

  From the review.

• 1:26:18Speaker 02

  But they want to keep, their entire livelihood is based upon maintaining their current status quo. And they don't want to change that. Like you said, you get your PhDs based upon repeating what they've taught you before. Not by challenging what's been in existence, but by, by confirming what's in existence. So they don't want to grow. They want to maintain the status quo. And in order for us to, to grow, we have to keep challenging the clothes we're in, the bit that we fit in, the, the physical shape we're in. We've got to keep pushing the boundaries and they've taken that away because they've got profit margins associated with it. And they won't do the reviewing.

• 1:26:59Patrick Bet-David?

  Do you think that's what's tied to it, doctor? Do you agree with them? That it's because of, is it just the same old, same old? You know, this is how we always do it. You're an outsider. We don't want to give you the credibility. You're not one of us. Is that what, what do you think it is?

• 1:27:10Speaker 04

  Perception is, but I, I have to give a credit. There's a many of non-conventional theory does have a lot of flaws. Of, of, uh, of very obvious mistake or typos or flaws very easily to being picked on. So, so in the, in that point, I believe we need to have a summer gatekeeper, some standards, right?

• 1:27:33Speaker 02

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:27:34Speaker 04

  But not construct the, uh, called the new ideas. So, uh, I, I wanted to make a further point is very important in physics community. If a quantum model is not correct, right? We survived. So how can we resolve the fond, fond and four fundamental forces in quantum mechanics?

• 1:27:56Speaker 02

  The weak force is off. Their teleportation, the strong forces are off.

• 1:28:01Speaker 04

  And?

• 1:28:02Speaker 02

  The electromagnetism and gravity. Gravity, they could have gotten rid of a long time ago. The gravity issue sits out there and the electromagnetism that they've been trying to bond forever instead of recognizing that they're already one system. But their approach is completely off with it. They see magnets, they don't even see magnetism properly. They don't see it as this expanding centrifugal force and they don't see electricity as this contracting centripetal force. They see, they don't see the motion of it, but I cut you off, I shouldn't have done that.

• 1:28:36Speaker 04

  Yes, very good. You know, I wanted to make sure people understand that without quantum mechanics, we only need one single fundamental force, which is?

• 1:28:50Speaker 02

  Motion. Everything comes down to motion.

• 1:28:53Speaker 04

  We're talking about a force right now, directly, force in the interaction, magnetic force. So now people are often talking about electromagnetic force. So the people confuse about the electrical and magnetism. I remember you mentioned on your, maybe on your show or something, electro and magnet. What is your contrast between?

• 1:29:18Speaker 02

  That electricity is always spinning northeast, seeking a higher pressure condition, trying to, spinning to the right, trying to get to the apex and the center of something, centripotally spinning. Then, as it gets to the center, it gets pushed out by another electrical part of the wave and once it gets to the edge of the boundary and no longer has the potential of being trapped in there, now it gets divatized. And as a result of being divatized, it's no longer able to spin northeast anymore. Now it's spinning southwest because it's taking on, putting on these things. It becomes magnetism and it's spinning southwesterly, centrifugally, expanding outward.

• 1:30:02Speaker 02

  It's expanding in sixes, whereas before it was contracting in three sets of fives, in three fifths. The contraction happens here. Electricity contracts, magnetism expands. It's the radiation compared to the so-called gravitational force. That's how I see it.

• 1:30:20Speaker 04

  Let me give you my version.

• 1:30:23Speaker 04

  Before James Clerk and Maxwell, they treat electricity and the magnetism completely separately. And what James Clerk and Maxwell did is unify them as every connection. So it had defined, in one of his equation, defined electrical field are time varying of magnetic field. Let me explain in my own discovery, please. So so-called electrostatic electrical field, this is a secret in my theory, called the Uon theory of everything.

• 1:31:03Speaker 04

  Static electrical field is exactly magnetic field. And dynamic electrical field, that means what time varying of magnetic field is when you have a magnet, magnet has a magnetic field, right? Magnet in motion, that's what's called a time varying. Whenever you have a moving magnetic field, that's called the electrical field. That's generally electricity.

• 1:31:31Speaker 02

  And the thing with our universe is they measure things as if it's dead, but everything is in motion. Everything is alive and in motion. There is never anything that's still. And we keep measuring things as if they are dead and still and going to remain in this set place when things are not just stuck here. They are always in motion and the motion is always spherical. The motion is never in a straight line. It's always spherical. And if they make that one adjustment and start measuring things based upon the spherical or spiral nature of everything, then all of their measurements would equal up. Then they would have balance in their energy systems.

• 1:32:16Speaker 02

  But because they're using straight lines, I use this point again, like with a computer chip, ninety per, all of the, you have these ninety degree angles with the computer chip. Keeps turning, you know, going at the speed of light or just under the speed of light, hit this ninety degree wall, it has. Stop then build up its energy and go again. Well, that's heat that's built up in each one of these ninety degree turns. Each time that heat builds up, what does it do? It destroys the it destroys the electrical signal. Because electricity is balanced off by magnetism. Magnetism creates heat. The heat is those points. Now the signal breaks down. So they keep having to cool the system in comparison to how energy really moves in a circle.

• 1:33:00Speaker 02

  Now there's no interference being built up. Now the chip works a lot smoother. But the way they're doing everything, it has this entropy, this unnecessary resistance because of their ideas on straight lines.

• 1:33:15Patrick Bet-David?

  Terrence, what's your outcome with this information? So in an ideal situation for you, what would you like to see happen?

• 1:33:20Speaker 02

  Well, I wanted to see the world change. I wanted to see us get off of fossil fuels. I wanted to see us get off the planet using resonance and no longer burning chemicals. I want to see us using resonance to heal our bodies and no longer using chemicals or oil-based chemicals. What I want to see is the planet change. That was what I wanted to do. I'm not sure that's going to happen. I feel like now what we have to do is start our own breakaway society and use these technologies that they're refusing to use and just build a whole separate world because they're not going to come along because they are attached to this dollar.

• 1:34:31Speaker 01

  I hope I don't have to cancel again tonight.

• 1:34:33Speaker 00

  Chronic migraine means 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox, onabotulinum toxine A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It is not approved for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. Botox, the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment, prevents, on average, eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions,

• 1:35:17Speaker 00

  including ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton Syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 1:35:33Patrick Bet-David?

  So, the idea of you wanting peer review and others to review it, it's for what? That promise what?

• 1:35:39Speaker 02

  That was happening before because it would open the door for them now to accept it and to start using it. But in view of the fact that more than likely, they're not going to review it, more than likely, and Eric Weinstein was right, we are not peers. I don't have the degrees he has. And guess what he doesn't have? He doesn't have an understanding of how the universe works.

• 1:36:03Patrick Bet-David?

  You don't think Eric Weinstein has an understanding?

• 1:36:04Speaker 02

  He has no understanding of how the universe works because he has rejected the geometry that supports how the universe behaves. He didn't even evaluate the geometry. He did not. And then, when I asked him about, does an action times an action have a reaction?

• 1:38:16Patrick Bet-David?

  Your thoughts when you're listening to him?

• 1:38:18Speaker 04

  Yes, you know, I have been careful. I was Weinstein. I can such as my peers, right? I respect his intelligence. But I do believe his geometric unity theory is having wrong direction.

• 1:38:33Speaker 02

  It's wrong because it should have been finite. He needs a finite space in order for it to work. His fiber bundles don't work. His entire HOP vibration disappears because gauge theory becomes redundant once you introduce linchpin geometry into it. That was one of the things I tried to share with him that he refused to look at. First, I sent him a paper on how the linchpin helped with the HOP vibration and how the linchpin could help in gauge theory. And then I had to rewrite the paper and show him how the linchpin makes all of that redundant. He didn't respond. It's sitting there in his thing. He hasn't responded. That's the thing I told you to send over to Brian. Because I'm like, let's go to war.

• 1:39:18Speaker 02

  Since you're going to call me an idiot, let's go to war. And I want all the papers. Now I want the war to take place through written white papers. So you're not just sitting there talking garbage anymore. Now you have to validate what you're saying because the papers are here. And if you say the wrong thing, I will sue you now. That's the reality of it.

• 1:39:39Patrick Bet-David?

  One of the scientists said, "It was quite jumbled, hard to follow, and quite frankly, grandiose. At first glance, a true revolution, whether within string theory or supplanting string theory or replacing string theory, requires extremely obstruse mathematics well beyond the postgraduate level."

• 1:39:58Speaker 02

  Well, tell them to evaluate it now. If they're just going to look at it, now evaluate. Put the math, put the equations in. You could say it's grandiose, but look at the equations. And evaluate, is the equations, does it actually solve the problem? And if it solves the problem, and that was the whole point of doing the AI, does it solve the problem? Is there a problem mathematically or with the formulas? No.

• 1:40:23Patrick Bet-David?

  You're here. What suggestion would you give him? You have enough, like if he really wanted, if you, if, let's just say he's, his claims are real, okay? How, how should he go about getting this information out?

• 1:40:38Speaker 04

  Um, so he has to be a buy-in.

• 1:40:43Speaker 04

  From the public, from the physics community through that basic principle.

• 1:40:49Speaker 02

  Got to be shepherded in.

• 1:40:51Speaker 04

  Correct. And then.

• 1:40:53Patrick Bet-David?

  What does that mean?

• 1:40:55Speaker 02

  Come this way and we'll let you in, but you're gonna have to let go of other principles that you're talking about.

• 1:41:01Patrick Bet-David?

  Why is it like that? So it's another, is your world you're in? Is there also an establishment and an anti-establishment in your world?

• 1:41:11Speaker 04

  Oh, I believe this happened to many different disciplines too. But I, for me, by in, by general public or by the physicists, the celebrities or the board members control the. I don't believe that's most more important than tell the truth. And discover the fundamental law of nature. That's true to yourself. And true to God. I believe that's the most important. For me, I believe I do discover the fundamental truths. And so we just shared electron, that's the root cause of all physics.

• 1:41:55Speaker 04

  Classical and the modern physics. If electron is not an electric charged particle, we cannot have an atomic model with empty space and with nearly speed of light orbiting electrons.

• 1:42:08Speaker 02

  There's no such thing as empty space. Everything is filled. Everything is filled and that's why what I brought with my model, just so that we wouldn't have any confusion. Because they can try and confuse the one times one, even though the calculator will show one thing in comparison. That's why I solved the three body problem. And put that out there and I'm asking, and the thing with Saturn. And I'm asking everyone out there, since I'm not given the opportunity to have a true peer review by universities. All you have to do for the rebuilding of the planet Saturn, to prove whether gravity is as an effect of electricity and whether dark matter and dark energy is is real things or not.

• 1:42:53Speaker 02

  All you have to do is is put in. The into Blender, the same thing for rebuilding the planet Saturn. If we're able to rebuild the planet Saturn without gravity, without, without animation, without dark matter and dark energy, then we've proven that gravity is nothing but an effect of electricity. And I'm asking everyone out there with a Blender to do that and post what you put up to show whether or not I've proved that gravity is nothing but an effect. But the second thing I want everyone at home to do is please take the three-body problem that I've put out there and run that through your AI and see if there's a problem. And for the scientists, please compare it. Have the conversations. Please tell me whether this is true or false.

• 1:43:36Speaker 02

  If it's wrong, you'll never hear from me again. I'll walk away. But if I'm right, that means that we have a bigger conversation to have. And I put it to the three-body problem. I stand behind everything we did in the three-body problem. Examine that and tell me if it's false. I walk away for good.

• 1:43:56Speaker 04

  Um, he mentioned about he rebuilt the universe without dark matter, dark energy, dark matter, dark energy.

• 1:44:05Speaker 02

  Without gravity.

• 1:44:07Speaker 04

  And without gravity. And this is 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 kind of model, the fundamental force only one fundamental force. And I would try to explain why we do not need strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and the gravity. Please. Okay. So remember I said that there is no called a solar, solar, uh, called planetary model. So there are no orbiting electron. So all electron and the neutron and the proton, they're all made by magnetic particles. So they all have a charge.

• 1:44:52Speaker 04

  Of course, neutron would say, hey, cancellation of positive and negative cancellation become a neutron. But that's, that's not important. The most important thing is since every particles are magnet particles, that they are. Not, they are not gonna happen. When magnets contact, you have a called a like charge repel. Because magnetic, magnetic force is coupled the north, uh, uh, uh, north and the 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.

• 1:45:32Speaker 04

  That's why we see all matters, all atoms are in the one piece, they are not, not separate, separate. So what that means, we do not need a strong force. The strong force is, is, is mentioned based on

• 1:45:47Speaker 04

  single charge particle, uh, uh, single charge, see, nu- uh, ele- uh, nucleus made by protons and neutrons. They all like charged particles or, you know, even no charge, but how can they, how they overcome uh, magnetic called uh, electrical repulsion? So that's why they create artificial force.

• 1:46:09Speaker 02

  So this is Dark matter and dark energy.

• 1:46:11Speaker 04

  So, so everything naturally in contact, so then we do not need a strong force. And we also do not need a weak neural, weaker force explain the radioactivity. So, so, so alpha, you know, decay, so particle, basically, so particle fly out from the nucleus. You know, in quantum, in current theory, nucleus does not have electron, right? But in radiation, weak news is the radiation, we have electron ejected from nucleus. Does that sound, it sounds

• 1:46:41Speaker 02

  It does not happen, it does not happen.

• 1:46:44Speaker 04

  So, so basically, the nucleus, the, the so-called the ejection of particles from nucleus, the nucleus itself is a magnetic particles. And under external, uh, external interaction, somehow, suddenly turn the particle become, originally becomes the opposite pole attract, suddenly become a like pole repulsion. Understand the kind of, of course, if it eject. So, we can nuclear force explain, does radiative energy can be easily interpreted by magnetic repulsion?

• 1:47:18Speaker 02

  And radiation is, is more easily explained as being discharged electrical potential or devitalized electrical potential. The radiation on a football field is the players that just finished their turn and go and sit down on the bench and try and recharge. That's the radiation when they're putting all that energy out and they go and sit down and now you have the positive charge of people coming back in there that's been rested up and able to do it again and then they go back into a radiative or magnetically discharging state. The energy breathes in, you breathe it back out. It's that simple. It always is breathing. Everything is breathing.

• 1:47:57Speaker 04

  Sorry, I want to go back to the most important concept, gravity. So, what is gravity? We said gravity does nothing exist?

• 1:48:08Speaker 02

  Gravity is, gravity is the, is an effect of electrical discharge. It's the space, it's the draft that happens from electric, electricity moving through a system. You get a small gap. That gap, that draft is what we call gravity and then it's caught by the next wave. It's caught by the next wave.

• 1:48:30Patrick Bet-David?

  No, it's okay. You got, you got props.

• 1:48:32Speaker 04

  Easier for audience, I'm, I'm targeting college student or high school student. So, 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? Send them model of physics. Say, gravity is a unilateral attraction only force. Does it not have a repulsion, right? So, we say, oh, antigravity is not possible. That's all wrong, okay? So, so what is gravity?

• 1:49:06Speaker 04

  Based on the current definition, gravity is unilateral attraction force. You know one thing. So gravity is not a fundamental force. Do you agree?

• 1:49:14Speaker 02

  Grab your mic.

• 1:49:16Speaker 04

  Oh, so gravity is not a fundamental force, just based on that one.

• 1:49:21Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:49:21Speaker 04

  All fundamental force.

• 1:49:22Speaker 02

  It's a more, it's an emergent.

• 1:49:23Speaker 04

  Have binary.

• 1:49:24Speaker 02

  It's a mer, it's an emergent force.

• 1:49:26Speaker 04

  I like the term. It's an emerging property of a mass system. So emerging from what? We are talking about force. You have to emerging from a force.

• 1:49:37Speaker 02

  It's resonance.

• 1:49:38Speaker 04

  Resonance is still the vibration mode, it's still not force yet. I know you, you're almost there, okay?

• 1:49:46Speaker 04

  Sometime people say electromagnetic force. I would say simplify to magnet force.

• 1:49:52Speaker 02

  But that again is motion. All of these things happen as a result of their motion.

• 1:49:58Speaker 04

  Motion require force. Because of existence, so this is natural bone of a magnetism in every single matter particles. And that one cause interaction means whether 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 an emergent property of a particle system of magnetic force. So we can say elec, uh, gravity is a second effect of electromagnetic body.

• 1:50:41Speaker 02

  Uh, which, like I said, it's an effect of electricity.

• 1:50:44Speaker 04

  Another way to say it, I wanted to repeat a different way. Called residual force. Drive a, of a, uh, magnetic body.

• 1:50:57Speaker 02

  And the magnetic systems are trying to do one thing, rotate around each other. They're not trying to bump and stay like this. They come and they begin to rotate. Everything is about orbiting another system. And it ultimately, it will leave that orbit. But it's just a moment of orbiting.

• 1:51:15Speaker 04

  Yes. Now, I wanted to demonstrate one counter, one counter argument to say, hey, you said the gravity is not the fundamental force, but gravity, the strength of gravity is dramatically different than electromagnet force, magnet force, or electromagnetic force, or strong nuclear force, we're nuclear force. How you square about that one? That's what I'm trying to demonstrate. So I have a line of square magnets, right? So if I put this one here, you would expect it to attract them, right?

• 1:51:52Speaker 04

  Right? Okay. So this is a magnetic, magnetic force. Nothing important until I folding them.

• 1:52:05Speaker 04

  Tell me how many of the balls,

• 1:52:09Speaker 02

  Are they repulsive now?

• 1:52:10Speaker 04

  How many balls I can attract them?

• 1:52:12Patrick Bet-David?

  Probably all of them.

• 1:52:14Speaker 04

  He think about it because of center gravity is lower, right? Magnet is lower, so we should attract all of them instead of two of them. Your take?

• 1:52:25Speaker 02

  Well, to multiply electrical potential, like with wires, you wrap them around each other. So by wrapping those more on top of each other, we're multiplying its potential. So the electrical potential to pull things up or to attract should be greater now.

• 1:52:41Speaker 04

  Greater now. You both agree until.

• 1:53:15Speaker 00

  Chronic migraine means 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botox, onabacholinumtoxin A, is a chronic migraine treatment that prevents headaches in adults. It's not approved for adults with migraine who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Botox prevents, on average, eight to nine headache days and migraine probable migraine days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

• 1:53:34Speaker 01

  Huh, I'm having fewer headache days this month.

• 1:53:36Speaker 00

  Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 1:54:24Speaker 04

  Why? That's give the concept of gravity, the difference between gravity and the magnetic force. Magnetic force, when you fold it, what happens? Positive and negative. It's vector, right? Positive and negative vector cancel each other. So it becomes neutral now. So that's why you cannot pick up with a magnet. But when talking about gravity, gravity, when speaking about how gravity behaves... Gravity is a summation of this mass system. So if I fall for more, when you fold it even more, the force even less. Even less, so that's why... It's containing itself, but... You can make gravity, gravity disappear.

• 1:55:09Speaker 04

  It is disappear. It's a factor. Gravity is smaller than electrical magnetic force by a factor of 10, no, 10 to the 36th power. So basically, if you have a wind charge of electrical force, right? You know gravity is, when there's a zero point, you add 36 zeros and then add one. So that's the gravity. So basically, gravity is zero. That's why gravity never occurred in quantum mechanics. It cannot occur in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics dealing with electromagnetic interaction. Gravity is zero, thirty, with thirty-six zeros behind it, so it's zero.

• 1:55:53Speaker 02

  That's why I was saying gravity in the Planck model when they use it in describing Planck or the speed of light. It disqualifies Planck from being a constant because gravity isn't a constant. Depending on where you are on the earth, the gravity is different. If you place something at the equator in comparison to something at the pole, it weighs more. Is gravity the same as weight? You've put something at a hundred thousand feet up in the air. It's going to weigh different than it does on the land. So it's, gravity is now a conditional fact that changes depending on where something is. Or like, like I said, if you take a balloon and you rub it on your leg and you put it on the ground.

• 1:56:35Speaker 02

  Now here, the earth is attracting through gravity, so-called, all of the, attracting everything to it. But you put that balloon with the static electricity over the ground, the same dust, the particles that the earth is pulling to it. Now this balloon, being so much smaller, is able to pull those particles up to it. Why? Because electricity is greater than gravity, almost a hundred and thirty-seven times stronger than the gravitational pull is the electrical pull. And that's why I say gravity is an effect of electricity, not the attractive thing.

• 1:57:12Patrick Bet-David?

  Doctor, let me ask you, watching him speak and he's doing what he's doing, and you say something, he answers it. You say something, he answers. You say something, he answers it. As a self-taught guy like this, how impressive is that to you for him to have all these theories?

• 1:57:26Speaker 04

  Oh, uh, number one, I'm not necessarily agree all the details with him. But in principle, I would think that he did got the fundamental concept correct. Say, electron.

• 1:57:41Speaker 04

  Is not true, is that you cannot have a amount of charge that the particle exist? That's the foundation of my Uon theory of everything. And he did get correct to say, hey, I can rebuild the universe without the gravity dark matter dark energy. So now we can explain what the dark matter, so we now we know gravity is just called a summation or called a residual effect or called emergence.

• 1:58:08Speaker 02

  I like the summation, I like it's much summation of all.

• 1:58:11Speaker 04

  Summation of the electromagnetic force of the of the system, right?

• 1:58:15Speaker 02

  I like that.

• 1:58:15Speaker 04

  You like that one, so now, so we got that grounded. So so that means that gravity is a part of is a manifestation of magnetic force. Okay, we knew that one, so now we wanted to solving dark matter dark energy. That's lots of people try to put a bet on their Nobel Prize.

• 1:58:34Speaker 02

  They only threw that, but they threw that and they're trying to solve it because they didn't have enough matter based upon the the gravity, all the equations on gravity, they didn't have enough matter to have the spiral. So they just started adding things in there because they weren't using the magnetic returning waves to generate the things, the same stuff that we did in the rebuilding of the planet Saturn. Instead of it being an internal attractor, we allow the returning waves, the magnetic returning waves to be the thing that's causing the structure. Everything is made not by being pulled in, but by the weight of everything else pushing down on top of it. That was our approach in doing it and being able to rebuild Saturn,

• 1:59:19Speaker 02

  literally without the animation, without gravity, without dark matter, without dark energy, having the the the the the pent, the hexagon at the top of it, being able to have all of the energy flows, that in itself, that's why I put that out there. I'm like, hey, rebuild the planet Saturn in your blender and prove that gravity is nothing but an effect. That's what I'm asking, please do that.

• 1:59:43Speaker 04

  I want to share something with Patrick. I say, if you can understand, we are talking about dark matter. Do we need a dark matter? Number one.

• 1:59:54Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:59:56Speaker 04

  Then, how we come up, come up the concept of dark matter? You know, Terrence mentioned about it. Because we're missing gravity force.

• 2:00:06Speaker 02

  From mass.

• 2:00:07Speaker 04

  Based on mass. Gravity force is purely mass based, right? If we need, we do not have enough gravity to hold, uh, you know, uh, hold galaxy. Spiral galaxy together. We have to, we're, we're missing something, right? Or, or, or we have to make up something. So we make up and say, okay, we do not, some, some matter we cannot see. So dark matter, that means the matter existed, but we cannot see. We cannot feel. Even can, even cannot detect. We only know the effect, right? So this is, so, you know, what's wrong with them? They use the Newtonian gravitational equation. That's wrong. I'm sorry, I, I don't want to offend anybody.

• 2:00:51Speaker 02

  No, you're not, you did it right.

• 2:00:51Speaker 04

  You agree with that one? Newton's gravity equation is actually, Newton defined as a universal, uh, called, um, uh, you, yeah, yeah, universal, there's a universal gravitational constant.

• 2:01:05Speaker 02

  And it was wrong.

• 2:01:06Speaker 04

  There is no universal.

• 2:01:08Speaker 02

  That's why I was saying gravity at different places is that it changes depending on the distance from something, all of those things. So it means it's a conditional fact.

• 2:01:17Patrick Bet-David?

  Newton's law of universal gravitational.

• 2:01:19Speaker 04

  That's right.

• 2:01:20Patrick Bet-David?

  States that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force along a line joining them, and the force is direct, proportional to the product, the masses, you know, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So you're saying that's incorrect?

• 2:01:33Speaker 04

  Oh, uh, that's a relationship, empirical relationship, uh, if, if we can, we can use, and I, I already have rewritten this equation, uh, get rid of this singularity point. So the, right now, Newton election, uh, has a divided by distance r. If r then equals zero, so the gravity becomes infinite. So that's not, uh, not exist in the universe, right? So I get, I, I revise that one, get rid of a singularity, but that's not important. The most important concept is the mass here.

• 2:02:07Speaker 04

  The mass in this, as in the gravity is not actually constant.

• 2:02:12Speaker 02

  No.

• 2:02:13Speaker 04

  It is varies. It actually derived from electromagnetic interaction.

• 2:02:19Patrick Bet-David?

  That's, listen, listen to you guys. One, I realize I'm not a physicist. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a doctor. And the level of intellect needed for this, it's very impressive. Just listen to both of you guys. I love listening to this as well because the market's gonna react to it and they're gonna try to tear apart some of the argument. And that's great. That's what you want. Where do people find all the other things for them to run through? The why, are all of these public or no?

• 2:02:47Speaker 02

  Go to Terry's linchpins.

• 2:02:49Patrick Bet-David?

  Okay, so all of that is?

• 2:02:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, all of that is in Terry's linchpins. The moment you pull it up, we've got an actual section and it has about 10 of these papers in it. And we're going to add, there's about 60 papers altogether that we've done since we can't get publication anywhere else. And I'm asking them to please, you know, depending on your curiosity. You want to talk about anti-gravity machines? Then here we go. You want to talk about pulling energy directly from the flux? Here we go. You want to talk about tangential flight? Here's the papers on that. So everything is in there.

• 2:03:19Patrick Bet-David?

  Terrence, question before we wrap up here. Just a couple of questions for you. Audience interest having nothing to do with this. So more on the acting side. So the movie you and I talked about, Fighting?

• 2:03:30Speaker 02

  Fighting.

• 2:03:30Patrick Bet-David?

  Because to me, that's, I've seen you in a lot of movies, but that role was my favorite one of yours. The way you did the voice, the way you walked, the way you moved. Uh, what was the character's name, Rob?

• 2:03:40Speaker 02

  Harvey Borden.

• 2:03:41Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, Harvey Borden. How did, how did that come about? That specific character?

• 2:03:45Speaker 02

  Dito Montiel, one of the best directors I've ever worked with. He directed that. He also directed A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints. I mean, he's a really beautiful director, but he took me through New York. The character was supposed to be like LL Cool J driving a Hummer, pant leg rolled up. You know, it's supposed to be some money guy. And it did not fit what he was doing in the thing. So the director took me through New York. We're walking and he was like, he tied a string to my leg to shorten my gape so that I, about six inches. So I didn't have the stride that I wanted.

• 2:04:25Speaker 02

  And he put a briefcase in my hand and he said, I want you to be, I want you to imagine yourself as a 65-year-old Jewish woman trying to.

• 2:04:37Speaker 02

  Express herself inside of an urban area.

• 2:04:41Patrick Bet-David?

  Sixty-five-year-old Jewish woman.

• 2:04:43Speaker 02

  That was Harvey Borden. He was a sixty-five, he had the, the statements and the, the intonations and the way he acted, the way he argued, everything was like a sixty-five-year-old Jewish woman. That was the basis of my character.

• 2:04:58Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, that, that, that, that movie was phenomenal. By the way, this is a year after, uh, Iron Man, right? Because that came out in oh-nine, so, Iron Man, I read somewhere, I, I almost didn't believe it, so I'm gonna verify it with you. Iron Man, i- i- it says you were the highest-paid guy in that movie at four-and-a-half million, and they only paid Robert Downey Jr. half a million. Is that accurate?

• 2:05:20Speaker 02

  Maybe, I don't know what they paid him exactly, but they weren't, they weren't giving him any grace, and, you know, he was phenomenal. He, he deserved to get higher pay later on. He really did, from the work he did.

• 2:05:34Patrick Bet-David?

  Well, why, why was it, was there, did you guys ever talk about it? Like, a half a million for Robert Downey Jr.?

• 2:05:39Speaker 02

  No, he was just coming in. They, remember, after we did the first one and it made a billion dollars, they still came to all of us and was like, oh, you know, we, I know we're supposed to pay you eight million for the next one, but we're gonna, and we did a three-picture deal, we're gonna, we're, we're gonna let you come back for a million dollars. For one-eighth of what we, even though we had a success with what we did, we're gonna let you come back for a million.

• 2:06:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Let you come back?

• 2:06:03Speaker 02

  Let you come back. They did that to all of the actors. Marvel came and did the shakedown on everybody.

• 2:06:09Patrick Bet-David?

  Why would they do that, though?

• 2:06:10Speaker 02

  Because they can.

• 2:06:13Patrick Bet-David?

  Yeah, but when you think about movies like that, don't you think, like, the main guys make ten, twenty million on, uh, per picture?

• 2:06:18Speaker 02

  Later on, they do, once they get the lock-in. Um, uh, Robert was smart enough, because I bet you by the third one, he got his twenty million. You know, and I can't fault him, he- You know, the shit that happened to me, happened to me. That's just part of the business, you know, it eats you alive, it does, it's not mean. It's just the nature of the monster.

• 2:06:38Patrick Bet-David?

  So, so you were only in one of the Iron Men?

• 2:06:41Speaker 02

  Just one.

• 2:06:41Patrick Bet-David?

  And what caused it not to come back, cause you were-

• 2:06:44Speaker 02

  They, they said they were going in a different direction. In, in the character, cause my character was supposed to take over the franchise, but Robert did such a brilliant job, that they were like, okay, that's why they hired me first. Because my character was supposed to be Rhodes and was supposed to take over.

• 2:07:02Patrick Bet-David?

  Continue, right.

• 2:07:03Speaker 02

  So it was the most important part of it, but what, the work that Robert did was so phenomenal. I mean, I became a fan of his for life, but he was so phenomenal that they allowed him that he was able to continue that walk.

• 2:07:15Patrick Bet-David?

  So on the second one, Rob, what does it say that uh-

• 2:07:17Speaker 05

  Ten million upfront.

• 2:07:18Patrick Bet-David?

  To who?

• 2:07:19Speaker 05

  To Robert Downey Jr. as well as backend deals tied to the film's performance. And then for the third one, uh, salary of ten million with total earnings reportedly reaching fifty million, uh, after, which include profit participation.

• 2:07:32Patrick Bet-David?

  Man.

• 2:07:33Speaker 02

  I will say he earned it. I, I'm not mad at him, I should have watched my back door. I was so busy trying to help other people, I should have watched my own back door and that's a lesson that you've got to learn. You just can't take it personal.

• 2:07:44Patrick Bet-David?

  Terrence, you've worked with a lot of guys i- in, in the space. Who, who was one where you were enamored, where you're on set and you're just watching saying, what was this all about? Who, who shocked you a little bit?

• 2:07:57Speaker 02

  Oh wow, that's a big question. That made me just sit there and, and, um, and take notes. Nick Nolte was the only one. Every take he came in, we applauded him. We gave him a standing ovation. I mean, every take, every single take, because he was so dynamic in what he was doing. I've never met a better actor in my life that, that just shuts me up. I'm like, okay.

• 2:08:26Patrick Bet-David?

  Nick Nolte was in the movie Warrior with Tom Hardy.

• 2:08:29Speaker 02

  Mm-hmm.

• 2:08:29Patrick Bet-David?

  And Gavin O'Connor, which I love that movie, but he was also in Blue Chip. Was he in coaching Blue Chip with Shaq?

• 2:08:35Speaker 02

  Coaching Blue Chip, yeah.

• 2:08:36Patrick Bet-David?

  He was in coaching, yeah, wow. Yeah, he was, uh-

• 2:08:39Speaker 02

  My favorite performance of him is, is what he did in, um, The Hawk. That- Conversation that he was having with Eric Bana, the conversation, he channeled everything. He never holds anything back. So I love actors that just really pours it out. Like, I can't keep up with Joaquin Phoenix no more. Joaquin has taken off. He's in a place where the disbelief that I can't do anymore because I've been rooted into trying to define.

• 2:09:13Patrick Bet-David?

  So what was the first time you met him?

• 2:09:14Speaker 02

  With who?

• 2:09:15Patrick Bet-David?

  Joaquin.

• 2:09:16Speaker 02

  Joaquin was when we were doing, he was nominated with me when we were doing, he was nominated for Walk the Line. I was nominated for Hustle and Flow. So we were in the whole circuit together.

• 2:09:26Patrick Bet-David?

  That's the first time?

• 2:09:27Speaker 02

  That's the first time.

• 2:09:28Patrick Bet-David?

  Did you guys ever do anything together?

• 2:09:29Speaker 02

  Nope.

• 2:09:30Patrick Bet-David?

  Never happened?

• 2:09:31Speaker 02

  Nope. It was me, Heath Ledger, he was in the run with us. It was Philip Seymour Hoffman running with us.

• 2:09:36Patrick Bet-David?

  That's the same, what a, what four names.

• 2:09:39Speaker 02

  And two of those people are dead now.

• 2:09:40Patrick Bet-David?

  I know.

• 2:09:41Speaker 02

  Out of the five, yeah.

• 2:09:42Patrick Bet-David?

  Wow.

• 2:09:43Speaker 02

  Out of the five, that was us. So, you know, there's a short life in the acting world.

• 2:09:49Patrick Bet-David?

  Why do you think that is with the creative side?

• 2:09:50Speaker 02

  Well, because losing out money. You get, you gotta take drugs. You're going through so much shit to try and deal with life. You are literally, it's an unhealthy space. And so eventually, you're gonna go too far, you know? Who knows what happened to Philip? Who knows what Heath had to do in order to get to 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 gotta keep getting high, hoping to get it out of their head, you know? But when you lose your man card, that's the only thing I can think of. You lose your damn man card.

• 2:10:26Patrick Bet-David?

  What is that? What do you mean by that?

• 2:10:29Speaker 02

  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.

• 2:10:38Patrick Bet-David?

  Are you saying what I think you're saying?

• 2:10:39Speaker 02

  I'm saying what I'm saying. You don't get that back. 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 womanly right of being a mother and taking care of her family and being, do all those things. When you give up those things, but when you give up your manhood... I've never seen somebody recover from it. That was all the people that went to the puffy parties. That was all the people that did all those things thinking that there was never gonna be a consequence for what they were doing.

• 2:11:24Speaker 02

  Get punked out and pimped out by, by some over greater desire. You shouldn't have a greater desire than being a man. So, I, I believe that's a big problem with a lot of the actors out there because they get fluid and next thing you know, once it go fluid, it's gone. You don't have any foundation to pull yourself back from. So, maintain your man card, no matter what.

• 2:11:49Patrick Bet-David?

  Man, I mean, you know, one of the things you're seeing, you went to a whole different place.

• 2:11:54Speaker 02

  Sorry.

• 2:11:54Patrick Bet-David?

  No, no, I, I get it. So, you see some guys struggling with that. You see Bieber struggling with that. You see some of these guys struggling with that.

• 2:12:00Speaker 02

  They can't get it out of their head. They can't get it out of their head. The things that they did, no matter how they did it, whether they were drunk or high or whatever, you gave up your man card. You need therapy. And that's the thing that hurts them the most and so they end up on drugs. End up every way to try and get rid of any principles there are. And that's what the business does. And the women that, that trade their bodies to go and get the role. They get to the point where they have their Oscar, they have their money, but they don't have their dream, they don't have the soul that they started with. So, it's like achieving don't mean anything. If I get all the Nobel prizes from doing all of this, but in the process I have to

• 2:12:43Speaker 02

  trade out all of my integrity to do it so that they can stay in place, what benefit is that if I lose my integrity? You gotta go in as a principal. And what we were brought in here as men, we produce 1,500 sperm per heartbeat for a reason, because the aggression is necessary. You don't trade that in, no matter what.

• 2:13:05Patrick Bet-David?

  Did you ever have the opportunity where you got invited and you said no to it?

• 2:13:08Speaker 02

  Hell, yeah.

• 2:13:10Patrick Bet-David?

  What was the consequences when you said no?

• 2:13:12Speaker 02

  Hell, yeah. I mean, Puffy invited me for weeks, asking me to come and teach him how to, you know, wanted me to be his acting coach for a while. Go there and he's sitting around just looking. I'm like, okay, what's the material you want to work on? He's just looking at me. Then next thing you know, okay, hey, will you help me? I want to hear your music. So I come over there and I play the music and he's sitting there, just looking at me, like waiting. Okay. So then my assistant was like, you know, he wants to hang out with you next week. And I was like, for what? He's like, I think he's trying to fuck you. That's what my assistant said. And I was like, oh, okay. Now I get it. So now no more communication.

• 2:13:52Speaker 02

  Now you know to be hands off with somebody. A number of producers coming to make the approach and you threaten to punch them in the mouth, or threaten to knock their head off for talking to you like, or looking at you like you're a woman. You know, when you approach a real man about his masculinity, you're going to get a real reaction back. It's a difference when a guy walks in a room and when a man walks into a room. And a man don't take the same things that a guy will accept. So always be the man in the room. And that's always been my whole thing. And I've lost businesses because I don't bend over in that way. I don't compromise. I don't play gay roles. I don't kiss a man. I don't do that shit. Because the man cart means everything.

• 2:14:39Patrick Bet-David?

  I had no idea we're going to go this direction with the podcast. This is, this is absolut- but listen, we've talked about it. We've had a lot of the guys on to talk about this stuff. Are you done done with Hollywood because of this specific reason?

• 2:14:49Speaker 02

  No, I mean, I'm still, I'm still working. I still, you know, I haven't made the money necessary to do all of the other stuff. So I still have to go and do the chitlin' circuit. I still have to do the job that I need to. But eventually, all of, I've done what I set out to do, which was to redefine the universe. I've proven what I've set out to do. And that's why I have all the patents. Whether they evaluate it or not, that's up to them. But I've done the work and finished it. Now I can go on and do whatever else we need to do. And I have appreciated you being here and talking to you in a big way. So, thank you for coming and sharing your understanding and helping me in understanding how they see the universe. I really appreciate it.

• 2:15:32Patrick Bet-David?

  You know what's the best part about this? That you guys don't know each other.

• 2:15:35Speaker 02

  Mm-hmm.

• 2:15:36Patrick Bet-David?

  And by the way, I told you, we may have somebody, but I never gave you a name.

• 2:15:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, never did.

• 2:15:40Patrick Bet-David?

  Until you came here, you guys met, so you did not know this was gonna take place. I'm glad the connection was made. I'm sure you guys will exchange information and go. I mean, if there's somebody that's credible enough to help you in this journey as well, it's Dr. Yu. Dr. Yu, I appreciate you for coming out, truly. This was fantastic. Now, I know you're here, so we will invite you in the future as well, because we're gonna need it.

• 2:16:02Speaker 02

  Thank you so much.

• 2:16:03Patrick Bet-David?

  As we're going through other conversations. And Terrence, we're gonna keep you posted on things. We here, and anybody that wants to go and get in contact with Terrence as well, the website's been given. We're gonna put the link to the website below as well. Any final thoughts you have, Terrence, before we wrap up?

• 2:16:17Speaker 02

  Um, no, I'm saying do a proper evaluation.

• 2:16:20Patrick Bet-David?

  Do a proper evaluation.

• 2:16:22Speaker 02

  Don't just talk shit. Do the evaluation, do the work, and then talk, you know? After you've evaluated it.

• 2:16:30Patrick Bet-David?

  Dr. Yu?

• 2:16:31Speaker 04

  Um, I just wanna say, the universe is not, actually, not that complicated. If you understand the fundamental principle, starting from electron is a binary magnet, and you can solve, you can understand the entire universe, physical world.

• 2:16:50Patrick Bet-David?

  I love it. Appreciate you guys for coming on. This was absolutely fantastic. Thank you for your time. Take care, everybody.

• 2:16:56Speaker 02

  Thank you, guys.

• 2:16:57Patrick Bet-David?

  Bye-bye, bye-bye.

• 2:16:57Speaker 02

  Hi, everyone. My name is Terrence Howard. I'm an actor, but in the field of science also. So, if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Minect. The QR code is down below, and let's have a great conversation.

• 2:17:23Speaker 00

  Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive, save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

• 2:17:49Speaker 04

  Your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change. Your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5. Only at McDonald's for a limited time. Price and participation may vary. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing.