Roy D. Herbert's Unification Dilation Theory

This is Ashon Forbes. You are on Hard Trews number five. Hard Trews the podcast where we ask the hard questions and we get the hard truths. We seek scientific answers. We see answers about things that are conspiracies, out there, stuff that people do not feel comfortable hearing about. So thank you all for being with us. Roydy Herbert, thank you very much. Theoretical

physicist. He is also the proponent of dilation theory, which is a theory that seeks to understand the nature of space time and what it means respect to our lives. Ready, Herbert, thank you very much, sir. Welcome, thank you, and good offtenoon to you. So let's just get right off to it. We have limited time and I have a lot of stuff I want to ask you. So, first of all, what is your job? What do you say? Well, how do you describe yourself to

people on social media or people that you run across, et cetera. Out there? Theoretical physicist essentially, that's what I do. I think about problems within physics, come up with ideas to solve them. And how'd you get interested in it? Interesting? Since I was a little boy, essentially a fascination with the cosmos and nature to a degree that I have now uncanny understanding

of things. I used to keep my brothers awake at night hypothesizing black holes when I was about seven to eight years old and stupid things like that. So who's your favorite Sorry to interrupt you, So who's your favorite physicist out there? Who do you look to for inspiration when it comes to physics and stuff like that. My main mentor, I would say, would be Carl

Sagan. Carl Sagen, yeah, from the past, but my current I would call my chief officer at the moment possibly Cliff Burgess, who's an extraordinary, extraordinary talented physicist and theoretical business and we share a lot of musings on social media. And what do you think what inspires you about their understanding of physics or what do you gravitate to you towards them. I guess we're going to use a physical physics concept. I think it. Well, Cliff is

one hell of a guy, So there's that. So it doesn't really matter about his ideas. You know, he has a sort of open attitude towards things and towards people, and he responds, so that's a bonus people usually do not engage, you know, that sort of level, but Click is one of those people who will engage with it, so he's great. Those are kinds of people I like to and that's the kind of person that I

try to be as well. Somebody that doesn't judge people based on how many followers they have or whatever, just tries to get out there and answer questions for people. It gets harder though, the more followers you get, for sure. Yeah. I tried to answer as many questions as possible. I mean, some of them are quite silly, as you get someone quite ludicrous, but the vast majority are very, very important, and even from people who have not been sat in the world of physics for all their lives or

within any level of some sort of professional career. Yeah, that's why you're responding to people this morning as well. So thank you very much for your effort. And honestly, I was one of those people once upon a time, and look at us now now we're sitting here doing the hard Trews number five with you, So thank you again for being here. Let's just jump right into the physics. So can you explain dilation theory to us? I have it in my profile. I'm a big believer in it. I believe

in the simplicity of it. But I want to hear it in your term, in your words. Feel for you to take as much time as you want. Okay, right, Well, diition theory asked us to consider time okay, differently okay, and looking at those weird and wonderful attributes of time and asking ourselves sent what's going on? That's what I did, and that's why I come up with dilation theory. Essentially, we should consider time like all things within our cosmos, governed by the laws of conservation. Okay.

When we do so, we find that time holds a fluidity in its continuous nature. Okay, it goes back to a theorem chnorance serum. We have things that have a continuous nature within the universe. In an linear emotional all the way or any sort of fashion will invoke conservational symmetry. We see this with liquid smoke, for example, where smoke is forced to share a direction and force through an aperture for example, which shares linear motion, and then

it turns. Conservational symmetry kicks in and the smoke turns to a fluid well time turns to a fluid, though we don't perceive the fluid side of time because we are what one could say abstractions within the flow time we only ever experience and would consider are now a dynamic eternal moment where the property is of any moment to note a particular outcome that gives us a resolution to the paradoxical issue of the double slit it for example, whereby the observer is simply an

added property of any moment. Okay, they're even looking. They're not properties change. See, it's a dynamic. So essentially symmetry is and behavior within things. I'm not they don't break as such as what is the current thinking. They are dynamic in that they change according to your changes. Okay, so if we can consider those nows to be continuous, they invoke conservational symmetry.

Therefore, time we can consider to be a fluid symmetry. So if we use some fluid dynamic analogies that we are more familiar, we take our minds to say a screen. Okay, we look to the banks of the stream. The flow of the river, they're all the stream slows, is slowed by the bank. If you were to throw sticks in by the bank, you would notice all the plots in there around it is being gathered by that slowing of the flow gathered to the banks. Okay, well, what's

going on. Well, wherever we get slowing effects within fluid relativistic fluid dynamics, we get a passive transversal inertia that is born that drags that flotsam to the shore to the slowest relative speed of its flow. But if we look dead mid stream in our flow of our stream, as it were, the fastest flow in the stream, there is no inertia. So you know, our analogies to time as it were, the fastest relative flow will have zero G is zero inertia state. Okay, And where time has almost stopped as

it were, it's very very very slow. We have very very high inertia. We see this with black holes. So if we use our analogy of our friends, for example, the phenomena we see them whipping around very very fast, one could consider that and therefore having no inertial gravity upon them. Well, they're holding a relative past a rate of time. Then they're surrounding. It's as simple as that. Well, and so there's a couple of

things I want to ask on that. Then would that hold true as well to let's say, like small objects, small creatures, beings like bugs and ants, and I think dragonflies as well as would you consider that to be a similar phenomenon just scaled down exactly? If we take the analogies of the dragonfly, for example, it's a very much more simplified thing. It's very

small, therefore it's ultimate. You know, the makeup of it of itself is much more less complicated than me and you, So therefore it will hold a much faster relative rate of time. We call it a relative rate of time bullet time, okay, because we've done some things with them, and these things can dodge bullets ses species, so they can you know, they have a much faster relative rate of time. Let's put analogy. If we were to look at a wristwatch, for example, if we could upon the

dragon fly's wrist, we can give him one for a moment imaginary. If we were to be able to view upon that riskwatch, it would have an incredible rate of time, be ticking away very very fast. But to him, the dragonply, it's normal ti toop seconds. You see what I mean. It's yes, things can hold different relative rates of time. Now one of those funny things is and we just had a result pushed it in yesterday was with the neutral style side of data that's just come in from the LIGO

results. One of those little quirks that come out previously before that, a week before that, was the correlation of the spin rate of neutron stars to the spin rate of certain forms of contact, in that they correlate precisely. Now, so how is that working? Well, neutron stars essentially hold an extended electron cloud, and they're poor hold the properties of contact and are therefore given the phase of quantat Yeah, yeah, sorry, I'm listening. I

was just can you see the screen right now? I'm not sure I shared because I think is this the example you were talking about from yesterday? Yes, yes, sorry myself disappearing through me. I probably confused you for a second. Yes, what we've discovered here is that essentially a neutron star is

a supersized atom. Okay, so okay, what's going on? Well, basically what's going on is the material has been pressed down to such a degree that the electrons within the actual material of the actual neutron star can't sit there. Okay, they get extended and by having that extended electron cloud essentially emulates the properties of quanta, the apport the universe considers our neutron star. Even that's the size of a neutron star quanta. So things essentially can be considered

quanta if they help the properties of quanta no matter what their scale. I call this thing dynamic behaviorism, and that properties to know the behavior outcome independently

of scale. Yeah, so with respect to a neutron star, then you're saying that the neutron star can teleport move at the speed of Later, what kind of properties are we going to be able to see from an object like a neutron star that appears to achieve the properties of quantum Here we're talking about like just the pressure is causing the atoms and or the neutrons and the protons to I don't know, maybe even call LESCo into this quark matter, I

think is how it was described, which then allows the whole object to act like an atom. You know, what kind of things can we see from that that can prove that to us to prove this unification of very large objects small objects, Well, we can test that spin rate for example, and that correlation to that quantent rate is sigma. Okay. We can look at the actual makeup of the neutron star, and as we can see from the makeup of that, which is that you provided that it checks out, okay,

So we can see all these different bits and pieces. Basically what we're looking at is we're looking at the behavior of the thing, okay, and the powers and the scales and the energies that are coming off. And if we take those and we take them reduce them down to the quantent scale, they correlate precisely, okay. So we can pretty much firmly guess okay,

that's definitely considered an atom okay by the universe. So which provides some issues in that things can hoodwork hedwink the universe essentially into considering them at the microscale and with it the package that comes with it. Now, when you're at that scale as such, or considered that scale, you no longer interact with the largest scale in the same way, and there's a set of different rules that apply to you. As you pointed out the rules of quantat okay,

So certain things can hold superposition. We can imagine a black hole to be a neutron star in superposition not holding a physical state at all at that particular time because of its underlying quantum information, cannot come to determination of precisely what is there. So, in other words, black hole is where a neutron

star can no longer be rendered within our universe. That's really interesting because it seems like that would be the ultimate conclusion of the quark matter situation, right where you get so much pressure, so much gravitational force there that it now causes us to have this you could even call it a non radiant barrier. But you know, you see the essentially the shell of the black hole, you know, the event horizon, right where we can't see anything past that

anymore. So it does seem like it could be possible that a black hole is simply a neutron star, And I think physics would say that it is potentially just a more dense, more massive object, one that caused that potential phase transition to happen in even a larger state. So I think that that's

the beauty I think of in my mind. The physics that you've put forth is that it provides an underlying symmetry, or I guess, for lack of a better term, unification of things that are very small versus things that are very large. And someone sent me a tweet the other week actually as above, so below, and it is the case. It is a geometric unity essentially, and that geometric unity is a cheap conservational symmetry. You know where that statement comes from, as above, so below. I've heard that so

many a lot of times. Curious question. I have no idea, and someone sent it to me, and then someone told me. A colleague told me, oh, don't let them take you down there, for God's sake, and I said, okay, maybe someone in the chat can tell us.

Yeah. The other thing I just want to quickly back up up again on is that when you were talking about the double slit experiment in time, I think that that's very interesting to me in terms of like the way we perceive times through our own initial frame of reference, because now you can still hear a lots of physics, but now you can have things like non locality and quantum entanglement exist where it's like there's an underlying framework that we can't see

because of our biology, because of our frame of reference, that can allow things to move faster in the box. Yes, exactly, Yeah, locked

in the box is a good way to put it, right. And there's a meme that's been going around recently that I really like a lot where it's the guy that looks to the side and looks straight ahead, and when he's looking at the side that you have the wave pattern, and then when he's looking straight ahead and then it breaks down to the double slits, right, And so yeah, I think that your idea and understanding of time or dilation theory seems to make a lot of sense to me. And just to reiterate,

and you can jump in here. You know, for a lot of people don't understand time dilation is a real concept. Right, So what we're talking about with frames of references has already been proven for fifty years or more, right, Yes, long time, long time. Yeah, it's nothing new. This is what it is. I'm not suggesting anything new. I'm just asking that certain principles that we have adopted over the last eighty years,

that being conservation, should be applied to time. Yeah, and that time can be described as an etropic, emergent phenomena essentially that comes from all things within the cosmos, even if they hold no as a cality at all, there's still some determination of what's going on. So therefore there is some form of change, and they've got time, you's know what I mean. So where we have nothing in the university example, nothing at all, then we

get expansion of the universe. And where we have that slowing of time at all, we have a compression of the universe essentially, So these two things are you see what I mean? Do you think that explains dark energy? Well, skipping a head, one could consider dark energy to be essentially the canvas of our reality. M Okay, it's bubbling up as almost like a deport as it were, the determination and null determination as it were. It's

it's quite it's quite difficult to get your head around. But if we look at dark matter, for example, if we now, okay, the thing for a problem with dark matter is that we cannot equate certain courses of gravity that we see within galaxies, okay, according to the amount of mass that's there. So that's why we call it dark It's something there that we can't touch, we can't see, but it's causing this gravity. Well, the big problem was that they never knew actually what was the cause of gravity.

But if we actually now that down. Now, say, okay, if we put it into an abstract form, Let's say, okay, here's my abstract complexities of quantum information. Determination denote one's dilation, and dilation stress on that fluid symmetry of emergent time denotes gravity. Okay, so the dilation stress, the slowing of time powers the inertia of gravity. So what is that dark matter? Well, essentially that dark matter is now an unqualified form of

dilation. So what we should be looking for is something that's slowing time. What possibly could be slowing time? Well, let's take, for example, the start of a galaxy in its life cycle. It's hydrogen cloud and nebuli like. Okay, let's take its particular dilation and rate of time. We know that particular dilation rate of time of particular quanta is like our neutron start very very fast. Okay, needs to get slowed down, as it were,

so that gravity starts to take effect. We need some dilation. Okay. More complex forms of energies are created in this stellar evolutionary process. That matter, Now that's still that hydrogen. It's same stuff, but it's now transformed. Okay, it's transformed into more and more and more and more complex forms of matter. Is there galaxies dilation? They going to be exactly the same as that Nebulie cloud, even though it's exactly the same mass. No,

of course it's not. The complexities of the determination denote the dilation. Okay, So things are getting more and more complex, they're taking longer and longer and longer to determine in time. Okay, that gives you your missing factor. Also, galaxy should come to at some point life. Okay, we'll have a galaxy's audience could also be that missing factor of ue qualified dilation.

You see what I mean. So, yeah, we start to look at once, we start to look at gravity and time and its relationship between that and energies. Okay, and knowing resolving that issue, then it resolves not just gravity but all of the issues. And it really lays it out in a much more common sense way. You can see things. You don't need a degree, you don't need a PhD. You just need common sense. Yeah. And I was watching a presentation which I want to get into

with you in a few minutes. By pointed out that if you were to just take from a quantum level to try to understand and graph how information gets more complex. You could look at it like a string, where the strings getting longer, longer, longer, and longer longer, And then the idea there is somewhat the same, which is, as things get more complex, the string just keeps getting longer, keeps growing, And that could be you

could analogize that to the inertia. Right, You're getting more and more inertia, which is slowing things down, which is making things that's complex. So that's why one of the questions I wanted to ask you is what do you think dark matter is? But I think you just went ahead and answered it for us is yes, you know, complexity is the answer? Right? Is that you think that's a growth of complexity of whatever mass you have in

space time? Right? Is that is that something that want? Well, it points to it goes back again to the double slit in that it points to the universe to being stochastic and deterministic rather than probabilistic. Okay, that's what it means. It means that there's something else going on under the hood, a process whereby a determination it's passed beyond the paradigm as it were, of emergence, then is returned and according to how long that took to return,

that denotes one's installation. Okay. So I call this underlying modu superandi dynamic behaviorism okay, in that that basically essentially is all defined in the eternal dynamic moment that now okay, and your properties denote the particular outcome for you, okay, And that ultimately is a form of conservation of well in that

it denotes what conservational symmetry should be applied to you in time. So this thing can look backwards and pause in time to determine what it should do for the now to give a more concerned outcome, perhaps even in the future. Yeah, that is explaining Yeah, happens outside of our emergent time. So in other words, there are more layers of emergent time that we have yet

to discover. Aha, leg that's great. I love that. I wish I had a snow globe right now, because that's I always think of it like the snow globe scenario where it's like you can shake the snow globe, you can watch it go. But that's not our time on the outside, right, it's something else, like a mini universe that's going on there. And to me, what you're saying means that there's I'm just going to call

it the matrix. I just love the idea of the matrix. Right, there's an underlying matrix in which our reality is being projected onto, right, because that's the only way you can explain how you have this capability to look backwards and forward in time. Would you kind of agree that there must be this must imply some sort of construct to our universe. Yes, the double slicks experiment itself. As I've been saying, that form of dynamic behaviorism points

to quite you or a soft we developer. You're painting an area of the screen. You need to determine what's there by the properties of what the debuwer is looking at. Property is to note the outcome. It's a holographic paint event. That now is a holographic paint event, and it is dynamic. And I'm not sure if it can be overloaded. When you say overloaded, what do you mean in terms of more adding more parameters? Perhaps interesting?

Yeah, it does make me wonder if you could hack into the underlying code. Right, if you think of it from like a computer program stars a neutron stars to ingust that and so our friends. Yeah, and we're going to talk about that in a minute as well. Before we get that, though, I want to stick with a little bit more scientific uh stuff as well. So one thing I want to ask you is do you believe in

string theory? So one thing you mentioned is I hadn't actually heard this that you mentioned in terms of like I like to think of it as a universe is able to look backwards and forwards and figure out what it should do, right, and that's definitely what we're seeing a double slit experiment. So do you think this supports the idea of string theory or what's your idea of your concept or understanding string theory fits in there? Okay, I'm not going to

destroy every swampy's dream. Yeah okay, which is a nickname we give for people who work in string. It's not an insult, okay, But basically, yeah, string theory fits in there someway in that that determination has to change what's there. Okay. So even that determination done, the universe has to perform that actual action of saying okay, draw you render you as So

now that yeah, string theory comes in. So one could say that that's the communication medium between the dynamic behavior modus operando and the fabric of reality itself abstract. Okay, that's yeah, So that's where the fields come in. Essentially, the fields are that manipulation process at work. Okay. But my stuff is more of what's going on behind the hood as it were, you know, under the hood, and projecting that as it were, understanding gravity

more and this geometric unity that's obviously there. I mean to be honest with you, I'd be totally honest with you. I don't want to be egotistical. But all this is pretty much Charles playing for me. I've been doing this for like since nineteen ninety seven. I actually put the first thing together.

So I've been shouting at doors for years and years and years and years, and every single result that comes out ast and it's like bang, more sigma, bang more sigma, and they're still going, no, we're not listening, we're not listening. We're still hunting for this over here and dark matter and no, we're sure gravity is like this, and they're still going to fail fail. Well yeah, but it is. It really is a lot of it's really basic stuff, basic relativistic fluid dynamics and laws of conservation,

and yes, it's just ignored. It's just stupid. Sorry it is. Yeah, No, I think we can talk about that for a second too, because I was just posting yesterday and I was digging into this investigation and I found this guy, Matthias Chang, and I found this quote from this interview he did, which was really good, where he says that people are asking him what do you think happened that? What do you think is

going to happen with regards to this plane investigation. He says, well, people are so brainwashed and conditioned by what they get told, and people that are the authority that they're willing to believe just at face value, whatever someone says in terms of they give him a story from the authority, people believe it. And that's what I've come to realize. And I think this stuff like you mentioned, threatens the paradigm, But isn't that what science has always

been. Science is not a process of gradual improvement. What it is is people break through the barrier, right, and they set a new paradigm and then people are just that's been live view. I don't know what your thought is. It's been going on since Galileo Copanicus, Einstein, you name it, Newton, Darwin, you name every single breakthrough in human understanding. It's been kicked and pushed into the gutter. And you know the person's been kicked

and pushed into the gutter as well. You know that sort of stuff, because there isn't an orthodoxy as it weren't that is entrenched with its own Interesting now, if I mean, I know, I'm right, Okay, it might might. You know, I'm not alone anymore. I've got one of the world's leading mathematicians to go through this in the last two years and go ship you're right, you know, And he's done all the math in the equations and everything else, and you probably see what amount of wels leading physicists

and now follow me. You know, they know they smell something right blood in the waters. It's a something that's feeding time. Well, I say to them, don't bloody argue because I'm using their argument against because we present the invariants and all the data and everything to them, we say, don't argue, calculate and just go with a blow baby. That's good. Given

the analogy of the stream, I like it. I want to go back real quick to the dark energy stuff, because I think that's really interesting that something I had never considered as well, which is that, you know, the way that conventional academia explains the universe says that there's this big bang, which let's just go with it for now. I'm not sure one hundred percent agree, But the thing about it is that they say that the universe would

have had to expand faster than the speed of light. Right, And this also kind of comes into play when we start talking about quantum teleportation, right and talk about superluminal speeds. Well, if you have if you think of the underlying matrix with nothing projected on it, there, you have exactly zero inertia. Right, so now you are going to have superluminal speeds are now possible. Right, And now that could explain dark energy. How you get

this expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. So that's a new thing that I've just kind of epiphanized on based on our conversation just now. So did you have any comments on that? Yes? How many systems you're a programming developed, how many systems have you mounted and started an instant and a lot of the cpure, Yeah, quite a lot. I've been on a lot of sites across the country. Go ahead, go and mount

something very very juicy, and then kick it into run. But as you're mounting it, look at the actual pressures and the loads on the CPU, and all the memory, and all the heat and the tempera that's being kicked out by your system. Measure it all in grass and then align that craft to the expansions and the other bits that were happening within our universe, and

one will find a correlation. That's a good idea. I didn't really think about that, but yeah, I mean it's a things of like, yeah, bringing on a new computer system, you know, watching the power us increase over time, get more and more complex. You could say that there's

this pretty strong analogy to what you know, our universe is. And even the fact that we even have computers and you can describe everything in ones and zeros almost makes me wonder, is that already us hacking into the underlying framework of what our matrix reality really is? So well we know that. You know, if we take my theory and we say that time is an emergent in tropic phenomena, then it's emerging from somewhere Okay. Now my ideas are

that it emerges from what we could. We would use analogies as within the development worlds as parental domain, for example, so that parental domain, our emergent contextual duality emerges up. Okay. We could call that parnal domain the domain, not quantum information. Okay. But ultimately I believe that a methodology at work, that dynamic behaviorism, that modus underlying modus operandi is it says to me, I am a behavioral government methodology. Okay, the similarities are

just far too strong, Okay, So one could look at that. One could also use the analogies of a virtual abstract terminologies when looking at our duality, for example, our virtual side of magnetism and so on, and the abstract electricity doing that duality as it were, we are, for example abstract. That's interesting, Dave ROSSI was just talking about the duality of magnetism electricity

yesterday in our space and giving analogy of the male and the female. One thing I want to ask real quick, would you say, am I defining dynamic behaviorism correctly? When I would say that it's essentially going back the double slow experiment, how the universe is able to look backwards and forwards and determine what should happen. Is that would that be a good way of describing it.

Yes, it is the underlying modus operandi of our abstract reality. It governs conservation, which is everything essentially, even timed light, absolutely everything in the universe is governed by conservation, even this dynamic behaviorism. So conservation comes from a higher contextuality. So what I mean, Ashton? It has it has parental it has precedence as such in the order. Yes, so it's

coming from much higher. It's like there's a hierarchy of rules, right, and it's like, okay, that's the hierarchy of the top hierarchy in you've got it, it's the top constraint. Interesting, so one, Yeah, and therefore one could basically visit excep or that the and I think who is

it? Edibly? Gerald T. Hoof put out publication a year ago after I went public, proposing almost exactly the same in the the laws of physics are essentially an inheritance of those constraints, as it were, up the scales. Okay, so yeah, we can we can answer all all the all the problems where all the laws how that's all coming through and so on and all those bits and pieces. But it's like going back to the point. You ate, what was the point you were making about? Remind me if

you can they always do this? No, I think that that was That was pretty much it. It was just the idea of this construct and then that these rules that we have on top of it, and understanding what dynamic behavior is a parental domain I was I was talking about the parental contextual domain. Yeah, now is that the ultimate contextuality? Perhaps not? You know, where does it stop? I don't know. So if we think about okay, the freedom and okay, and then we talk about the dimension of

the gauge of time, we've got four dimensions. Anything else from that, we shouldn't really be looking at it as dimensional. We should be looking at it as contextual, okay, as a former contextuality. Okay. So we exist in as we know already, we exist in a few different contextualities. You're abstract, I'm abstract. Okay. There's also a fluid quantum side to us. We know that we exist as well as quanta. Okay, we know what those properties are. Now we understand it all about that. You

know that very cold thing. But that's part of you and it's not harming you, is it. So we have much to learn about this other side to our contextuality. Okay, that other side of that contextuality to us doesn't

hold a physicality. I like that understanding because I've always struggled with this idea of like five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, dimensions, right, I think it needs to be simplified down where it's like, Okay, we've got the three dimensions that we see are three axes, right, I can explain this, right, three axes, and then you've got the fourth one, which we can understands time because we understand time dilation is

a real thing, right, and we understand frames of reference. But beyond that, I like the idea of the rest of its contextual Right, It's like trying to understand how we all relate to one another. Doesn't mean there's necessarily another dimension that's there. Just means that there's more properties or more underlying behaviors that we don't quite understand related to the dimensions that we do experience.

It's just different forms of contextuality of the same thing. That's where you have the geometric unit, and it's that conservational nature of the universe that's providing for

us. Yeah, yeah, if I could opine just for a second too, I think that my mind's already starting to get blown from this, but I am starting to think that there's a relationship between engineering and physics itself where you need to understand the rules, right, the dynamic behaviors, and the upper bounds of what those rules are in the hierarchy of them in order for engineering to be able to know how to produce the effects that you want to

be able to create. Right. Once you have that relationship, then once they kind of mesh, now you can I would say, perform magic essentially, Oh gray hot please. And I don't know if we're talking about Star Trek replicators, but you know, why not, honestly, why not at this point if you can relate matter to that degree and you can actually make the quantum information inside of the contextuality, we could potentially say, oh, don't render me here, render me there. And that's what we've been seeing

happen with quantum teleportation. They just teleported a picture, a full picture was teleported, I think just last week, where I think it's amazing that science is starting to catch up with you know, us you and you know, and the destigation that we've been putting in. Yeah, and you know, like you said, it's in thirty years, right and yeah, nineteen ninety

seven, nearly thirt years, yeah, twenty five, thirty years. And and then you know, every day I think that we get more and more evidence that you know, begins to show that, know, these types of concepts aren't just you know, crazy theories. They're just stuff that actually explains reality better than conventional understanding. Right, Yes, it really does, and it does so very very simply, and one doesn't require agree just common sense.

Yeah, okay, that's what we record. So one thing. The next thing I want to come want to go to, which is similar to what we've been talking about, is are you familiar with Suskind and Maldacina by any chance eer equals epr no speed? Then yeah, this is Newtonian physics essentially, and string theories and you know, the field theories and so on. So most of us have been washed away. So here's what their theories are. They've had this theory called eer equals ep are, and what it

essentially means is general relativity is equal to quantum mechanics. And this uh, and actually, before I get to this, I just want to ask you a pretty simple question and you can answer however you want. Is do you think that we already have unification theories of quantum macro? Y? Yeah? And would you say that your theory of time of dilation theory is one of those theories or if not, what would you consider to be one of those

theories that unifies quantum macro to be, dynamic behaviorism is the unifier. Dilation theory is the explains the cosmos of what we see and gravity and the structure of the largest scale, whereas dynamic behaviorism covers the other side of the veil across the paradigm as well. So you have to put them together. To unify the cosmos. One has to answer all phenomena in the universe, not

just that what we know and understand. Now, yeah, okay, so it sounds like yes, you're saying you're saying yes, And so just to reiterate, just correct it requires two sides to the coin as it were to be to be solved, rather than just the one. Yeah, god yeah, yeah, And so that's where the er equals EPR is And just a correct something I said before is that I don't think we would describe as Newtonian physics. It's more of Einstein Rosen physics. Now eers Einstein Rosen and what

we're talking about there is wormholes like a bridge in general relativity. Some people have argued that black holes might have either another black hole on the other side or white hole, however you want to think of it. But you can think of an underlying bridge and the matrix right where you can break through and take a short cut. Right, It's like you find a little shortcut. And then EPR is Einstein Poldowski Rosen, which is quantum entanglement, spooky action

at a distance. Right. And so what Suska and the Maldosine have argued is, well, these concepts are fundamentally related. Now quantum entanglement, you know what you're talking about, dynamic behaviorism, right is it's taking a shortcut, it's finding that underlying way through the matrix, same way as the wormhole analogy is. And so what they argue is that there is no difference between the two. It's really just a matter of perspective in size, similar to

what you would argue with respect to your properties that are out there. Yes, and so when we already have stuff like quantum, we have quantum entanglement, we have quantum teleportation literally teleporting pictures. Right. It makes me wonder if perhaps it's just a matter of our perspective, is that we're not going to see a wormhole like when we look out there, right, We're just going to see maybe even just the mouth of it, maybe even not that

much. And it's not like it has to be something that's sitting out there. It's not since I can tell you like Star Trek Star Trek Deep Space nine, where this big worm whole thing appears and you're looking inside of it, right, that's not really what's going to end up happening, right, because when we look at quantum teleportation, it's not something where you're like,

we can see through the whole of where this information is teleporting. It's just that there's this underline framework that we can't see, right, that's able to do that. Now, what are your thoughts in general about that theory and that unification? Sure? Okay, Well, as I expressed, the inndication comes from the geometric conservational symmetries. Okay, so that explains all the unifying

of the scales. Okay, in that basically the proper the rule of that it's basically a new law, the first law, okay, in that our properties to note our behavioral outcome. Those behaviors are the states of matter for example, okay, like the bose Einstein Coom said, that's one of those base states of matter. Water as a fluid, is, as a gas, is as ices, and so on. So these are not things that we don't understand and we don't know about. It's just that we different terminologies.

Okay. Now, wormholes, yes, potentially okay, as I said, if you can manipulate the contextual domain of quantum information, but it's not in the same way you see, because this is when they've got all relativity wrong Ashton, okay, in that that underlying thing of the energy tensor is it's right, it's right, okay, But there's more to it, as it were, in that the more entropy energy one has, the more dilation one has. Okay. So it's the dilation that's causing the inertia, the

slowing of time. So it's time is the big factor, not like not the mass okay, but the time. Okay. So if we and those and going back to the wormhole thing. Okay, because we've corrected all of that misunderstanding, majority of what they're saying no longer applies. That's interesting. Yeah, we have to rethink the whole scenario. So let's think of it in that contextuality way. Can we achieve it? Okay? Can we go

from point to point within the universe? If you could, for example, amends your quantum information to say, I'm not where I am, but I am somewhere else, and I need to look after the consequences of the void that I leave behind me and all relevant impacting information and do exactly the same on the other side the other end. And I can do all that in that now there's no problem. But I doubt that will ever be the case. Well, so it's funny because that's what Saska and the and Maldosina actually

argue. And it's interesting when you watch their presentations about it, because the one limitation that seems to hold back macro scale teleportation through a wormhole is mass, And they say that you would need the mass because the mass is like you're I say, it's like your butt trying to get through the doorway and you can't. You can't wait cut it through, right, so we can

see it works on the quantum level. But if we reduce the mass to zero, then the equations seem to work out where now you can object, right, yeah, Now, that I think is what's that allowed those unifications. And then at that point you're just saying, I'm just allowing quantum teleportation of a macro object because I reduced the mass to allow it to obtain the

properties of quantum. You got it. So, yes, so potentially not as our form as we are, but in that potential state as we're holding that you know, quantum like state, okay phase potentially, yes, very much so, using entanglements that sort of thing of where we are. But we've got to make sure that the outcomes are more heavily weighted that we're over there rather than where we were. Yeah, you see what I mean.

It's like that, It's that deterministic process needs to be ticked and the conservational rule needs to be ticked. If it's more conserved to do it this way than the other, the universe might say it all right, fine, yeah, well so I want you to hear this part then too, because this

is really weird. I'm had to send you these presentations later because the one part that I was trying to get my head around is they throw someone into the wormhole and then they take a measurement on the side where they threw somebody into the wormhole, and this closes off that side of the wormhole. Then they throw the information over the other side. You can think of it as phoning somebody on the other side, and when the other side looks at that

information, that shoots the person out from that side of the wormhole. And I've been trying to wrap my brain around that, but it's almost like what you just mentioned in terms of like this level of symmetry. We have to see it to close the gap and whatever happened on the one side and now allow them to reappear on the other side without you know, breaking causality or what have you. I still haven't really fully grasped it, but I think

there something there. Yeah, I don't think so, mate. Honestly, I don't think ever, ever, ever be possible, and we don't particularly need it to be possible because we have all natives. Okay, let's take that in zero inertia state. Yeah you are. Now, let's let's close our minds, you know, open our minds a bit and say, okay, we're now considered quanta. We have a much much faster a relative rate of time. We don't hold any physicality as such anymore. What else,

we're very very cold. What other attributes would we have? Okay, we'd have a zero inertia state. So the geodisics essentially of the lattice of space time are no longer applicable to us. Of the larger scales. We now follow the rules of quanta. Okay. Now, as quanta with that is zero inertia state, if for example, we were to we know now that any form of entropy a slowing of time okay, creates that inertia that passive transfers to the ersaal gravity. So we can now use that a bit.

We hold a zero inertia state. Need directed entry in any particular direction will create that inertia and tug us through the universe, but pulling the universe towards us. Essentially we do not move. We hold no motion at all. Yes, okay, that yeah, we know that black holes essentially like cannot escape them. Why because the black hole is essentially consuming the universe, the cosmos as it were, faster than the speed of light travel through it.

Okay. So this method of modus is essentially there is no speed limit and we can speed time up enormously. Okay, So you know speed time and distance time is variable of that equation. You speed up the time as it were, you shorten your journey massively. Okay. So yeah, it's that sort of stuff. So it's we don't need wormholes. Yeah, we can already go anywhere at any rights of speed, and so how do we Yeah,

and so yeah, that's the part too. I'm trying to understand with it but without motion part, because so what would your thoughts be on the Alcoberry drive right where the Alcoberi drive says yeah, absolute winning idea. So I'll just do a quick explanation for people who may not be familiar, but Alcoberry drive is essentially the concept behind Star Trek warp travel. And the big

issue when moving at very high speeds is that you have friction. You have this capability where the people inside are going to get liquefied essentially from the kind

of the effects of moving out of very high speed. So what you need is a bubble around the object in space time, which can allow therefore be a different frame of reference on the inside versus outside that once you achieve that, you know, it sounds like we achieve kind of what you were talking about, where we can have zero mass and now this object can move at warp speed if we want to call it, whatever speed you want. So

how do you what are your thoughts on that? How do you think we would achieve this Alcoebarry bubble in order to allow for the zero mass and therefore increase local speed essentially that you're talking about. Well, that zero inertia state, that mass reduction trick essentially by the manipulation of time essentially on relative rate

of time, produces that mass reduction effect. So, like I was saying, we can use that to our advantage as well, in that we can create directed entropy to you know, shrink space time essentially in front of us. So it's shrinking, you see what I mean. We're not actually moving, we're manipulating the lattice essentially. Okay, So we're doing that. That's achieving that particular aspect to that puzzle jack of a drive is the same thing.

Essentially that entropy is flowing time and that's why and he's spending up time at the other end of him, So he's getting double the whack. It were a pull and a push. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, So you would say you would be contracting spacetime in front of you and expanding it behind you. Is that what your understanding would be? Yes, exactly that Yeah, interesting, that's all you need to do. Okay.

Basically, if you have, say we had like an egg or anything else, if we were to just have an egg in free space, Okay, if one side of our egg had a slower relative rate of time than the other side of our egg, it would potentially for its own motion. Yeah, that's to maintain that that difference. Then it would maintain that inertia and potentially just go on and on faster and faster and faster and faster, and it just never end. If you did the opposite, would have just slowed

down. Then all your thoughts, if you just well, you would essentially just stop. Remember we're not emotional. So now now you can see our friends how they now do that? Now, Yes, I never thought about it backwards, because like now you could have something stop in a superposition almost it feels like like freezing time. That would be very weird. Well, they would push up in if they would. Yeah, he's still there. Oh, I think we might have lost Roy. So I think I'm just

gonna riff real quick while we see if Roy can reconnect here. But oh, there you are. You're back, can you hear me? Okay? Yeah? Way through there. I don't know what happened. Okay, good.

Yeah, So just to reiterate that real quick, I think that so if we think about the Alcaberry Drive, if we think about contracting space in front of us and expanding it behind us, this is going to lead us to be able to achieve faster and faster let's say, outside frames of reference speeds of whatever's happening there within the let's call it craft or bubble or whatever.

But then if we reverse it, then it's going to slow things down more and more and more and more until you potentially get to a point where you're frozen in time, as if you were to approach the event horizon of a black hole. Right. Correct. So there's a couple that's a whole other aspect of it that I hadn't even considered. But I love the idea of symmetry and yin and Yang, and you know you can do the you know, opposite of things are always possible. So I appreciate the understanding there

on that side of it. But now that you mentioned our friends, I think we're talking about the UAP phenomenon. I wanted to get your thoughts on some of that because I do have a lot of people and viewers who are interested in it. You know, my personal opinion is that I think that there's life out there, probably everywhere, is my personal belief. Whether or not there beings visiting us isn't really that important in terms of my daily life, in terms of what I what happens to me. The technology is.

What's exciting is that there's this whole branch of technology out there. I think that we're basically cavemen who just figured out how fire works, and then we're thinking there, thinking oh, we've figured it all out, We've got fire right, and it's like, well, you've got a long way to go still. So but I do I do find it still fascinating the idea of non human intelligence, what's going on out there. So go ahead and let me know what's your thoughts on it, what's your interest in the in the

phenomenon and anything else you want to discuss. Well, seeing is believing, as I say, isn't it. It's all in the proof of the pudding. I was thirteen years old. I was having a family barbecue with on my family on my thirteenth birthday. I've been at the NAGC for quite a few years by that time. I was dealing with quite heavy levels of physics already. What I saw, I pointed out. We lived in the hepro airport, so I mentioned this my video. You know, I'm well used

to seeing aircraft. I know exactly what the aircraft looks like. I know exactly where they stack, where they don't, where the helicopter's coming, what trajectories, and what routes apply past that everything uses. This thing essentially did not have the usual attributes sort of an aircraft, in that it had a permanent light source that was orange orange in color, orange glowing red in color,

that sort of pulsed more prominently in a repeating pattern. So that caught my attention because it was different me being you know, an instant what are you mode? You know that sort of inquisitive kid. So and then asking the smart guy in my family, my uncle Dennis, what's that then, and he's saying, hmm, that's interesting. Mmm, you know the usual

sort of thing. Won't put his finger on it. And then you know more and more people's tension of being drawn to this thing as we're discussing it, and as we were this single atmosphere in under a second from a standstill position above about forty foot above the skyline of the housing that was about half mile away. So within three minutes, I said to myself, that's impossible.

Known the laws that I know, the only way logical possible that that can do that is this, it holds a relative past rate of time thirteen and I know already that they hold a past relative rate of time. That started to pursuit of abo my understanding about what the attributes of time really were.

In that enlightened me. That moment enlightened me, as it were, And then I started pursuing the attributes of time and looking for things in nature that would guide me in that way, and I found them in conservation and symmetry. So that then led to dilation theory. But it actually began when

I was thirteen years old on that evening. Yeah, and it's tricky too, right time is because we're all on the same Earth, right, and we're on the surface and it's a sphere, so we are all theoretically experiencing time at a very very similar rate, almost indistinguishable on another. Yeah, so that's the trick of time dilation. Why we don't see it now? For me, I wish I was only thirteen years old when I had such

an epiphany. It was actually for me, It wasn't until I watched the movie Interstellar where I realized, like, wait a minute, what time dilation is real? And then I google it because I didn't believe. I just thought there's no way. And so you know, it's been a rapid understanding for me on that front. Well, what are your thoughts then, do you believe that there are other non human intelligence beings visiting us? What's your

favorite theory when it comes to non human intelligence? Where do you think they're from? The well, as we've explored it, the capability to be coming from absolutely anywhere, and the cost busses. Now, as this slaps nils ideas you know who I'm talking about right out of the park. Not a clue, yes, but I guess what A guess? Yeah, of his theory is when it comes to an him intelligence, I feel like it's a

very closed minded approach right to the science, classical physics. I'm afraid, tied to classical physics, mass tied to you know, to what he's produced all his career and his life, and he must stick to it. And

I you know, salute is stoic attitude to dead ideas. Yeah, yeah, so I guess what you're saying there is, Please correct if I'm wrong, is that once you get to a point where you can have a zero inertia and superluminal speeds essentially quantum teleportation but of macroscale objects, then the local frame of reference for the traveler there time is they're not going to experience as much time as it takes to you know, come here from a thousand light

years away. It's not going to feel like a thousand years for them, right, They can achieve they can come here basically instantly, right, So, well, you would this is the thing. You would only need that very faster relative rate of time if you had something you had to negate the gravity of Wow. Yeah, okay, So if you're passing through a solar system, planets and things like that, turn on the base. We need to be independent of these guys all black holes or whatever. It would give

you a complete independence from everything. There would be no inertia of bonding from anything. You're the fastest guy in town, okay, right, so you only need that one and the baggage that comes with that would be an incredible age essentially if you were to maintain that. Yeah, so that's the problem. There's a hangout aging. Okay, So you know you would rapidly age in that type of base state in that term I mean if I don't know, perhaps you don't age when you are the phase of contact. Yeah,

you see what I mean. There's lots and lots and lots of things here that we need to test, look at what's going to happen, see what the outcomes are. There's lots and lots of things that need to be played with us before we even play with this. I do not recommend anybody playing with the phase of contact in their whatever. Okay, don't play with this stuff. Do not play with dynamic behavior and then in any way possible at

all. It's extraordinarily dangerous. Okay, your mum will be tiding you up with a mop Okay, Yeah, what do you think the implications are the cyber technology. I think that's probably a good thing to jump into next. Well, so we're going to have to face the implications of the technology. They are onto logical. Okay, certain aspects of this are onto logical. I won't go into that, you know, and now unless ask, but

it's it's it's a type rope. We're going to have to walk, like with anything, like with the gun, like with the boat, like with fire, like with the wheel, like with the aircraft, like with any development of humanity. We will have to deal with the implications of the change. Okay. Now, one of the changes is massive benefits to us as a resource in that we are no longer limited to any resource. Why are we fighting what about space? Well, we can go anywhere. What are

we fighting for? Sorry, We've got bigger problems to deal with, and one of them is our dogmatic tribalism. It's got to end boats, okay, because if we go, we've got to go together. Okay. That's the rule. Okay, one rule that I've figured out. That's the rule. You must go together. They will not put up with us being feral out there. Okay. End of now, if it is a construct, a holographic construct as such, what a nuclear few vision doing? What is

it doing? What a nuclear bombs doing. They're reversing the natural order process of the universe by ripping everything apart, rather than things getting more and more enterpy, more complex. Okay, what's going to happen to the underlying quantum information there or the residing data, whether that's its or what is related to you don't know. Stop playing with this shit. Okay, that's the point. They have no idea what they're playing with at all. This is how

it changes everything, Ashton, absolutely changes everything. Wouldn't you as a developer, if say you were responsible for this particular construct, let them piss with it? Mama, No, No, From a database ARCTEC standpoint, you never want anyone meddling in your in your sandbox, so to speak. You don't want anyone pressing with your baby. Yeah, that's definitely true. What

do you do you think? Just going back to the up phenomenon real quick, of these UFOs we're seeing out there, I'm just going to call them what they are. You know, what percentage would you think are potentially man made at this point versus ones? That are of other origin, unknown origin, And I think that this is more of a question of knowing how long

this physics may have been out there. I mean, you're talking about it thirty years ago almost right, Like you think that what were your thoughts to be on the ratio there and doesn't have to be exact, just curiously your thoughts. In general, I think the morphology is to giveaway, Okay.

The morphology tells you the actual levels of the technology when you ultimately realize what it all is and how it all hangs together and ever you think you realize that those those conservational geometric symmetries essentially are at work there, and that if you can emulate quanta, perhaps we can emulate other forms of even smaller scale geometry. Okay, so that tells you your morphology. So I'm essentially saying that it depends on what they look like in terms of Yes, that tells

you their technology. Okay level. Now I would say we were probably in the orb region. Yeah, because that's probably the simplest thing to do. Okay, all the sorcery sort of stuff that's very easy to do. The cubes that's very difficult to do. But once you get cube tech sort of level. Then you can go city tech level, neutron star level, you know what I mean, it doesn't matter how big you get when once you've

got to that level and this is this is what it's showing. This is confusing to me because I see, you know whatever, and I hear the reports of different this crap looks like this, this crop, this has more apology, just have that, And I'm thinking to myself, why are they

in saurceers anyway? I mean, you know, if you figured this stuff out and you know it dynamic, had that emulation as such is the thing, then why would you even bother with the saucer basic stuff, you know, which tells me that you haven't reully figured it all out certain species and that we might actually have to jump on quite a few. Yeah. So I think what you're saying there is the orbit sphere would be the easiest thing

to make. So potentially, if we see spheres out there, that would be probably the lowest form of technology that might be where we're at potentially, if we're just hypothesizing. Right, when you start to get more complex shapes, like that's where it's like, Okay, now you're really able to manipulate the effects at the very small level, like very high levels of control of the quantum effects right on the Maercroskill level. That's interesting because it makes me

think about Star Trek again. It's always going back to Star Trek for some reason with the b and their cubes, right, even though it's not really how we play out, but it's it's still it shows a level of just complete technological superiority. Right, So yes it does. But like I said, once you understand it, or it makes you want ponder like did they miss a trick? Yeah, it's like or is that the cheap budget version.

Well that's what I think about the video game Civilization a lot. And the part about it I think of is there's this tech tree, and like generally what happens is different people with different parts down the tech tree. And what this kind of is analogous to is this idea that just because a civilization is very advanced in one area doesn't mean they're going to be very advanced in

all areas. Right, And you can also look at our past civilizations on this planet, and I think you could argue some of that as well, is that some past civilizations may not have had computers, but they still understand these quantum effects at a level maybe even better than we do right now.

And so I find that's very interesting as well, So that that could explain why you might have beings they are busying us in a saucer, even though it may not be the most efficient method of you know, a microscopic quantum uh, you know, entanglement or a quantum coherence, but it's still a method where they can still you know, achieve whatever they're trying to do to travel whatever distances they need to travel. Maybe they're only coming from Alpha Centauri

and that's satisfactory. I don't know, just making it up. They could be coming from even nearer. They could be coming from say Europa, Yeah, there you go. Yeah, even within the solar system itself. Yeah, or some you know truth I mean, or here these it's it's it's yeah, it's it's really yeah, or even here who knows, I mean, best guess, isn't it really until we actually get you know, and ask them, hi from chaps? Yeah, you know, it's that sort

of But it's like, what was I going to say? Yeah, I mean, those those rules of properties to note the behavior don't just work for the cosmos. They seem to apply everything mhm, even in nature. So if we look at the attributes of them large eyes, h small, it sounds like a subterrannial species to me. Properties to know, you see what I mean, the environments as it were, and the environments to know the

attributes of whatever it is. Okay, so we look at them and then look at okay, what are the environmental things upon them, and we can pretty much say what sort of where they're from, and you know that sort of stuff. I mean, I think Gary Nolan should should be digging down down that one really rather than me. But it seems pretty obvious to me. Huge eyes, Well they live in a low light environment, you know what I mean. I mean, right, I mean adapt to your environment,

you know, especially over a long periods of time. I mean,

we can get that here. However, we've now got another problem up to another issue, which is that say they were using that phase all the way and that things rapidly age within that play state unless you've actually mastered DNA replication process where your time is no longer relevant to you and you will live forever like an octopie or whatever, you know, like some jellyfishes can do that sort of thing, or would you make them on route or when they're right.

Some of the attributes of this require that, I think to some degree that you require sentience. Okay, Now, yeah, consciousness is linked in a whole wou crowd out there are going to be raising air arms in you. We love you. Yeah, it does, okay, in that everything of that moment denotes the outcome, even you, what you're thinking, Okay,

all that sort of stuff. You're consciousness. Now, as I said before, if we deal with the universe in the way of contextualities, then one can consider us consciousness itself perhaps an emergent property m and that we are. Therefore, if it's a holographic constructors the hypothesis is looking like it is,

then you are avatar. I was about to say that. Okay, So now we are all linked in that parental domain, as it were, and we are all here as avatar in the abstract consciousness out here, right, And yes, that's in the matrix somewhere else in the underline framework, and this is connected to it, right, yeah, because we do not hold the correct context. Now, now he's developed our heads turned on that one. So what I mean, it's all about one's contextuality and one's properties

about any one moment. So what you're saying there is that you could fly your object to another distant solars without even maybe passengers in it can build the body when you arrive and have your consciousness somehow avatar your way into it, right and now you so there may even be ways to get around this issue of your speeding up of your time kind of housing this mass aging, rabid aging that happened to you. Yes, there are multiple opportunities, now you

know what I mean. One thing leads to another, it leaves more opportunities. But you've got to have a total grasp but the whole big picture really before you can even start to look at some of those probabilities or possibilities. I mean you're talking about bulk in all of the probabilities or possibilities, could

there be balk Yeah, No, that's the answer to that one. No, Because once you realize, as I said, what the cosmos is essentially, and they will get to that point no matter who you are, where you are in it. Yeah, okay, then you will understand the fundamentally a lot more about it in what it is and what is purpose or is and what your purpose within it is in that it is of you and you

are ultimately of it. M So you're saying that there would be a higher spiritual understanding as too, more of a mechanical more so, much more so, incredibly more so. Okay, that's more spenting species of that per section level of perception. Would consider everything holy, Yeah, spiritual everything. That's interesting. It makes me think of the idea of dharma and you know, holy in life to be sacred, like the way that people in India whole

cows to be sacred, et cetera. It's like you achieve this unity with the planet itself and I think that's a very beautiful thought in general, right, just unity with the cosmos essentially, that's the point you would read to that point. Now, like I said, it's some of the bits and pieces are ontological, but some of it is ontological to the point of it's actually bloody good news for a lot of people. Yeah, Okay, Now, I've been an atheist my whole life. My head has been filled with

physics and science and everything else. I ask anyone in my family what I've about God forever? Okay, So I'm not going to hold my hands up and said, I believe in God. But any construct requires a construct Yeah, that's the point. Any construct requires a constructor. And we do live in a construct. We live in a contextual emergent contextual duality of geometric symmetries within symmetries projected upon a gauge lattice as a holographic space time continuum. That

is the cosmos. Now we know what the box is, it's time to play yes so on that front, and this is I think one of the last questions I want to ask, although it's going to bring it back to the dark side of this as well, is what do you believe that this type of technology. I'll just throw this out there. My understanding is that this is like a Pandora's box. Once you open up the world of technology, it's not coming back in. You're getting all of it. You can't

just pick and shoes, you know. This isn't a burger king. You can't customize to have it your way. You've got to take everything. And what that means in my mind is doomsday weapons. The ability to destroy our whole planet becomes just simple, not just a matter of dropping a bomb, but like literally destroying the whole planet, or destroying the Sun, or maybe even our destroying our whole universe. What is your thoughts on that and how

do you think humanity has to be responsible to prevent that from happening? Exactly that we need to be very very very responsible. Okay, Now we already have that capability. We already are this antimata. If we were to allow that antimatter to collide as it were to nothing, that would remove our planet and half the Solar System. So we already have that capability without this technology to do that. And real quick, what does antimatter basically, it's the

other side of matter. How do we have that? That would argue that we don't, So I'm just curious. Yes, we do have it. We have anti hydrogen, for example, and we use it at certain Okay, so we do hold it, but we only produce very very small microbe amounts at that time and then release that and observe that. So it's tiny, tiny, tiny amounts that we are actually producing. But we do. So the capability of doing what you say is already there, okay, but

we haven't done it. Why of course the one I've said children, Yeah, Okay. Everyone wants a better world for their children, even the Russians, Okay, even the Chinese, they want a better world for theirs, and so on and so on. And if we can come to a common agreement that okay, let's for our children and do this for them the future, and I think we're all going to be in a good place, okay, and that if we set down some ground rules. For example, no

militarization of this technology. None. Okay, this technology can be mitigated when one understands it completely. Asta. I'm not going to go into those details, but it can be mitigated. Okay. We can't stop them, Okay, we can control them if we want it to with a greater understanding of the technology. Okay, So that mitigates all that. Oh we're going to blow up the world with this, and we can zoom things into things like

that can sit through matter exactly in that funny state and everything. Well, yeah, and no, because you can mitigate against this technology as well, just as much as you can create it. That's good. It's interesting to know. I mean, one thing to day Rossi has mentioned is this ability to detect gravitational way, which could be a way where you could detect the use of the technology and is a gravitational way. Now, if we look

at the dialation series side of it, what is a gravitational way. All that is is essentially a ripple of slow time in the symmetry of time. Okay, So all you need to do is look for where and what our friends are doing is that they are doing the other end of that. They're not slowing time, they are spreading up time. So all we need to do is use interfrometry in an array and see where time is being sped up. Okay, we can do that now, so we can use these things

to track them or put up safeguards against them or whatever. Also, any this, obviously, when it produces into a place tape is another form of simply electromagnetism. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it still is the form of electromagnetism. Diamagnetics reject electron geticism. Okay, So diagmagnetics can be a shield

against them. Okay. Also, the properties are diagnogetics can help us create that state in that if you would have a close form of energy associated next to a diagnagnetic and you were to put power to it, the electrons traveling through that medium would be rejected by the diaminetic and become extended. Extended electrons are a property of content. The can auncil actors actually a building tool building blockers, yes, where you can create it or reject it as it were,

using exactly the same material. Okay, so it's extraordinarly easy to make this stuff, to be honest, And the technology is essentially the same as your your refrigerator in that all you are doing is that you are getting preferential outcomes of behavior by changing one's potential properties, which is exactly what we do in the refrigerator. One of the most powerful diamagnetic elements is bismuth as well. I think they keep coming back up time and time and time again in

this uh liquid bismuth is five hundred old. Then it's solid property. So again those symmetries different things. In different symmetries give different relative rates of time and give different strengths of its electromagnetic resonance ability. M So we cut it down. Might be a method that you could do to change his properties?

Then yeah, well it's it's it's smelting point is very low. It's even lower than interesting, So you could have something like, Yeah, so liquid form of busmus and then have something with a high lineal say strontium, with like, you know, high electrons, so that the closer the electron is to nuclear hard that they are to knock off. Then okay, the further they are awaving the nucleis center, the easier they are to knock to extend.

Okay, so you want materials that got those high electrons, so strontium is a good one. Bor on things like that, and then have that behind some sort of dibagnetic pumps and power through its, ay even copper magnesium, something that, you know, something really cool that can you know, you put round in those particular shapes that you need, as we see in

the aircraft, the particular orbits or the electrons as it were. So yeah, that goes back to your flight in that Basically, what that's showing is a transitional phase in that the orbs are emulating the behavior of Quanda because they already hold that superconductive state and are already considered by the universe therefore guanta all right, Okay, so it gets into a pattern. Oh, we've got

nucleari, We've now got electrons orbiting. Oh, Quanta transitional base. Okay, that incredible speed, rate of time instantly, the cold environment and so on, it looks like teleportation. But essentially what this thing has just done is shot up and incredible rex but that way in your eye or the camera concin so yeah, you'd only have to need it on for like second, and you'd be five hundred miles that way. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah.

And just for people that following along, we're talking about the MH three seven zero videos, we're talking about the orbs traversing around the plane and the trip plane just disappearing straight from space time with this endo thermic events, this absorption of energy that we see there. I think that a lot of people

have their own opinions in terms of how to explain it. And that's part of what is so exciting for me when I talk to physicists and engineers is getting everyone's different theories and understandings of how it's it's happening, and trying in my own mind to like mesh and reconcile them together. So I think, yes, on star article, look at the other one. The correlation with this fight the spin and the time, and there's rates and so on and

brilly much. You don't need a degree. Just like I said, common sense. Really look at what you're looking at, Examine that. What are the properties of it? What does that correlate to? Do we know anything about that? Yes? Does it then make sense? Yes? Gives you the answer? Awesome? Well, thanks, Roy. I think that's probably a good spot to end on this particular conversation. Do you want to go ahead and plug anything or anyone or you know, thank anyone or whatever you

want to do and give you a few months ahead. Well, obviously I'd like to fight think Mike gifted colleague Martin Gibson, who it goes under the account of uni servant, where dilation theory in the math and all of the detail and all of that, and the physics side of it, the more serious side of it rather than my abstract musings as well, is on his

account. The more visual side of it is on my account. And also to say that for any technical reference or anything to do with the phenomena, people should be contacting Ted Row Okay, because Ted is fully aware of the modus the abstract and is one of the people that's actually seen the non public domain information. Okay, So if you do want any I will pug ted is god mode without u ap okay, any subject? Okay, and Ashton

keep digging. I know that you're right, and I thank you very much for your video because your video when it was brought to my attention, proue dynamic behaviorism is correct. So thank you. Yeah, no need to thank me. It's the world's videos, to be honest with you, and I hope that those videos end up bringing a greater truth and understanding of science to the entire world. That's really my only objective out here is well, I'm free. Anybody wants to ask me questions, just send me down on X

or Twitter or whatever is you want to. I jump into rooms often and answer people's questions as well, so I'm always accessible. And like I say, it's been a long long time shouting at doors. But yeah, is that the best way to find you? On Twitter? Yes, it really is. I don't. I don't use any other form of social media. I think a few people created to see things for me, but I never

visit them at all. I'm usually on here because majority of all my colleagues and so on, we we we, you know, we communicate with this. Can you be found at roy D Herbert on Twitter, So go ahead and give roy a follow out there. He's got several thousand followers already, and as he mentioned, he's got some pretty prominent physicists who follow him as well. So if you want to be on the cutting edge of science, this is the man to follow right here. Okay, guys, well,

we're going to go ahead and close down Hard Shrews Number five. Thank you all for watching today. We appreciate it, and thank you Roydy Herbert very much, the physicists for being here and teaching us about time dilation and dilation theory.