All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2020 - Clif High
53:07
immigrant's guide to SciFi World S0E2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning.
It's 8.03 a.m. on August 3rd, 8.3 2020, or year 0.
Okay, so a couple of things have shown up in terms of synchronicities, one of which has to do with the main underpinning of the main prop, the main propellant of the sci-fi world, which is the busting out of innovation.
So we've been stuck in this period for at least 30 years, two 15-year tranches, if you will, where innovation had slowed down.
There'll be a lot of people that will dispute that, but we've had no fundamental breakthroughs in physics in a long time, as an instance, right?
We've had incremental improvements in things like software.
We've come up with, there has been the creation of cryptocurrencies, but arguably the innovation there was a small pin that fit into the last little gear and cog mechanism within a structure that had been basically designed in 1968, the idea of a digital currency that couldn't be double spent.
And then they never, in 68, they just didn't have the mechanism nor the concept of the internet and all these other things that would have allowed the concept of digital currencies to be fully fleshed out then.
So it happened in this period of 30 years or so.
And so we've had incremental improvements, but all of it based on fundamentals that were, in terms of science and innovation speed, these were ancient principles.
So we're still working on principles that Tesla devised, as an instance.
His breakthroughs are powering all of our world at the moment.
And so we've been in this innovation pause, this innovation malaise as we slug through a swamp where we just weren't seeing any new improvement.
And then I happen to come across, or they happen to do it, whichever way you want to talk about it, Brett and Heather, Brett Weinstein and Heather Hang, in their podcast number 34 the other day, in which they discuss this very subject.
Not quite with my woo-woo angle, but nonetheless with an appropriate focus on the issues of innovation and what causes the stall out.
And so here's an image of them in their Your Questions Answered for their 34th Dark Horse podcast live stream.
And you want to go and listen to them from about two minutes until about six or seven minutes in in order to get the full understanding of what my point is on this, because they'll lay it out.
Now, the reason I'm not going to play it for you is I don't want to take up your time playing these four or five minutes.
You get the point in the first couple of minutes, and they're academics.
You know, I mean, I don't mean to get on their case or anything, but they're academics.
So they're used to teaching.
So they plop all of this stuff in there to try and make sure that as many people as possible are going to get the point, right?
Because that's their goal, is to try and disseminate across mental barriers the same level of information sinking into each noggin, regardless of how those noggins are wrapped.
And so I find academia to be tedious because 90% of the way that they present information does not work for me.
And being a self-taught individual, I had to work out my own methods for self-education.
And thus, and it was because those other methods don't work for me.
So I'm not really fond of academics and how they present things.
They work in some degree for 90% of the people.
I'm in that other 10% that they just do not reach.
And I can't learn that way.
But in any event, I'm not going to play it because it's long, it's lengthy.
And the point is that we've been in an innovation stallout for a number of decades.
They have attributions for why that stallout has occurred.
And they're actually, in my opinion, putting it down to a mechanism and not the underlying cause.
But their approach to the mechanism, the fact that the mechanism has been examined by academia with no solution to it.
So an academic in this sense.
All right, so let's back up.
The academics here, not only do they have a propensity to try and deal with the pedagogy, the methods of teaching, academia in and of itself, to some small extent, is self-analytical, at least insofar as trying to understand what blocks or what aspects of their entire process, the system of systems, can be analyzed.
And so Brett Weinstein here at like four minutes and 13 seconds, he expresses this idea of a particular theorem that goes to the idea that science advances funeral by funeral.
In other words, as long as these fuckers are alive with their crystallized knowledge as to what knowledge should be, that's all they teach.
It's the same kind of thing that doctors run into, which is the not taught to me equals bullshit rule.
In other words, if I wasn't taught this stuff by my mentor, it's not worth knowing.
All of which is stymying the supposed open mind that we're trying to create.
And it's leading to this or participating in this innovation stagnation, right?
And so we've been in this period of innovation stagnation for at least 30 years and arguably for perhaps 70 or 80 years if you're looking at fundamental principles.
So for instance, Feynman, all the way back into Teller, all discussing the atomic explosions, all realize and discuss in their various works hesitatingly and hidden allusions to the idea that, oops, it's not really nuclear forces that we're messing with.
And none of these atoms were in any way destroyed.
They were simply ripped apart.
And what happened was we unleashed a terrible force which was electrical in its core manifestation.
And so academics will, in their structure of how they see the world, try and fit, as everybody does, those parts into their particular narrative.
And many times, I wasn't taught it, therefore it's not worth knowing.
Some of these people understand that they're running into that barrier, and some of the people try and have methods to work around it.
Now, the person in the image above, Brett's the guy with the bandana.
Heather is obviously the woman sitting over there with the microphone who looks like she knows what she's doing.
And the guy up at the top there is Eric.
That's Eric Weinstein.
Now, he's a physicist, and he's Brett's brother.
And both of these people, all of these people, are very intelligent.
I actually think that Heather's the most intelligent of all of them, but that's a secondary issue.
Eric is a physicist, and so he's in a world of hurt, okay?
Because even he understands there have been no fundamental breakthroughs in physics in so long that he can't really quantify it.
He can, because he's a mathematician.
That's another thing.
Mathematicians can quantify, but not qualify.
To qualify something, you describe the qualities of it.
To quantify it, you enumerate it.
You count it.
You apply mathematics to it.
In one case, the qualities for human minds describe something.
It's a rich flavor.
It's a creamy sauce.
The quantities do not describe things, right?
So one shallot, one garlic, half a cup of butter.
All right, you may, if you have experience of these things, be able to anticipate from the numerics the qualities that you're going to encounter.
But the numerics in no way describe the experience that you're about to have.
But you can, with words, get much closer to qualification than you can with numerics.
However, many, many, many human minds, because of our pattern recognition stuff, because of our biology, or as Brett will tell Eric, many human minds are predisposed to become trapped in a mathematical cage where they have a feeling associated with the imagining of numbers and structure and order.
And that feeling is worth trying to recreate because of how they enjoy it, because of how they participate in that feeling.
And so their mind becomes trapped in this numeric paradigm.
And so they quantify the fuck out of everything without qualifying anything.
Many people that are like that are extremely intelligent, but they're not very smart.
There's a difference.
Boy, I didn't really mean to get into this.
But here's the thing.
Everybody is intelligent to some degree, and everybody is smart to some degree temporally.
So intelligence is a measure in a general sense of your state of being.
And you have a degree of intelligence.
And obviously, tadpoles aren't very intelligent and humans are.
And all tadpoles at all times will be not very intelligent.
Now, all humans at all times, certainly relative to tadpoles, will be intelligent.
But not everybody is smart at any given time.
And smart is the decision of the moment.
So a being can be described as smart.
So let's examine for a minute, oh, like Joe Rogan, or even to some extent Brett here, right?
So they have a degree of smartness that Eric is not expressing because both Joe Rogan and Brett take their intelligence and they apply it to their own physical form and they keep themselves fit, whereas Eric does not.
So Eric might be more intelligent in a measurable scale than his brother Brett, but on a smartness scale, in any given moment, Brett's doing better because he has the accumulated effect of many, many, many smart decisions over many years that have led to a more fit body that will last longer, allow his brain to perform better, give him less troubles, etc., etc.
So smartness is the application of intelligence to the decisions of the moment with a long-term goal in mind and the ability to analyze and maintain that structure of smartness through time just and apply it to each and every moment that you go through.
So it's kind of like developing protocols.
That's what doctors do, is they develop protocols to keep themselves from fucking up any more than they actually do.
Protocols do not aid diagnoses.
They don't aid cures.
They are simply a method to try and minimize the huge number of errors that doctors create because of their ignorance and because of the teaching methodologies, usually because the teaching methodology that intrudes the most is, I wasn't taught it, so I can't look at it now.
I've got to shove this damn thing into this guy right at this moment because that's the only thing I know how to do.
That kind of mindset.
Okay, so, all right, so there's our players, right?
But many of them, no, I bring this up because Brett and Heather were discussing innovation, and they were discussing it in a way that I would not, because I'm not an academic, and it never would have occurred to me to approach it quite that way.
I knew we were in an innovation pause.
I felt it myself.
I understand from my own perspective how these things originate.
I don't really care about the examination of them and the codification of their numerics or their qualities, as long as those qualities and numerics don't get in my way in my own analysis and so on.
So basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not intrigued at all by the slicing and dicing and taxonomy that intrigues most academics.
So the way that Eric's mind is captivated by mathematics, Brett's mind is captivated by formula and taxonomy.
He's a biologist or evolutionary biologist, so it means he has a tendency to apply behavior to taxonomy.
And so, but again, you're bounded by specific kinds of order.
And so I just don't, my mind doesn't work that way.
I don't see the world in either of their particular approaches.
But what's interesting is that just the other day on August First, here, I guess it was.
Brett and Heather were talking about innovation in a way that reflects what's going on and why we're breaking out of this innovation stagnation.
Now, they don't understand the why of it, and we can just, it doesn't matter really at this stage.
We can just note here for our particular purposes in the examination of an immigrant's guide to sci-fi world, which is emerging all the way around us, that innovation stagnation is indeed busting loose and cracking open now, the way that these giant frozen rivers crack at the beginning of spring.
I know we're into summer and so on.
This isn't a weather thing, it's an analogy for the shaping and the cracking of forces.
So, the innovation stagnation blockages are breaking down along with all of these other social structures that were also rigidified by the direction we were heading in.
And please note what Heather says before Brett launches into his story about fencing, which is a pretty good short.
I wish he'd added more of it, you know, because fencing is kind of cool and he could have pointed out some of the nuances there.
But he's quite accurate about what he had to say.
She brought up the issue of propensity inertia.
Once some inertia is overcome, momentum keeps you moving in a particular way.
And that has been part of the key here.
In any event, so now we're at a point where, in our general sense of things, in year zero, where the emergence of sci-fi world, especially this August, is going to be propelled in new ways as the physics that the world has become accustomed to,
driven by academia and imposed on us by academia, not organically, but imposed on us by academia and officialdom, by which I mean, you know, Tesla dies and his documents are not made public.
They're wrapped up and sealed up by officialdom four minutes after they find out he's dead.
And everything is just like, whoosh, disappeared.
So that and academia imposes a physics on the world that's not accurate and it's not meaningful.
And so we're about to bust that loose exactly the way that Brett and Heather discuss, which is outsiders are going to come on in and unseat the quantifying of physics with a qualifying that's going to undo, or actually it's not going to undo, it's going to destroy the underpinning of a lot of the current physics.
The gadgets and stuff we've got still work.
We know why they, then now we'll know why they work as opposed to inventing these fantastic mythical things for why they might work.
We're going to come to a real solid understanding.
Now, because I'm into it, I happen to think it's going to arise from writers like Boscovich and a reexamination of the dielectric and magnetism and electricity and light and gravity and the forces that create and so on, but not in the way in which you have with CERN, which is absolutely absurd.
You just keep going on and on and on with it.
It's an absolute waste of money.
So a couple of things that need to be noted.
From my viewpoint, sci-fi world is going to be accompanied by increased visitation and increased awareness and much more discussion of the UFO subject.
This is going to arise, I think, because of what we will do is, what humanity will do with the new emerging physics.
This new emerging physics will be labeled something that I'm not certain how it's going to be labeled, but I know actually the underpinnings of it and the methodologies of it because I'm way deep into Boscovich and that description of the underpinning nature of reality and how we might get at making certain things happen.
Now, I know that the innovation blockages are opening because of the huge number of return, because very, especially relative to recent science stories in media,
we've had a very large increase in the number of stories and articles about that have elements about a return to Tesla's time.
So for instance, just today I saw that there was an article, it was sent to me by someone via email, and it was about New Zealand starting a wireless, a commercial wireless energy broadcast, where the electricity will flow through the air, you won't need wires, therefore off the grid is meaningless, right?
Because you can go live anywhere if the electricity is flowing over your head, you suck it down and there you go.
You don't need the wires, et cetera.
It really saves a whole lot of screwing around with shit.
Well, this is something that Tesla was going to do.
So we're going back to his view of things.
Now, Tesla did not buy into Einstein's E equals MZ crap.
Tesla was entirely an ether-driven inventor.
And he didn't participate in ether parties, the anesthetic.
He was intrigued by ether, A-E-T-H-E-R, as the fundamental nature of physics.
And he thought everything from the Mitchelson-Morley experiment onward was crap, especially Einstein and his approach.
And I agree.
You can't get energy back out of matter has nothing to do with the speed of light squared.
And matter increased in speed does not necessarily increase in mass.
And this is easily demonstrated within many of the pages.
He goes back to it and shows how it all works in Boscovich's accurate, very, very accurate description of the reality in which we live.
It's extremely tedious to read, though.
And there's a free copy online.
This is Boscovich's Theora Naturalis Philosophy.
It was written in, or published in 1763.
And there's a PDF online.
You'll find it as a link in many of the video.
Maybe I'll be able to throw it into this one too.
We'll have to see.
Anyway, so the innovation stagnation blockage is going to be propelled by outsiders, not by people that, as Eric and or as Brett and Heather were discussing,
not by people inside the arenas that had been closed and had been operating as basically closed group sync pavilions.
And so we find a very interesting thing where political science majors, when commenting in on, or just when leaving comments on Brett and Heather's live stream, say that Brett and Heather are unqualified to comment on political shit.
It's like, wait a second, fuckers.
You know, this is that total closed mind that says, if you don't have a degree that I've got, you can't comment on anything in my field.
And that's instantly when I say, well, you're one dumb son of a bitch.
You won't learn any more than you already know.
And we'd basically better just, you know, set you aside and keep you occupied with whatever tools we can and play and games so that you don't cause problem for others because you're not going to advance much in life.
In any event, so the innovation blockages are over as part of sci-fi world's emergence.
We're going to see these rapidly as the war with China heats up because it will become necessary that we propel ourselves and war traditionally is one of the ways in which innovation comes to the surface.
Now, a lot of these things are going to be based on back to the future kind of things, right?
In the sense that we're going to go back to Tesla in order to leapfrog where we are now.
And it will happen relatively rapidly because we have infrastructures for adopting or adapting things into technologies that are just lying in wait to be put to use with new technologies.
Now, some of the innovations like the quantum internet, that's actually, I'm very intrigued about that because of the accidental discovery that's going to occur there that's going to cause a huge, huge, giant leap forward that is totally unexpected for all the people except those guys that read my reports and listened to some of my woo-woo stuff.
And so the quantum, I'm going to draw here, and so I'm going to pull the microphone over with me and we'll see how that works.
Okay, so hang on a second.
Okay, so as part of our bust out of the innovation stagnation, there are people that are talking about a quantum internet.
Now, they're talking about it as a tactic or a strategy within warfare, really, because a quantum internet is absolutely secure communications between myself and any number of people.
One person, two, however many I would want to invite in, or allow access to my material, and you couldn't be hacked.
And there's various different ways that this occurs.
And the quantum aspect of it is really bullshit.
And what the numerists, what the mathematicians have done is become captivated by numbers, and each of their numbers, or one of their subsets of numbers, that is to say quantum mechanics, actually is attempting to describe, attempting to qualify, and it is never going to succeed.
Thus it's in a little bin and stuck in itself.
It's attempting to qualify or to describe by quantification a limited number of qualities within the asymptotic arcs within the primary curve within the dielectric expression, which is ether speak, okay?
So they're actually using a whole lot of numbers to describe a little small aspect that's very well described already of ether.
But in any event, so they're going to try and create an Internet out of it.
Because they're mistaken about the underlying premise, they're actually going to have a stroke of genius.
And they're going to do something, insofar as my reports are suggesting, way back when, and all of the data sets way back when, are suggesting that this stroke of genius is going to end up connecting us to the galactic Internet that's already out there.
It's already around us, right?
We just don't have an internet card to tap into the etheric internet that is in existence now.
It's not a quantum internet.
It runs off of these things called limit points of cohesion and limit points of non-cohesion.
The language is obtuse and you have to be very pedantic about it in order to be able to make sure you're getting the point across.
And I'm not going to delve into it now because there is no point in this particular video.
Just go and read Boscovich or accept what I'm saying at the moment that there exist other species that have come to the same point of understanding about the internet, about communications among themselves.
So species that have telepathy have no need for what we're devising right at the moment.
This quantum internet, the existing internet, blah, blah, blah.
They don't operate that way.
But anybody that's bound by a cranium and where they're not able to broadcast out their thoughts, but do have sensory apparati to put it into another form, will at some point, that species will either destroy themselves, advance, or not.
If they do advance, they will get to this point where we're at right now.
And our guys are going to make a mistake, which will be a stroke of genius, and it will actually tie us into an existing internet, intergalactic internet that is in existence for, I don't know how long.
Maybe we can discover that once we tie into it, and we'll be able to suck information out of it.
And it alone leads to huge amounts of innovation once we get the bugger working, but that's going to take a long time.
So we'll discover it, we'll figure out that it exists, and then it's going to take us a while to actually be able to suck information out of it in a meaningful way.
We don't speak Palladian, for instance, right?
So it's going to be a few years, probably about 18 total.
Probably about 18 years total before it's in general use by just regular people.
And that'll be cool as hell.
Okay, but as part of the quantum internet mistake, these guys will go off and they'll discover it by virtue of what they're aiming at.
So separate from all of that and not related to it, but we'll get a boost out of it and operating on the same fundamental principles involved, we're going to have this, the part of the innovation stagnation and the entry into sci-fi world delve into what are called the weak forces,
gravity, etc., but are again involved with these arcs of attraction, repulsion, and this primary curve that comes out in magnetism.
And so we're going to understand magnetism in a way that we do not now, which will open up different thoughts.
And I'm going to end this here really quickly by saying that after a long number of months, months, and very many different attempts, many of which led to bodily injury and staining, oh man, the chemicals and the stains and stuff.
After that, after many months of this, so it's been, I've been doing it for a number of years total, but really seriously for the past seven or eight months out of 18, ramping up in a slow pressured way.
I've been able to, but basically what I was attempting to do was to be able to visualize magnetic fields as they actually are manifesting, not in the visualizations that have been provided to us by the tools we've already got.
So for instance, the supercells, which is, you know, ferrofluid between two plates, give you a two-dimensional representation.
Just like the iron filings on a sheet of paper held over a magnet give you a two-dimensional representation.
This two-dimensional representation is usually seen as something like this.
And so the magnet is this thing here, the rectilinear shape, and these other things are the magnetic lines of force.
And that's the way it, you know, it's much more complex than that.
But basically, that's what we're looking at here.
And we assign north and south.
We assign north and south to particular poles.
That's a terrible N. Oh, that one's not much better.
Anyway, and so that understanding, that image, that visualization of magnetic force is both inappropriate and unworkable.
So it didn't work for me.
I was not able to, I was experiencing, I was messing about with magnets.
I'd come up with some stuff.
I started messing about with the fields themselves.
Not the magnets per se, I'm just buying regular commercial magnets, but I was doing things, I'm doing things to alter how those fields express themselves out of that magnet.
Now, let me see if I can put this out there.
This is a fundamental discovery.
I'm putting this into some of my patents, but I can release this part out as prior art because it doesn't relate to the actual production of devices or methods for using that art.
So this is simply an understanding that anybody, once you come to this understanding, will be able to make stuff out of it that will be different than I'll make out of it because the devices and so forth that I'm going to make are, you know, because of my peculiarities, my personality peculiarities.
But here's a fundamental understanding.
And I've actually been able to achieve this.
I did not know this was possible when I set out.
And so I'm going to claim, as of this date, although I achieved it, I'd have to go back and look in my logs how far back it was that I first actually did it.
But now I have an understanding of what's going on because I've been able to map it.
All right, so let me, I'll lay out what I, the mapping process, and then I'll lay out what the discovery is, and you can make of it as you will.
And do with it what you want.
And then we'll end the video and I'll go about doing some more work.
So we'll end the video when I get these two ideas across.
So that representation that I previously had up there of a magnetic force field is inaccurate and unworkable.
I had to come up with a method of looking at and visualizing magnetic force fields and to show me some of the stuff that is lost in these two-dimensional representations.
Or even three-dimensional computer graphs, computer models of magnetic fields are not as they actually are.
There are some other tools out there now that basically all involve ferrofluid, but you have to understand something.
Ferrofluid is the introduction in to a non-magnetically conductive fluid, usually an oil, of magnetically sensitive material.
There's the rub.
So you've got a vat of oil, and you have little tiny flakes.
You have little tiny flakes in it that are magnetically sensitive, and you want to see the shape of a magnetic field using this oil.
You put this oil into a container, and then you put a magnet near that oil in order to get this material to react to the magnet.
And so if the magnetic fields interact with the particles, then all the particles, all the particles line up with the magnetic fields here, and you see a change in the fluids.
But here's the thing.
These magnetic particles are actually becoming magnetized.
They're reacting to the magnetic field that's being leaked out of the dielectric, leaked out of the magnet, which was created by an electrical shock.
And so they're participating in the magnetism.
They're not reflecting it unaltered.
They are in fact being altered by the magnetism.
So it was very, very, very difficult to come up with a mechanism for looking at these magnetic fields that didn't involve the mechanism itself also participating in the viewing process.
And I was able to achieve this.
It was tedious.
It was, you know, I'm doing it by hand.
I'm not trying to create devices.
I can probably end up with a patent on that, but I can probably end up with a patent on the viewing device, but then now I've got to write that patent, and I've got a bunch of these things stacking up.
So it's becoming kind of a problem because the patent process itself is getting into the, is binding me up in getting past each of these in order to get at the next iterative understanding increase.
So, anyway, so basically what I've done is that I've spent the past months coming up with a way of visualizing and understanding how magnetic fields work.
This has led to the ability to visualize something I'm able to create in reality, and I could recreate it continuously in reality.
It's a pain in the ass to recreate, but I was able to do so without having an understanding of what I was actually causing to occur.
And this is something I laid out in Bix Weir's, in the video with Bix Weir the other day.
And it's meaningful for those people that want to investigate this, and it will tell you a lot and more power to you with your inventions.
Please patent them out and get them into production because we're busting out of this innovation stagnation.
And I want to see people take these ideas and get them out there in a common oric fashion.
But here's the thing.
Because of this ability, or because of the work and the understanding of how to visualize the magnetic fields, I am able to now state that some things we did not know about magnets.
Let's just put it that way, and magnetic fields.
draw something for you here real quick so this is this would be a set of four block magnets And I've worked with some that were this large.
And these block magnets would align themselves this way, where the north of this magnet globs onto the south of that magnet.
The attraction globs onto the repulsion, if you will.
It's not quite what happens at all.
Actually, that's a misstatement as to what happens.
But that would be what you would have if you took these magnets and had four of these magnets, and they were, you know, it doesn't matter their size, but they're all these little bar magnets.
And you put them together this way.
They're going to, in essence, they're going to dampen their overall magnetic field as this magnetic output gets involved with this right here.
It won't broadcast out, it won't amplify.
They will become dampened.
And so the overall magnetic field from each individual magnet is dampened by the combination here.
Not a very useful bit of knowledge.
Also, it's okay, so I won't go into the illustration because that'll be, without the actual three dimensions, it becomes tedious to draw.
But it is possible to, if we were to understand how magnets actually work, we can say that one way to visualize magnets is that magnets in general have a point of expression.
So we have a point of expression and we have a point of reduction.
If we were looking at these in an electrical fashion, and magnetism is on one side of a line, electricity is in on another.
So there's analogs in each of the other.
And so we have, you can't make electricity without having magnets involved.
Even lightning is actually involving a magnetic process that's grounding to the earth from a discharge high in the air, and it's a positive versus negative polarity thing that has to ground out.
So magnets and electricity are intimately bound, and they each share aspects of the other in terms of you use electricity to produce magnets, and you use magnets to produce electricity.
Now, in the expression and reduction of the magnetism, we have an analog in electricity.
And the electricity analog would be the power line, okay, the power part, usually the black wire, so usually the black wire, and then we would have over here what's known as the common return.
And in house wiring, that's usually the white wire.
Now, this is where it gets really interesting.
This is the fundamental discovery that I'm going to tell you about that is absolutely factual, and I can demonstrate this in reality.
And I'm putting this in as a, now I'm releasing this part into public domain, and I'm putting it into my patents in order to support the derivation of devices and methods from this understanding.
Okay?
Now, in a house, when you wire a house, you have electrical outlet, electrical outlet, this is a wall, electrical outlet.
You can plug in your device to each of these electrical outlets, and each of your devices get power.
Now, what's interesting about this is that the power line comes down and provides each of these devices an individual power feed.
And so this is the power line, and it comes down and it provides each of these guys, each of these outlets get an individual power feed, but they all get the same common return.
And so they're all twisted together and all of the common returns go back.
This is what prevents electrocution, usually when things go wonky and that kind of stuff.
This is the part that involves the grounding and the rerouting back into the common neutral, it's called.
So there's various, very many different terms for this same concept.
You don't just shove power down a wire.
It doesn't work that way.
You've got to have a circuit.
In order for this circuit to function, you can take advantage of part of that circuit, save yourself a lot of different wire by having a common return.
And I won't go into the building construction part of that and how that works for you because it's not necessary.
But here's what the interesting discovery is about magnets and electricity.
There is an analog to the common return within magnets.
So I'm actually able to make a magnetic field that takes many, many, many magnets and has a common point of return.
And so in essence, it would look like this if I was doing it with magnets.
So I can have many of these, or excuse me, I can have one of these.
I can have one Reduction for however many emanations or expressions I want.
So, if we want to think about it in terms of north and south, and that gets quite confusing, I'll show you a little diagram here, and it'll make no sense, but it'll sort of illustrate what I've come across and why it's interesting.
Let me do it this way.
So, in essence, what I'm describing here is the ability, and we can take either north or south.
It's a material, it doesn't matter.
Let's just take north for purposes of illustration because we have more room over on this side of the board.
So let's say that these magnets right here were being used to run a big wheel to make electricity.
And so, this wheel is copper, as Tesla said, rotating within a magnetic field in order to create electricity.
Usually, you might want to do this such that you had your magnets north to south along this way.
So, you would have north, south, north, south, north, south, all along the magnet and along the wheel, and the wheel just moves incrementally and then gets moving really fast as this process gets going.
Okay, but what I'm describing is a new way of doing this entirely because I'm talking about the ability for a different kind of usage, not moving the wheel, although it works better because I've been able to triple the Gauss rating of magnetic fields using this particular approach.
Almost triple.
The math is a little bit wonky because my device is affected by all the other shit around here.
But in any event, you could use it for regular kind of magnetic uses, right?
And I'm going to explore a few of those later on myself.
But what I'm talking about is being able to take magnets and arrange them in a physical process.
Well, almost mostly physical because you're manifesting, you're using the actual manifest magnet itself to alter the fields.
But you can take magnets and arrange them in a particular way that all of one set of poles is joined.
Okay, so this means that you don't have one magnet stuck north to south.
It means you can arrange them in such a way that they all share the same common south pole, so to speak, and you can overlay them over on each other such that there's no interference at that point.
And it actually ends up because it's a return, because it's a return on the dielectric, because it's actually the common ground going back into the dielectric to dump the energy back into the ether, we get a magnification of that part of the energy that's left out here.
Briefly, I mean, that's a poor description of the moment, but I don't want to go into any too much more of the details because it is truly a fundamental breakthrough, and I need to get these patent documents written, although this part out here one way or another does not really intrude on it.
And you have to be able to visualize it in order to understand what's going on in any event.
So, but we do have a bust-up of the innovation stagnation.
Not merely my work, I'm not saying that alone.
There's a lot of people out there that are investigating Boscovich.
We're going to see a lot of different interpretations of the material and the information that he provides.
And we're going to get this common auric effect as stuff happens.
And so, in that sense, so that's the end of this.
The whole point of this is to say that indeed the innovation stagnation is over.
Not this, not my work, but because what I'm seeing with the return to the Tesla stuff with the broadcast power with the people that are going into the quantum internet work because of a lot of the stuff that the Russians are doing, a lot of stuff coming out of Poland and former Eastern Bloc countries.
It's just, it's popping up everywhere.
And so, those forces that had innovation bound up are also themselves breaking up many of those forces, as we hear with Brett and Heather.
They saw those forces within academia.
And they were at least as evolutionary biologists able to identify the forces that were opposing them within the system and isolate and analyze, etc.
I don't know if Eric does or not.
I mean, he bitches about the state of things and has his own take on why there is no innovation in physics and how the old people aren't dying off and basically is what it amounts to and these kind of things.
And he's off in finance doing a lot of his work, right?
But he really wanted to have a career in physics.
And so the bitching and moaning is quite appropriate.
Their observations are accurate.
And I understand their observations, but I don't think they're encompassing enough to really describe where things are at and what's going on relative to my own experience these last 30 years.
There's deeper forces involved.
It basically is what I'm saying.
I like both guys, though, you know, for being academics.
They might drive me crazy, you know, to go out and have a beer with them or something.
Right.
But I don't know them as individuals.
But for academics, they're, you know, they're okay.
Because these are the best and the brightest and to a certain extent the least academic of the academics.
Anyway, though, so that was it.
What I wanted to get into was the change, how the forces are going to come from the outside, and the innovation pause is over.
And basically, as we get into deeper into sci-fi world here, we're going to see an information and innovation bloom like we haven't seen in a long time.
I think we're already starting to see it as people are forced now at various many, very many levels to cope with unexpected circumstances.
There is no growth of any kind of an organism without external irritation.
And we've had external irritation up the yin-yang this year zero, starting with the COVID stuff and now through all of the political crap and all of the other shit, right?
And so we're all really growing quite a bit.
So, hey, cool.
Good for us.
Anyway, guys, that was it.
Just wanted to bitch and moan about certain things and provide a little bit of hint of some of the things that are possible with magnets and the fact that we're now going to get back into an etheric understanding.
One of the things I bitch about relative to the Einstein E equals MC quantum paradigm, right, is that we've had no new innovation.
We're stagnating as these people observe.
And yet, up through Tesla, we had magnificent amounts of innovation building upon each and every generation.
And it looked like it was going to keep continuing and then, boom, hit a wall and that was it.
And yeah, we've ripped the atoms apart.
We've not destroyed any electrons or anything like that.
We've ripped apart parts of the ether in atomic explosions.
But that's really the only fundamental physics thing we've done.
And even then, we did it, but we did it without understanding what we were doing.
So that's another subject there, but I bet you, I'm willing to bet, by the way, when we get the intergalactic internet as a result of a mistake off of the quantum internet, that once we connect in and once we can understand, so 18 or 20 years from now, we'll find references there to ourselves fucking things up with our atomic explosions for other people because of what it was doing to the etheric environment around all creatures.
▲
Export Selection