Clif High - Stars shine

May 9, 2023 - Clif High

29:03

Stars shine

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit clifhigh.substack.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello humans!
	Hello humans!
	It's almost noon on the outward bound leg heading outward.
	That's one of those things where language really matters.
	There's a casual level of conversation that we have with people all the time.
	And in that sense, language can be sloppy.
	You're not trying to communicate anything with precision.
	But we're increasingly coming into the age of Aquarius.
	And we will note as a result of this that our language is going to change over like these next two or three hundred years.
	And as it changes, it'll be altering to reflect a new level of precision in our discussion about science and the physical reality around us.
	So we're going to have to do away with quantum.
	We're going to have to do away with our current understanding of astrophysics in many regards.
	So we are operating under a narrow dynam.
	The narratime for physics, for the description of our physical reality, is extremely flawed.
	It's extremely flawed at all these different levels.
	So our astrophysis physics understanding is very flawed, as is the regular physics understanding.
	All of this stuff relating to what we can basically call quantum or the Einsteinian view of the universe, the Einsteinian understanding, the EU.
	Einstein was wrong.
	His understanding is really bogus.
	When it was applied to astrophysics, they can't answer any of the questions.
	So there's like some serious fundamental questions that general relativity does not answer, right?
	Like one of them is, why do the stars shine?
	And why do galaxies shine?
	Why can we see them?
	And you say, well, you know, on the face of it, it's because they're like nuclear reactors.
	Well, they're not really nuclear reactors.
	There's no nuclear reaction going on in any sun.
	There's no fusion, none of that.
	Our universe doesn't operate that way.
	But even so, general relativity can't tell you why stars emit light, nor why galaxies emit light.
	And then you can just go on and on and on.
	So general relativity cannot tell you why galaxies are isolated from each other.
	And in fact, if general relativity were true, there would be all suns would be attempting to have thermal equilibrium with the local space that they're in.
	So there would be no shining of a star.
	As soon as any little tiny bit of heat emerged off the surface of the star, it would attempt to dissipate into the surrounding region.
	And so we know that this is a bogus idea because they do shine.
	Ergo, general relativity and quantum mechanics does not work.
	It's not valid.
	We can't use it.
	It also cannot explain the age of the universe, why redshift is the way it is.
	It can't explain why we find no entropic galaxies, we find no entropic solar systems, we find no entropic suns.
	All right, so it just, our science is just seriously flawed.
	General relativity would say that given the size of our universe, perhaps a significant portion, somewhere over a third, maybe close to half, of all of the galaxies and stars should have burned themselves out by now.
	In fact, we find that none have.
	It just doesn't happen.
	So another aspect of quantum mechanics, although you don't really think about it this way, is the abysmal piss-poor understanding of our own reality down here on Earth.
	And so the whole why do volcanoes go spewing off and why do earthquakes happen, all of this kind of stuff cannot be answered by our current physics.
	So our current physics insists that our planet has subduction zones.
	Absolutely insists on it.
	Yet not a single sub and they describe what a subduction zone is.
	The subduction zone, by the way, is where one plate in the continental plates is being subsumed, being ground down by being pushed under another plate.
	And it doesn't happen.
	There are no plates that are colliding.
	And so our understanding of the geophysical universe, our understanding of the planet underneath our feet, is flawed from your high school and college education, right?
	Your schooling.
	It's not education.
	Because there are no subduction zones that they can find anywhere on the planet.
	Subduction zone ought to exist all along the west coast here in the U.S. There ought to be one right underneath the San Juan plates.
	The subduction zone should be constantly spewing heat, lava, and material as the plates are one ground under another.
	And in fact, we can't find any of these millions of subsea volcanoes that should exist.
	We don't find any of the heat outflowing from supposed subduction zones.
	We can find no proof of any subduction zone anywhere.
	In fact, the reality is that we live on an expanding planet.
	So all you have to do is change your mind and the world opens up and the reality makes sense again.
	So if you assume that they're right about the geothermal flow, then you have to say, okay, where are the subduction zones?
	All right.
	If, on the other hand, you say, no, we're on an expanding planet.
	Well, an expanding planet does not need a subduction zone.
	It's not necessary for the physics to work out.
	And in fact, an expanding planet would never have anything like a subduction zone and would have all of these cracks and tears in it.
	And lo and behold, what do we find?
	Cracks and tears all over the planet as the planet expands and the plates slide away from each other as they are moved away from each other as the planet expands from the middle outward.
	So there's tons of proof for the expando Earth.
	So if you go and look on YouTube, Neil Adams, he's got some videos that show you how this expansion occurs.
	So there was never any Gwandanaland or Pongia.
	Those were the two names for all of the continents smushed together.
	That didn't happen.
	It's because when all the continents touched each other, our planet was like almost 60% smaller.
	So as it expands, the thing rips open and the continents separate.
	Big duh, a big well, duh.
	You know, what's the matter, guys?
	Open your eyes.
	Can't you see what the fuck's going on?
	And of course, you know, all of the cracks and the expansion signs all over the planet, which we're now getting new ones off the coast of Oregon, etc., etc.
	All of those absolutely refute the idea of flat Earth.
	Sorry, guys, you've been fucked.
	You know, the flat Earth doesn't exist.
	You can make up as much weird ass science as you want, but the mere fact that we have cracks and expansion marks all over this planet means we're spherical and it's expanding from the middle out.
	Or rather, that tends to support the idea that we're an oblate spheroid and we're expanding from the middle out.
	And I can even explain with my understanding of the continuous creation destruction model why we expand, where we expand from, where it comes from, all of this.
	And, you know, general relativity can't do any of that.
	Can't explain any of the material reality around us, basically at any level.
	And all of the money wasted on CERN trying to find smaller and smaller particles, et cetera, et cetera.
	This all, as I keep coming back to it, this all comes back to an atheistic view of the reality that we're living in that says, and this is explicitly from the Jewish quarter in terms of those people that are dominant in physical science.
	They insist that the only way you can have a physics is if you assume there's no consciousness and you start with the rocks and the grit and the sand and work your way out until you can explain consciousness, which is like, eh, it's kind of focused, dudes.
	I can explain consciousness because I am conscious.
	I can demonstrate that it exists and I can start with that premise and work backwards.
	And it's a lot easier to do than starting with the grit and postulating smarter and smarter glue as we go forward that would keep that grid together.
	So anyway, so we find that our physics doesn't explain the things we find out in space.
	It doesn't explain the existence of space.
	It doesn't explain the size of the universe.
	Does not even explain why redshift is as it is, and it is not what they say it is.
	So, you can't use redshift the way they say to analyze and predict distances.
	So, we live in an expanding planet.
	That is a subset of an expanding universe.
	And so, the universe is constantly expanding around us.
	All of the indications that quantum and general relativity would have, none of them do we find.
	So, we don't find subduction zones here on the planet, and we do not find any dead solar systems floating around out in space, nor dead galaxies.
	Another thing about that is quantum and general relativity cannot explain the isolation of solar systems within galaxies and the isolation between galaxies.
	Okay, so this is an observable fact of the material universe around us, and yet it can't be explained.
	It's a very basic thing, and it can't be explained by the general relativity or quantum mechanics, but it's very easily explained in the continuing expansion model of the universe that's based on continuing creation-destruction model.
	Because one can see that if the planet is growing from the middle and you get cracks, all the continents are naturally going to separate as the planet keeps growing.
	So, sort of, so to speak, the continents stay put, the planet grows up around them, so to speak.
	I mean, keeps pushing them aside.
	That's the same kind of thing that happens to our universe.
	We get uncounted bazillions, innumerable.
	We could never know the number, it's so big, of new hydrogen ions forming in our universe every millisecond.
	You know, probably even smaller than a millisecond, maybe even a nanosecond.
	We're getting billions and billions and billions, a number so big we cannot conceive of it, of new hydrogen ions forming in the material world in the materium.
	And these new hydrogen ions have the same effect on galaxies and solar systems that we see within the continents here on the planet, where the planet grows and it shoves the continents further and further apart.
	Here we're in an expanding universe that's shoving the galaxies further and further apart.
	And within the galaxies, each and every one of those is expanding, which is shoving the you know more space in between the solar systems.
	And we know it's an electrical universe, and that the suns, which light themselves and thus also light the galaxies, are in fact plasma critters, right?
	They emit a plasma.
	It's not nuclear.
	It's not a continuing nuclear thing going down to the middle of the sun.
	In fact, all suns are spheres that are probably, most suns are very dense metals.
	So, we think our sun is so our sun has a surface reaction because it's moving through space and creating electricity as a side effect of that movement.
	That electricity reaches the stage where material on the sun affected by the electrical by the movement through space and the electrical charge that's building up will outgass.
	That outgassing and illumination, the light, the new material being formed, and so on, is due to a plasma effect being created around this very large ball of iron, copper, gold, silver, other metals.
	So, I won't go into it now, but you can get into why suns are mostly metal, why there is the distribution of material that we find in the universe, etc., etc.
	etc., all is explainable by the continuous creation-destruction model, unlike general relativity and quantum.
	The impact of this as we go forward over these next few years and perhaps several hundred years as we keep going is going to be a different kind of language because we will have a precision to describe and discuss these things that does not exist now because that precision is not needed.
	And that the reason that we don't need that precision is because our paradigm is inaccurate, and thus it is inexact and doesn't require an exactitude of language in order to communicate about this stuff effectively.
	But as we go forward and we develop this new model, and they probably won't call it ether.
	And in my opinion, the aetherists were looking at the residual effects of the continual continuous creation and destruction model, and that the ether is sort of like an after-effect.
	It's not really a primary fluid, so to speak.
	doesn't exist as the etherist described it.
	It's not really an effective description of our universe and our planet and so on, although it is much better than what we get out of quantum and what we get out of general relativity, or even special relativity for that matter.
	And these guys keep coming up with more bizarre math all the time to try and make this shit makes sense.
	And so we see these interesting little things like Eric Weinstein, he's always on Joe Rogan, he's always bitching that nobody's taking him seriously as a mathematician, no one's taking his unified geometry thing seriously.
	And it's like, well, there's a whole lot about Eric Weinstein not to take seriously, but his unified geometry is horseshit.
	And even if it was mathematically sound and self and had its own integrity, it would still be horseshit because it's attempting to reconcile something that can't be reconciled, which is quantum mechanics and general relativity.
	And so you got to make up more and more and more bizarre shit.
	So in a sense, general relativity, in my opinion, along with quantum mechanics, is at the same level of flat earth.
	So in order for the flat earth guys to think the earth is flat, they have to keep making up science to, you know, supposed science, they have to keep making up explanations for things that they see around here, where it would not happen on a flat earth, right?
	The Corollis effect and all these various different things that we have with our oblate spheroid earth that simply would not exist on a flat earth.
	And so they're, you know, they're trying to reconcile it, and they're basically having to backfill.
	This is the same kind of horseshit that, uh, Eric Weinstein gets into with his unified geometry shit, right?
	Uh, I, I dispute that those four, uh, tensors that he claims can actually be derived from his work.
	I know I'm not a mathematician.
	I know I've not been, uh, schooled to the same degree he has in mathematics, but I dispute that, okay?
	I can't make it work that you have to have all four of them where you get none of them, right?
	Just the way the, that his unified geometry is.
	It either would express all four or it will express none of them as design patterns within his mathematical formulation.
	And in my opinion, it expresses none of them.
	They're just, there's just none of these things he's claiming for his unified, uh, geometry.
	Plus, as I, like I say, it's bullshit in any way, and it can't reconcile, um, the, uh, it can't reconcile the, um, the, just, just sorry, UPS guy.
	Um, it can't reconcile any of the material world around us.
	Uh, and you just cannot get quantum to ever make sense because it's a, it's a bogus theory.
	It doesn't, uh, the world doesn't operate on that.
	It, the world is complex, but it's not complicated the way that, um, uh, the quantum shit and the, and the, um, general relativity shit is, is complicated because that came from the disturbed mind of a human and is not actually derived from reality.
	Anyway, so, um, our, our physics, everything, all of our sciences and stuff are going to change.
	That will necessitate changing our language.
	I think a lot of that's going to start this year, um, specifically this summer and fall, as we get further and further and further into the UFO world.
	Now, we need to know, or we need to note that, um, uh, the Russian Z forces have had, um, the Z on the symbol, you know, the rune Z, uh, have had rumored, um, quote, quantum, uh, weapons, but it's not quantum.
	They're really scalar if you really want to think about it that way, but basically these are weapons that are based on, uh, different understanding of magnetism and electricity.
	And to that effect, to that effect, they also have a different understanding of time.
	Bear in mind, Kozyrev was a Russian, and in spite of the fact that the Soviet Union didn't like Kozyrev and the Russian Academy of Science and everybody, um, in the communist world was, you know, somewhat against him.
	They all recognized that he was probably the greatest astrophysicist that ever lived.
	Um, and his work is still has vast quantity of stuff to be mined from it.
	I just got a new Cozy Rev book on his understanding of time and getting into the active qualities, the active principles involved in time.
	Very interesting indeed, because all it is is the manipulation of the all it will take is the manipulation of two of those qualities that he's identified.
	And we've got our floating RV.
	And we've also got ray guns and all different kinds of stuff just because of the nature of the physics involved here.
	And I understand it.
	I mean, I understand Kozyrev's stuff.
	You know, it makes sense.
	Whereas I understand what they are saying.
	I can read it and it is comprehensible when I read about quantum mechanics and when I read about general relativity.
	But the theories being proffered make no sense and no one can come up with adequate explanations or support that overcome my objections.
	So I've actually had physicists in arguments with me sort of like get up from the table and go away because they could not answer the questions and I wouldn't let them off.
	You know, so our modern physics in no way explains why suns shine.
	And even when they throw up, oh, well, it's a nuclear explosion thing.
	Well, a nuclear explosion thing continuing constantly to the level of a sun is not supported by general relativity.
	It should not occur under general relativity.
	No sun should be much warmer than the ambient space around it, just because of the nature of the physics that are proffered by general relativity, right?
	If you get into it, that's the way the universe should work.
	Obviously, so for me, it's like, okay, you know, I've got a theory about this.
	I see how certain things work.
	And I'm going out in the real world.
	If I had a theory that, you know, kept failing every single time I turned and had used it to try and explain something, if it kept failing and I had to come up with a yet another theory to it, I'm lazy.
	I'd abandon that theory rather than try to keep supporting it, right?
	But I do not have the inbuilt liability being put on me that is put on scientists, quote, scientists, graduated people with degrees, in the higher degrees in physics and stuff.
	I don't have the premise that they all operate under that all of the universe is composed of grit.
	Okay, so so that's a big thing for me, like a big advantage, right?
	A huge strategic advantage from me is that I'm, you know, not shooting myself in both feet before I start the road race.
	And so the scientists here, all these people, they're really fucking screwed.
	But we're going to unscrew all of our science over these next 100 plus years.
	There'll be all kinds of new stuff to figure out because this has been long neglected.
	But we're going to take Voscovich and his Voscovich was a scientist, Joseph Rogero Voscovich.
	He was a Serbian.
	He has a Serbian name as well as an Italian name.
	He was right on the border there.
	He lived at the end of the Byzantine Empire and he wrote the most definitive description of the etheric of our current reality in an etheric paradigm as has ever been done with very precise language.
	And he did it, when was that?
	Like 1200s at the end of the Byzantine Empire.
	And so it has not been updated basically since then.
	And we need, in my opinion, to take that as our springboard and expand it, fill it out, and complete it.
	Okay, there were so many things they could not have done during that time in terms of, you know, the kind of imaging and so forth that we can do now.
	And so now we can really build this out.
	But as I say, I'm not really even an ethereum, an etherist.
	Okay, so in my opinion, the etherists see in the ether here, they see a, or they see in our material world, they see an ether, a, they described it as a fluid, but they see it as a something that that, so there was an idea of an etheric fluid that supported the transmission of light.
	There was the idea of an etheric that the etheric fluid supported the effects of gravity, etc., etc., right?
	But the reason that they saw it as a fluid is because of a couple of things.
	So they knew about magnetism.
	And then at one point, way the fuck back when, in the early days of the Byzantine Empire, some tests were performed.
	And they were able to determine that basically everything emits magnetic fields, right?
	And so if you look at a tree and you don't see a tree, but you see the fact that that tree is emitting from every single particle of it a magnetic field.
	And then you imagine that this is indeed the case with all particles of dust in the atmosphere, all particles of dust out in space, no matter how small it is, it has its own magnetic field.
	Thus, you could postulate that there was a fluid, so to speak, in the ether that supported the magnetic fields of all of this stuff interacting.
	And that is a, it's a sort of decent way to think about it, but get you a lot further than quantum mechanics and general relativity.
	Okay, so there's an electric car.
	It's going to be into trouble.
	Anyway, I'm of the opinion, I'm not an etherist, so my take on this is the continuous creation-destruction model.
	And as a result of the continuous creation and destruction, you get this residual magnetism around every single point of every single bit of matter, no matter how small it is in the physical reality.
	And that magnetism around everything is a residual aspect of the creation destruction.
	It is not a supporting fluid.
	So all of the people in the etherist model, as well as Kozyrev, who went a lot further than everybody else, especially in his work on time, but all of these people think of the universe in a steady state condition.
	I do not.
	Okay, I think of the universe as flashing in and out of existence 22 trillion times a second.
	I have reasons for thinking this, which I've gone into repeatedly.
	But if you see the universe this way and you use that as your operating principle, that that's really the reality.
	So now let's develop, let's go in and extract the physics.
	The damn eight card.
	Geez.
	Let's extract the physics out of this reality based on the fact that we're flickering and out of creation 22 trillion times a second.
	And all different kinds of things are revealed.
	So it's revealed that gravity isn't a force, right?
	We don't have to deal with that.
	So no wonder we can stand up and break the bonds of gravity, that the same gravity that supposedly is so strong that it's holding the planets in space in the relatively spaced appropriately, right?
	It holds them in position.
	And so if you don't have these limitations and you have this other paradigm, it is true you have an entirely different understanding of what's going on in reality, but you can also explain a lot more of it than they can with the quantum and with the general relativity.
	So I'm here for this next stop.
	Oh, credit there's stuff there too.
	Okay.
	Oh, shit.
	Missed a drop off.
	Anyway, so I'll stop this here.
	So in my opinion, quantum mechanics is bogus.
	In my opinion, general relativity is bogus.
	And just, you know, they're naming it because they have that name available to them.
	But for sure, the quantum financial system is bogus.
	Okay.
	In spite of all the claims to Nisara being signed and Gisara and all this other shit, it's all bogus.
	It's not going to go down that way.
	Anyway, I got to get moving, guys.

▲