"They Stole My Patents" - Terrence Howard RAGES On Tech Theft, Science Clash & Marvel Drama
Actor Terrence Howard joins Patrick Bet-David to discuss his departure from Hollywood, revolutionary scientific theories, and his battle for recognition in the academic world. A mind-blowing conversation that challenges mainstream physics.
------
Ⓜ️ MINNECT WITH TERRANCE HOWARD: https://bit.ly/42k9hZ2
👕 GET THE LATEST VT MERCH: https://bit.ly/3BZbD6l
📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/41rtEV4
📰 VTNEWS.AI: https://bit.ly/3OExClZ
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/4g57zR2
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A
📱 CONNECT ON MINNECT: https://bit.ly/4ikyEkC
👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: https://bit.ly/3ZjWhB7
🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: https://bit.ly/3BfA5Qw
📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or
💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time!
SUBSCRIBE TO:
@VALUETAINMENT
@ValuetainmentComedy
@theunusualsuspectspodcast
@bizdocpodcast
ABOUT US:
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
So after I'm done here today, I'm going to put online the equations necessary to have unlimited energy just to say you to the world.
Interesting.
Okay, so can we get Dr. Yu out here, Rob, if you don't mind?
Yes.
You guys have never met.
And you're currently working for NASA.
That's correct.
I don't have the degrees he has.
And guess what he doesn't have?
He doesn't have an understanding of how the universe works.
You don't think Eric Lexi is?
He has no understanding.
Entire quantum mechanics.
Bio Angasmodo is wrong.
He's bringing another dimension.
Okay.
If another country gets their hands on this, it's an end of America.
What have you found?
If I have to go to China, they won't hesitate a moment to use LynchPad, which they're forcing me to do.
Do you know that they took away my passport?
Why does this matter?
Puffy invited me.
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
He's like, I think he's trying to f you.
That's what my assistant said.
I was like, oh.
I had no idea we're going to go this direction with the podcast.
If it's wrong, you'll never hear from me again.
I'll walk away.
But if I'm right, so for most of us, when we think about Terrence Howard, we think about an actor.
We think about Iron Man.
We think about different movies he's been in, right?
All over the place.
But one day in 2019, when he retires, he talks about he has some findings.
He has certain patents.
He has 90-plus patents.
Goes on Rogan's podcast, talks about it openly.
Then Rogan brings Weinstein.
Eric, they have a great debate together.
And it was interesting saying, I need peer review.
And Eric says, you're not a peer to review what you have.
And then Terrence and I start speaking.
And he says, I want you to put my white papers through any kind of AI to look at it and have some folks look at it.
So I said, Terrence, why don't we do this?
I'm going to invite a guest.
He didn't know who was going to be.
We invited a current NASA employee, 17 years with NASA, Dr. Yu, physicist, spacecraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids and structure branch.
He comes in, they sit down, they go through things.
And I thought he was going to correct him on everything, but he actually agreed with him on a few different things.
And then we also talked about his career.
We talked about Iron Man.
He said something on Diddy I've never heard him say before.
Never.
I've never heard him say before.
And he says, I've never done movies like this.
And the reason why you never give up your man card.
I'm like, Terrence, what do you mean, man card?
He said, you know what I'm talking about.
I said, are you saying what I think you're talking about?
Yes.
Then he tells a story of the time Diddy invites him over to his house.
And it got so weird that, well, you're going to have to watch it for yourself.
Having said that, enjoy this podcast with the one and only Terrence Howard with an appearance by Dr. Yu.
Did you ever think you would make it?
I feel I'm so excited to take sweet victory I know this life meant for me Adam, what's your point?
The future looks bright.
My handshake is better than anything I ever saw.
It's right here.
You are a one-on-one.
I don't think I've ever said this before.
How you doing?
I'm incredible right now.
Yeah.
Grateful to be here.
It's been a long time.
You guys have asked me to come a few times, but I wanted to come when I had something special to talk about.
Yeah, and I'm excited about it.
And we're doing it the right way today.
The reason for it is because when you and I were speaking, we're going back and forth.
And Pat, can you read this?
Can you read that?
Can you read this?
And I'm reading it.
It's as if I'm reading a different language, right?
Because this is not my space.
I'm not in this business.
I'm not in, I'm good in numbers when it comes down to financials, but different when the numbers that we're talking about here.
However, we reached out to a couple people to come down while we're having this conversation.
And we wanted to get somebody qualified.
So we got a hold of Dr. Wei Ping Yu, PhD, just to kind of give you a proper introduction.
This is his business card from NASA.
He's been with NASA for 17 years.
His business card says physicist and spacecraft subsystem manager, spacecraft, fluids, and structure branch.
In a minute, we're going to have him come in.
He's been involved in a lot of different conversations.
He knows Eric Weinstein.
He's seen the conversation that you had with Eric Weinstein and with Rogan, which was great.
The four-hour one that you guys did.
So we'll get into that here in a minute, okay?
And I'll bring him on and he'll grab a seat right next to him.
We'll get into it.
However, for the audience, if you don't mind, because the first time I heard about you going this direction, I'm a big fan of your work.
When you came in, the first thing I said is the character Harvey was a warden from fighting, right?
The way you would speak, the way you would move.
But this is the first time we saw you talking about you leaving Hollywood.
Rob, if you want to play this clip, go for it.
Terrence Howard here.
You made huge headlines when you said after you complete these 15 episodes of Empire, you got to walk away for a while or forever.
For good.
I mean, everyone keeps trying to tell me, don't say it's forever.
But I've spent 37 years pretending to be people so that people can pretend to watch and enjoy what I'm doing when I've made some discoveries in my own personal life with the science that, you know, Pythagoras was searching for.
I was able to open up the flower of life properly and find the real wave conjugations that we've been looking for for 10,000 years.
Why would I continue, you know, walking on water for tips when I interrupt?
So what got you to the point of being ready to say this to the world?
Because this changed the game.
Well, we had introduced linchpin years before and was talking about linchpin being the common factor, the universal constitution, but no one would take it seriously.
We talked about this grand unifying supersymmetry of the linchpin, that it showed how the universe behaved in contractive or expansive places.
We had showed the ubiquitous nature of linchpin.
Nobody would take it seriously.
So then we decided to let's now challenge the idea of gravity.
And we, in comparison to a resonance model, like the universe is not based upon force, but based upon resonance, you know, but based upon harmonic frequencies.
So we decided to, let's put the linchpin in the proper place and let's re, since we are saying that this is the common factor, that everything comes from it, let's put a number of linchpins in rotation and see if we can rebuild the planet Saturn.
Well, we were able to do that without gravity, without dark energy, without dark matter.
How can, and without animation, literally rebuild the planet Saturn in a simulation with the hexagon at the top of it.
And we were like, okay, they will take this seriously.
So when I went to the, we did this the day before I came to the Emmys.
So I was just so excited to say, hey, we don't have to worry about this God gravity.
You did what the day before?
We did the rebuilding the planet Saturn.
That's at the very beginning of my book.
The same thing, same thing I showed on Joe Rogan.
And I'm like waiting for people to respond, but they immediately took it like, oh, he's crazy.
He's talking about he's going to build the planet Saturn.
No, I was rebuilding it in a simulator, the same way they've rebuilt planets or tried to rebuild the solar system or galaxies with dark matter, dark energy, and gravity.
I was able to do it without that.
And I thought that would mean something, but I forgot you don't attack somebody's God.
Gravity has been their God for a long, long time.
Whose God?
The traditional scientists.
Science, all of the world.
Gravity is their God.
If I'm on a set with you doing a movie, which you've been on many, many sets with some of the greatest actors of all time, and you're in the list of some of the greatest actors of all time yourself.
Would I meet this Terrence?
Like, if we're sitting, we're not shooting, we're sitting, we're waiting for something.
Are you speaking to me like this or no?
This is the only Terrence there is.
You know, I love acting.
I love the emotional play associated with it.
But what's more important right now than saving the planet, than saving the people on the planet, saving the animals on the planet, saving our entire solar system?
We don't know what our responsibility is cosmically, but we have to get past this reef right now.
We keep getting pushed back to the beach by the desire to suppress and to control everything.
So the only Terrence there is is the one that's trying to change the world, that's trying to provide the free energy, that's trying to provide the new geometry that will allow us to fit with the universe instead of competing against the universe.
Which actors that you had conversations like this with were also interested and could hang with?
Nick Nolte.
The great Nick Nolte.
Nick Nolte.
We've had wonderful conversations.
We're doing a film called Investigating Sex in Germany, and we spent two months having the deepest conversation.
He actually inspired me to keep going further.
Before he was just talking about the B-12 shots and how it affects your body.
But we had deep, deep conversations.
Him, Jeff Bridges.
Jeff Bridges is an incredibly deep thinker.
I would love to talk to Mel Gibson because Mel, I see his mind always jumping.
You haven't?
I haven't never had the pleasure of meeting him.
You've never met Mel Gibson.
I've never met Mel Gibson.
That's an easy one to happen.
I mean, it's a couple guys that know him could make the phone call.
Yeah, I enjoy his neurosynaptic reactions.
Meaning the way he views the world from a different lens.
I love his rhythm of his mind, how it clicks.
So people like that.
But most people respond, you know, in a quizzical way.
But when you're challenging their status quo, when you're challenging, you know, their basic arithmetic, because if you were to look at a grid of one times one equaling one, you know, it would be a straight grid going out with just boxes on a flat plane forever.
Our universe doesn't behave that way.
Our universe behaves by everything wrapping itself around, multiplies volumetrically.
So what I've been talking about for the longest time is allowing our math to match what the physics work.
What does the physical world look like?
How does it behave?
We can't imaginary, throw imaginary structures out there unless the real structures aren't making sense and the structures that they have as straight lines, platonic solids, they've been wrong from the beginning because there are no straight lines.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The greater the action, the greater the reaction.
The greater the reaction, greater the resistance.
Greater the resistance, greater the curvature, which means everything is curved.
So measuring the universe with straight lines and with flat planes is an illogical and irrational thing to do if you're measuring curved, living, moving reality.
And that is what they refuse to change.
They've stopped believing that the world is flat, but they're still using flat mechanics to describe the universe.
Okay, so you go on Rogan first podcast.
You guys talk, and then that leads to you going back with Rogan, with Eric Weinstein, the four-hour one that you guys did, right?
And even I think Neil deGrasse Tyson did a video reacting to all the stuff that you had.
Brian Keating did as well.
I asked Brian Keating about the one document that you sent to me.
I forwarded to him, and he read a look through it.
And, you know, I'll preface what he said.
You know, it's, he's trying, really trying to figure things out, going in a right.
And he made a video talking about one area that he was wrong.
I don't know if you've seen that video or not.
But he seemed very much willing to sit down and have the conversation.
But, you know, it almost seems like when even watching Weinstein, Eric with you, it's like, look, we love what you're doing.
And, you know.
But stop doing it.
Yeah, but stop doing it because peer review, you're not one of our peers.
You're not qualified enough to get a peer review, but we'll give you an opinion on this, right?
That was kind of like the establishment side towards you.
What was your biggest takeaway after your four hours with Eric and Joe, and what's happened ever since?
Well, I gave Eric a great deal of grace.
You know, he was a little rude and cut me off a lot of times, but that's the nature of being in the position of authority.
I had hoped that he would evaluate the geometry I gave him.
I showed him, I went to his house two days later and we had dinner and I took buckets of proof of geometry of all the linchpins and their configurations, all the wave conjugations and their configurations.
The wave conjugation, so you understand, is the electric part of the world, is how plasma is the contractive part.
The all shapes are the expansive stuff that describes radiation's work.
The linchpin is the constitution between the two.
It's the friend.
It's the translator between the big and the little.
And I took all these things to his house.
I thought he would evaluate them.
I thought he would send them throughout his friends.
And then I watched him go on Pierce Morgan and literally say that 99% of everything I said was bathwater, was bullshit.
The Howard comma.
He said that afterwards?
He did this after our talk on Joe Rogan, but before our meeting when I went to his house.
So I let that go, him saying that 99% of everything I was doing was bathwater.
And then he said, the one thing that might be good is this linchpin.
But he got there by a mistake, which I clearly showed that it wasn't a mistake, the 109.47.
But he said that everything I did was just by accident and nothing had value.
So we were able to take the Howard comma, which is the resonance created from the linchpin.
We were able to take the tetran wave conjugations, which is the shape of the fractal in itself.
And we were able to take the mirror at all shapes and literally rebuild the entire world the way that according to, well, not rebuilt the world.
We've been able to take those same things that he called bathwater and apply them to the three-body problem and solve a 300-year-old problem that Newton couldn't solve, that Poincaré couldn't solve, because they needed a finite space.
They needed curved multiplication.
They also needed to reimagine how the prime numbers behave.
They needed to understand that gravity was just an effect of electricity.
But how could we take the things he said was bathwater and solve the biggest problems in math and in physics when he said it had no physical application, no chemistry application, no application towards mathematics.
But we solved all the biggest problems with it.
And that's why I gave it to you ahead of time and asked you to run it through your AI.
Yeah, and we did that.
I guess the most basic one, okay, so if I go to someone like you who's an outsider coming in in the scientist world, right?
The mathematics world, and you make certain claims, first question the academia is going to ask is, what is your qualification?
What is your education?
Where did you go to?
And it seems like some of these guys came out and said, well, that school this, the school that, that, I don't know which one it was, South Carolina or whatever it was, the school, the degree, all this stuff.
Yeah, yeah, because I went to, I took over, went over to South Carolina University and I took them over the, at the time I had a company where we were growing diamonds through not high pressure, high temperature, but through chemical vapor deposition.
And the conversation I was having with them, and they were talking about giving me an honorary degree, should have been in chemistry because that's the stuff that we were doing.
We were transmuting one thing into another thing.
So when I went on that other show and I had my honorary degree that was given to me, I had no idea it was in, I had no idea it was in humanities.
I thought it was going to be in the thing that I went to talk to them about.
So to them, so to say you don't have a PhD from South Carolina, it's an honorary, right?
So it's not like, okay.
So to the folks who went to school to see all these different theories, what do they tell you when they explain it to you?
What do they say to say, because right now I just went online and I typed in, which scientists agree with Terrence Howard?
Okay.
And mainstream scientific response, Howard's reviews are widely rejected by academic and scientific communities.
His interpretation of math and physics are generally considered mathematically incorrect, scientifically unfounded, right?
Independent and French thinkers, they gave some folks that are from on the YouTube side that do.
Why do rejection?
Claims, one times one equals two.
And that's the most basic one, right?
Where it starts from there.
And it goes to some of the other theories that you have, that you guys have spoken about.
Help me understand how, in your mind, to the average person who hasn't put amount of time that you have put in, credibility after one times one times two, one times one equals two, how do you come up with that conclusion?
Well, if I was wrong, then they wouldn't have made such a big stink about it.
But the fact that I was able to show them with their calculator that because they have one times one equaling one, an action times an action without a reaction, and as a result of it, you get this contradiction with the square root of two being cubed, having the same value as the square root of two times two, which should say a red flag, a herring right away that there's something wrong with the mathematics,
with that being the problem that leads into the distribution of prime numbers, because the number two, any prime number, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number always is going to end up in a composite number.
But except with the case of the number two, that's the only prime number that you subtract from another prime number and you end up in a prime number.
Why?
Because the number two is a composite number.
But they've changed that by trying to force that into a prime because they wanted one times one to equal one.
And the square root of two being 1.414, they say that times itself will equal it.
So it's all convoluted.
None of their stuff makes sense.
If I was a student, a mathematical student or a calculus student or an algebraic student, and I come in and I show a proof where, okay, one times one equals one.
And the proof of this is the square root of two having a contradiction with being cubed and multiplied by two.
That's a loop.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Terrence Howard.
I'm an actor, but in the field of science also.
So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Minect.
The QR code is down below, and let's have a great conversation.
Okay, so now let me ask you a question.
That's a problem.
So then what's 1.1 times 1.1?
I don't know.
Is it bigger than 2?
It would have to be.
Anytime action times an action has to increase in volume.
No, but so if 1 times 1 is 2, that would mean that 1.1 times 1.1 would need to be bigger than 2, right?
It would have to be.
Why wouldn't it be?
It's only the mathematics that they're using the identity principles, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics.
That's the thing that holds them back because they want to keep things back into a balanced place.
Instead of allowing the expansion that happens with most numbers, they just want to repeat.
They just want to get back to a problem.
Even for a basic, simple guy like me, like, let's just say if I have $1.10 in a stock, okay?
And that goes up 1.1%.
What is it?
$1.10 in a stock, but it goes up 1.1% rate of return in my stock portfolio.
What's 1.1 of $1.10?
Look it up on the calculus.
It's a buck 21.
So for example, if I get a 1% rate of return, you know, on one, if I do the percentage on the basic 1.1 times 1.1, it's still getting me 1.21.
So to me, the basics of the 1 times 1 equals 2, that throws even a regular guy like me off.
Well, you've got to remember in multiplying volumetrically, you're wrapping things back around.
Like in a swimming pool, the ripples go out, hit the edge, and then they come back.
The returning waves are added to the expanding waves.
Each returning wave is going to become multiplied even more.
The pressure doesn't just expand out and keep going out.
It's coming back.
So you have to include the contraction.
You have to include the returning wave.
So that's why the volumetric would be different.
But like even with what you just did, like if I asked you, what's 0.10 times 0.10?
0.10 times 0.10 says 0.001, right?
Right.
But we know that 0.10 is a dime.
Okay.
We know that a dime times a dime, 10 dimes times 10 dimes equals a dollar, should equal a dollar.
Not necessarily.
10 times 10.
No, I know what you're doing.
I know what you're doing, but that is a whole number.
A dime is still 10 cents.
So 10 dimes is a dollar.
So it's not the same in the dollar sense.
I see what you're thinking, like 0.1 equals a tenth of a dollar.
I'm saying there's a problem with the decimal system.
Yeah, but if I have, if, if a dime is 0.1 of a dollar, let's simplify it, right?
But if you tell me, give me 10 of 0.1s, that equals 1.
So that means I got 10 dimes.
But if you do 0.1 times 0.1, then you get 0.01, right?
0.01.
Yeah, but that's a different.
So to me, the basics of the math, when you went there, one-third doesn't go off to you.
That doesn't seem off that if this was, if you turn it into physical things, that's what I'm saying.
Let's turn it.
The problem with our math is they've reversed.
They've allowed it to be all imaginary.
It does not have any physical resemblance.
It's all fiat, where it should be.
The way I look at it is to say, what's 0.1% Of a penny.
What's 0.1% of a penny?
What's the value of a penny?
What's 0.1% of a dime?
It's a penny, right?
It gets smaller, right?
So that's the, I don't look at it from the physics.
Wait a minute, 10% of a penny would be, of a dime would be a penny.
That's right.
10% point one.
So 0.1 is 10%, right?
So if you go to the investment side, the argument of one time ones in investments, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, insurance, it stops right there.
But you're going out there and saying one times one equals two.
And, you know, that.
We're saying that as far, since our economics are still based on this linear flat plane geometry, you can still use the one times one equaling one to perform their economic growth and their economic reactions.
But if you're dealing with universal interactions, you have to, our money may go out linearly and we may measure it on a flat plane.
But as far as the universe behaving, how energy behaves, energy curves and wraps back around itself.
Energy doesn't follow a linear path.
And all of the stuff we're talking about in physics and science is about energy.
We're not talking about a fiat system where they can have arbitrary rules for the money that anything can happen with the numbers.
Something times nothing can equal nothing and violate conservation of energies when you're saying one times zero.
Or you can divide, you can multiply by zero, but if you divide by zero, it creates an infinity.
And division is supposed to be the inverse operation of multiplication.
So what you're supposed to be able to do multiplying, you're able to reverse that with division.
So if you cannot divide by zero, then you cannot multiply by zero.
All of their rules that they break so that their economic pathway can remain consistent.
You want to do that?
Do that.
But if you're talking about saving our planet, you're talking about how the universe behaves and how the energy of the ether behaves, then there's very specific associations to the numbers.
Each number is alive.
Each number has value.
It's not imaginary.
It's not intangible.
It is going to have an effect.
So we have to multiply it according to how the universe does it.
Okay.
So, okay.
So I look at it more from the investment side, the math side, the financial side.
But that's your theory.
And by the way, Terence, the reason why I think it's folks like you are important, very important, because anybody that challenges the status quo, that puts the establishment against the wall to kind of have to prove themselves, I love it.
I think Bobby Kennedy did that.
And Bobby Kennedy wasn't a scientist.
He was a lawyer.
And Bobby Kennedy got a lot of people in the health industry to be like, wait a minute, are we supposed to believe 100% of what Fauci is saying?
We're not supposed to sit here and believe everything Fauci is saying.
And he's not a health guy.
So the credibility from the health institution was like, I'm a scientist.
I'm Fauci.
Trust me.
I know what I'm talking about.
Bobby doesn't know what he's talking about.
So I would like to see something happen here where we're seeing a lens.
This is why I suggested for you and your wife to watch the, what was it?
The Stephen Greer documentary about the last century, the lost century.
Yeah, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.
So let's go through that.
Do you mind just taking a moment and share?
You have a certain number of patents.
I don't know what the number is, say, 30-something patents.
No, it's right now we have over 90-something separate patents.
We have 30 different trademarks and copyrights, but most of the stuff are hard patents.
And the patents, are they all in the States?
They're all in the States.
Well, I've got them worldwide.
You started finding them here, but a lot of them are redundant patents in other countries.
What is this, Rob?
That's just how many, according to ChatGPT.
Okay, according to 94 patents with 60 gold.
Okay.
Perfect.
So you've got 94 patents.
What new findings, you know, what have you found where the average person can benefit from?
And if you're sitting there, you said, this is worth in the trillions of dollars, and you and I are speaking before, you're like, if another country gets their hands on this.
It's an end of America.
What have you found?
Well, we've been able to innovate.
The first thing that everybody already knows about is the tangential flight with Lynchpen.
We have provided tangential flight, the ability to fly around your own center of mass, and unlimited mid-air bonding.
I mean, it's the end of cranes for the lynchpin because no matter how large the project is or how small it is, lynchpens can modulate and cover over air, over land, over sea.
You have flight vehicles that deal with, you know, that are able to deal with the air or deal with space or deal with or deal with water.
You have cars for the land, but you don't have anything that is ubiquitous to all of these mediums.
And that's what Lynchpen is able to do.
So when I say it's the end of cranes, it's the, so you have that.
We've innovated flight.
We've innovated geometry by having unlimited bonding.
We've innovated lighting.
You know, we've innovated with our energy systems.
And what I wanted to share with you, one of the biggest things that I talked about with the Howard Cama, its ability to pull energy directly from the VanderWaals or from the zero point.
You know, we've already provided a means to do that, to where you don't have to pay for any energy anymore.
The same thing when I talked about beryllium, utilizing beryllium, even though there was some idiot chemists that came out and said that what I said concerning beryllium was wrong, but I dare them to compare beryllium to or beryllium's reaction to oxygen the same way that magnesium behaves with sulfur, the same way that selenium behaves with magnesium,
sulfur, selenium behaves with, God, I just lost my thought.
Selenium?
Yeah, no, no, because...
Can you pull it up?
Can you pull it?
Well, no, no, magnesium, magnesium, you have.
Can you pull up the charts, Rob?
Yeah, really quick.
The way that selenium.
Yeah, if you can just pull up the periodic table and zoom in.
Selenium's relationship with calcium.
Okay.
The same relationship that the same way that selenium will mitigate what's taking place inside of calcium, the same way that sulfur will mitigate what's taking place with the magnesium, oxygen, being the equal and opposite made of beryllium, will mitigate what's taking place with beryllium.
And they will always have a strong attraction to each other.
So whatever bullshit that was being spoken by those chemists, they do not know what they're talking about.
And the problem with utilizing actual beryllium is it oxidates.
So immediately the cover, the surface of it gets covered.
And so the reaction stops.
But if you use the frequency of beryllium to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen and have small little apertures for the hydrogen to go through because the hydrogen is a smaller waveform, then the oxygen will separate and the hydrogen will separate and they'll both be usable.
We proved that.
Science has proven that.
Natural phenomenon has proven that.
But they want to ignore that.
Establishment scientists has proven that.
They see it in everything in all of their reactions.
That's why they're using a lot of the chemists and a number of the interactions that they have.
They'll use beryllium for a particular purpose because it will cause the oxidation.
And then they have a means by which to reverse that polarization, pushes whatever was oxidated onto it.
And now it opens up the door again for the beryllium to work.
There's a number of means for it.
They've seen it work, but because it is in opposition to the oil and industry world, they're fighting it.
And so I brought the proof.
I brought the simple proof when I provided for you guys.
On my website on Terry's lynchpen, there will be a, there's the white paper on how beryllium behaves and how oxygen behaves.
Who's broken that white paper down?
It's just gone up to my thing.
Nobody refused.
I can't get anyone to do a peer review.
I've sent it off to publishers.
Publishers refuse to review it because Eric Weinstein, Brian Keaton, people came out, said the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The amount of pain and suppression that's come my way, because all I've tried to do is provide the proof out there.
Nobody wants it.
Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people Rob, it just completely disappeared on the screen.
Yeah.
Yeah.
People with low competence in a specific area tend to overestimate their abilities while highly competent individuals may underestimate their skills.
This occurs when a lack of metacognition prevents those with low competence.
So they're saying you're low competent in this topic.
That's what they're saying.
In this topic.
This is what Neil deGrasse came out and said.
And so now he owes me an apology.
Why?
Because with those same things that he said had no value, now we've already put them into a white paper and we've been able to solve the seven millennial problems and the three body problems with the same equations or substances that he said created the Dunning-Kruger effect.
So everything you sent me, everything of the white papers you sent.
Every one of these I have, right?
Every one of these was sent to Dr. Dr. Yu.
Dr. Yu has it.
He's looked at him.
So he'll come out here in a minute to give his perspective on this.
And he's from NASA.
But before we go there, there is a part of me that believes there are inventions that the government didn't want to bring out because, God forbid, if they did, it would decimate multi-trillion dollar industries, oil being one of them.
I fully believe that.
It needs to go.
Huh?
It needs to go.
It needs to go.
But, you know, who's going to release it?
I don't know.
I mean, look how long it took to find out who killed JFK.
Yeah.
Look how long it took with Epstein and some of these lists that we are looking for.
Who did what to MLK?
They're still hiding it, right?
So for them to release it.
When it comes down to Musk, what is your opinion on Elon and him being a net positive to society?
Do you have an opinion on it?
Well, I think Elon is a genius in his entire approach to dealing with society, first and foremost.
And he's proven himself to be very capable as far as finding out where a problem lies and then attacking that problem and bringing the right people to it.
I think he would have been very benefited.
I was surprised when I didn't get anything from him after I did the Joe Rogan and showed the lynchpin because of what he's trying to do in space.
One of his problems, though, that I see affecting him is he believes in the vacuum.
He believes in the finite infinite universe, you know, where there's no pressure changes between the planets, that there's just this great vacuum there and doesn't recognize that this is just like being underwater.
You know, where we are at the surface of the water is like the Goldilocks zone.
This is the Goldilocks zone on our planet.
Well, within the solar system, there's a Goldilocks zone where the Earth sits, and this fits for us.
You go out 147 million miles away from the sun, where Mars is.
The nitrogen has expanded to such an extent, the hydrogen has expanded to such an extent, there's no way to contain that into the body, the flesh of the body, which is necessary in order for us to keep living.
Oxygen, everything expands.
You'll never be able to bring them back these 147 million miles back to where the Earth is.
You're not going to be able to do that.
Well, the 93 million miles where the Earth is.
So anyone that goes out there, that's a wrap for them because, you know, 15 feet underwater, what happens to the nitrogen?
It compresses, or 15 feet out of the water, it expands and it keeps expanding.
So anyone that tries to go out to where Mars is at, at that low pressure system where everything becomes mono or diatomic, everything is expanding itself out, you are dead.
There's no way the spaceship would have to be so tight or the suit would have to be so tight that you would not have any motion.
But the amount of expansion will not allow you to be able to come back to the Earth.
Like if you took something from the bottom of the ocean and you bring it all the way up to the top and then you try and take it back to the bottom of the ocean, what happens to it?
It implodes at the change of pressure.
We're made for this particular pressure condition and 93 million miles away.
You're not going to be able to have a human being on Mars, plain and simple.
We don't have the proper pressure condition bodies.
No, it's impossible.
You're just going to expand out and blow up.
You will blow up.
Well, doesn't this kind of contradict, though?
Because on one end, you're saying it's possible to have zero-point energy where oil industry and all this other stuff.
And the industry is saying, you're out of your mind.
You don't know what you're talking about.
There's no way, you know.
And then, yeah, here's what Lynchman, this is what we could do.
Ilana's saying, I want to go have, you know, life on Mars or on another planet.
And you're saying, there's no way that's going to be a problem.
No, there's life on Mars, but the life has changed.
The life force changes.
The system of water, H2O, changes as you go further out.
Two atoms of hydrogen, one atom of oxygen.
I guess the further out you go, what happens to the next one?
Does it become two atoms of carbon and then one atom of sulfur?
It all continues out.
The water life principle remains consistent.
That's why on in Uranus or those far-out planets, they still have precipitation as rain, but now it's methane that's coming down.
And it's just the water or the H2O, like what I was saying on Joe, was that the relationship between carbon and hydrogen are the same as the relationship between carbon and silicone, and the same between silicone and between cobalt.
It's the same tone.
It's just under a different pressure condition.
So you can manipulate the entire universe by changing the motion and pressure conditions because it's all waves.
It's not a physical thing.
So as far as our bodies are concerned, if you wrapped an entire ship in molecular excitation and changed to where they are no longer part of the system, now you can be out there.
But using our traditional methods, you cannot do that.
You have to wrap it in frequency.
How much have you followed what he says on how he's planning on doing that?
He's just trying to get the people out there.
And I think what they want to do is mine that asteroid belt.
That's what they really want to do.
And that's what we're doing.
The main purpose is mining.
It's mining the asteroid belt.
There's one asteroid out there called Psych that's worth $10 quadrillion worth of tungsten and tantalum and rare earth metals inside of there.
That's just in one.
That's just in one.
So their ability to...
I said this one.
Psych, yep.
So the ability to mine these asteroid belts, you know, gets rid of all the mining on the planet.
They want to get to Mars so that they can do some mining, but they don't realize that we don't need any of that stuff anymore.
Why not?
Because what the linchpin brings by the resonant quality of the linchpin, that resonant, the Howard comma, what that allows you to do is now have the universal template to put into any situation and open up.
That's why it's used for faster-than-light communication, subspace communication.
All the things that we've now put in the paper that I couldn't do before.
When I first went to Eric and everyone, I was like, well, I'm shy in the mathematics, but I have the geometry, I have the patents and all this.
So what Eric Weinstein gave me was a book on differential equations and gauge theory.
Well, what I was able to do with that, now I understand the math enough.
And using AI as a guide, you can plug into it and give it the information necessary.
Because I'm sure the very first time that they started the quantum computer or the supercomputer, the very first thing they tried to do was solve the three-body problem, but it couldn't solve it.
And they tried to solve the seven millennial problems, but they couldn't solve it with those computers.
But we've been able to solve it by using, by changing the paradigm, by changing to curve multiplication, by using a finite space, by redistributing the prime numbers, and by utilizing the actual curvature of the universe.
We've been able to fix all of those problems.
Okay.
So let's stay on that because just yesterday we're having a very innocent conversation.
Here's what the conversation was.
Conversation is one of our guys says, wow, my God, this is crazy.
I mean, I don't know if Terrence knows what he's talking about and all this other stuff.
I won't give his name because, you know, he's out there.
And so another guy says, I don't know, man.
I think some of the stuff he says, he says, so how do you think the pyramid was built?
What do you mean?
How do you think those big rocks where you think it was just big slaves picking it up and putting it?
I think so.
You think men put that up?
You don't think they didn't have access to something back in the days?
And how come we've not had?
So he started kind of going through this.
So then you see the debate, right?
Your opinion.
How was the pyramid built based on what you know?
Well, there's a number of different conflicting ideas on it.
But I just saw something very recently on lost history where they were showing that the bubbles inside of the granite or inside of a lot of the material there, they have these little bubbles that come as a composite, that it was not big blocks of granite that was necessarily brought up there, that they were actually mixing all of this stuff together.
There's that approach.
But then the idea of using resonance, something that we've always been able to use.
You know, you can, the same way you're able to blow on a sheet of paper or hum and see something vibrate, that's something flowed.
That's something that's always been used.
And the amount of songs, like if you think about the Jericho, the walls of Jericho, and they went around it seven times, singing, hitting a particular tone, and using harmonic or sympathetic harmonies to either break or to bring things together.
There's a number of ways of using frequency.
That's how I think all of that stuff was built.
I think it was done using harmonic resonance.
Interesting.
Okay.
So can we get Dr. Yu out here, Rob, if you don't mind?
Yes.
Can we get him out here?
Okay.
Dr. Yu, if you're back there, please come to the table.
His energy is unbelievable.
I know.
Right here, sir.
Look at him.
Okay.
Great to have you.
We met earlier.
Pleasure having you on.
So, Dr. Yu, if you don't mind, I have your business card here, okay?
If you can take a moment, here it tells me Weiping Yu PhD, physicist, supercraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids, and structures branch.
If you don't mind taking a moment and introducing your background, your experience, what you've worked on.
Okay.
First of all, thank you for having me on.
He's a perfectionist.
He is, yeah.
I love Ty Bainwright.
Yes.
My name is Weiping Yu.
I'm currently employed by the federal government, NASA.
So I'm the physics based on the training.
I have a PhD in engineering physics, and I have did a lot of fundamental research.
And so when I'm the founder of the Yuan theory of everything, try to bring the bridges between relativity and quantum mechanics and try to find a unified theory of everything.
Just like Linchpin theory, right?
And yeah.
Have you guys ever met before?
No.
This is the first time.
This is very important for the audience to know.
You guys have never met.
Never met.
And you're currently working for NASA.
That's correct.
I'm currently working for NASA.
But let me make a disclaimer, if you can.
So all the views and opinions expressed here represent purely on my own and does not reflect any of those of my employer, NASA.
Fantastic.
And I appreciate you saying that.
So you know Eric Weinstein.
Have you guys spoken before?
Have you guys met before?
Eric Wein called me.
So we were talking about it on the phone for about 15, 20 minutes while I was traveling in California.
Okay.
And did you have a chance to watch the exchange with Terrence and Eric Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast?
Yes, briefly.
Okay.
It's a very interesting exchange.
Yes.
Okay.
So we have a document here.
I think it's even a maybe a, this is that was sent by you right to us.
Yes.
What was your impression from you hearing the exchange between Eric and what Terrence was discussing?
Was there anything where you said there's some credibility to what Terrence is saying here?
I don't know if I agree with him, you know, because you would be to the marketplace.
You're part of the establishment scientist.
You know, you've gone through the school and you've gone a different route than he has.
What was your impression of the exchange between the two?
I know one of the focuses is on the statement, you know, Terrence made by one time someone because two.
Yes.
And I believe a lot of focus on the statement.
In my view, I be, of course, on my conventional view, I would disagree with your statement.
However, I noticed the definition of a one-multiply one is a difference between traditional class than Terence's talking.
He's bringing another dimension.
Okay, bring another dimension, three-dimensional or some kind of things into this one.
So I believe the difference is probably the definition and the model in our own mind, the difference.
I do not believe fundamentally some kind of difference if we have more time to discuss the detail, but not on the setting.
Yeah, no.
And what I'm doing with, I'm contrasting the linear projection and attempt to multiply linearly, just repeating, in comparison to multiplying volumetrically.
So you're right in adding dimensions.
And these necessary dimensions are dimensions that you exist in.
Nothing exists in a two-dimensional space.
Even a three-dimensional, like you talk about one-dimension, two dimensions, those things are not, you cannot measure them until it has height, width, and depth.
So it all becomes basically imaginary as far as the real world goes until it has at least the three dimensions of height, width, and depth.
And then it needs your fourth perspective in order to be able to measure it.
So when they're talking about one and two-dimensional things, I'm just looking at, okay, another imaginary thing because it has to be in motion.
It has to have width.
It has to have depth in order for us to be able to consider it.
But they consider two-dimensional space or our mathematics is all based on reductionary attempts to reduce things, living things down to dead things.
Dr. Yu, you read the white paper.
You read all the papers here that he sent, right?
We sent you yesterday.
I don't know.
No, I don't mention AI because I'm like, this is a lot of stuff.
Did you have a chance to look through some of it?
Yes.
Okay.
What's your impression of what Terence is saying here and how much credibility is there behind it?
Oh, okay.
So I would say I'm not talking about the credibility.
I do not believe one's credibility based on the education and how many degrees or how many years, even years of working in the field, I believe this intelligence could come out instant.
Like Terence mentioned from the gift of divine.
Is that right?
Something.
And instantly, like me working in physics field for decades, I just got to recognize there's something fundamental wrong, which something happened, you know, in Terrence's interview.
He mentioned about something fundamental wrong with current physics, which I actually agree with.
What's that?
Okay, let me talk about the first thing.
The first thing, talking about the fundamental wrong, this is a secret to current physical community.
Something we got wrong by we made electron model wrong.
This is a electron is elementary particles.
In physics, it's a founder.
Elementary particle cannot be subdivided, do not have a detailed structure or something.
And if we get this wrong, and what happens next?
So if we got the electron wrong, I will explain why we got it wrong.
If you have the time.
Yeah, I can feel that too.
And then if we get the electron world wrong, we get called planetary atomic model.
You know the model, similar model?
The planetary with the orbiting free electrons, we get this model wrong.
So, what I find is there is no free orbiting electrons around the nucleus at the near the speed of light forever, constantly.
That's completely wrong.
So, what's the implication of this one?
So, first, we got the electron wrong, and then we got the model wrong.
What happens if this atomic model have a no-orbiting orbiting electrons, no free, cause it was a principle of orbit.
Entire quantum mechanics built on this model is wrong completely out of water.
Because their foundation on the electron, their view of the electron, they saw it as a particle, as an individual thing, when it's an entire cloud.
It's an energy, it's a wave of energy.
That's what the electron is.
It's the discharge coming from accumulated electrical potential.
The discharge electricity, the devitalized electricity, is what we're calling this electron or this magnetism.
And they're seeing it as a particle when it's just a waveform.
It's a pressure condition.
It's a resonant thing that can be manipulated by other frequencies that you don't need actual force, but you can create the conditions to change and affect a waveform.
What are you going to show something?
You brought some problems.
I'm going to expand my statement and say why we get the electron wrong and why it's so significant.
So, from, I believe, from the 1780 85, the French physicist Coulomb proposed the Coulomb's law.
It says there are two types of charges.
One is negative, one is positive.
And the like charge repel, unlike charge, attract.
This is a fundamental law.
It's a great discovery.
However, it's wrong.
The mistake?
The mistake is he described the two charges carried by two separate particles.
Instead of having everything being both positive, having both attractors and detractive things, it's a dipole.
It's not a monopole.
And the way they're seeing it, how can something, this is something that always get me, how can you say something is charged, positively charged.
How can it be negatively charged?
How can you negatively charge something?
A negative charge is a discharge.
It means that it's coming out of it in comparison to attracting into it.
So their entire terms of a negatively charged particle is wrong.
It's a discharging particle.
Can let me strengthen your idea.
Yes, I'm sorry.
This is a brilliant discovery and the root cause of our physics.
So now people would say, how do you know?
How can we get an electron wrong?
Entire modern technology is built on electrons, right?
So that's why all the interpretations needed to be rewritten.
So let's assuming electron is a negative charge and the proton is a positive charge.
Now, what happens if we split electron into two halves?
Hypothetically split, geometric split.
What do we get?
Two negative charge particles.
Two negative charge particles that come together and make it.
Can we put two negative charging particles together?
No.
Negative things are always going to push each other away.
They're always going to push each other.
They violate Coulomb's law.
So it cannot exist in this universe or if there's other universes.
It cannot matter.
And think about Kirchhoff's law regarding the black body.
Now this is where Planck, if you could look up Kirchhoff, this is where the Planck model came from.
Max Planck was working off of his model.
And part of the radiation from Kirchev's law was that a black body, it's always going to radiate into these individual cavities.
And these cavities are not going to be dependent on the temperature of the walls.
They're going to be dependent upon the temperature of what came in there.
That was all wrong.
Kirchhoff's entire law is wrong.
And that's what Planck was based off of.
But you look at the Planck model and think about it.
It talks about if you want to do a Planck charge and all of these things, you have to use gravity.
Gravity is included in there.
And the speed of light is included in there.
But gravity at the Planck charge at the Planck point is not supposed to be an effect.
It's not supposed to, when you get down to the quantum area, gravity is not something that's able to affect those small areas.
So why is gravity part of Planck's constant or the speed of light, which we know changes constantly depending upon the medium that it's going in there?
So having the speed of light as a constant, having gravity as a constant, and Planck's charge lets you know that this is the Planck's charge, that Planck's entire Planck number is false because they've changed the speed of light.
Now they've attached it to another thing in order instead of so that the speed of light doesn't fluctuate, they've attached it to the measurement itself.
So it's always going to be the measurement.
That's wrong.
That's fudgery.
Rupert Sheldrake talked about that and about morphisms with the speed of light being fudged and changed.
So all of their principles are seemingly fudged.
Who has questioned this over the years?
Like what scientists?
Dirac, Feynman, all of them questioned it.
That's why they were like, all of this renormalization makes this stuff bad.
So now you are running at a speed of light.
Okay.
I'm going to just try to bring the audience on.
So if we say it's wrong, very easy to say.
What is it right?
What is really we talk about the electron?
Really?
What is?
He mentioned about it.
So if we cannot have a single charger particle, what happens?
The so-called electron.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Are carried both positive and the negative charge as a one particle.
Now I wanted to question the audience.
What kind of particle in this world, I know everybody since three years old.
You know this term.
Would carry both of charge?
Do you have a guess?
Hydrogen.
Everything.
Oh, you are talking about chemical particles.
I'm talking about in terms of what type of a particle.
Now that.
Magnets.
Yes.
Magnets is the one that carries both negative and positive charges.
And I will explain some misconception about the charge and the magnetism.
Yeah.
But so so-called electron is actually bipolar magnets.
Why does this matter?
What is the question?
Let me expand.
Let's say because of we assuming the electron is a negative charge particle, so then, you know, this great Neil Spohr build his Bohr model, right?
Yeah.
Build a Boltzmann model, say, hey, we have a positive charge nucleus, and we have a negative charge, the electron.
How can we measure them?
Because we assume atoms are neutralized, right?
How can we measure them with a negative particle and positive particle?
And the one assumption is that they cannot in contact.
Once they are in contact, that creates matter-antimatter annihilation.
So if they are not in contact, how does atomic model has to work to prevent negative charge and neutron and protons in the nucleus attract on each other?
It has to be rotated.
It has to rotate, create a revolution or we can spin.
This is what I was saying.
The spin is not because of some spinners.
The spin is coming from the balance of action and reaction.
Because of the resistance, the spin has to occur.
Because everything in the universe is balanced, in order for it to interact, it has to spin around, which means that it is a finite and confined space because otherwise it would just keep moving away from each other.
But the fact that it spins tighter.
So rotation is required to create a centrifugal force to balance the magnetic electromagnetic attraction.
So that's where comes the Borg model.
And this model is built based on negative charge particle and the positive charge, positive charge in nucleus.
If both nucleus and the electron protons are magnetic particles.
They are.
Are they going to have a dust rotating?
Do they need a dust rotating?
No.
They are naturally connected.
So atomic model, so what I found, atomic model has no rotation part whatsoever in atomic model.
There's no rotation, only what the parts may vibrate.
It's all vibratory oscillations.
That's how light's created, due to vibration.
Everything is resonance.
Nothing, there is no solid matter.
It's not a four-space universe.
It's a harmony-based universe.
And therefore, that's why everything has the prime resonant frequency by which it bonds or break bonds.
You can manipulate anything into anything else by creating the right harmonic or resonant conditions.
That's everything that we've been talking about.
The reason it's important is now you're able to manipulate the universe without hurting the universe.
We don't have to use barbaric measures anymore.
We can now take the subspace in energy that's coming from another thing.
They've gotten rid of the ether.
Now this entire thing, so they've created all these other particles to carry these charges.
All these particles to carry these charges that used to be carried by the ether.
They got rid of the ether, and then it was like, but light has to be carried on a wave.
The ether has always been that wave.
But what we've proven with the wave conjugations, back to the other question you asked, the wave conjugations, the Lynchpin, and the all shapes, mirrored all shapes, these create the conditions of the ether.
They define the ether in itself that allows all this stuff to move.
And what they're angry about is not that I just have the patents, but also the super grand unifying supersymmetry, plus now the equations that prove everything that I've been saying.
That's why I wanted you to see the papers before.
And the three-body problem solving that now with the idea of the proton and the energy of the electron.
Now we're able to manipulate the universe's energy by rebuilding the planet Saturn without gravity.
Now we can use that.
Now we can manipulate the energy of the universe to create any condition we want.
Now that's the end of oil.
That's the end of big tech because they have to change everything out.
But that's going to happen anyway because we're behind the gun.
Are you considered a rebel amongst your peers?
Would they consider you a rebel or no?
I believe some general outside my circle, they, you know, because I basically keep my discovery in-house and everything I, when I do a lot of lecturing or public speaking to university and conference, any have a serious talk with the physicists,
they would agree with me after normally half hour or one hour conversation, they would agree with me.
Let me extend your questions.
You ask me questions.
What's the significance?
If electrons are not a single charged particle, it's actually a dipolar magnet.
So they are impossible to have an atomic model with something orbiting around a positive charged particle.
It was naturally connected.
So in a real atom, like all the images with technology, we all see tech, just like a lettuce shape of the sesame ball, you know, the lattice shape.
They have an elasticity, that means they have a distance, but they cannot separate it.
You know, they have elasticity through recovery.
So the significance is if there is no principal orbit, right?
So there is no such concept as a quantum jump, quantum leap, which is a very, very controversial, odd concept at the time during the year, you know, Niels Bohr proposed this one.
Because in reality, the solar, solar, let's use a solar system.
You don't see a planet jump into another orbit.
Out of nowhere, planets don't just, Mercury doesn't jump into Venus's orbit.
That's what he's talking about.
None of these stuff, there was none of these huge jumps that they were predicting with the electron model.
Can you pull that up, Rob?
Because I fully understand what he's saying, but I want to visually show it.
So orbit, meaning if there is an electron orbit, yeah.
If you looked up, look up the electron orbit.
Go to images.
And they believe that electrons spontaneously jump into orbit.
Yeah.
S1, S2, S1.
Who's they?
Eric Weinstein, the standard model, their whole thing.
Standard model of particle physics.
It's all based on the quantum.
But you have to match it.
You're supposed to match it to natural phenomena.
Can you imagine if the Earth out of nowhere just jumped into Mars' orbit, what that would do to the solar system?
And have you ever experienced that in observing any of the other solar systems?
Because what's large happens on the small, and what happens on the small happens on the large because it all has to fit together.
You can't have imaginary stories of, okay, this happens in the quantum space, but it's prevented from happening in the macro space.
Can I reinforce this concept?
This quantum jump is different than solar orbit, say Mercury suddenly neutral external force drift to different orbits.
It's a totally different concept.
In quantum mechanics, everything's fixed, and this jump cannot be continuous through space and time.
It's not space-time, okay?
Through space and the time.
Cannot say somehow from this one to other one, you cannot go through the space.
You cannot have a time difference.
It happens instantaneously.
How that happens?
You have to, the matter has to, like Earth, has entirely disappeared, become a virtual pair.
And the instant appear on the other.
It has to vaporize and become a different pressure condition so that it can now fit into the next pressure condition.
Solid things fit in solid spaces and tight, tight, high-pressure systems.
Vacuous things fit in low-pressure conditions.
And in order for the Earth or for anything, an electron, it has to change its condition.
And that happens.
It's called condensation.
Everything happens in the condensation of one pressure condition compared to the next pressure condition.
And that condensation flips to the next space.
It remains consistent.
That's the crystallization.
And that's what they've been lacking, having the platonic solids, utilizing them as a base, this Cartesian space that doesn't fit the universe, how it behaves.
They're now getting blocks to where they can make something fit linearly.
But by the time, but when we're talking about space and space is curvature, you can't do a straight line out here because everything is going to orbit this way.
The reason the three-body problem was a big problem, because they could never dictate how the orbits were going to behave.
They could do it with two bodies, but anytime you added a third body, it went into chaos.
Well, us being able to solve the three-body problem, which I can't wait till you get a chance to look at and go through.
But that's why I was asking you guys, please put it into your AI and see what the AI says, because the AI says, all of the AI says, all it's lacking now is being verified, that we've actually solved the problem.
But what that allows us to do now is have being able to move in space because we can predict where these orbits are going to go.
It's no longer a chaos-based world because now the world is based on harmony.
It can be predicted.
And they've made money from the loss and from the lack of understanding.
And we are able to solve the Heisenberg problem.
We're able to manipulate the Schrödinger equation, the Dirac equation.
All of those papers we've done from the Howard Cama having the right geometry.
They missed the geometry.
That's what they've been missing this entire time and the fundamentals.
Like, what's your thoughts on the universe?
Is it finite or is it infinite?
Or is it infinite?
Of course, infinite.
You think infinite?
Yes.
Now, I say it's finite, and this is the reason why.
If you were to take anything inside the universe, let's say a pebble, and you drop it into a pond, and again, it expands out.
If the universe was infinite, that would just expand out forever and would never come back.
But because of the fight, but once the pebble, once those expanding waves hit the edge of the pond and start returning back, they're hitting more expanding waves.
And now they're creating these standing waves.
These standing waves are the first geometry.
So the proof of who we are, the fact that we have shape, happens not because we have shape from something inside pulling in.
It's the returning waves that's meeting these expanding waves because we're in a confined universe and that confined finite space having, if everything inside the universe has a boundary and that boundary is expanding, then this bag holding these, this universe, this bag of bounded things, would ultimately be bounded by the very last particle.
An object, go ahead.
Yes, we have a different definition, understanding about the universe.
Me, the universe considers space as three-dimensional space and the time.
Right.
Of course, in Terrence's explanation, you have a boundary.
I believe he was talking about the boundary, so he mentioned about the ether.
The so-called ether, I do believe light have nothing to do with a particle.
Light is a wave.
In order for a wave to propagate, wave needs a carrier, which is, if we do not use the ether, so I would say it's electron, is a magnetic of magnetic medium, electromagnetic medium.
So now let's talk about he said that the boundary.
I said that the universe of three-dimensional space is infinite and the time is infinite.
However, I did not mention, say, hey, the medium, the light-carrying electromagnetic medium has to be infinite.
So, for let's say, for each solar system, we may have a concentrated medium has a boundary.
So, either traveling to somewhere, coming back, you will see that one, right?
Yes.
Does not exclude entire universe that does not have a vacuum space without even medium.
So, what happens there to that location?
You will never see light.
However, whenever we can see light from the Big Ben 13.8 billion years ago, since we can see the light, so we know there is a field with the medium throughout our visible universe.
I want to share something with one of the papers that I sent over to you guys.
This was the abstract, and it was the necessity of a finite universe, a wave-based mathematical framework.
This is what this is the necessity of a finite universe.
Rob, do you have it right there?
I do.
Right there.
Let me read it.
It says the abstract is this paper rigorously demonstrates why the universe must be a finite system by employing a wave-based multiplication paradigm, the energy conservation principle, and the fundamental mathematical relation of one times one equaling two.
We present mathematical proofs illustrating how finite systems inherently violate, no, how infinite systems inherently violate energy conservation.
Furthermore, we derive equations from wave mechanics to show that the wave reflections and conjugations naturally confine energy within a closed harmonic structure, linking the universe to a hypothetical or hypothesis to observable cosmic wavefront.
Basically, proving ultimately that an infinite universe is mathematically impossible because of conservation of energy laws.
Because if you have an infinite universe, then you can't have, then there's no such thing as having a finite amount of energy in a particular area.
When you get to the smaller, the small confined spaces, you end up with problems when you have an infinite universe.
And that's one of the things I think has been holding people back.
But you just said it correctly.
The medium is finite.
The potential reactions are infinite reactions.
But the medium, the space we're in, is a finite space.
I would think.
Rob, can we put that through open AI?
If you wanted us to put one through Open AI, either one.
Okay, put that one through OpenAI.
And that's what it says, considering it.
The necessity.
That's what I love.
Let's get a, let's.
Do you have the Rob?
Yep, the necessity.
And what would you like me to ask ChatGPT?
Just ask it to evaluate it.
Is it right or wrong?
I wouldn't put my face on Chat GPT's idea.
Well, I couldn't get an evaluation from any of the authorities out there or universities.
Here we go.
After evaluating the document, necessity to find a universe, wave-based management.
Here's a breakdown.
Interesting idea presented.
The paper introduced a wave-based mathematical framework to argue the universe must be finite.
It builds on Lynchman geometry, Tetran shapes, and Howard Coma ideas largely associated with Terrence Howard.
Use this concept like wave reflection, standing waves, and energy quantization to support those claims.
Critical issue, scientific inconsistencies, core mathematical flaw, one times one equals two.
This claim contradicts fundamental arithmetic and is not accepted in any legitimate mathematical system.
Multiplication is defined such as one times one equals one.
Redefining this without rigorously peer-reviewed mathematical framework makes the rest of the paper logic untenable.
Two, unverified concept terms like Howard-Coma, Tetran shapes, Lynchman geometry are not recognized in mainstream mathematical or physics.
These concepts do not appear in peer-reviewed journals.
Misapplication of physical laws.
The paper refers to wave mechanics, conservation of energy, and quantum equations, but applies them in non-standard or speculative ways.
For example, replacing Planck's content with Howard's Coma constant is unsubstantiated and lacks empirical validation.
And last but not least, citation issues.
The reference include real scientists, Einstein, Planck, alongside fictional or pseudo-scientific collaborators, Howard Seely, Yi, Yi-I-I.
At all.
Yeah, at all.
There's no known peer-reviewed body of work by these authors.
Verdict, not scientifically valid.
That's what they would say.
Now, if you put in, that's why the stuff that I sent you, I wanted to send, you have to put in the curvilinear thing into AI so it has the full so it has the full basis in which to evaluate it.
Because one of the things that the computers or the AI has been lacking, its foundation is all based off of the Cartesian space, off the one times one equaling one, off of a redundancy inside of a system instead of matching it to a universal conformed system.
So if you add in to that, let me see.
Dr. U, question for you.
Do you, from working with NASA, the government, how often do you guys use, whether it's for papers, credibility, things that you question, how often do you guys use Grok or OpenAI Chat GPT?
We are not allowed.
You're not allowed.
I believe reliability in the integrity of them.
Use it as a third, use commercial software.
That's another really vested accuracy.
And so I believe we have to write exactly, use our own research.
Wow.
So academia, scientists, the establishment side, you guys don't touch OpenAI.
Oh, let me rephrase this one.
Not OpenAI.
They have their own AI.
Initially, we are not even allowed to install ChatGPT on our government computers.
Really?
Yes.
But however.
Why though?
What's the reasoning?
Is it because they want you to do the work of what it's doing?
Because Chatta GPT is based on the authority, opinion.
It's not really giving you scientific results.
It's only based on somebody's results cited.
It does not create, so far, it does not create anything new, you know, in terms of solving the mystery in physics.
It cannot do that.
Can you ask him to please upload all of the papers that I sent to you into the AI so it'll have more than just that one paper?
Rob, could you do that?
I can do that.
It only allows you to upload 10 at a time.
That's the biggest problem.
Yeah, it's only like 10.
How many we got there?
Like 10 that we gave you?
I think you're more than 10.
Yeah, I'm at about 21 different documents.
Oh, it's fine.
Just do 10 at a time twice.
Just let me finish the thoughts.
But after a year or two, and then we do have a new lead technologist, don't mention about it, give us a training on use AI to write, to improve the morality.
So I believe now, so we do allow to use casually, but not in scientific writing or something.
I believe it still has restrictions.
Amen.
Very interesting.
Yeah, all of the stuff that we've been doing, the reason that we were forced to go to the AI route was, like I said, I brought all of the wave conjugations, I brought the actual geometry to people like Eric Weinstein, and they did nothing with it.
Instead of evaluating it, I thought he would share it among his friends and talk about it.
No, they just said it there, even though it was for grand super symmetrical systems.
Let me ask a question from you, Dr. Yu.
Because the argument was made that peer review, you're not a peer to review it, like you're not a qualified peer to review.
Is that how it's seen in your world?
Where a peer review is another person as a qualified doctor, you know, schooling, they've done the right thing to look there.
That's the common practice in established physics community.
But I believe this is a gatekeeper to silence, to squash, to suppress.
Really?
Different opinion.
Yes.
And this is a very convenient tool, say, how many peer review you have, how many sidings you have.
If you do not, very hard even get you to go through the publication, if you cannot be publicated.
So how can you get a side, get it peer-reviewed, right?
The only peer review, you submit the paper, they send it to those, what is about several review board members.
You know what they have?
If you disagree with their fundamentally concept, you said entire quantum mechanics is not true, and even relativity is hypothetical.
Of course, you will not get daylight from their review.
But they want to keep their entire livelihood is based upon maintaining their current status quo.
And they don't want to change that.
Like he said, you get your PhDs based upon repeating what they've taught you before, not by challenging what's been in existence, but by confirming what's in existence.
So they don't want to grow.
They want to maintain the status quo.
And in order for us to grow, we have to keep challenging the clothes we're in, the bed that we fit in, the physical shape we're in.
We've got to keep pushing the boundaries.
And they've taken that away because they've got profit margins associated with it.
And they won't do the reviewing.
Do you think that's what's tied to it, Dr. Do you agree with them that it's because of, is it just the same old, same old, you know, this is how we always do it.
You're an outsider.
We don't want to give you the credibility.
You're not one of us.
Is that what do you think it is?
Perception is, but I have to give you credit.
There's many of non-conventional theory that have a lot of flaws, of very obvious mistakes or types of flaws very easily to being picked up.
So in that point, I believe we need to have some gatekeeper, some standards, right?
But not constrict called new ideas.
So I wanted to make a further point.
It's very important in the physics community.
If a quantum model is not correct, right, we throw it.
So how can we resolve the fun four fundamental forces in quantum mechanics?
The weak force is off.
Their interpretation, the strong force is off.
And the electromagnetism and gravity, gravity they could have gotten rid of a long time ago.
The gravity issue sits out there and the electromagnetism that they've been trying to bond forever instead of recognizing that they're already one system.
But their approach is completely off with it.
They see magnets, they don't even see magnetism properly.
They don't see it as this expanding centrifugal force and they don't see electricity as this contracting centripetal force.
They don't see the motion of it.
But I cut you off.
I shouldn't have done that.
Very good.
You know, I wanted to make sure people understand without quantum mechanics, we only need one single fundamental force.
Which is motion.
Everything comes down to it.
We're talking about a force right now, the regular force in the interaction, magnetic force.
So now people are often talking about electromagnetic force.
So people confuse about electrical and magnetism.
I remember you mentioned maybe on your show or something, electro and the magnetism.
What is your contrast between that electricity is always spinning northeast, seeking a higher pressure condition, trying to spinning to the right, trying to get to the apex and the center of something, centripetally spinning.
Then as it gets to the center, it gets pushed out by another electrical part of the wave.
And once it gets to the edge of the boundary and no longer has the potential of being trapped in there, now it gets devitalized.
And as a result of being devitalized, it's no longer able to spin northeast anymore.
Now it's spinning southwest because it's taking on, putting on these things.
It becomes magnetism.
And it's spinning southwesternly, centrifugally, expanding outward.
It's expanding in sixes, whereas before it was contracting in three sets of fives, in three-fifths.
The contraction happens here.
Electricity contracts, magnetism expands.
It's the radiation compared to the so-called gravitative force.
That's how I see it.
Let me give you my version.
Before James Clark Maxwell, they traded electricity and the magnetism completely separately.
And what James Clark Maxwell did is unify them as every connection.
So is it defined, you know, one of his equations defined?
Electrofield are time varying of magnetic field.
Let me explain in my own discovery.
Please.
So so-called electrostatic electrofield.
This is a secret in my theory called the Yuan theory of everything.
Static electrofield is exactly magnetic field.
And dynamic electrofield, that means what?
Time varying of a magnetic field is when you have a magnet, magnets has a magnetic field, right?
Magnet is in motion.
That's what they call the time varying.
Whenever you have a moving magnetic field, that's called the electric field.
That's generally the electricity.
And the thing with our universe is they measure things as if it's dead, but everything is in motion.
Everything is alive and in motion.
There is never anything that's still.
And we keep measuring things as if they are dead and still and going to remain in this set place when things are not just stuck here.
They are always in motion.
And the motion is always spherical.
The motion is never in a straight line.
It's always spherical.
And if they make that one adjustment and start measuring things based upon the spherical or spiral nature of everything, then all of their measurements would equal up.
Then they would have balance in their energy systems.
But because they're using straight lines, I'll use this point again, like with a computer chip.
You have these 90 degree angles with the computer chip.
It keeps turning, you know, going at the speed of light or just under the speed of light, hit this 90 degree wall, it has to stop, then build up its energy and go again.
Well, that's heat that's built up in each one of these 90 degree turns.
Each time that heat builds up, what does it do?
It destroys the electrical signal because electricity is balanced off by magnetism.
Magnetism creates heat.
The heat is those points.
Now the signal breaks down.
So they keep having to cool the system in comparison to how energy really moves in a circle.
Now there's no interference being built up.
Now the chip works a lot smoother.
But the way they're doing everything, it has this entropy, this unnecessary resistance because of their ideas on straight lines.
Terrence, what's your outcome with this information?
So in an ideal situation for you, what would you like to see happen?
Well, I wanted to see the world change.
I wanted to see us get off of fossil fuels.
I wanted to see us get off the planet using resonance and no longer burning chemicals.
I want to see us using resonance to heal our bodies and no longer using chemicals or oil-based chemicals.
What I want to see is the planet change.
That was what I wanted to do.
I'm not sure that's going to happen.
I feel like now what we have to do is start our own breakaway society and use these technologies that they're refusing to use and just build a whole separate world because they're not going to come along because they are attached to this dollar.
So the idea of you wanting peer review and others to review it, it's for what?
That was happening before because it would open the door for them now to accept it and to start using it.
But in view of the fact that more than likely they're not going to review it, more than likely, and Eric Weinstein was right.
We are not peers.
I don't have the degrees he has.
And guess what he doesn't have?
He doesn't have an understanding of how the universe works.
You don't think Eric Weinstein does.
He has no understanding of how the universe works because he has rejected the geometry that supports how the universe behaves.
He didn't even evaluate the geometry.
He did not.
And then when I asked him about does an action times an action have a reaction concerning the one times one, he obfuscated.
I hate that word.
He ran away from it.
He kept diverting.
And guess what?
We are not peers because he doesn't have it.
He hasn't invented a new form of flight.
He hasn't discovered unlimited mid-air bonding.
He hasn't done any of the things that I've done.
He doesn't have any of the patents that I have.
Now, whether they want to monetize them or not doesn't change the fact that these things are real.
And like I said, if I have to go to China and allow China to now build the, if I go to DJI, I bet you they won't hesitate a moment to use linchpin.
And then the U.S. is unable to use them.
And then what happens to it?
If I give my energy system to another country, what happens to it?
The same energy system that they're trying to squash here.
What happens to this place if I do that, which they're forcing me to do?
Do you know that they took away my passport out of the blue?
Just took away my password.
First, they said my passport, that I had some child support things.
And I was like, that's some BS.
Took four months to argue that I had no passport issues with child support.
Then it's like, oh, it's your taxes.
You owe taxes.
So we're going to take away your passport.
Why?
So I couldn't go to Dubai.
Why so I couldn't go and get this stuff financed?
It's all the suppression.
And I'm like, okay.
So after I'm done here today, I'm going, when I get home, I'm going to put online the equations necessary to have a thing called unlimited energy to be able to pull energy directly from the flux, just to say fuck you to the world.
I'm going to show them how to pull energy directly from the flux.
Your thoughts when you're listening to him.
Yes, you know, I have the careful Aristot Weinstein.
I can say that my peers, right?
I respect his intelligence, but I do believe his geometric unity theory is heavy, wrong direction.
It's wrong because it should have been finite.
He needs a finite space in order for it to work.
His fiber bundles don't work.
His entire hop vibration disappears because gauge theory becomes redundant once you introduce Lichpian geometry into it.
That was one of the things I tried to share with him that he's refused to look at.
First, I sent him a paper on how the linchpin helped with the hop vibration and how the linchpin could help in gauge theory.
And then I had to rewrite the paper and show him how the linchpin makes all of that redundant.
He didn't respond.
It's sitting there in this thing.
He hasn't responded.
That's the thing I told you to send over to Brian because I'm like, let's go to war.
Since you're going to call me an idiot, let's go to war.
And I want all the papers.
Now I want the war to take place through written white papers.
So you're not just sitting there talking garbage anymore.
Now you have to validate what you're saying because the papers are here.
And if you say the wrong thing, I will sue you now.
That's the reality of it.
One of the scientists said it was quite jumbled, hard to follow, and quite frankly, grandoir at first glance.
A true revolution, whether within strength theory or supplanting strength theory or replacing strength theory requires extremely abstruse mathematics well beyond the postgraduate level.
Well, tell them to evaluate it now.
If they're just going to look at it, now evaluate.
Put the math, put the equations in.
You could say it's grandiose, but look at the equations and evaluate is the equations, does it actually solve the problem?
And if it solves the problem, and that was the whole point of doing the AI, does it solve the problem?
Is there a problem mathematically or with the formulas?
No.
You're here.
What suggestion would you give him?
You have enough, like if he really wanted, if you, if let's just say he, his claims are real, okay?
How should he go about getting this information out?
So he has to be buy-in from the public, from the physics community, through that basic principle.
Got to be shepherded in.
correct and then what does that mean Come this way, and we'll let you in.
But you're going to have to let go of other principles that you're talking about.
Why is it like that?
So it's another, is your world you're in, is there also an establishment and an anti-establishment in your world?
Oh, I believe this happened to many different disciplines too.
But for me, buy-in by general public or by the physicists, the celebrities or the board members control the part.
I don't believe that's more important than tell the truth and discover the fundamental law of nature that's true to yourself and true to God.
I believe that's the most important.
For me, I believe I do discover the fundamental truth.
And so we just shared electron.
That's the root cause of all physics, classical and modern physics.
If an electron is not an excharged particle, we cannot have an atomic model with empty space and with nearly speed of light orbiting.
There's no such thing as empty space.
Everything is filled.
Everything is filled.
And that's why what I brought with my model, just so that we wouldn't have any confusion, because they can try and confuse the one times one, even though the calculator will show one thing in comparison.
That's why I solved the three-body problem and put that out there.
And I'm asking, and the thing with Saturn, and I'm asking everyone out there, since I'm not given the opportunity to have a true peer review by universities, all you have to do for the rebuilding of the planet Saturn, to prove whether gravity is an effect of electricity and whether dark matter and dark energy is real things or not, all you have to do is put in into blender the same thing for rebuilding the planet Saturn.
If we're able to rebuild the planet Saturn without gravity, without animation, without dark matter and dark energy, then we've proven that gravity is nothing but an effect of electricity.
And I'm asking everyone out there with a blender to do that and post what you put up to show whether or not I've proved that gravity is nothing but an effect.
But the second thing I want everyone at home to do is please take the three-body problem that I've put out there and run that through your AI and see if there's a problem.
And for the scientists, please compare it.
Have the conversations.
Please tell me whether this is true or false.
If it's wrong, you'll never hear from me again.
I'll walk away.
But if I'm right, that means that we have a bigger conversation to have.
And I put it to the three-body problem.
I stand behind everything we did in the three-body problem.
Examine that and tell me if it's false.
I walk away for good.
He mentioned about how he rebuilded the universe without dark matter.
Dark energy, dark matter, dark energy, without gravity.
And without gravity.
And this is very important.
I wanted to, before the ending, I wanted to make sure audience understand what that means.
And also I want to add another thing before we end this one is without the quantum can model the fundamental force only one fundamental force and I would try to explain why we do not need strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity.
Please.
Okay.
So remember, I said that there is no called solar, solar, called a planetary model.
So there is no orbiting electron.
So all electron and the neutron and the proton, they're all made by magnetic particles.
So they all have charge.
Of course, a neutron would say, hey, cancellation, a positive and negative cancellation become a neutron.
But that's not important.
The most important thing is since every particles are magnetic particles, they are not going to happen.
When magnets contact, you have called a like charge repel because magnetic force is coupled north and south.
It's a couple.
Whenever you have two magnets in contact, what happens?
If you see now we have a like charge repel, it rotates.
Eventually, always in contact.
That's the most stable structure.
That's why we see all matters, all atoms are in one piece.
They are not separate.
So what that means, we do not need a strong force.
The strong force is mentioned based on single charge particle.
Single charge, say, nucleus made up by protons and neutrons.
They're all like charged particles or even no charge.
But how can they, how they overcome magnetic, called electrical repulsion?
So that's why they create artificial force.
Dark matter and dark energy.
So everything naturally in contact.
So then we do not need a strong force.
And we also do not need weaken.
Weaker force explains the radioactivity.
So alpha, you know, decay.
So particle, basically, the particle fly out from the nucleus.
You know, in quantum, in current theory, nucleus does not have electron, right?
But in radiation, weak nucleus radiation, we have an electron ejected from the nucleus.
Does that sound interesting?
It does not happen.
So basically, the nucleus, the so-called ejection of particles from nucleus, the nucleus itself is a magnetic particles.
And under external interaction, somehow, suddenly turn the particle, originally become the opposite pole attract, suddenly become a like pole repulsion.
And of course, if you eject.
So weak nuclear force explain, does radiative energy can be easily interpreted by magnetic repulsion.
And radiation is more easily explained as being discharged electrical potential or devitalized electrical potential.
The radiation on a football field is the players that just finish their turn and go and sit down on the bench and try and recharge.
That's the radiation.
When they're putting all that energy out and they go and sit down and now you have the positive charge of people coming back in there that's been rested up and able to do it again and then they go back into a radiative or magnetically discharging state.
The energy breathes in, you breathe it back out.
It's that simple.
It always is breathing.
Everything is breathing.
Sorry, I made the box.
I want to go back to the most important concept, gravity.
So what is gravity?
We said gravity.
Does nothing exist?
Gravity is an effective electrical discharge.
It's the space, it's the draft that happens from electricity moving through a system.
You get a small gap.
That gap, that draft is what we call gravity, and then it's caught by the next wave.
It's caught by the next wave.
It's okay.
You got props.
Easier for audience.
I'm targeting a college student or high school student.
So I try to explain.
So what gravity is now?
Remember one thing.
Gravity force is different than all other three fundamental forces based on the quantum theory, right?
Standard model of physics.
Say gravity is a unilateral attraction only force.
It doesn't have a repulsion, right?
So we said, oh, anti-gravity is not possible.
That's all wrong.
So what is gravity?
Based on the current definition, gravity is a unilateral attraction force.
You know one thing.
So gravity is another fundamental force.
Do you agree?
Grab your mic.
Oh, so gravity is not a fundamental force.
Just based on that one.
No.
All fundamental forces.
It's an emergent force.
Binary.
It's an emergent force.
I like the term.
It's an emergent property of a mass system.
So emerging from what?
We are talking about force.
You have to emerge from a force.
It's resonance.
Resonance still is vibration mode.
It's still not a force yet.
I know you're almost there, okay?
Sometimes people say electromagnetic force.
I would say simplify to magnetic force.
But that again is motion.
All of these things happen as a result of their motion.
Motion requires force.
Because of existence, so this is a natural bone of a magnetism in every single matter particles.
And that one cause interaction means whether they combine them or repel them, right?
Interaction.
So what I try to say is let's reframe this called gravity.
It's not a fundamental force.
That's the number one.
Gravity is an emergent property of a particle system of magnetic force.
So we can say gravity is a second effect of electromagnetic body.
Which, like I said, is the effect of electricity.
Another way to say it, I wanted to repeat a different way.
Called residual force of a magnetic body.
And the magnetic systems are trying to do one thing, rotate around each other.
They're not trying to bump and stay like this.
They come and they begin to rotate.
Everything is about orbiting another system.
And ultimately, it will leave that orbit.
But it's just a moment of orbiting.
Yes.
Now I wanted to demonstrate one counter-argument to say, hey, you said gravity is now the fundamental force, but gravity, the strength of gravity, is dramatically different than electric force, magnetic force, or electromagnetic force, or strong nuclear force, weak neural force.
How you square about that one?
That's what I'm trying to demonstrate.
So I have a line of securing magnets, right?
So if I put this one here, you would expect it to attract them, right?
Right?
Okay.
So this is a magnetic force.
Nothing important until I'm folding them.
Tell me how many of the balls.
Are they repulsive now?
How many balls I can attract them?
Probably all.
All of them.
He thinks about because of center gravity is lower, right?
Magnet lower, so we should attract all of them instead of two of them.
Your take?
Well, to multiply electrical potential, like with wires, you wrap them around each other.
So by wrapping those more on top of each other, we're multiplying its potential.
So the electrical potential to pull things up or to attract should be greater now.
Greater now.
You both agree.
And you.
Why?
That gives the concept of gravity, the difference between gravity and the magnetic force.
Magnetic force, when you fold it, what happens?
Positive and the negative.
It's vector, right?
Positive and vector.
Vector canceled each other.
So it becomes a neutral now.
So that's why you cannot pick up.
With a magnet.
But when talking about gravity, gravity, when speaking about how gravity behaves.
Gravity is a summation of the mass system.
So if I fall forth more, when you fold it even more, the force even less.
Even less.
So that's why it's maintaining itself.
But you can make gravity the magnetism.
It is a factor.
Gravity is smaller than electromagnetic force by a factor of 10, no, 10 to the 36 power.
So basically, if you have a wind charge of electro force, right?
You know, gravity is a zero point, you add 36 zeros and then add one.
So that's the gravity.
So basically, gravity is zero.
That's why gravity never occurred in quantum mechanics.
It cannot occur in quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics dealing with electromagnetic interaction.
Gravity is zero, with 36 zeros behind it.
So it's a zero.
That's why I was saying gravity in the Planck model when they use it in describing Planck or the speed of light.
It disqualifies Planck from being a constant because gravity isn't a constant.
Depending on where you are on the Earth, the gravity is different.
If you place something at the equator in comparison to something at the pole, it weighs more.
Is gravity the same as weight?
You put something at 100,000 feet up in the air, it's going to weigh different than it does on the land.
So gravity is now a conditional fact that changes depending on where something is.
Or like I said, if you take a balloon and you rub it on your leg and you put it on the ground, now here the Earth is attracting through gravity, so-called, all of the attracting everything to it.
But you put that balloon with the static electricity over the ground, the same dust, the particles that the Earth is pulling to it, now this balloon being so much smaller is able to pull those particles up to it.
Why?
Because electricity is greater than gravity, almost 137 times stronger than the gravitational pull is the electrical pull.
And that's why I say gravity is an effect of electricity, not the attractive thing.
Dr. Yu, let me ask you, watching him speak, and he's doing what he's doing, and you say something, he answers it.
You say something, he answers it.
You say something, he answers it.
As a self-taught guy like this, how impressive is that to you for him to have all these theories?
Oh, number one, I'm not necessarily agree all the details with him, but in principle, I would think he did got the fundamental concept correct.
Say, electron is not true.
You cannot have a monocharge of the particle exist.
That's a foundation of my yuan theory of everything.
And he did a guy to correct to say, hey, I can rebuild the universe without gravity, dark matter, dark energy.
So now we can explain what a dark matter.
So now we know gravity is just called a summation or called a residual effect or called emergence.
I like the summation.
I like it.
You like the summation of all summation of the electromagnetic force of the system, right?
I like that.
You like that one.
So now, so we got that grounded.
So that means gravity is a part of the manifestation of magnetic force.
Okay, we know that one.
So now we wanted to solving dark matter, dark energy.
That's lots of people try to put a bet on their Nobel Prize.
They only threw that, but they threw that in there trying to solve it because they didn't have enough matter based upon the gravity, all the equations on gravity.
They didn't have enough matter to have the spiral.
So they just started adding things in there because they weren't using the magnetic returning waves to generate the things, the same stuff that we did in the rebuilding of the planet Saturn.
Instead of it being an internal attractor, we allow the returning waves, the magnetic returning waves to be the thing that's causing the structure.
Everything is made not by being pulled in, but by the weight of everything else pushing down on top of it.
That was our approach in doing it and being able to rebuild Saturn literally without the animation, without gravity, without dark matter, without dark energy, having the hexagon at the top of it, being able to have all of the energy flows, that in itself, that's why I put that out there.
I'm like, hey, rebuild the planet Saturn in your blender and prove that gravity is nothing but an effect.
That's what I'm asking.
Please do that.
I want to share something with Patrick.
I say, if you can understand, we are talking about dark matter.
Do we need a dark matter?
Number one.
No.
Then how we come up with the concept of dark matter?
You know, Terence mentioned about it.
Because we're missing gravity force from mass, based on mass.
Gravity force is purely mass-based, right?
We do not have enough gravity to hold a galaxy.
Spiral galaxy together.
We're missing something, right?
We have to make up something.
So we make up, say, okay, we do not, some matter we cannot see.
So dark matter, that means the matter existed, but we cannot see.
We cannot feel.
You cannot detect.
Once we know the effect, right?
So this is, so what's wrong with them?
They use the Newtonian gravitational equation.
That's wrong.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to offend that.
No, you're not.
You agree with that one?
Newton's gravity equation is actually Newton defined as a universal.
There's a universal gravitational constant.
And it was wrong.
There is no universal.
That's why I was saying gravity at different places is that it changes depending on the distance from something, all of those things.
So it means it's a conditional fact.
Newton's law of universal gravitational states that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force along a line joining them, and the force is direct proportional to the product, the masses, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
So you're saying that's incorrect.
Oh, that's a relationship, empirical relationship, Shiva.
We can use, and I already have rewrited this equation.
Get rid of this singularity point.
So right now, Newton has a divided by distance r.
If r equals zero, so the gravity becomes infinite.
So that's not existing in the universe, right?
So I revised that one, get rid of a singularity, but that's not important.
The most important concept is the mass here.
The mass in this as in the gravity is not actual constant.
It is varies.
It actually derived from electromagnetic interaction.
Listen to you guys.
One, I realize I'm not a physicist.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm not a doctor.
And the level of intellect needed for this, it's very impressive.
Just listen to both of you guys.
I love listening to this as well because the market's going to react to it and they're going to try to tear apart some of the argument.
And that's great.
That's what you want.
Where do people find all the other things for them to run through?
Are all of these public or not?
Go to Terry's Lynchpens.
Okay.
So all of that is.
Yeah, all of that is in Terry's Lynchpens.
The moment you pull it up, we've got an actual section, and it has about 10 of these papers in it.
And we're going to add, there's about 60 papers altogether that we've done since we can't get publication anywhere else.
And I'm asking them to please, you know, depending on your curiosity, you want to talk about anti-gravity machines, then here we go.
You want to talk about pulling energy directly from the flux?
Here we go.
You want to talk about tangential flight?
Here's the papers on that.
So everything is in there.
Terrence, question before we wrap up here.
Just a couple of questions for audience interest having nothing to do with this.
More on the acting side.
So the movie you and I talked about, Fighting.
Fighting.
Because to me, I've seen you in a lot of movies, but that role was my favorite one of yours.
The way you did the voice, the way you walked, the way you moved.
What was the character's name, Rob Kennedy?
Harvey Borden.
Yeah, Harvey Borden.
How did that come about?
That specific character?
Dido Montiel, one of the best directors I've ever worked with, he directed that.
He also directed A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.
I mean, it's a really beautiful director, but he took me through New York.
The character was supposed to be like L.L. Cool J driving a Hummer, pant leg rolled up.
You know, it's supposed to be some money guy.
And it did not fit what he was doing in the thing.
So the director took me through New York.
We were walking.
And he was like, he tied a string to my leg to shorten my gape so that I about six inches.
So I didn't have the stride that I wanted.
And he put a briefcase in my hand.
And he said, I want you to be, I want you to imagine yourself as a 65-year-old Jewish woman trying to express herself inside of an urban area.
65-year-old Jewish woman.
That was Harvey Borden.
He was a 65.
He had the statements and the intonations and the way he acted, the way he argued everything.
He was like a 65-year-old Jewish woman.
That was the basis of my character.
Yeah, that movie was phenomenal.
By the way, this is a year after Iron Man, right?
Because that came out on 09.
So Iron Man, I read somewhere.
I almost didn't believe it.
So I'm going to verify it with you.
Iron Man, it says you were the highest paid guy in that movie at $4.5 million, and they only paid Robert Downey Jr. half a million.
Is that accurate?
Maybe.
I don't know what they paid him exactly, but they weren't giving him any grace.
And he was phenomenal.
He deserved to get higher pay later on.
He really did from the work he did.
Why was it?
Did you guys ever talk about it?
Like a half a million for Robert Downey Jr.
No, he was just coming in.
Remember, after we did the first one and it made a billion dollars, they still came to all of us and was like, oh, you know, I know we're supposed to pay you $8 million for the next one, but we're going to, and we did a three-picture deal.
We're going to let you come back for a million dollars for one-eighth of what we, even though we had a success with what we did.
We're going to let you come back for a million.
Let you come back.
Let you come back.
They did that to all of the actors.
Marvel came and did the shakedown on every one.
Why would they do that, though, because they can.
Yeah, but when you think about movies like that, don't you think like the main guys make 10, 20 million on?
Later on they do.
Once they get the lock-in, Robert was smart enough because I bet you by the third one, he got his 20 million.
And I can't fault him.
The shit that happened to me happened to me.
That's just part of the business.
It eats you alive.
It's not mean.
It's just the nature of the monster.
So you were only in one of the Iron Man.
And what caused it not to come back?
They said they were going in a different direction in the character because my character was supposed to take over the franchise, but Robert did such a brilliant job that they were like, okay, that's why they hired me first because my character was supposed to be Rhodes and was supposed to take over.
So it was the most important part of it.
But the work that Robert did was so phenomenal.
I mean, I became a fan of his for life, but he was so phenomenal that they allowed him that he was able to continue that walk.
So on the second one, Rob, what does it say?
10 million up front.
To who?
To Robert Downey Jr., as well as back-end deals tied to the film's performance.
And then for the third one, a salary of $10 million with total earnings reportedly reaching $50 million after, which include profits from participation.
Man.
I will say he earned it.
I'm not mad at him.
I should have watched my back door.
I was so busy trying to help other people.
I should have watched my own back door.
And that's a lesson that you've got to learn.
Can't take it personal.
Terrence, you work with a lot of guys in the space.
Who was one where you were enamored, where you're on set and you're just watching Satan, what was this all about?
Who shocked you a little bit?
Oh, wow.
That's a big question.
That made me just sit there and take notes.
Nick Nulty was the only one.
Every take he came in, we applauded him.
We gave him a sand and ovation.
I mean, every take, every single take, because he was so dynamic in what he was doing.
I've never met a better actor in my life that just shuts me up.
I'm like, okay.
Nick Nolte was in the movie Warrior with Tom Hardy and Gavin O'Connor, which I love that movie, but he was also in Blue Chip.
Was he in coaching Blue Chip or Chip?
He was coaching Blue Chip.
He was in coaching.
Yeah, wow.
Yeah, he was.
My favorite performance of him is what he did in The Hulk.
That conversation that he was having with Eric Banna, the conversation, he channeled everything.
He never holds anything back.
So I love actors that just really pours it out.
Like, I can't keep up with Joaquim Phoenix no more.
Joaquim is taken off.
He's in a place where the disbelief. that I can't do anymore because I've been rooted into trust.
What's the first time you met him?
With who?
Joaquim.
Joaquim was when we were doing, he was nominated with me when we were doing, he was nominated for Walk the Line.
I was nominated for Hustle and Flow.
So we were in the host.
That's the first time.
That's the first time.
Did you guys ever do anything to him?
Nope.
Never happened.
Nope.
It was me, Heath Ledger.
He was in the run with us.
It was Philip Seymour Hoffman running with us.
That's the same.
What a, what's up?
And two of those people are dead.
I know.
He's in the future.
Out of the five, yeah.
Wow.
Out of the five that was us.
So, you know, there's a short life in.
Why do you think that is what the creative set is?
Well, because losing out money, you got to take drugs.
You're going through so much shit to try and deal with life.
You are literally, it's an unhealthy space.
And so eventually you're going to go too far.
You know, who knows what happened to Philip?
Who knows what Heath had to do in order to get to where he was at?
There's a lot of things that people do that end up sitting and they can't get over it.
And they got to keep getting high, hoping to get it out of their head.
But when you lose your man card, that's the only thing I can think of.
You lose your damn man card.
What is that?
What do you mean by that?
You give up your ability, your right to being a man.
A man don't take it.
A man gives it.
So when you give up that man card, you don't get that back.
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
I'm saying what I'm saying.
You don't get that back.
You come into this world as a man one time.
You give up that right for anything, for fear of being hurt, fear of somebody doing something, for wanting to gain something.
When you give up that man card right, you lose some spiritual energy that has always been pushing through.
Like if a woman gives up her womanly right of being a mother and taking care of her family and being the all those things, when you give up those things, but when you give up your manhood, I've never seen somebody recover from it.
That was all the people that went to the Puffy parties.
That was all the people that did all those things thinking that there was never going to be a consequence for what they were doing.
Get punked out and pimped out by some over greater desire.
You shouldn't have a greater desire than being a man.
So I believe that's a big problem with a lot of the actors out there because they get fluid.
And next thing you know, once it go fluid, it's gone.
You don't have any foundation to pull yourself back from.
So maintain your man card no matter what.
Man, I mean, you know, one of the things you're seeing of you went to a whole different place.
Sorry.
No, no, I get it.
So you see some guys struggling with that.
You see Bieber struggling with that.
You see some of these guys struggling with that.
They can't get it out of their head.
They can't get it out of their head.
The things that they did, no matter how they did it, whether they were drunk or high or whatever, you gave up your man card.
You need therapy.
And that's the thing that hurts them the most.
And so they end up on drugs, end up every way to try and get rid of any principles there are.
And that's what the business does.
And the women that trade their bodies to go and get the role.
They get to the point where they have their Oscar, they have their money, but they don't have their dream.
They don't have the soul that they started with.
So it's like achieving don't mean anything.
If I get all the Nobel Prizes from doing all of this, but in the process, I have to trade out all of my integrity to do it so that they can stay in place.
What benefit is that if I lose my integrity?
You got to go in as a principal.
And what we were brought in here as men, we produce 1,500 sperm per heart for a reason, because the aggression is necessary.
You don't trade that in, no matter what.
Did you ever have the opportunity where you got invited and you said no to it?
Hell yeah.
What was the consequence when you said no?
Puffy invited me for weeks asking me to come and teach him how to, you know, wanted me to be his acting coach for a while.
Go there and he's sitting around just looking.
I'm like, okay, what's the material you want to work on?
He's just looking at me.
Then next thing you know, okay, hey, will you help me?
I want to hear your music, so I'll come over there and I'll play the music.
And he's sitting there, just looking at me, like waiting.
Okay.
So then my assistant was like, you know, he wants to hang out with you next week.
And I was like, for what?
He's like, I think he's trying to fuck you.
That's what my assistant said.
I was like, oh, okay.
Now I get it.
So now no more communication.
Now you know to be hands-off with somebody.
A number of producers come in and make the approach and you threaten to punch them in the mouth or threaten to knock their head off for talking to you like or looking at you like you're a woman.
You know, when you approach a real man about his masculinity, you're going to get a real reaction back.
It's a difference when a guy walks in a room and when a man walks into a room.
And a man don't take the same things that a guy will accept.
So always be the man in the room.
And that's always been my whole thing and have lost businesses because I don't bend over in that way.
I don't compromise.
I don't play gay roles.
I don't kiss a man.
I don't do that shit because the man card means everything.
I had no idea we're going to go this direction with the podcast.
This is absolutely.
But listen, we've talked about it.
We've had a lot of the guys on to talk about this stuff.
Are you done, done with Hollywood?
Because I'm still working.
I still, you know, I haven't made the money necessary to do all of the other stuff.
So I still have to go and do the Chitlin circuit.
I still have to do the job that I need to.
But eventually, I've done what I set out to do, which was to redefine the universe.
I've proven what I've set out to do.
And that's why I have all the patents.
Whether they evaluate it or not, that's up to them.
But I've done the work and finished it.
Now I can go on and do whatever else we need to do.
And I've appreciated you being here and talking to you in a big way.
So thank you for coming and sharing your understanding and helping me and understanding how they see the universe.
I really appreciate it.
You know what's the best part about this?
That you guys don't know each other.
And by the way, I told you we may have somebody, but I never gave you a name.
Never did.
Until you came here, you guys met, so you did not know this was going to take place.
I'm glad the connection was made.
I'm sure you guys will exchange information and go.
I mean, if there's somebody that's credible enough to help you in this journey as well, it's Dr. Yu.
Dr. Yu, I appreciate you for coming out.
Truly, this was fantastic.
Now I know you're here, so we will invite you in the future as well because we're going to need it as we're going through other conversations.
And Terrence, we're going to keep you posted on things we hear.
And anybody that wants to go and get in contact with Terrence as well, the website's been given.
We're going to put the link to the website below as well.
Any final thoughts you have, Terrence, before we wrap up?
No, I'm saying do a proper evaluation.
Do a proper evaluation.
Don't just talk shit.
Do the evaluation.
Do the work.
And then talk, you know, after you've evaluated it.
Dr. Yu?
I just want to say the universe is not actually not that complicated.
If you understand the fundamental principle, starting from electron is a binary magnet, and you can solve, you can understand the entire universe, physical world.
I love it.
Appreciate you guys for coming on.
This was absolutely fantastic.
Thank you for your time.
Take care, everybody.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Terrence Howard.
I'm an actor, but in the field of science, also.
So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Minect.
