All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2025 - Project Camelot
01:48:28
Nassim Haramein - Awake & Aware 2011
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you so much.
Thank you for having me.
Appreciate it.
It's great to be here.
My presentation today is called The Cosmological Constant and the Sword Child Proton.
The Energy of the Future.
And, you know, don't panic.
It might sound a little complicated, but we actually...
Are you guys ready?
Good, good.
It's gonna be really, really simple stuff, but it has profound implications.
And I think it's really important to understand these maths, to understand what they mean a little bit, so that we can have a deeper understanding and a deeper meaning to our more spiritual concepts, such as: You know, we hear that all the time.
If you have a problem with your neighbor nowadays, and you live in Sedona maybe, so you call your spiritual shaman or your spiritual, you know, advisor, and you're like, what do I do?
They tell you, stay calm.
It's all one.
You're one with your neighbor.
And you might, you know, understand that at some level, but there's another level that's screaming, how?
How is it that we are one?
How is it that you and I are part of the same system?
How is it that I'm one with this podium?
And so on.
There must be some mechanism, and if we don't understand these mechanisms, then it stays a dogma.
It stays a concept, a philosophical concept that we cannot apply directly to our society.
So it's crucial that we understand the mechanics of such concepts.
And that we apply it to our society in terms of engineering, in terms of technology, that can make an extraordinary difference in our path of evolution at this time.
And that's why the energy of the future.
So, and what I mean by energy, I mean many things.
That is, not only energy, but The transportation of the future, our capacity to reach the stars, our capacity to expand beyond our horizon.
Many things that the speaker before me was talking about are taken in the context of our current capacity, our current technology, our current capacity to transform and to transcend our difficulties.
However, technologies that are here today are based on very specific physics that are rapidly changing.
As we heard yesterday night, you know, recent experiments at CERNs are showing that the speed of light may not be a limit.
In order to understand energy, I mean, people use that word all the time.
And, you know, actually, if you look in physics, the concept of energy is not so clear.
That is, it's nebulous.
It's a concept that's used all the time in our equations to make things even out, to make things work.
Work has been done by this system, then the energy is transferred to this system and then if this system does work, it's transferred back to this system and so on.
And those concepts are called conservation laws or conservation of energy.
So energy and conservation of energy.
I'd like to read a few things.
These are quotes that are typical if you open physics books and you look up energy and conservation laws, you'll find these.
And they usually go this way.
Energy can be defined as the capacity to do work.
It may exist in a variety of form and may be transformed from one type of energy to another.
However, these energies Transformations are constrained by a fundamental principle: the conservation of energy principle.
Excuse my reading, it's my second language and I'm highly dyslexic.
One way to state this principle is: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Another approach is to say that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.
This is very important because If a system does not interact with its environment in any way, then certain mechanical properties of the system cannot change.
These quantities are said to be conserved and the conservation laws which result can be considered to be the most fundamental principles of mechanics.
In mechanics, examples of conserved quantities are energy momentum, angular momentum.
The conservation laws are exact for an isolated system.
You know, these are laws that have been in place for some hundred years and we've been using them everywhere in physics.
They are fundamental.
Yet, most people ignore or pass over and children are not shown this when they're taught these laws.
Students are never taught to go back and look at it more carefully.
You know, very important concept in these laws that come out every time, and it's the concept of an isolated system.
So, you have to look up isolated system.
And when you do, you can be quite surprised.
An isolated system Implies a collection of matter which does not interact with the rest of the universe at all.
Okay?
And as far as we know, there are really no such system.
There is no shield against gravity.
The electromagnetic force is infinite in range.
But in order to focus on basic principles, it is useful to postulate such a system to clarify the nature of physical law.
And here I have a bubble, you know.
All natural laws are based on something that is not found in nature.
You think there'd be a problem there?
In particular, conservation laws can be presumed to be exact when referring to an isolated system, which we just defined as not existing anywhere in nature.
So, how exact are those laws?
So, there lies the problem.
The idea that things can be isolated.
That you can, you know, put something in a box and assume that you can analyze that thing, ignoring everything else that's going on in the universe.
As if you've isolated that box from the rest of existence.
And more and more...
So how do we deal with it?
In one way, what we have to do It starts to get what I call a holistic view of the universe.
The whole thing.
We got to start with a concept in which we understand the whole structure a little more before we start looking at the part.
That is, we got to make a clearer picture on how the structure of Embedded system exists in our universe before we try to identify what the part may look like.
Otherwise, it's similar to like taking a Boeing 747 and breaking it down to the smallest piece and then giving that piece, which might be very tiny, right?
to an engineer and Saying to the engineer, OK, what did that piece come out of?
Could be problematic.
He might come up with like a pink elephant.
And so, this isolated system is really a problem.
Let's look at it in a different way.
Let's take a look at it.
In a geometric way, we can call this an isolated system, right?
We have a circle that obviously isolates the space within it from the space outside of it.
But is it truly isolated?
When we look at this, if we look very closely, We might start to see discreteness in it.
We might start to see structure in it.
So in this case, let's make the structure an equilateral triangle.
And let's polarize that.
And as soon as we did, we got a fundamental Recursiveness to the geometry we started with.
We have the same triangles that could produce new horizons, new boundaries, new so-called isolated systems.
And in each case, each of these isolated systems is going to observe the rest of the geometry from its own very perspective.
So we could say that Every point in here, every new boundary, is a new set of information.
Right?
since it's individually observing the rest of the system from its own very specific perspective, gathering its own very specific information, yet You all following me?
So in physics, information can be equivalent to energy.
So as each time that I'm making a new division, I could say that the energy of the system is increasing.
That there is new information being generated.
So here, Further boundary conditions are generated and these can be polarized and get further boundary conditions and so on and so on and so on.
And I can continue to do this to this system towards infinity.
If I give this to my computer, it will continue to make divisions.
I could get him to zoom and then keep dividing and zoom and keep dividing and so on to infinity.
I would never, ever, ever get to the end of it.
However, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever exceed that first boundary I've started with.
So, I here can show that infinite amount of information, infinite amount of discreteness, infinite amount of energy can be present.
In the so-called confine of an isolated system.
In the so-called confine of a finite boundary.
And then if I zoomed out from that boundary, I would see that that boundary is most likely embedded into a larger one, and into a larger one, and into a larger one, and into a larger one, and so on, to infinity.
So I have infinite fractal divisions from infinitely small to infinitely big.
And in a system as such, there would be no lack of energy.
Since there would be infinite amount of information from any boundary conditions that I picked.
So this leads to the realization that if we were to write new physics, new physics that assume open systems, relationships, then that system most likely would start looking, those physics most likely would start looking like fractal physics.
Holographic physics, in which all points are in relationship with all other points.
All information is present in each part.
And taking this view, if I was to look at something like a hydroelectric dam, And I applied the open system conservation law to a hydroelectric dam, I would get something different than what we get today.
For instance, today in conservation law, if we have a lake and there's water coming down that lake into a turbine, Bad turbine!
Okay.
Kind of a turbine.
And we got plus, minus...
The water is elevated relative to the turbine.
Gravitational potential.
And the gravitational potential is given to the turbine in terms of spin.
The restriction and friction, because of conservation law, we will only extract a very small percentage of, you know, a small percentage of the available gravitational potential, and that will be transferred to electrical power here.
Okay?
However, the water comes out of the turbine, and in current isolated system, Conservation law, that's where the box ends.
But today, we're going to break the box.
So, if we break the box, then we follow the water.
And as we follow the water, we realize, wow, it's flowing south.
Because the earth is spinning and because the sun is shining and because there is, you know, Coriolis forces, the water that's flowing south is evaporating in clouds.
And these clouds that are south, because of Coriolis effect, are coming back north.
And when they get up there, it's cold and it snows and rains and it goes back.
Into my lake.
And that was free.
I didn't have to pay for that part.
Nowhere in the universe is there a tollbooth that's, you know, asking you to, like, that's charging your credit card every month to make sure your atoms keep spinning.
That would suck.
Because they spin really fast, it'd be really expensive.
So nature is giving us all the power we have today already.
Right?
At its most fundamental level, this is given.
It is already free energy.
If you'd like.
What we need to figure out is how to extract it at its source.
How to extract it before it's produced the material world.
Because if we can get to the source of energy, the source of the energetic universe, and we live in an extremely energetic universe.
Look at, I mean, there's galaxies, there's stars, quasars, I mean, even the surface of the Sun, I mean, it's extremely energetic there.
It's not dead.
We're flying through space at thousands of miles per minute.
I mean, you know?
And there is people on this planet in their isolated system saying, wow, you know, there's not enough energy for everybody.
So, how do we get to the source of it?
First, we got to ask the question, if we look at that system, if I look closely, I would say, but wait, if I keep dividing, dividing, dividing to infinity, what am I dividing?
What is the substance that's being divided?
And that leads to the question, what's connecting all these scales?
It leads to the question, if I give you all the things in the universe, everything, you got the whole universe and I said to you, okay, point at something that connects all things.
Find me something that's everywhere.
You'd have to think about it for a little while, and then you'd eventually go, "Oh!
Space!" Space is everywhere, right?
Space is in between galaxies, between quasars, between pulsars, between stars, between planets, between atoms, in the densest material on Earth, like carbon, you know, like diamond.
If you took one of the atom in a diamond molecule and you grew it to the size of an orange, the other orange would be two football field away.
That's how much space there is in the material world.
Actually, you know, and many spiritual people say, "Oh, it's so dense over here!" Nah, not really dense.
And actually, these were the last words of Buckminster Fuller on his dead bed.
He realized, and I'm sorry to say that, but you know, nothing touches.
Like, for your partner, that might be a problem, but you know, nothing has ever touched anything.
Atoms are very far away from each other.
When I touch this podium, my atoms in my hand are not anywhere close to touching the atoms in this podium.
If they did, they'd be fusion.
They'd be all sorts of gamma-ray emissions.
There'd be some serious issues.
LAUGHTER There's large distances at those scales.
All that's happening is that there's a little electromagnetic field here that's not in phase with this little electromagnetic field, so can't get through it.
But if those were in phase with those, my hand would go right through it.
No problem.
Question of phase.
But as well, if we look even deeper than the molecular structure, If we look at the atomic level, then we find that the atom itself is made of 99.9999999% space.
Mostly space.
The material world we live in is space.
With a little jiggle, 0.0000001% that we pay a lot of attention to.
That is the little jiggle that we call reality.
The real world.
Physicists told me one day after one of my presentations that I didn't live in reality.
So, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Because we're made of vacuum.
And, you know, it appeared to me early on when I studied a little physics in high school, that, wow, maybe it's the other way around.
Maybe it's not matter that defines the space, but maybe matter is defined by the space.
Maybe it's the space that defines the atomic structure.
Maybe the medium is space and the atom is just a little division, a little oscillation of that space.
Maybe space is what connects all things.
Maybe space is what organizes everything.
Because that's a problem in physics.
The incredible The organization we see in nature everywhere is not trivial.
It really isn't.
You can't just account for it by random functions.
It doesn't add up.
If you do the math, it doesn't work.
If the universe was random, in 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang, We wouldn't even have a little blade of grass with all the little microbial life and DNA and all this stuff in it.
That would be too complex.
Let's go back to our jumbo jet.
It'd be equivalent, actually, it'd be easier to take a jumbo jet into its smallest bits again.
And let's not freak out the engineer this time.
Take all the bits, there would be a lot of bits, and threw them up in the air, and assuming that by the time it comes back down, it's a functioning airplane.
It doesn't add up.
In your body right now, the organization that's going on every second is like so remarkable.
100 billion chemical changes occurring per second, there's like DNA, so that if I took all your DNA and unraveled it, like when you pull on the thread of a sweater, and I unraveled it and pulled it out of you, what's contained in you right now, I could wrap around the world 5 million times, I can go from the sun to,
And it's functioning perfectly well.
It knows exactly what it's doing.
It's not confused at any moment, because if it were, even for a few instants, it would be a really bad day.
Really, really bad.
Very quickly.
But it's highly organized and really in science today, both in physics and in biology, there is no explanation for this.
We, for instance, in physics have no clue how systems self-organize.
All our theories are based on entropy.
are based on systems, isolated systems, that have entropic behavior, conservation.
That is, a system always go, according to our current physics, towards further disorder.
However, you might have noticed in your bedroom yourself, for most of us, Where there is disorder in our bedroom, they must have been ordered before!
more.
If we see systems that are moving towards disorder, the question, you know, begs the question, where did the order come from?
Because if it's going towards disorder, then there must be some fundamental principle of order present.
And actually, when we look at the natural world, we see it go towards higher and higher level of complexity, and higher and higher level of organization, and we see negentropy.
And that negentropy, the water, Going back into the clouds and raining back into our lake.
That's the part we want.
That's the part we want to understand.
That's where the energy would be.
That's where all the information of all organization would be.
This is what we want to tap into.
This is what we want to log on.
It'd be the ultimate hard drive.
Right?
And as we identify, that might be the space.
If that was true, if space would be that thing that organizes all things since it's in contact with everything it could, if space is the holographic metric that creates systems, then that space could not be empty.
Space would have to be empty.
Full.
Full of energy.
Full of information.
It wouldn't just be a little bit full, it would be infinitely full.
Is space infinitely full of energy?
Most likely.
But how?
You know, I started to then look in Physics, where we would have evidence that space is not empty?
Where we would have evidence that space is something, either than nothing?
Could we be that confused about something that looks like nothing?
Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
For instance, when The first equations for electromagnetism were rendered.
There was some evidence that there was, you know, more than the visible spectrum.
But it looked like nothing to everybody else.
And it wasn't until a photographic plate was left near radiating material, That it was discovered that, whoa, we have x-rays and da-da-da, oh, there's other frequencies, there's other things, radio waves, infrared and so on, past what we see, what we experience directly with our five little senses.
And today you don't think about it twice.
You turn a radio on, you tune it, and all of a sudden a voice comes out of there.
And all that programming is in the space.
I go to physics conference, and many physicists, it's now the trend.
It didn't used to be 20 years ago.
If you said the C word in a physics conference, you'd get kicked out, you know.
The C word being consciousness.
But now, things are changing.
It's the cool thing, if you're retired or if you, you know, you're looking for consciousness, or the relationship of consciousness to physics, and many of these professionals are looking in the brain.
This is equivalent to taking the radio set at home, opening it up and looking for the announcer.
It's not in there.
It's just tuned.
It's a resonance match.
And that resonance match is a match to the structure of the vacuum itself.
So I started looking at what the vacuum is doing physically, what is the space doing physically that I could quantify to see if it's really there.
And you know, eventually I was in physics conference and one of the physics conference I was at, I stopped everybody in the middle of a discussion about string theory, so we were in like
We're trying to figure out if a knot was really knotted or if it was not and you know we were getting very confused.
And you know at one point I stopped everybody I said hey you know I've been looking for an equation you guys are all like so awesome.
In physics, I'm sure you guys have an equation for this, but I'm not finding it.
I've been looking for 15 years.
I really would like to know where it is.
And he said, okay, what is it?
And I said, well, if I understand our current models of physics, the universe, at the cosmological level, is expanding.
And the model we are given most of the time is a balloon with pennies glued to it.
So I pulled up a physics book and showed that.
The pennies are glued to the surface of the balloon and they represent galaxies.
And as the balloon expands, the galaxies move away from each other.
I shouldn't do that because my profile, my nose gets kind of blocked.
But these galaxies moving away from each other is a representation of the expansion of the universe.
And when I said to them, "The equation I cannot find, I really would like some help on that, is what I want to know is who's this guy?" I can't find the equation for it.
I saw like the director of the department of physics there getting a little nervous and I...
One of the PhD students started to choke on his coffee, and I think they thought I was going to say the word God in the physics department, you know?
Please don't go there kind of deal, you know?
And so I was...
Notice that when the universe is expanding, the lungs in the guy have to contract.
For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.
Some of the first laws of physics we learn.
You know, In these moments in physics, usually they're followed by quiet time.
And usually somebody's saying, "Isn't it time for lunch?" So how's your wife doing?
So what I was pointing out there is that the space in the balloon It has to have some physical meaning.
The vacuum cannot be empty.
It has to have a capacity to expand that balloon, and that is the collapsing of the vacuum itself.
That is, that we only observe the radiative side of creation, and we call that the material world, but the vacuum, the space, Has a physical function that may be the collapse that produce this expansion.
That they may be a feedback.
And that this function is not explored by us.
We miss it, like, because, sorry to say, but our evolution and our society is mostly male-oriented, which is that radiative, you know, everything is like, let's blow shit up.
laughter laughter Thank you.
You want to go somewhere, baby?
Let's take some of that explosive material over here, put it in the cylinder, have a piston, boom, boom, boom, wheels are going to go, we're out of here.
You want to go to the moon?
Let's build a nice phallic symbol.
Fill it full of highly, highly explosive material.
Thousands of tons of the stuff.
Put a little capsule on top.
Find volunteers.
Put them in there.
Light the bottom and run!
And since it's not very tantric, you know, within a few minutes, like, there's a little ejaculation.
I don't know.
So, maybe there's a different approach.
Maybe the vacuum structure, maybe the space is the counterpart.
Maybe...
So in order for that to happen, they had to put energy in the vacuum, called dark energy, or the cosmological constant.
They had to add this energy to the vacuum to make it expand.
So now we know there's definitely energy in the vacuum, and we can measure it.
So that's at the cosmological level.
Now let's look at the subatomic and atomic level.
Oh my god.
I gotta go faster.
At the atomic level, I realized, reading physics, that Oh my god, they had found energy in the vacuum, and not just a little bit.
Let's read it together.
Present-day quantum field theory gets rid by renormalization process of an energy density in the vacuum that would formerly be infinite if not removed by renormalization.
That is, when we looked at the atom, In, you know, almost a hundred years ago, and we start to calculate all the oscillations that would occur in space-time, in the structure of space inside the atom,
in the 99.99999% and around the atom, we found that if we got close enough to the structure of space-time, it would be fluctuating with infinite amount of modes, that is, There's infinite amount of wavelengths that you can find smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller wavelengths to infinity.
That's what the equations were saying.
There's infinite amount of energy in the vacuum.
And, you know, when I found this, I'm like, ah!
They actually found it!
They found the structure of the connectivity of all things.
They found the structure of the vacuum.
But that was not their realization at the time.
They said, oh my God!
It was called a vacuum catastrophe.
We've got to get rid of this infinity.
It's infinitely big.
I already said, wow, we found the source of creation.
Infinite amount of energy.
Wow, how do we get in there?
No.
Instead, we re-normalize it, which is okay, you know, when you're writing equations, but it's not so much the re-normalization that's the problem,
it's that it was re-normalized and then it was placed in the closets of physics for almost a hundred years, until people like Many different inventors throughout the ages and people like other researchers and I started to talk about this and make this forefront.
But how did they renormalize?
What they did is they used a constant called a Planck's distance.
The Planck's distance is a calculation That's very valid as far as I can find.
And certainly in my latest paper that I'm going to show at the end of this presentation, it's remarkable.
And the thought right now is that the Planck's distance is the smallest thing the universe can do.
It's the smallest oscillation of the structure of The electromagnetic field that can occur.
You can think of it as a photon going through itself, or the time it takes for a photon to go across its radius, or its diameter.
So you can imagine, it's teeny, it's really, really small, it's 10 ^-33, that's like, you know, that's like a period with Thirty-three zeros, right?
That's a lot of zeros before you get a one.
It's really, really small.
Now, do I think it's the smallest thing the universe does?
Absolutely not.
But I think that the Planck's distance is a very important scale for our relationship to our current size universe.
That is, it defines a boundary level at the smallest, And the universe boundary defines the boundary level at the biggest, and that gives us, you know, a relationship in our scale.
You guys follow?
So I think it's an important thing.
So what they did...
I know the little shanty dog wants to come up here and give some physics, but...
Always get excited on this part, doesn't it?
So what they did is, they took little Planck's distances, and they said, how many of those can we stack in the centimeter cube of space?
And since each one of them is a little energy, right, it's a little oscillation, E =mc ^2 can tell you how much the mass of that oscillation is going to be.
And the mass is 10 to the minus 5, so it's very small mass.
However, if you count all the masses of all the Planck's length in this centimeter cube of space, you'll get a density.
How many mass per centimeter cube is there in the vacuum oscillations?
And the answer is 10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cube.
10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cubed.
That is a big number.
Okay?
That is a really, really big number.
You might have noticed in your bank account, you know, when you have, like, zeros, keep, you know, you keep putting new zeros, it improves rapidly.
You know, if you have three zeros, you add another one, it's like, oh, nice, you know.
You add another one, oh, yeah, that's good.
You had another one?
Oh yeah, now we're talking, right?
So imagine you got like 93 of those, right?
Things are looking good, right?
Now let me give you an idea of what that number really means.
If you took a centimeter cube of space and in it you squashed all the Atoms in the universe, all the stars in all the galaxies, there's billions of galaxies, each one has billions of stars in it, and I squish them all into a centimeter cube of space.
You would have a density in that cube.
Imagine how dense that thing would be, right?
You'd have a density of 10 to the 55th grams per centimeter cube.
10 to the 55th grams per centimeter cube.
That is very large already, but it's 39 orders of magnitude less than the density of the vacuum, which is 10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cube.
All right, you're swimming in an infinite space.
Soup of energy.
You're most likely living off it.
When you eat, you actually are replacing vacuum energy that you've desecrated.
You Are feeding off the vacuum, literally.
And you could actually bypass the eating part.
And that has been shown.
I've done it myself.
And, you know, nowadays there's sadhus in India that are coming out of the woodworks to be examined by the medical establishments.
And they're being isolated in a room for like months at a time.
They don't drink.
They don't eat.
They don't defecate.
They don't sweat.
They live directly off the vacuum.
And, you know, that's a being.
Imagine that you got a technology to pull out of the vacuum.
If we got one billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a percent of what's there, Out?
We would have enough energy to run the whole planet for thousands of years.
Never mind the capacity to curve spacetime, create space drive, overcome gravity, get off the surface, which we really, really, really need to do.
Really, really soon.
and so on so if 1947?
Because you might say, well, yeah, that's all nice, but it's just equations.
Maybe you guys are lost.
Well, in 1947, a guy called Kazmir, a physicist called Kazmir, said, "Well, we should be able to measure it." If that...
The result would be there would be more energy outside, less energy inside, and the plates should get pushed together, create a little gradient in the vacuum.
When he did the calculation, he realized, wow, the plates have to be really, really close together.
Microns apart.
Nobody could mill plates with micron precision in 1947.
It took until the 90s before this happened.
And in the 90s, when it did, then the plates got pushed exactly as was predicted by Casimir.
The experiment was reproduced in laboratories all around the world, and now we even have results of a dynamic Casimir effect, or Anru effect, And that actually pretty well proves unequivocally that the vacuum is there and that it has physical meaning because almost for a hundred years they said that this vacuum energy is way too big and it probably has no physical meaning.
I think it's the foundation of all physical meaning and that's a big difference.
It really is there.
Now, if this is true as well, then when we look at the universe, if they're basically just division of the vacuum, then all the pieces in the universe should be in harmonic relationship to each other.
They should be some coherence in the way the vacuum divides.
If the vacuum connects all things.
And so, With the help of Dr. Rauscher, we wrote a scaling law to see if that was true.
We started, and the scaling law is radius against frequency, or you could think of it as radius against energy, and we started with the universe.
Now I would like to let you know, that if you think the mass of our universe as we observe it today, And you stick it in a bubble in our universe that we see our universe sized to be today.
The universe obeys the Schwarzschild condition.
It obeys the condition of a black hole.
We live inside a black hole.
That is, if I shine a laser light in the night sky tonight.
Okay, well maybe during the day.
The light ray is going to get bent a little bit by the gravitational field of the Sun.
And it's going to go for a while and then it's going to hit another star and it's going to start bending a little more.
And it's going to hit more stars and it's going to bend a little more and so on and so on and so on.
And there's too much stuff in our universe that light will not be able to escape it.
We live inside a black hole.
Did you know that?
So if you live inside a black hole, which has this, you know, this infinity inherently in it, then you'd expect, maybe I'll get that there's a thing there, maybe you'll expect that little smaller things along that line will be just smaller divisions, smaller black holes, smaller Singularity.
And, if they line up, they would be.
So here's quasar, we know there are black holes.
Here's the center of galaxies, all galaxies, we know there are black holes.
From this theory, I was able to predict that we were going to find a black hole at the center of all galaxies.
I got in a lot of trouble for saying that some 25 years ago.
But, now we've found black holes at the center of all galaxies.
As well, I was able to predict that the black hole at the center of the galaxy is present before the galactic formation that is the source of the galaxy not the result which was the assumption that was made in the standard model that the black hole in the center of galaxies was the result of all the stars colliding there and making a black hole what I was saying is no the black hole is there first that's what's producing the matter that we see as a galaxy it's
a continuous Creation model instead of like one Big Bang, which is more of the male approach, you know?
And so, then stellar objects, many star-sized objects are black holes, and then we jump from stellar objects all the way to the atomic structure.
And that in physics is not expected.
Because currently, We think that cosmological objects are dealt with classical physics, or at least Einsteinian physics, and the atomic structure is dealt with quantum physics, and the two don't agree.
And most physicists will tell you they're not related.
Yet, you know, they may have not noticed, but big things are made out of small things.
So obviously, they must be related.
Right?
Now, so here we jump all the way to the atom, and the atom falls almost perfectly on this line.
Remarkable.
And then all the way to the Planck's distance.
You see how far the Planck's distance is compared to the atom?
Imagine how teeny that is.
That's the atom.
You see, there's less distance between a star So you can imagine that's a huge scale from the universe to the Planck's distance.
The odds of all these data points falling on that line are extremely low.
Yet they do.
If we lived in a random universe, these data points would be all over the place.
Is everything in the universe a Swerchel black hole?
Is everything in the universe just smaller division of singularity?
Singularity comes from the word singular.
One.
Are we only observing division of the one?
Wow, this is starting to sound a lot like ancient texts and...
Maybe we should have tried applying that to physics.
Yeah!
But, if this is true, there's a problem.
This guy.
Well, Atoms are not thought to be black holes.
So how is the atom a black hole?
If you say to a physicist today, an atom is a black hole, he'll say, absolutely not.
The atom is not massive enough to be a singularity.
OK, how do we deal with mass?
Yes, indeed.
If we look at the bottom, at the confine of physics today, the standard model has zero explanation from what mass is.
We don't have a clue.
We have a model that says that it's related to the Higgs mechanism, the Higgs boson.
Which is our current model.
And, you know, it's quite controversial.
And, in any case, that model says that the Higgs boson is a fluctuation of the vacuum itself.
So, and, you know, CERN, and this is why we built the hydrant collider.
The largest accelerator ever built, 13 billion dollars later, 17 miles long, coils so large that the first time they turned them on, they ripped off the anchors when flying into the tunnel and embedded themselves into the detectors.
The whole thing flooded with liquid helium and they had to evacuate.
So two billion dollars later, they turn it on, but it's so wide and so long of, you know, a device to maintain that some bird had placed a little crumb in the wrong place.
Poof!
You know?
Looking for the Higgs boson, which is now seeming to not be found.
In any case, what I said is, hey, are we ignoring the vacuum?
Yes, we are.
So if we looked at a proton, And this was in the paper, the Swerchal Proton, that was published two years ago.
It was published at the CASI Conference in Belgium, the one I just came back from.
This was the '09 CASI Conference.
It received the first paper award there.
I was very, very surprised because it was very controversial.
Thank you.
And there's been discrepancies of internet chatter about that price.
It is peer-reviewed.
And it is peer-reviewed by professional physicists.
And so what I did is I took the volume of this little proton and I said, how many Planck's distances fits in it?
How many of these little oscillations of the vacuum are in there?
Because we're not counting those.
So we should count those when we're talking about the mass of the proton.
We can't just ignore that.
So I outputted the volume of the proton.
10 to the minus 39 is its volume.
And I said, okay, in that volume, how many little Planck spheres can I stick in there?
And the result is 10 to the 55, which happens to be the mass of the universe.
applause And when that came out, I was blown away.
Because I had been saying for all this time that the vacuum is the great connector, that the energy in the vacuum structure is what holds all the information, what connects every point with every other point.
That means that every proton, which is the nuclei of an atom, the center of the atom, should have All the information of all other protons in the universe, and that's exactly what happened when I wrote the equation.
So I was like, so excited!
I was actually so excited, I thought I'd mention it in the Sword Child proton paper.
just put one sentence that I didn't want to say this is a mathematical proof that everything is one but
So, but do I need 10 to the 55 grams per proton volume for the proton to be a black hole?
Absolutely not.
10 to the 55 grams is enough to make the whole universe a black hole.
So that is not correct.
It definitely makes the proton a black hole, but what I wanted to know is how much of that energy is actually expressed in the dynamic of the proton for it to be a black hole.
So in order to do that, I had to use the Schwarzschild equation.
Do not panic.
Don't run out the doors.
It's not going to hurt.
Maybe just a little further, but then it's okay.
It's a simple equation where the radius of the system is equal, so the radius of the black hole is equal to 2 multiplied by the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass over the speed of light squared.
And this is a consequence of Einstein field equation.
This was the first solution Two Einstein general relativity equations.
It was written by Karl Schwarzschild.
After Einstein published general relativity, he hadn't solved it.
He thought it would take a very long time before it got solved.
Karl Schwarzschild looked at it and came up with this solution, this exact solution, and sent it back to Einstein and said, your general relativity theory predicts singularity, predicts a black hole.
That's the solution for a black hole.
And, you know, Einstein was unhappy about that result.
He thought, you know, oh my god, my equation predicts something that probably doesn't exist.
At the time, the idea that black holes would exist, you know, or singularities, the word black hole was not even coined.
That was John Wheeler much later.
They thought it was just a mathematical...
But they realized, I mean, eventually Einstein's general relativity got sustained by experiments and by, you know, observations.
So, you know, they realized it was useful.
So, this equation actually is used, for instance, to figure out the orbits of the Sun and the Moon.
Right?
They do the Swerchall's solution.
For the Sun, so basically, and that's important, they reduce the Sun to a black hole.
Okay?
That is, the radius of the Sun becomes 18 kilometers, or approximately that, for a black hole.
And then, they write the equation, and they get the correct orbit for the Earth around the Sun.
But then, they don't turn around and say the Sun is a black hole.
Right So You can imagine that maybe, just maybe, there's a layer of the sun, okay, that's the plasma we see all around the sun, and that inside, it's collapsed into a black hole.
And we would never know.
Although, we wouldn't know if we thought about it, because the equation we'd use To solve the orbits would be a black hole equation.
You guys are following me?
So I use that, but in this case, I know what the radius of the proton is, so I'm not trying to figure out the radius, I'm trying to figure out, in such a radius, how much mass do I need for it to be a black hole?
So I had to change it around.
This is the way it is, right over there, so mass is unknown.
But I wanted to know mass, so I had to flip the things around and I got the result.
I don't have time to give you the details.
I'm sure you're all interested in them.
The result is 10 to the 14 grams proton and that makes the proton a black hole and if you actually Figure out how much of the vacuum energy you've used from the 10 to the 55, you've used 10 to the minus 39% of what's there.
So you've used teeny weeny little bitty little amount of the amount of energy of the vacuum to produce all the protons in the universe.
Just a little teeny weeny billionth billionth of billionth of a percent to produce all of the matter In the universe.
So imagine if we tap that resource.
Which we can't.
Thank you.
Which we are.
you are alive tapping it right now now if you You're going to encounter a large objection.
An objection of about 38 orders of magnitude.
The physicist is going to say, you got a proton of 10 to 14 grams.
the measured mass of the proton is 10 to the minus 24 you're off by some 38 orders of magnitude dude so So, how do we resolve that?
I mean, when I came across that, I mean, I knew when I got 10 to 14, okay, it's not the standard mass of protons.
How do we resolve that?
It took me a while, and then I realized the key is the strong force, dear one.
What is the strong force?
When we found protons, We found that they were positively charged, and that they would repel, just like two magnets of the same charge would tend to repel.
And if they're strongly magnetized, you can't get them close together.
So imagine protons squished in a little nuclear atom with the same charge.
How can that be possible?
When we found that, we were like, oh!
And since we didn't have black holes, Einstein had just finished his equation that predicted singularity, but everybody thought that's impossible, right?
They said, "Okay, they must..." We didn't have singularity black holes.
So they said, oh, there must be a force we don't know about.
We'll call it the strong force.
And we'll make it exactly the amount of force necessary to force the proton together into the nuclei.
How convenient!
But nowhere was it given as a mechanism of this force.
That is, where did this force come from?
Where did the energy come from to produce that force?
It was just thrown in there as a fudge factor to squish the atom nuclei into existence.
Later on, and they calculated, it had to be very, very strong.
Later on, they realized that the proton has little bits inside it that are even smaller, called quarks.
And now the quarks are charged, so they needed an even stronger force to squish the quarks into the middle.
Now, that's embarrassing.
You can't call it the strong, strong force.
So they got artistic.
They called it the color force.
And so the color force was deemed to be infinitely strong at the quarks level.
Like that, you know, if they found anything smaller, they had an infinitely strong force to deal with it.
And that this strong Gluon!
That's when I asked, "Who's making the glue?" Because nowhere in this whole scheme did they say where the energy comes from to produce an infinitely strong force.
But if you have an infinitely strong force confining to the center of a particle, what do you have?
A black hole.
Right?
So, I said, okay, since Latex QCD doesn't give computational results and no analytical results, Which is the way they deal with the scheme of the strong force.
If you ask a physicist, "How strong is the strong force?" They'll say, "Huh, we can give you a ratio.
If gravity is one, then the strong force is, guess what, 38 to 39 times stronger." Exactly how much my proton is off by.
Right?
So I said, well, you know, in my case, I'm accounting for the energy necessary to confine, to produce the gravitational force that confines the atom.
You guys don't.
So obviously, you guys are off by 38 orders of magnitude.
you that's not me it's you However, I knew I wasn't going to, you know, Go for.
So I figured I'd give them a scaling log to see if I'm right or they're right.
So I made a scale between the radius of an object and its mass.
The radius and its mass.
And I put the universe, and I put everything I could throw in there, like local clusters, galactic centers, galaxies, whole galaxies, galactic cores, pulsars, the whole thing, the sun, I mean I threw the earth in there, I mean the whole thing, to get like as accurate of a trend as possible.
And then I put in the Schwarzschild proton mass.
And it fell very nicely along that line with all the other objects.
And then I put the standard proton mass.
And that was the only data point off the chart.
Literally.
And so, that confirmed, in some ways, that obviously the Schwarzschild proton is realistic, relative to all the rest of the universe, and that's straight data.
It's not out of equations.
So, um, but when I did this, and when I published it, I published it, I knew there was going to be Some controversy about it.
Why?
Because the universe here, the universal mass is calculated by adding all the standard proton's mass.
So that mass is the result of all the standard proton's mass added together.
If that was the correct mass, then the The universal mass would be off the chart, and all the data points on it would be off the trance.
You all following this?
So that was the problem.
And, you know, I knew that was a problem.
When I published this Schwarzschild proton paper, I didn't claim that it was complete.
It was just an impetus in one direction.
What was really wonderful, however, is that when I looked at the black hole protons, if I orbit them around each other, I got many of the data you get from the standard model, like I got the correct gamma-ray emission, I got the correct interaction time, I got the correct magnetic moment, I got all this stuff correct, so I knew it was correct, but I had to solve this.
How?
Is it that it can express two different masses?
And this is what I just saw.
This is what I just published.
And the result is like way beyond my greatest expectations.
So I'm going to show you what I did.
The first thing that happened, it was middle of last year.
And I said, okay, well, we have a little proton.
That has 10 to the 55th grams in it, the mass of the universe in it.
And you know, it may be, if this is true, if it's the true holographic representation of all the other protons in the universe, this may be the first time we get an exact number for the mass of the universe.
And I knew there was this big problem in physics.
It's a problem that's part of the vacuum catastrophe.
That's a 102 orders of magnitude problem.
122 orders of magnitude problem.
And that's because, remember I was saying that...
So it's a really, really teeny amount of energy per centimeter, 30 minutes.
And at the quantum level, it's 10 to the 93, so it's a huge difference.
If the vacuum has 10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cube at the quantum level, how is it that we're measuring 10 to the minus 29 grams at the cosmological level?
And there's 122 orders of magnitude different.
That's huge!
That is currently the largest problem in physics ever encountered.
It's commonly referred as the worst prediction physics has ever done.
Okay?
And if you look up on Wikipedia, for instance, problems in physics, I think it's the first, you know, the vacuum catastrophe, 122 orders of magnitude problem.
Well, I solved that in an instant.
Sorry, but I did.
About a year ago, when I realized, wait!
I've got a 10 to the 55th gram proton that is a result of the 10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cubed density of the vacuum.
Okay?
And, so per proton volume, right?
And, what happens if I grow that thing to the size of the universe?
Obviously, the density is gonna drop.
So I grew it to the size of the universe and my result was 10 to the 30th gram, minus 30th gram per centimeter cube, really close to the measured cosmological constant.
So I was like, wow, it actually works.
And you know, in physics, this would be close enough that you could say, well, I'm going to adjust the size of the universe till I get the right number for the measured value.
And that's going to give me a prediction for the size of the universe, right?
which we don't know, there's a wobble between, it's between 10^- But it's rough, obviously, because it's cosmological.
Because I could have adjusted it, but I didn't want to cherry pick.
I had been given hell for the last two years on the internet, you know, by all my critics saying, ah, he's cherry picking!
So in this paper, I was like, no cherry picking.
There will be no cherry picking.
Forget cherries.
And so on.
So, I said, okay, well, I know the mass of the universe since this should be accurate.
If it's accurate, if I do the sort-child condition of that mass, right?
Remember that equation?
If I solve that equation, it'll give me a radius for the black hole universe.
Let's see if I do the same thing with that radius.
This would be the first time we get an exact radius for the universe!
So I did that, and when I grew it, boom!
10 to the minus 29 grams per centimeter cubed.
I was like, okay, this works.
This works.
So I said, wow, you know, this is showing so much evidence of the holographic principle of this concept that from studying the proton, I can actually understand the whole universe.
I should like look at the...
The holographic principle in physics is utilized to describe the entropy of black holes.
That would be the amount of thermodynamics that come off a black hole, you could think of it in Calvin.
And what is currently used is that they map Little Planck's distance on the surface event horizon of the black hole and then count them and make this calculation and they get the entropy of a black hole.
I started to think this way.
I started to apply that.
So I said, okay, it's holographic.
Let's look at relationship.
I took the Planck's distance.
I made it a surface and I plastered it over the surface of the event horizon of the black hole proton.
But when I plastered it, I took the surface area of the proton, right?
And I divided it by the number, by the area of the Planck's distance little circle.
So it has to be space filling.
That means the circles Cannot be one beside each other like that.
Because if they were, there would be little spaces in between.
It has to be space filling.
You guys follow me?
So when I say, well, how could they be space filling?
Well, guess what I got?
The flower of life symbol.
Ha, ha, ha.
Ha, ha.
And I thought, wow, you know, if it comes out, I'm going to shit my pants.
I almost did.
I almost did.
Because what I did is I said, okay, how many of those is there?
Those are all little Planck's oscillations, right?
And there's 10 to the 40th of them.
So there's a lot.
And I say, okay, out of those, remember in the middle is all the little Planck spheres, right?
See?
These are little Planck spheres in the middle in Tridu that are projecting onto the surface.
That is the holographic principle.
You guys saw that?
Do it again?
Okay.
That's actually the beginning of the movie "Black Hole" that Guy M just released about the research I'm doing.
So let me try to Let me do it again, just so it's clear.
So inside the volume of the little proton, right, is all the Planck spheres, right?
That's how I got the 10 to the 55th, right?
So this are all the little Planck spheres.
Here you see tetrahedrons because...
And that's where the work I'm doing links with the work that Richard Hochland is doing, and others, in hyperdimensional physics.
Because that is the structure of the vacuum, right?
And so, I said, okay, these spheres are projecting The information of the whole universe onto the surface.
So it's a projection onto the surface, which is the holographic principle.
And we're going to see why the surface has less than the interior in a minute.
But you see here, it's projecting onto the surface.
That's what I was trying to show here.
Okay?
And it's a curved surface.
just as the surface of the event horizon.
So when I did that, then I, I'm going to write here.
So what I did is I took the number of little circles on the surface, right?
All the circles on the surface.
That's 10 to the 40th.
Can everybody see this?
10 to the 40th.
And then the number inside is 10 to the 55th, right?
It's the mass of the universe.
Divide, basically, divide the number of little Planck surfaces by the mass of the universe, okay?
And what I got was exactly, so this, what I got was exactly R sub S, the Schwarzschild mass.
Ten to the fourteen.
10 ^14 which is the Schwarzschild equation.
I have the Schwarzschild equation here.
Gravity outputted completely geometrically.
No curvature of space-time.
You know, no geodesics.
Just pixelation of the structure of the vacuum itself.
This is quantum gravity.
that have been looking for all these years.
And the solution is exact, okay?
Exact only if the tessellation is space filling, the flower of life.
Under the paw of the food dogs is a sphere With the flower of life tessellated over the surface.
The guardian of the knowledge.
Then I said, okay, this is really cool.
If this is true, I should be able to continue to do relationship in there and get all sorts of information about our universe.
Planck's surfaces, 10 to the 40th, but this time, I divided it by 10 to the minus 39, which is the volume, proton volume, the volume of the proton itself, instead of the number of Plancks in there.
And the result was 10 to the 79, and when 10 to the 79 came out, I recognized it right away.
I said, "Oh, this is really close to the estimated amount of particles in the universe." Right?
We know there's approximately between 10 ^78 to 10 ^81 amount of particles in the universe.
And so, if this is true, This would be the first time we have an exact number for the actual amount of particles, right?
Well, you can think of like protons, right?
Most of the universe is a hydrogen atom with one proton, so in general, just protons are counted in our universe.
So, you could think of the amount of atoms in the universe, if you'd like.
I thought, well, this would be cool if this is exact.
So, then I did something a little weird.
But, you know, I have those moments.
I did something a little weird that I'm going to show you I rectified right after, but it gave me the right answer anyway.
But I said, okay, each one of these little circles is like a little micro wormhole connecting all the protons All the Planck's length in the universe with all the other protons.
The reason why I thought that way is because that discrepancy between the standard mass and the Schwarzschild mass, I kept on seeing in my head and in my work, in my philosophy, that it's because you can't just look at the mass of one proton.
Because it's influenced by all the other protons in the universe, right?
Remember, it's not isolated.
So if it's linked, okay, I said, okay, then I gotta divide the Schwarzschild condition by all the other protons to see what would be the influence of a proton on one little Planck's distance.
So that's what I did.
I divided the number of Planck's distances, right?
I'm sorry, I divided the mass, the Schwarzschild mass, by the number of protons in the universe I was getting.
And that gives me the standard mass of the proton.
Meaning, when I divided the two, it gives me 10 ^-69, Which would be 10 to the minus 65. So that would be the influence of one universal proton, another proton, on one little Planck distance.
You all following me?
Connected through that one wormhole, right?
So that every internal structure of every proton in the universe is all one thing connected through these wormholes, right?
So I was looking for the influence of one One point of contact, one wormhole.
And that gives me 10 ^-65.
And then I say, okay, let's multiply all those together, all the little wormholes together, the influence of all the other protons, because we're looking at the proton from the outside, and the result is when I multiplied the two, I got the exact mass of the proton, the standard mass of the proton.
10 to the minus 24. I was blown away.
I was blown away because it was extremely exact.
I mean, it's 0.019% exact, which is inside the measurement error in laboratory, so this is actually Most likely, the exact mass of the universe, of the proton.
But think about it.
I could have skipped that step.
Since I know the amount of protons in the universe, assuming that this 10 to the 79 is correct, I should be able to just divide it by the mass of the universe.
That would tell me how much each proton weighs.
Right?
And when I did, it came out exactly right.
This is the mass of the universe, extrapolated from the inside of the proton, and divided by the number of protons in the universe, extrapolated by the surface, and I got exactly the mass of the proton.
which was like incredible because you You've got a huge number, 10 to the 80th, right?
10 to the 79. And you're dividing by another huge number, the mass of the universe, and you're nailing.
You're nailing 10 to the minus 24 grams.
Teeny weeny proton.
Exactly right!
Unbelievable!
Unbelievable!
One too many proton in there and this is off.
A little too much mass in the universe and that number is off.
But it gets it right on the button.
So this Cannot be, you know, random.
And now, and I've solved this, and this is actually in a second paper I'm about to publish.
I've solved this in a much more classical way now.
I've got this equation that's like m equals mc squared, type, that everybody is going to be able to solve with a calculator, any students in high school.
Anyway, it's super simple.
It's a clear relationship.
And that's going to come out soon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
But even more important is that this ancient symbol that's found all around the world that was so important to so many ancient civilizations that they made sure that it would survive all spans of time to reach us today seems to be the exact solution to the holographic universe giving us the exact correct answers and
that is remarkable as well that leads to a deeper understanding on how we would build technology to reproduce those dynamics in laboratory So that we can access this energy.
Now we understand quantum gravity.
We understand that gravity is basically just a ratio of information to surface area.
And that, actually, this surface area interaction, you see, this 10 to the 40th little Planck's termination of wormholes on the surface, But there's 10 to the 80th particles, So how is it that one is connected to 10 to the 80th if it's only got 10 to the 40th possible connection?
Well that's because when you...
That is, one little proton is connected to 10 to the 40th particles, and these 10 to the 40th particles are connected to 10 to the 40th particles.
And so on.
So that you have this fractal progression, you know, that you can identify.
And this is actually why I called my theory, 25 years ago, the Holofractal Graphic Theory.
It's because it's holographic and fractal in nature.
And I knew it was in there somewhere, but I finally mathematically solved it.
The other thing that's really exciting about this is that this is the yardstick.
We can apply that to infinitely big.
You know how the Freemasons have that compass symbol as the symbol of the yardstick of the universe, the geometry of the universe, God's, you know, scale?
Well, this is what we've got.
Meaning that I can now tell you, from studying the proton, this little teeny bitty thing, The mass of the universe, the cosmological constant, the energy of our universe, the size of it, right?
The gravitational field, but not only that, I can tell you how many of our universes there is in a larger one.
And what is their energy level?
And what's the energy level of that larger universe?
And what's its scale?
And all sorts of information.
And then I can tell you, How many of those larger universes there is in a larger one?
And again, and again, so now we have the fractal yardstick and the network connection so that we can actually navigate our universe and the multiverse we live in.
applause applause We're on our way.
We're on our way, folks.
This is leading to very advanced technology.
I can't believe how long it takes you know they drop you off on this faraway planet in this faraway galaxy and then they tell you well you gotta make it home you know with local available material.
You know, this leads us to technological development and we need your support for this because we need laboratory, we need funding to get it done.
And that's on its way.
But please support us.
Please become members of the Resonance Project Foundation so this can continue.
But, thank you.
As well, you can get a 4-DVD set right behind us.
That really helps us.
This pays the bill and the light, and the black hole DVD as well that's out.
But in any case, you can see that now knowing this, you would want to create an environment and laboratory where the oscillations of the vacuum inside the bubble Would be in correct relationship to the vacuum oscillation outside a bubble, and when you got the right ratios, and when you got the right spin rates, because these little surfaces, they're little vortices, right?
When you get, like, Coriolis's vortices, when you got the right relationship with the right spin rate, you should get singularity.
You should get, you know, gravity in a box.
Right?
So, early on, in early laboratory tests, I built technologies to reproduce these dynamics.
And to reproduce the dynamics of a black hole in a laboratory, you can imagine that you would need plasma spinning at high velocity and all this.
But when you got it done, it would be extremely stable.
And you could alter the spin rate to create various effects.
And these are some of the experiments we're in process of doing.
This was my talk for today, and I wanted to just say, although all this seems very technical, and it seems very You know, mechanical, maybe.
It has so much deeper meaning, and deeper implication for understanding of ourselves, the universe, and the dynamics that connects us all.
You can actually go, I mean, when I solved these equations a few months ago, I've been meditating since I'm 11, I've been thinking about this stuff all my life.
I got a deeper, new level of the interconnectivity of all the atoms of my body.
They all like, I had these moments where I felt like the wormhole linking to the whole thing.
I was like, "Oh my God!" This is available to you.
This sense of connectivity, this experience of connectivity, through the structure of the vacuum, never forget that you are 99.99999% energy of the vacuum and that that is actually informing you every second and you have access to it.
This is why all the Masters have asked everyone, To spend the time every day, even if it's a few minutes, to turn your senses inward and go to that point.
go to that point of singularity And connect with the whole, connect with the holographic nature of all the universe and be the infinite being that you are.
So until next time, may the vacuum be with you.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection