She Had a Script and She would NOT Deviate

本站添加: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00][music] [music] >> You don't see any problems. Okay, that's wild.

[00:00:10]>> With what?

[00:00:11]>> So I mean, right now it's textbook definition pseudoscience. You understand that, right?

[00:00:15]>> What is?

[00:00:17]>> Gravitational orbit because it's >> No, it's not.

[00:00:20]No, it is falsifiable.

[00:00:22]We We test We test our theory We test our theory on that. It has been tested thousands [laughter] of times. That's how many satellites we have launched. Uh it's It was test Like we started testing it in the in the damn '50s with Sputnik.

[00:00:39]And then in the '60s and '70s we started going to the moon and Mars. And then we went We've gone to Jupiter. Those Those satellites and orbiters are put into orbit and they behave exactly the way we plan and predict them for to behave. It is 100% confirmed.

[00:01:01]>> But it's okay when 27% of that 100% doesn't line up and you just excuse it away.

[00:01:06]>> It's not part of the 100%. It's a completely separate thing.

[00:01:10]>> How? General relativity is used for things on a non-local, more grander scale. It's what's used for even other things in our solar system. But I'll give you our solar system is like you can use Newtonian for orbit, whatever. But for things universally speaking, that's what's used. It's general relativity.

[00:01:28]We're not talking Newtonian physics anymore.

[00:01:31]And that is uh 27 of that 100%.

[00:01:35]>> It's not 27 of the 100%.

[00:01:38]They're completely different things.

[00:01:42]>> So 27% of the observable universe >> Yep.

[00:01:45]>> being dark matter, right? Because of again >> You also You can't You can't apply quantum mechanics to dark matter. But quantum mechanics isn't pseudoscience.

[00:01:56]Not even you, you don't even think that.

[00:02:00]>> No, I No, I Of course not.

[00:02:01]>> Okay. Well, dark matter is is is is an observed fact at a different scale.

[00:02:09]And gravity actually Again, the problem with dark matter is we don't know what the source of the gravity is, but all of the all of the science of gravity explains uh what's going like you can you can describe the motions of those galaxies with gravity.

[00:02:31]We just don't know where the source of all the extra gravity is yet or what the source is.

[00:02:38]>> it up instead of reevaluating or redoing the theory. Cuz again, if the math lines up, the math works out, they're formulas, right? So, that's not the problem. The scientific theory for which the math applies to should have been reevaluated.

[00:02:52]I'm not saying the whole thing wrong, not by any means. But, that's not the case. We're Again, we're still using 1915 relativistic gravity when it comes to orbits, etc. And we just patched it up and then now dark matter like not being known yet. So, you know, one day I may eat those words if that becomes a discovery, but not quite looking like the case. So, and that's fine. And And again, yeah, it is definitely textbook definition. I I just I prefer the tangible, replicable >> Do you know what pseudoscience is?

[00:03:23]>> Oh, well, yeah, I I get I know the the general definition of things like uh like astrology is what they say and stuff, but they also it's also explained unfalsifiable, right? Making something pseudoscience. And that's the case with gravitational orbit. You can say that, "Hey, yeah, that's what's responsible for this, that, and the other." Okay, that's the claim.

[00:03:43]Where's it being verified?

[00:03:46]>> Every satellite we've ever put into orbit.

[00:03:49]>> Okay, so reification. All right, cool.

[00:03:51]>> How is that reification?

[00:03:54]>> Is it because you're using the claim as the example.

[00:03:58]>> That's not what reification is.

[00:04:00]Reification is when you say that a phenomenon is like a a concrete It's when you It's when you claim that an abstract thing is a concrete thing.

[00:04:09]>> Oh, yeah. Okay, so that would be Okay.

[00:04:12]That would be correct then to a degree, would it not? Because you're saying that this thing, this idea, that's what that's the example.

[00:04:20]We're doing this, but it's not solidified. How is that a concrete claim when you like you can't point me in the direction of an experiment showing, "Hey, this is a thing." Yet gravity can be scaled down.

[00:04:31]>> and orbiter we've ever launched is an experiment that confirms uh gravitational orbits.

[00:04:38]>> Okay.

[00:04:39]All right, well, I tried, but this is just not true.

[00:04:43]>> Well, sure, if you want to subscribe again to less than is your reality, then no problem. It's just I prefer, you know, the way the forerunners of science, they did it. They didn't just have technology to say, "Oh, hey, this, that, and the other." They had to do it the like hands-on way. Hey, this is how we're going to verify this. And And now today we accept [ __ ] "Oh, we see this, so that's got to be this." Like that's crazy to me.

[00:05:08]>> You're actually claiming that people that were technologically vastly vastly below our level >> Yes.

[00:05:17]>> did science the did science in a better way?

[00:05:20]>> [ __ ] yes.

[00:05:21]>> They knew vastly less than we do. The the body of knowledge that is science increases exponentially in the present.

[00:05:30]Whereas in the past, because of their limitations, uh there was very little that they could demonstrate, but they were doing proper science, better science?

[00:05:39]>> Well, absolutely. In the last 100 years, since Einstein and relativity general relativity, uh right? What major discoveries, accomplishments has like we as science undergone? Like what Do we have people like Einstein? Do we have people like Maxwell?

[00:05:58]>> Well, not really, but the biggest The biggest reason for why that is is because when you're extremely ignorant about everything, the only thing you can make are like earth-shattering discoveries. But we know so much now about the fundamentals, the basics, like the structure, like the the physics of everyday life is already just completely known. It's a huge accomplishment. It gets exponentially harder. It's kind of like resolution. An 8K TV barely looks any better than a 4K TV. A 4K TV now looks a little bit better than than 1080, but it's not a huge jump, right?

[00:06:40]But like currently in science, the amount of published material doubles every 2 years, which means 2 years from now we won't have twice as much published stuff published stuff as we published this year. No, no, no. Twice as much of the entire body of all published knowledge increases every 2 years. Uh the the exponential growth of scientific knowledge is an absolute explosion.

[00:07:13]>> Oh, okay. So, but you can't name anything specifically, um right? So, I get what you're saying, probably more or less with like um astrophysics, astronomy, and the universe, which again, those, you know, all we can do really is make observations, compare them to the >> we've discovered brand new forms of matter uh recently. We've developed gene editing uh fairly recently. There's really cool stuff going on today.

[00:07:39]>> Yeah, gene editing. I'll give you that.

[00:07:41]But um just not quite the same is is like the minds of again Einstein, Maxwell, the forerunners of science. And for you to say like we pretty much have already gotten like all the basics.

[00:07:52]That's crazy. Where's the innovation in that? Well, maybe that's why science has come to a halt because there's not that imagination or thinking well, hey, you know, I know this is established, but this could possibly be explained that.

[00:08:04]So, of course there's not going to be any discoveries, especially when it's it's Oh god, it's like against the law to forbid some like established science and have a different idea. Like you get chastised by the globers and etc. It's like, what the [ __ ] Pardon my language, sorry.

[00:08:20]But, what is that? That that that puts a halt to science.

[00:08:23]>> I was calling a guy a goat [ __ ] yesterday, so you don't have to worry about your language. [laughter] Well, I mean, he he admitted he admitted that he does it, [laughter] so.

[00:08:39]>> [clears throat] >> Okay, sorry. I'm bringing it back. Okay.

[00:08:44]>> [laughter] >> Sorry, I missed that. That's that sounds like it was pretty hilarious. But, um, >> Yeah, it was pretty funny.

[00:08:50]>> [laughter] >> He admitted it. Jesus Christ. Poor guy.

[00:08:56]Um, anyhoo, but yeah, I mean, I don't know.

[00:08:59]That that's just me. I still think there's a lot there's a lot that could be explored.

[00:09:04]I I think science itself, I don't know.

[00:09:07]I just see kind of a halt being put on things. Like, are we not allowed to explore like I always refer to Podkletnov effect, right? What happened to him? He was totally shunned, excommunicated because of his paper getting leaked. His paper had already been accepted, right? His second one in 1996. And because it was leaked and the journalist titled or the headline for his article about, you know, what he read from Podkletnov's paper, something know >> you're talking about.

[00:09:36]>> You don't know Podkletnov effect and anti-gravity?

[00:09:40]In the '90s with the YBCO uh spinning superconducting discs, he observed in the second time, his second paper, a point Was it 0.2, 0.3%? Maybe it was just 0.2.

[00:09:53]No, maybe 0.3. Either way, uh change or decrease in weight of the object levitating above it.

[00:09:59]So, things like that. But yeah, he totally got he got fired from his job at the university. He got expelled from the lab that he was working at. He um uh I guess what's the word I'm looking for?

[00:10:10]Uh took back his withdrew his paper, even though it had already been approved. His second one uh it's crazy just because of this backlash because the headline said something about Polish scientist and their new {quote} "anti-gravity" device.

[00:10:24]And he caught backlash for that. It's like so, are things allowed to be questioned in the community? Because that's just one example. Doesn't quite seem like the case. Caught a lot of [ __ ] And yet, they're still like looking into this. They call it superconducting uh What is it? Uh gravity modifications or some [ __ ] It's like a field that's being explored into, so.

[00:10:45]Or an area, excuse me.

[00:10:46]>> All right. Well, yeah. I don't I don't know anything about that.

[00:10:49]>> Well, you should look into it. It's pretty cool. You should They uh there's actually a video of that experiment.

[00:10:53]It's pretty badass.

[00:10:55]>> I'm just saying, if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:10:59]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that's created requires a creation. Show me curvature. There are no missing links.

[00:11:09]Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.