Video Transcript
So, you want disclosure? I don't know how to do disclosure, truth is. I don't know. My best bet is I teach you guys the physics slowly over time. That's the only way people are going to wake up and realize we've actually got this. We have to demystify it because we think this science is a thousand years ahead. But it's not a thousand years ahead. We already had it in the past. So, tonight we're going to take a look at a person that we have not ever seen before, I don't think. There actually is one more thing that I was sent. C O F E 12. 12 Conference on Future Energy, August 14th through 15th, 2020. 13 presentations. Do you recognize anyone on this list? The top guy, Dean Radin? He was just on Joe Rogan last week. Literally just on Joe Rogan this week. Dean Radin, that guy. That's Thomas Valone. This is a a military guy that I've never heard of before. And this guy at the bottom, that's Paul Murad. That's the same Paul Murad that Salvatore Pais was talking about. Paul Murad, David Froning, and these guys are supposedly the ones that helped figure this out. Well, I don't think I've ever seen him speak before, so tonight's going to be the first night. You guys ready? Okay, here we go. It's only How long is this? We're going to play it on a little bit faster speed, and I'm going to try to interpret what I see because there's some pretty big revelations here, I thought, from this. So, the presentation's available on the internet. If you want to watch the whole thing, it's in kind of low quality. I think some people are trying to up quality it right now, which I appreciate. Here's Thomas Valone's uh YouTube channel, if you guys want to check it out for yourselves and watch it at your own leisure. Right off the bat, look at the name of his presentation. The name of Paul Murad's presentation is anomalous gravitational behavior and spin are evaluated and postulated. Actually, that's not right. The presentation's called gravitation as a rotation or or vorticity field. So, Paul Murad right off the bat is about to argue for us that spin that rotation is what connects gravity and electromagnetism. Here you go. Does that sound familiar by the way? It should. It should cuz it's really similar to what Ferris Williams has been talking about. Ferris Williams has 5D theory and he says that spin is that torque is the is the connection that we've been missing. And here is Paul Murad is about to tell us that spin is the connection we've been missing. This is why I say guys, there is a common theme. There's a common theme when you're trying to understand the connection between electromagnetism and gravity and that common theme is spin, rotation, vortex motion. Here we go. >> also um been a chairman for various technical conferences including magnetohydrodynamics or national aerospace plane and the high frequency wave conference. >> Oh, wow. He worked on the national aerospace plane and the MITRE high frequency gravitational wave conference. Yeah, okay. Yeah. It just sucks I didn't get to meet these people before they died cuz these are definitely the black project engineers that built this [ __ ] Definitely. >> technology and applications international forum. Uh he's also contributed to one of my books on the future of energy. He's gravity using Maxwell's equations where gravity is electric field and co-gravity is a >> Sorry. >> We're going to cover some terms that continue. Some of this will be based upon previous analysis that we did last year. Next, please. One of the things that bothers me is when you have a red giant that collapses with a supernova. If the weight is below a certain limit leading >> No, I screwed up, chat. Okay, here we go. I screwed up. Okay, here we go. We're starting here. >> ways to discover. In other words, when we find errors, we need to learn something along the way. Well, if you look at various gravitational laws, there are some problems. For example, Newton and Winterberg cannot produce gravity waves. Jeff Minkel's model can because he introduces a rotational field. Why does he do this? We'll discuss some of that. >> Bro, all right, right off the bat. Is that Friedwardt Winterberg? Is my dude talking about Friedwardt Winterberg in the same context as Newton? Yes, he is. Is that Jeff Minkel, the dude whose book I was just looking at here? Uh yes, it is. Where's the Jeff Minkel book? Oh, look. There's the Jeff Minkel book right there. Holy [ __ ] it's all coming together, chat. So, he was using Friedwardt Winterberg's plank ether model here. I mean, that is clearly what he's using because that's Friedwardt Winterberg's model. I know all about it. I'm an expert on Friedwardt Winterberg. He had a plank ether hypothesis. So, what he's saying here is that Newton is missing something. But then he's saying Winterberg is also missing something. He's saying Jeff Minkel, which includes vorticity, this now adds something that we can apply as gravitational waves. >> And there are other models that go further that improve Jeff Minkel's model by leaving out cogravity. Next, please. One of the approaches to do this is to look at the conservation equation for continuity. And this leads us some insights into why you need to turn to convert gravitational waves into a Newtonian field. Moreover, we look at a model on Weinberg and make an improvement on his model to account for some certainties on some anomalies where gravity does not satisfy 1 over r squared but has a constant value. We also will discuss some issues about Newtonian neutron stars. And we're going to cover some terms that continue. Some of this will be based upon some previous analysis that we did last year. Next, please. One of the things that bothers me is when you have a a red giant that collapses with a supernova. >> Okay, so this is where it starts to get interesting. If you like physics, this is where you're going to start be interested in this because you can realize these guys are legit physicists. Because he says, "We're told that if the star is above a certain mass, it's going to become a black hole. If the star is below a certain mass, it's going to become a neutron star." But then he says, "Well, why? Is there any implication for spin on this?" So, we're asking questions about observations, astronomical, cosmological observations that we can see, and then we're trying to find solutions to it. We're not just asking questions, we're looking for answers. >> If the weight is below a certain limit, I get a neutron star. If it's above a certain limit, I get a black hole. How do you do this? It's two different things, and can we learn something about gravitation as well as the effect of spin and how that influences these models. Next, please. Can we characterize some different models? We're going to try to do that. Are some models proven? Well, some of them are. Can we change these models? Absolutely. And we need to have something about a model that includes gravity waves if we believe Einstein. Is this worth discussing? Obviously, yes. As I mentioned, Newton and and Weinberg's model is irrotational. It does not generate gravitational waves. Jeffimenko copies gravity using Maxwell's equations, where gravity is electric field and cogravity is a magnetic field. There are ways around this, and we have to look at it. If indeed there's a way of looking at this where you find out if Einstein is telling the truth or did he lie. Next please. >> Holy [ __ ] chat. I don't know if you realize what he just said there. Basically, Paul Murad comes in and says there's two different kinds of gravity. There's gravity A and there's gravity B. There's There's this commingling of gravity, co-gravity. Is that gravity also has a duality just like electromagnetism? If you were not familiar, the electric field propagates this way and the magnetic field propagates orthogonally, 90 degrees, to the angle of the electric field. So, there is a duality to electromagnetism. That you have one wave going like this and one wave going like this that are connected. Well, it turns out gravity may also have that same duality. There may be a positive gravity and negative gravity. So, this right here to me speaks directly to what Bob Lazar was saying about two different types of gravity. This could be an explanation for Bob Lazar's gravity A or B. Now, I don't know because I don't know more details about his thing, but this is the first time I've ever even really seen this idea. And what I like about it is it expands upon Winterberg's ideas. I I like Winterberg's Planck ether hypothesis, but it doesn't go deep enough for me. This is why I like Ferris Williams more. Ferris Williams has a more all-encompassing view that can from first principles, you know, determine the magnetic moment, uh, figure out the strength of gravity, etc. So, I think he's a little deeper. But, this is what we need. Why? Because he takes Maxwell's equations and we bring back this term that's missing. We need something else in the math that's missing and we know what it is. We're missing it in Maxwell's equations. So, in this case we add a curl component to the gravity. >> All right, this is a table I gave out previously. If you look in the right hand corner, you see del squared fee equals 4 pi G. And if you look one step below that, you have del squared fee equals minus 2 omega squared. Those are elliptical partial differential equations. No no characteristic waves. But the other ones all have characteristic waves. We have wave equation d squared g dt squared minus del squared g. Those are wave equations. That will produce gravity waves. Why do they work? Well, these models produce a curl term and they interject time into the equation. Now, when we talk about gravitational currents, what does that mean? That's something that's yet to be determined. And we're talking about if the we look at the last model, we make a similar model where we're looking at the time change of current and of gravity. How do we interject time with gravity? Next, please. >> And now, the other thing I like about him is he's really quick. Like you can tell Paul Murad knows exactly what he's talking about. These slides are just slides for him to riff off of. You know, a lot of times when you watch presenters, and I'm a consultant, so I've done countless presentations. You want to have your slides have dots on them, but you want to do what Paul Murad's doing here. You want to have reference points, but you want to just be speaking naturally to it. You don't want to just be reading off the slides. And he's speaking to the key points of what he's trying to present. >> Well, that's one of the enigmas we need to look at as well as others. For example, when you look at the microwave cosmic background radiation, you have 2.7 degrees. What's going on? 2.7 degrees. That implies energy. Energy implies mass. Mass is there. That implies gravity. See, what does that mean? Do we see that anywhere? Next, please. Well, the Milky Way has a lot of things to learn about and we should look at this and try to understand how all these stars interact with each other. Next, please. Let's take a look at a galaxy, a spiral galaxy. Next, please. The Mond approach looked at stars in the spiral arms of galaxies. And something very unusual happened. Next few graphs, please. He ended up with two curves. One is a lower curve, which he used when he's using uh Newtonian gravity. And the upper one is one that he sees in terms of data. We're looking at velocity of the stars and the distance. >> So, this is right here talking about dark energy. Dark matter actually in this case. In dark matter, they're looking at the velocity of the stars around the galaxy. And what we learned was that stars were moving too fast. So, what this means is there had to be more gravity there. Right? This was the big problem. So, right away, what is he saying? Well, if I want to prove that this theory is correct, it needs to be able to explain cosmological things that classic physics, Einstein gravity can't explain. First one, dark matter, right? If you can explain dark matter, you've got a good theory. >> And the first question you have is this difference indicates there's a heck of a lot of mass in there. And how do I generate gravity to do that? What's going on here? Now, the common approach is to say dark matter exists. There can be other approaches as well. Next, please. >> Is this the velocity uh graph? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, just clarify for him. >> Okay. Well, basically, if we assume V equals the square root of RG uh based upon units, we can say certain things. Let G satisfy 1 over R squared, which is Newtonian. You end up with 1 over the square root of R. That's the lower curve after a certain distance. If you let G be a constant, then you end up with the square root of R, and that's the upper curve. So, MOND tends to suggest that out there, you end up with something that looks like a square root of R. Next, please. >> So, trying to understand this slide that he says here. I think what he was saying there, let me uh try to mind absorb that. Um he's saying the velocity is equal to the square root of R times G. And so, therefore, he was saying that if G is a constant that you expect to see 1 over R squared or something like that. I don't know. I didn't quite understand it, but I think basically what he's saying is that this this approach, the Mond approach, modified approach, will explain dark matter, right? That's what he's getting at. >> Okay. If there's a constant value out there to do this, do we have any other evidence? Well, we have that with Phoenix, I'm sorry, with the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft missions. >> So, Mond as well, if you don't know, Mond is another theory that expands general relativity and tries to explain dark matter, dark energy. I think I saw Hal Puthoff interested in it. But, I don't think it's it's not it's close, but not good enough, basically, is my general approach of the or my my general perspective of the Mond theory. >> We'll talk about that a little later on. Where they result with a a gravity, a constant value. You notice there where it's just going over 1 over R squared, you're going to a constant gravity, and it's like 10 to the minus eight. And if you look at the uh next few graphs, please. Uh if you look at the um Omalo, you have something like 10 to the minus four. Okay, this is a a factor here where gravity is not vanished infinitely, can we make an accounting for it? >> That I just saw something get mentioned for Amur Muur right there. It says right there, Amur Muur celestial body, how do you determine this factor other than dark matter? Now, one of the things I'm going to go back to the Avi Loeb situation. Avi Loeb and his followers have been saying, "Well, you got to prove Avi Loeb wrong. You have to prove that the space rock is not an an alien spaceship." No, I don't. That's not how any of that works, first of all. Second of all, the reason why you're probably seeing anomalous things happening to the rock is cuz you don't [ __ ] understand physics. You get it? That's what this is saying. This is saying, when you see that space rock move in a weird way, it's cuz you don't understand physics. That's why it moves in a weird way, cuz your physics is wrong. It's not cuz it's an alien spacecraft, it's cuz you don't even understand dark matter. So, how can you understand how a a space rock is going to flow throughout our space? That's the harsh truth. >> We look at the Winterberg model. We are considering uh if you look at the um Omalo, you have something like 10 to the minus four. Okay, if this is a a factor here where gravity does not vanish infinitely, can we make an accounting for it? Can we go back, please? If we look at the Winterberg model, we are considering rotation in a neutron star. And what can we learn about this? Next, please. Well, I did an analysis last year, and we ended up with certain results. Next, please. The results are that I don't know how to run this this gravity law. So, I look at these terms as exponential terms as well as source functions that will produce gravity potentials and gravities. And the question is, where are these gravity models and that with a constant at R equals infinity. Next, please. So, what I did is I looked at the first equation which satisfying del >> So, if you want to wonder, how could someone figure out gravity? How could someone manipulate gravity? That's how. This is what they have to do is they have to go through all this work. They have to figure out, "Hey, here's some models, here's some observations, do all this math." And then ultimately at the end of the day, they're going to have figured out, "Okay, this math, this equation, this is the answer." It's probably some advanced version of Jefimenko, right? And you can see the progression of this from Fry or Winterberg and early ideas of plank ether, where they were trying to figure out, "What's the real unification model?" And they know what the answer is, it's just proprietary. It's locked up in a Lockheed Martin, you know, lab somewhere or in a government file somewhere in the CIA. >> When C equals FR, when FC is equal to omega squared, that's Winterberg's model. Well, my feeling is that the rotational effect doesn't go out to infinity. It has to decay. So, let's put a time not a time but a distance decay and put that in there and lo and behold, when we back off the the function for gravity, we end up with r to the 1 - 2n or if n is equal to 1/2, we have a situation where you're generating gravity and it ends up with a constant value. And that was the second table on the table the second value we had. So, that gives you an idea of what to look for for a model for modifying the Winterberg model. Now, what does this mean about rotation? You can assume that the rotation ends when you end up the neutron star, which is insignificant, but I think it means more than that. If you look at the first table, first picture, it's from the Pioneer effects where you're looking at the magnetic field from the sun to the earth >> Woah. Woah. Look at what that says, chat. It says, "If the magnetic field, hence electrical field as well, are so strong, then the energy through the Poynting vector generates mass via de Broglie de Broglie waves and then provides gravitation. This effect is demonstrated on a neutron star over a typical star." Guys, this is exactly how they figured out how to teleport the plane. This is exactly Why are the orbs spinning around the plane like that? This is it. Cuz they figured out how to use the Poynting vector to make your vector potential and then to have it create a real gravitational force that breaks through the light barrier.