Black Holes Have One Jet

Video Transcript

All right, let's look at this conservation law. We're looking at the change of the source term and a gradient on the current. Again, what does a gravitational current mean? Hard to say. Let's integrate that equation as a function of time. We end up with a constant, not a constant. We end up with a steady state term. >> So, we're teach we're treating gravity as an electrical current that has a duality just like electromagnetism here. >> Let's keep that in there. And when you put that in the original expression for Newtonian with gamma accounted for relativity, you end up with what's going on. And finally, you back out G, and you end up with the term that includes an integral for the current as a function of time, a steady state value, a constant CG. Well, maybe that's this constant value we're talking about, and something we don't know anything about. It's f of g of t, just a function of time, nothing else. That could be a direct delta, a direct C, who knows? Next, please. So, when you go through this, you try to fool around with these equations. >> Okay, so he did some things. He found some math and he said, "Hey, we found the constant we were looking for. It's a function of time, but we don't really know in a real sense what that means." We like, "Okay, we we get it, but we don't see this. So, what does this really mean?" So, now we're going to try to figure out what conservation would mean for gravity. So, what we're trying to figure out here now is if this is true and we have to obey conservation laws, what's the math going to be? So, we're slowly digging through this. So, I'm going to let this keep going. >> You could change that term into Garrett to be that steady state gravitational effect. And you have to take a curl term. Well, if you take a curl term, if it disappears, then we have a rotational field. There's no gra no gravity waves. So, J ofS got to be there and G carrot's got to be there. So, sticking another curl term in there. Next few grab, please. And do some manipulations. And as you go through this, you find out that certain terms appear, but they disappear. And you finally end up on the bottom with minus del square g= 4 pi g so on. Uh you can argue you're going to get that directly by using the gradient and the terms but then you have an additional term in there del cross del cross g. Now if g carrot is a function of r that should disappear but you never know. Next please. But what about the other side of the equation? Let's take time derivatives. When we take the second derivative the gart term because it's steady state disappears. And when you combine them now you have a different gravitational wave equation. We've got the characteristics, a sauce term, the curl. >> Yeah, chat. And I'm, you know, I'm struggling to keep up with the math just as you. I'm never going to forgive the CIA for making me learn math. That's the one thing. I I hate them for that. Um, it's literally like the worst thing you could possibly do. However, this has got to be the vortex math, right? Like, this is going to be exactly the same as the vortex math. What everybody has been doing is they've been taking electromagnetism, they take the Maxwell's electromagnetism equations, and they combine them with gravity. and they're always making an assumption, right? They're saying, "Oh, there's an extra dimension. There's an extra degree of freedom. You know, spin is related." Whatever it is. They make their assumption and then they take the math and they try to make it work. That's what we're seeing here. That's why I find this so interesting is looking at from different perspectives. And this is the perspective where I think they literally figured it out. So, here we go. >> So, the curl and you have a function where current varies as a function of time and another factor that's a function of time yet to be determined. Well, we've worked through this with Newtonian gravitation. So, it looks like neither Einstein nor Newton lied. They're both telling the truth. Next, [clears throat] please. Let's carry this a step further. Let's assume the source term is equal to a separable time factor and a steady state value. And the same thing holds for the current. When you put this into the conservation equation and you do your manipulations, you end up with the Helhold's equation. That gives you an idea of the steady state source term. Next, please. What? You end up with a Helmholtz equation? No, chat. No [ __ ] way. Okay, if you don't understand why this is so big is because if you look up the magnetic wormhole paper, they use hemholtz configurations to teleport in in the real paper about magnetic wormholes. They literally use a hemholds configuration which is literally a tooid around your object and a second toid over here. A hemhold's configuration is two toids, two donuts, and they create a a connection between the two of them. That's a Hem Holtz configuration. So, when you're thinking about this and you're going, "Holy [ __ ] man." Like, they're literally spinning the orbs around this plane like a Hem Holtz coil and they've got another Hem Holtz receiver or something on this side and that's where they're teleporting it. And they're shooting it like directly. This isn't a situation where the plane's like going from here to like up over here. They're like shooting this like a rail gun and it's just teleporting through extradimensional space and then reappearing on the other side. It's no coincidence that this goes back to the Hemholtz equations. No coincidence. Well, let's carry that a little further. Let's allow the body to rotate. Let's all allow the current to rotate. When you put that into the conservation equation, you do all the >> allow the current to rotate, chat. Why? Why do you think the orbs are spinning around the plane, chat? We're rotating the current around the plane. We're rotating the electromagnetic fields around the plane. Manipulation, it turns out the effects of the current is insignificant. But for the Hellho's equation, you are driven by the rotation. Alpha is negative, so it's positive. So what's happening as spin goes, this charge density accumulates and increases over time. Next, please. Let's go. >> As spin goes, charge density accumulates over time. This is what I'm talking about. It's a [ __ ] rail gun, chat. They are winding this thing up and then blasting it off. And they blast it off. Not blast it off at speed, but they blast off the spaceime allowing it just tunnel tunnel right through the barrier of spaceime. Wow. >> Step further and change that value to beta omega squ. And lo and behold, this equation looks quite close to what Winterberg's suggesting. >> Ah, and you see, then they come back and they go, and it turns out this looks very similar to what Winterberg was suggesting. Now, keep in mind, Winterberg, his math didn't go deep enough. But the idea was generally correct for Winterberg. That's why this is so important when it gets back and you go, "Oh, this is actually very similar to what Winterberg was approaching, what his his view was." >> That's interesting. Next, please. >> All right. All right. I mentioned this thing about Pioneer 10 and 11 that spacecraft that have been there. >> Bro, what? What? Yo, if he just if that's it, this is like the Sopranos. That better not be the end of the gravity thing. Are you kidding me? You can't just cut the black there for a long time. Long time. They keep going. Next, please. >> One went to the left, one went to the right, they went past the uh the uh system. They're in the orc cloud. They keep on going. Next, please. I'm pretty sure what he's about to show us here is that the satellites prove that this is real. Jack Sarati. No way. Why does it say Jack? Jack Sarat provided a nice graph showing the unmodled accelerations. >> But they have a problem with the trajectory. It turns out that gravity indeed becomes a constant value above Uranus. And it's like I said earlier 10^ theus 8 next gra as I mentioned the same thing with Omau as it came into our solar system. it generated uh it had undergone a gravitational attraction with like 10 the minus 4 a constant value so that between these two and moon there's a factor here where gravity does not vanish like 1 / r^ 2 at infinity next place when you look at the continuum the space-time continuum the deflection represents gravity well there's our sun as an example a white dwarf generates more gravity and neutron generates a heck of a lot but a black hole has a singularity >> I think he was just confirming what I said about Amuramua. He was saying that these things are producing their own gravity. When we measure the gravity based on their velocity, we are seeing that it creates a constant after a certain cutoff. There's a constant just like we expected from the Mond theory that he showed before. Now, this is just standard picture of gravity. When I say we're in this zero point energy, which is spacetime, you can see how this spaceime would be manipulated and that manipulation is gravity. Just like this image right here. So when I go, "Hey guys, we're in zero point energy. When I want to make a black hole or if I want to make a wormhole, I'm going to pull that 0 point energy away." This is exactly what I'm talking about. This graph right here. Same idea. From a neutron star to the black hole. It's amazing. Next, please. Well, Paul came out with a model on the pulsars. And the convention wism is the neutron star lighthouse model. And it came about due to the to a burntout star after a supernova. And there's a bunch of neutrons together that are forming crystals that are increasing the density and going on from there and so on. And he looked at some signals of pulses that come out from this. We're talking about signals that come out anywhere from six to 10 600 times a second. And it's repeatable and it's extremely accurate. Next, please. But he comes up with some numbers. He says there's pulse drifts. There are amplitude modulation effects. There are mode switching. What's going on? Now, I don't think he says this about all neutron stars, but this is some of the data that was out there. What does this mean? Next, please. Well, like I said, pulses are very accurate, and we need to know this if we're going to go to CIS lunar and cis Martian flights, so we better get used to it. Next, please. One of the assumptions is that neutron stars assumed to be a perfect sphere. What if the implosion is not even or uneven? So Paul of Violet starts researching these neutron stars and he sees that they're switching modes. Switching modes would be like suddenly changing the beat. Like your cell phone ring starts changes its tune. Like whoa, your cell phone ring just changed. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Why is that happening? And they say, "Well, this has got to be because they're not perfectly spherical. There has to be some sort of instability or in uh asymmetry to it that causes it to have this weird shifting. Otherwise, it should just be consistent all the time. >> We need to look at the exterior boundaries of the supernova to determine the size or the shape of the neutron star. And if it's irregular, there's got to be an electron gas over the surface of it. It's going to generate vortices at certain locations on the neutron star. And if this occurs, I will see things happen to the waveform. They'll end up with drifts and so on. Next, please. Oh, so he's saying the reason why we were seeing those mode changes because there's these vortices that were forming on the the supernova and these were shifting the the signals that were coming out of it, warping the signals. >> Well, here's a lighthouse model. It rotates around an axis. It sends out a beam of electromagnetic energy and it sweeps over and we see it on the Earth. If you look the graph on the lower right left side, there's the Earth going around the Sun. It takes about a year to do that in one orbit. But for the pulsar in the same that footprint shown there, it does that in a week. So that gives you a feeling for the difference in the gravit gravitational attraction. Next, please. Here's some supernovas. Look at it. The one on the right side, that looks like I'll get a spherical neutron star. But on the left side, I don't [clears throat] know. On the lower F side, all bets are off. This might be God knows what it looks like. And that's the way to look at the neutron star. >> So, it's pretty cool because we have real images. And yeah, this is my new goat, too. These are all my new goats. Um, Tom Balone, uh, Paul Morad, like, wow, I can't believe we didn't even see this before. Now, this is interesting because a lot of people look at these neutron stars and say, "This is proof that we're seeing electrostatic electromagnetic effects on the celestial level, on the astronomical level." And I happen to agree with them. The more I look into it, the more I look into it, I say the answers to the physics we're looking at have always been just right out there. We just have not been interpreting the answers correctly. >> Next, please. Here's some more to look at. Notice some are near spherical with hiccups. >> What we need to do is look at each neutron star and look at the differences in the waveform. Next, please. Okay, the other point is that this is being collapsed by a a red giant star, but red giant stars or any stars do not have a single model. >> The equation becomes entirely difficult to deal with. It discharges and when it does that, it generates a jet. >> Okay, this is what I want to see. Let's go to this part here. I'm going to go back a minute about here. Okay, >> the axis of rotation. That doesn't sound good to me. So, it's got to come out of the black hole itself and it violates the fact that we might be moving faster in this field. So the biggest problem with the black holes is that it can't just be a void. When it comes to physics, your black hole can't be a void because that would mean information is being destroyed. So we have to come up with some answer to that. Do you want to know what the answer is? There's no black holes. It's a white hole on the other side. Like there's no naked black holes. There must be. Am I saying that right? Probably not saying that right. That naked black hole may refer to the event horizon. That could exist. In this case, every black hole must have a white hole counterpart. If there is a a vortex, a drain that's sucking stuff away, there must be something where it's pumping out on the other side. That's my perspective on how this works. The other perspective that we investigated is that a black hole is not actually a vortex at all. And that a black hole is simply or it's not a black hole is not a drain. A black hole is not a drain. It's just a vortex. It's just a vortex where there's a shifting uh permeability where we're seeing a refractive index change and that's why it's invisible to us. [snorts] Please where does this jet come from? Well, if you look at a model, we talk about the neutron star model we talked about. Put it in the Faraday cage and here it's just building up with this rotation over and over and over like a capacitor that you're charging it up and up and up and sooner or later it discharges and when it does that it generates a jet. Okay. Holy [ __ ] chat. I keep wondering about these orbs. Like, it's so clear that they're winding up in the video, right? It's that when they go vertical on the plane, plane's flying, they go vertical around the plane. Why doesn't it happen instantly? Why doesn't the teleportation happen right away? Because they have to wind up, they have to charge up or something, some equivalent of that. and then they slow down and converge on the plane and then the whole thing snaps back. And you read this and you go, "Wait a minute." So it says these fields are going to keep accumulating in it in in uh consistent with the Hemholtz equation. It's like a capacitor that is continually it's increasing over time with electrons and voltage. When overcharged, the capacitor releases its current similar to the jet of relieving a black hole. I mean, I don't know if that's the exact mechanism by which the plane is teleporting, but it sounds like it's a feasible one to me. >> Something else. The jet doesn't come out both ways. It comes out one way. Well, that must mean that this model we have must also be a monopole, which adds another complication to this thing about a black hole. Next, please. >> Wow, that's weird. The jet only comes out one way in the black hole. I didn't know that. If a jet's only coming out one way in a black hole, that would be very odd, right? Wouldn't you expect there to be a dipole? Next. All right. Here's a typical conventional wisdom viewpoint of a a black hole. The jets out there, decretion disc, and in this case, uh, somebody said, "Well, there's a magnetic field around the black hole." No, that's not going to happen. Next, please. Here's a black hole that we have in the picture, and God knows what this means. Next, please. >> I love them. Like, these are like, we don't even know what this means. That was literally like the famous photo of the black hole that they made that he just showed there a second ago. Where is it? >> Must also be a monopole which adds another complication to this. >> Must also be a monopole, guys. >> Next. All right. Here's a typical conventional rhythm viewpoint of a a black hole. The jets out there accretion disc. And in this case, uh somebody said, "Well, there's a magnetic field around the black hole." No, that's not going to happen. Next, please. There it is. This is the famous photo of the black hole right here. How funny is that? He's like doesn't even care. >> Here's a black hole that we have in the picture. God knows what this means. Next, please. >> God knows what. >> Again, one thing about the jets are the appearance of shocks occur like aamic shocks is kind of strange. And uh next one, please. Again, we have on the left conventional wisdom side of what's going on with the jet both sides. But on the right in the upper left side, that's the black hole and there's the jet. One jet. Notice that it has shocks. There's no weather yet. Next one, please. >> Wait, chat. What? This can't be real, right? I seriously started to wonder about reality now. Like I totally understand when if you guys don't know Ferris Williams after he corrected the thermonuclear weapons calculations he like decided that all physics was fraud and it was all [ __ ] Why am I learning right now for the first time in my whole life that black holes only have one jet coming out of them and that all the depictions of them depict two jets coming out of them but there's literally only one. Is this is this true? I can't honestly don't know if this is true or not. I'm going have to Google this in a second. >> There's another one. Where's the other jet? >> There's another one. That's another black hole with only one jet. I mean, you can see there's not two jets. That's That's like probably tens of thousands of light years. Is that probably how big that is? What? How did I only learn this? >> Going in another dimension. Who knows? Wait, did he just say another dimension? Did he just say the black hole sending it to another dimension? I got to go back, chat. Holy [ __ ] chat. Rhythm side of what's going on with the jet both sides. But on the right in the upper left side, that's the black hole. And there's the jet, wind jet. Notice that it has shocks. There's no other jet. Next one, please. Here's another one. Where's the other jet? Is it going in another dimension? Who who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. Next, please. Again, there's one jet coming out of one side of the black hole. Next, please. And then, unfortunately, you don't get good resolution. Next one, please. But we need to look at this one jet coming