NASA Physicist Dr. Weiping Yu Reacts to His PBD Appearance with Terrence Howard
48:54 Share

Well, we're here with the man of the hour, our longtime co-host of A Neighbor's Choice, our Science & You segments from the very beginning. Dr. Yu, how are you doing? Thank you, David. I'm doing fine. Thank you for having me on again. I have to say I'm very proud of you because we've been working on this project for a long time to not only, you know, explore your theory, Yuan theory,

but also applying it to various news, science topics of the day. And you were there from the very beginning of my program in Orlando back in 2018 when we started it. But even before then, we did the documentary in 2017, and we met, I think, around 2016 or so. So we've been working on science investigations together on screen and on radio and offline.

camera and off radio for many years and it's exciting to see with the recent turn of events millions of new people are now turning into tuning into your ideas so congratulations thank you i cannot have the state without your help from the very beginning it's been a whirlwind adventure and of course

We are always impatient, so we wanted the world to catch on millions of people to these ideas many years ago when we met. But there's a reason for everything, and there's a providential timing for everything. So we are just very excited and delighted that now, for those who are not familiar with what I'm talking about,

Dr. Wei-Feng Yu was recently a guest on the Patrick Bat-David podcast, which is one of the top podcasts for current events and a variety of topics for the whole world. And it kind of happened very quickly, right? And you were invited on there, and you were there to engage with the actor Terrence Howard and his insights there.

that he has worked on about physics and math. So just tell us a little bit about what that experience was like. And for those who are not familiar, you can go watch the interview. We'll link to it in our notes for the show for those who haven't seen it. But it certainly has been catching the world's attention. 40 million downloads, all the clips and everything. It looks like someone said so. That's pretty incredible. So for science to get 40 million downloads,

Is pretty impressive and so tell us a little bit about the background of how it all happened and what was like I?

Oh, yeah, this is one of the most exciting moments, you know, I believe in my life. And so they said that they want to invite me to join the panel and for the interview with Terence Howard. So then they said, hey, we're going to send all the materials to me. When I first read those emails with so many patents attached as a file,

I thought, what kind of interview this is about? I'm not a patent lawyer, right? Until I saw one article, I believe that's a Terence wrote the article probably mentioned about talking about the physics foundational problems mentioned about gravity or something about a general concept in physics. So that's incorrect.

Oh, I realized, oh my goodness, so this is really, this guest is about talking about the universe physics, understanding of the universe. And then I received pictures.

from the producer, the silent period. I suddenly realized, oh my goodness, this gentleman actually interviewed Joe Rogan's show. I said, yes, I actually watched it about, maybe not full, watched it about like 10 minutes or something. I remember one thing he mentioned about the gravity is not a fundamental force, which I actually agree with him. So I agreed.

So talk about what it was like going on the show. How did it go? What was your impression being there during the discussion? I was very impressed with somebody outside of the physical discipline and can see something even most physicists cannot see. Yeah, and there are smart people in every different category and category.

That's what makes America the place everybody wants to go to because it's a place for every type of intelligence and every type of... Most of the time, that's been the tradition of America is that you can be an artist or you can be a business person. Walter Russell. Look at Walter Russell, who was a big influence on Terrence Howard. Walter Russell was a self-taught autodidact. He was a...

architect, you know, and a painter, and yet he knew insights that were beyond what would be traditionally considered in his field. So that's where you have to have that space for people who think outside the box. A lot of times the artists will see things wrong with the establishment dogmas of a culture faster than those who are in the prestigious positions, because the prestigious positions function on an anthropological level as the priestly caste

which are bound up and holding on to sacred dogmas of knowledge that cannot be questioned. Another way to look at it is called sacred cows, which comes from Indian culture. The reference to the cow you cannot touch or question, you know, it has to be left in its own special place. That's the same idea behind many of the dogmas that are received in textbook knowledge today.

They don't have the position they have purely because people are constantly challenging their fundamental ideas. They have those positions because of the inertia of mimetic prestige of those who have developed those ideas and those who have carried their ideas forward through the years. So just like a priestly caste, it doesn't make it wrong that that's just the way humans are.

When you have a priestly cast in a church structure through the ages, hundreds and hundreds of years, the elders and the bishops and the leaders carry on the tradition of what is true. And there's not a lot of open environment for people outside of that hierarchy to tell them that something they've been operating on for a long time is incorrect.

That same social environment exists in the world of science, particularly in a world like physics where you have the ostensible power to be able to destroy the whole world with nuclear technology and other types of insights. And so when you have world-destroying knowledge at your fingertips in a certain field, you can understand the human tendency to encase science

a field like physics and a very tight seal of untouchable glass so that nobody has the right to come in and question it because it's dangerous to question things like that for people's sense of reality because you got to realize we're not just dealing with people who have the scientific inquiry as people think of that where you're questioning everything. Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science,

was clear that most scientists go into a field without having open-minded scientific skepticism about the received dogmas of their field. They come in receiving them on faith, he said. And that faith now can be a loaded word that people like to play with, but fundamentally it's a leap of faith, that they take that for granted, and then they work on a specialty field within the framework of a particular field.

expertise within physics. And that's the way you're supposed to be. But it will be the artists like Terrence Howard and others who will first signal because the artist is the person who sees things typically in a different direction.

Outside of the typical groupthink of a community. On many issues, the interview, Terrence always mentioned a model called the flower of life. He has some models, right? The model describes the three-dimensional structure, the structure of the medium. And so what do you think those patterns are representing?

describing in the real world, what are those patterns and shapes? Oh, okay. I asked, so what's the application? What's the real application? He's talking about, you know, the different geometric shape, you know, allow you to call that tangential flight. It can fly in any angle, any direction. I believe it's probably difficult for regular polyheptad

to control, to fly any direction. All those just against the gravity alone, right? That flight is not just against the gravity all the way against the island. You can fly in the space in any direction, tangential direction. So you can make assembly. If you build some components or make a component assembly, it can stay in any particular orientation, direction.

He said that he patented those basic geometry shapes. In the interview at PBD podcast, you and him agreed on a few things. There may be more.

but you agreed that the electron does not exist, right? You believe in the idea of the dark. What would you outline the things that you had in common that you agreed? What was your overlap agreement? In general way, say, we agree what's the problem with physics. Say, the most important is what is the fundamental problem with physics? I said, I don't think it's an electron problem.

the model is correct. So this is a fundamental issue I believe Terence got right. Electron cannot be a negative charged particle. And I said that this kind of particle should not exist in universe, this universe or other universe, according to Coulomb's law. That's one part. Another part I would say the brilliance is he mentioned that he reconstructed called the seven.

the planet Saturn model, he constructed without gravity, dark matter, dark energy. That's a Nobel Prize winning some kind of research. Yeah, so what would be the objection to the establishment physicist's perspective about that argument? But in my opinion, no one ever even doubted, in my memory, doubted the electron is not a negative charge problem other than that.

Once you think about it deeply yourself, see if that makes sense. So I believe most people from the comments I have, they got it.

And after the interview, there were many physicists who approached me. So calls from international calls, domestic calls, left messages on my work even, and on my LinkedIn page. People realized the fundamental problem with physics started not just from modern physics,

say relativity and quantum mechanics. Actually, even during the classical physics, we still have problems with a lot of, say, James-Clocker Maxwell equations.

I can tell Maxwell is one of the three greatest physicists we can list in the world, right? Maxwell equation. And even his understanding is questionable because four of his equations, you know, one of the equation, he has a surface integral of electric charge and gives a non-zero value, assuming he think about it.

there are existing mono-charged electrons, right? So what did he get wrong and how do you fix it? Oh, you know, right now we use that one still kind of get most of most things right. But conceptually, when you do summation integral, basically integral of the electron charge, you, so right now we got a non-zero numbers.

But in reality, you only get a non-zero number when you integrate the integral over half of the surface. So that's something I try to say, hey, since there's a new discovery, the universe, the physics could be much, much simpler than whatever we were taught in school. So I think so eventually we can correct that. Some people would say you need to have a book. Are you working on a book?

You know that, right? I'm still trying to finish the second draft, make it more direct to audience. My focus is on

high school students or college students level. First version, I focused too much to try to dispute existing physics, which I believe that's useless effort. People doesn't, you know, after years of, people doesn't have to know what's wrong with our understanding of the 21st century, right? So I thought maybe I should just direct it to the point, what it should be. So

What do you think of his preference for the term summation, that gravity is a summation of electromagnetism? Oh, okay. Yeah, that's the one. Summation of electromagnetism? Yes, summation of electromagnetism. Do you like that term, or do you not?

Oh, you know, I have tested, I have used all different kind of language to describe gravity. And I find one of the resonant ways people use the term. So let me rephrase that one. So when we discuss the concept of gravity, which is, Terrence, you say this is the God to the establishment business, right? Yeah, this is the God to the establishment business. To the...

That's right. Yeah. Thank you for using a more accurate language. No, you used the right language. You were just too quiet when you said it. So I want to make sure people can hear it. You do that. Don't hesitate. Don't hesitate to repeat. So that's what I feel is like the benefit is if you these words go through language.

like the host, like Patrick, bad David. If he repeats something, I know all millions of people, three or four millions of people, they would understand it right away. But even from my words, they may sound different. And Joe Rogan has the same thing. Joe Rogan has a different take on many things, right? If it's from his words, I believe his audience would understand. So that's why I wanted to repeat the definition of

of gravity in my words, and also try to catch up, make a different audience understand. He was the first to mention about it. So gravity is called, he called it emergent something,

of some emergent property or something about the electricity. He somehow related those electricity. He's not that wrong, he's right actually. So what I would say is, what I would say is gravity is an emergent property. That means it's not a fundamental. It's something after combining the means with lots of matters, electromagnetic matters, right?

So the emerging property is a group property, basically. It's the emerging property of magnetism.

instead of to say electricity. So yeah, that's very important. If you have time, I'm gonna say, I always, sometimes you always feel like I'm struggling with the words electromagnetism or electromagnetism or electrical. The reason in my mind, maybe this is a good time, I wanted to clarify why I'm struggling. In my mind, the universe is a magnetic universe, okay?

the so-called electrical, electricity. Electricity is the vibration of magnetic particles. So we can tell that later. Once we know electron is not like a charged particle. So there's no, well, actually there's no particle traveling on the solid wire whatsoever. Everything is through vibration wave motion, okay?

So that's fine. I try to say, hey, everything started with a magnet. A magnet has a static magnetic field. That magnetic field is actually exactly what the static electrode field is.

People say, "No, no, no, different. When you wrap something, it's suddenly the original balloon. Your original balloon does not have charge. When you wrap them, suddenly they have charge, have static charge." You know what the static charge comes from? It comes from original neutral particles on the surface of the balloon. The magnets, two magnets in opposite direction, they form neutral particles on the surface.

When you wrap them, what happens is you wrap them, you break the original pattern, instead of the neutral opposite direction, now they align them in the same direction. Do I have examples there? Yes. So that's why now you wrap them, so on the surface you create so many small magnets. Like if you put down a slide when you're a kid, when you have clothes, it has electrostatic. Yes. I don't know if the video can see this one. I can see this one. No, I have two magnets, right?

So normally, a neutral charge, so if I do the particle this way, this is the most, you know, this is when charged. Most of them is like this.

Most of the particles in Alexa is dipole magnets, okay? One positive, one negative. However, when you have two of them, so I'm talking about gravity is the summation or called the emerging property, right? So two of them. So if you have two different configurations, if this configuration that's in series, you have two magnets in series, you have a stronger magnet, right?

But what happens if you have two mechanisms parallel? It's opposite. See, one positive, one negative. What happens? Neutralized. For every point has a positive charge, you have an active charge field too. Any point in the space,

For any place you have positive, you have negative. So that's why you appeared as a neutral. That's what happened for neutral surface, you know, for the bloom surface. When you rub them, you know what happens? You rub them, they flip over.

So now original neutral charge does not appear to have a charge. The surface becomes a charged particle. So when you rub a big area, it's all rubbed and becomes a magnetic charge. What is the mechanical act of rubbing that creates the dislodging of the neutral state of the magnetic particles? Oh! Because it creates heat or what?

Oh, yeah. When you rub them, number one is you directly impact them, right? You contact them and you flip them. Also, the heat. You know, the heat will generate relative vibration, right? Random vibration. Once enough... Random vibration dislodges the neutral... Yeah, it could be enough, high enough could dislodge. But mostly probably due to friction.

The refraction force dislodged. So now you have a sudden, we have a static charge. So what does that mean? Where it comes from? Let's talk about taking a fire. You create fire with wood. You kindle it together and then you rub it together and all of a sudden it creates a fire. So what's happening? Yes. Those are neutralized particle or neutral particle magnetic particles in the wood grain. And then what happens? Yes.

The fire includes not just static electricity, it includes dynamic, that's a moving magnetic field. You create a dynamic electrical field. So now anything close to that one, you will feel the heart is actually electricity. You know that one? It creates electricity on your body. Why it burn? Why is it that the...

uh, your clothing going down a slide when you're a kid. I don't know if you ever went down a slide and it, Oh, I did. I was burning your legs. Right. How come, how come that creates a electrical charge? But then when you do the, uh,

wood together, it creates a fire. What's going on from the Yuan standard? Why does wood being rubbed together create fire? Why doesn't it create a charged piece of wood where it shocks you or something?

Yeah, the first is through the charge and the when the charge you reach to certain you know, whatever but People don't rub sticks together and put it on someone and shock their skin. So what is it about the wood? Yes What would structure that makes it turn to fire but not shocking but the cloth on your clothing going down plastic and

create shocking, but not a fire, you know? Yeah. Because you did not wear, number one, you did not wear on your body, right? Clothes is next to your skin. When the clothing, especially with nylon or something artificial, those kind of

uh man-made the materials right those are those things you know once during the friction during friction become charged you know you you feel the heat right that's become charged and it becomes vibrating those those surfaces magnetize magnetize so if you go down a lot if you go down a a slide long enough with nylon it'll set fire you don't want to set the fire yes of course

When the heat reaches to a certain point, right? Yeah. It's not the boiling point of water. So based on the... I know I'm asking a question that's off topic, but I'm just curious. Why is it... That's a good question. When the wood rubs together, it doesn't have a shocking... Let me give you an answer. Electrostatic stage before fire. It just goes straight to fire. Very good. Because the water has a porous in it.

Pours. That's why pores is lots of bubbles, empty space. Water. What about the water?

Does the water affect it in that way? Oh, water is conductive. Water is continuous. You know, in order to conduct for heat, you need a conducting heat, right? You need a continuous material. So that's why metal is a perfect production of heat. Your heat, water is gradually, you have the continuous, right, to conducting heat.

So water, because it's porous, so that's why it becomes insulated of electricity. It's the same thing you insulate the heat. They are all similar. Because of vibration, you have to propagate, right? Yeah. Once you propagate through continuous... Clothing is porous, too. You've got holes all the way through your stitching, you know, the fabric. Oh, oh, oh.

Because that's next to your skin, right? So when that part started moving, started charging and motion, you remember it is causing electrostatic when you rub even the nylon type of synthetic clothes, it creates static. That's something will create electricity.

When you come down through the slides, we were that close and on a metal slide or even, even, even not, not, not plastic. Yeah. So then the crazy electricity is go through your body. So that, that heat is a through, but you're holding, but when people set, when people use wood to Kindle a fire, they're holding it with their skin. Why aren't they feeling electrical? Yeah. Because of what I don't think the electrical current while they're getting ready for the fire to be,

That's good because water is insulator. Why it's good insulator? Because it's not continuous. If you look at every piece of the wood, all the atoms, the particles, they are not one to one connected, same density. No.

So that's why it's good insulation. It means it has air in it, right? It's like a glass. You have air insulation, so heat cannot go through. Electricity does not go through. And what's the difference between that and the air between the cloth fabric? Oh, that's different. Because the air before the fabric woven in different patterns, oh, that's not. I'm talking about these two layers. On molecular level, right? Yeah, molecular. You have thickness. You

You know, water has a sickness, right? But the clothes you wear just very thin next to your skin, right? So that, yeah, that's maybe you, if you understand what I'm talking about, you rephrase it. Yeah. Yeah. You're saying that the, you're saying. Water is insulator because it has air in between, you know, between those, those water molecules. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Does that make sense? Maybe you should rephrase it. I'm just asking, I guess, a chemistry question here. Just curious. Oh, we should be able to answer a question. Let me answer. I watched one audience who made a comment.

He said something very interesting. He said that means those covalent bonds in chemistry, okay, you have a metallic bond, a covalent bond. Does that mean covalent bonds are all lying or something or all wrong? He mentioned that one. Actually, you know, it made me feel, okay, so since my theory called it U-on, U-on, that's a fundamental particle, okay.

the U-Wand theory of everything I should be able to explain. If electron is not a negative charged particle, so then you do not have a called a covalent bound. You know what's a covalent bound? You're bound with electrons, right? You somehow electron from configuration between two atoms, they all have their own orbitals, right? Somehow these things just never somehow attract to each other.

And so the rest of them are still, what is it, orbiting, but actually these particles... You're presenting the establishment view of chemistry, right? Yeah, that's the establishment of chemistry. Take a heck of a lot of people. They hate chemistry. But actually, chemistry for me is very simple. I don't like that one, but it's simple because the equation can calculate the chemical bonds or something. It's very simple. Very simple mathematics.

So that's why I did good on my physics and chemistry and what else, mathematics, almost 100% on tests all the time because I don't like chemistry, but the equation to calculate equilibrium is very simple, right?

But this, I don't know, maybe this lady made a comment. So does that mean the covalent bond is not true? Actually, I would say, hey, yeah. If an electron is not something orbiting around the nucleus, we need to rewrite this equilibrium. You're almost like a physics whistleblower. Yeah.

I really don't want, you know, personally... I know that makes it seem more negative, but you're trying to present a positive standpoint, but at the end of the day, you know, you're not going to be able to wave your hand and get rid of the mimetic nature of human beings, and they're going to want you to overcome all of their objections, or else, you know, they're going to try to...

This becomes anti my own interest because personally people familiar with me know I don't like conflict with anybody. I try to avoid any controversial issues.

However, based on this... You have a very controversial... You're making a very controversial claim that everything... Right! But for the fundamental principle, I don't think it's for any people's benefit. If I try to just say, try to be nice and to maintain self-control or something and to avoid make a fundamental law of physics known by people,

I thought that would be a disservice to people. Is that right? Yeah. But we don't want to have the...

Conflict override the truth of what you've discovered, in other words, right? That's true. Maybe let me continue this electron. The importance, I believe, Patrick made a fantastic, asked a fantastic question. When I try to explain, oh, it started with Coulomb's law, and we cannot have the negative charge particle. You know, the next question Patrick asked, what's the importance of this?

And I said, oh, he tried to bring the audience on. You don't have to be relevant to the audience, right? So now I'm going to emphasize this important question. So why electron is not a netting charge buckle have so much

at stake with the entire physics world. It's because right now we're assuming electron is a negative charge particle and because somebody also discovered nucleus has a positron, not a positron, has protons. Okay, positron we consider as an entire matter of the electron. Okay, so now we have a proton as a positive charge particle.

So how does it come? The first one is discovered by, I believe, was D.J. Thomson, British physicist or maybe a chemist or something. He received the Nobel Prize actually it's not on his discovery of electron. Okay. I believe it was 1897, something that during that era. He discovered electron as a negative charge particle. And then

based on that one and somebody defined oh yeah actually we have a positive charge particle because they can use um in build a magnetic field to say hey particle come out of flying in different directions right next with one direction the other one opposite direction you may be positive uh uh maybe called an antimatter or positron or at least you have a positive charge particle i know there's probably at least three people

win Nobel Prize on discovery of the, I believe it was a proton or neutron, proper proton. At least, you know, Nobel Prize award or something. So once you have a fixation of electron-negrocharged, then people discover the positive charged particle. And then people try to say, hey, how can positive particle and negrocharged form, how they can form a stable structure of atoms?

So that's where called the Neal-Spore model, atomic model. I believe he was the first one. So proposed this Neal-Spore as quantum mechanical model, which is very similar to solar system with sun in the middle of the planets orbiting around the sun. Based on that analogy, form that one.

So that's what if you open the fixed book, we still have an atomic model just look like this one. If you can see or look like this one. Can you see clear? Yeah. Okay. Did you see there's a nucleus which is made of a photon and a neutron at the center and the electron is orbiting in the orbitals. Did you see those orbits? Yeah. Okay.

And this model, that's where current physics foundational built on this one. And this model is completely wrong in my opinion, because it turns out that there is no orbiting, re-orbiting electrons. That would, if you have this model, that would make this one as a perpetual motion machine.

You know, I never thought for every atoms will be on. Isn't that considered kind of like pass a they mostly talk about it as a as a cloud of information and show. That's another way that they try to expand. They try to further make sense and say, hey, electron actually is not a particle is it becomes cloud.

That is even weird, just because the concept of electron does not get it right, and we assume it's a fact, and then everything else from there on becomes convoluted. When comments are mentioned about it, at that point, everything else becomes a religion. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, when Terence said that. And then you build it on, everything you build on top, and you assume it's all correct. Yeah.

So you know what happens since we assume electrons, negative charge particle, and we discover the positron and then also discover protons, positive charge particle. And then positive charge particle cannot

in contact with negative particles. That's another fallacy called matter and antimatter. I do not believe we have antimatter. The reason is if everything's magnets, magnetic matter and antimatter are themselves. So if I have a magnet,

right? Positive and negative. I have another one. You know what happens if they're in contact? Of course, you know, they're going to rotate in contact, you know. So that means the definition of the antimatter, you have identical mass, you have opposite charge, you know, something like that, you know. So in this case, I said, hey, everything's magnetic particle, it has both charges. So then another

matter and other things contact you, this magnetic particle is also like opposite charges in contact, right? So that should not be the case. So let me continue with why number one we cannot be in contact. If we're in contact, matter-antimatter annihilation, that means matter disappears and becomes energy.

That's something for me is a ridiculous argument. Something can become matter, can disappear, become something else. That's incredible. We have a conservation of matter, right? So how could matter, you know, just transform of bigger matter become smaller pieces or something. So you do not disappear.

You cannot create it, you cannot destroy it. So that's one consequence is, hey, we have an opposite charge and they cannot be in contact. The only thing maintained, maintained their stable structure, it has to constantly rotate.

I'm sorry. I call it a revolution. So sometimes, you know, rotation, I sometimes call it a revolution around something I call a rotate. I noticed there's one comment people reject that one. Revolution. I don't know what a rotate means. So it's right. Revolve. You're talking about revolve, right? Yeah. Oh, revolve.

Revolut or revolve. Yeah, revolve. You know, sometimes I'm thinking about it in different languages sometimes, you know, in visual images. So that's why I will use the word. So if I speak too fast, I will use the wrong words.

So that's the only way to keep atoms be a stable structure. It's something not able to, cannot be in contact. However, I'm gonna keep it in stable structure. It has to revolve, right? I sometimes use orbiting, use revolve them constantly to keep, so that's create, revolving is acceleration motion, you know. It itself will create a centrifugal motion

force try to fly away from their mutual attraction. So that's the force balance themselves. So then what happens? Because of negative charge particle, then we devolved an omnilogical conclusion for atoms to exist in a way that's called the Neos Bohr, called the planetary atomic model.

Very logical, right? That's where all fixed books were displayed like this one. And I believe this is completely misguided. Because everything is misguided, we created what is called quantum mechanics.

Too bad I do not have a picture to show you quantum mechanics model. It's basically similar like this one, have a nucleus in the middle, but on the different orbitals they have a different property and very different particles. So that means entire quantum mechanics are built on top of this model. This is the foundation of quantum mechanics model.

Well, I want to ask you, a lot of people would say what we've used, they've heard that we've used quantum mechanics and quantum physics to develop many things that we enjoy today. Lasers or computers, all kinds of things. How could something be so wrong and yet it's being used to get these things developed?

That's a good question. My fellow schoolmates also asked that. We have so many modern technologies. If you said this fundamental wrong, where did we get it? You know what? None of these new technologies created by theoretical physicists, none of them tell you. It's all created by people working in the laboratory.

including like Terence Howard, this kind of people, you know, and people, technicians, you know, engineers, and with some kind of practical scientists. They all work from there, from practical application, they develop this technology. If based on purely theoretical theory, it goes nowhere. That's my take. I don't know if that makes sense or not. So in other words, in some ways, it seems as if

The way I would say it is the theoretical physicists are taking credit for the work of engineers and applied physicists, maybe sometimes. Exactly. However, I can make it further. You ask all the physicists, the best and the brightest physicists, do you understand what is quantum mechanics? If they clearly tell you they understand, they lie to themselves, let me tell you. That's what the news is about.

developed his quantum mechanical model, right? Neal Sabor's planetary atom model. He said, if anyone, I'm rephrasing, if anyone believes they understand quantum mechanics, they are either crazy, they're either mad, they're either, two of themselves are crazy or something. You know the reason?

If you truly understand what really is the news, what we're talking about, quantum mechanical model, you'll think that's completely insane. Even now, it is still insane. So in that model, all the orbits, you can somebody say "Orbit doesn't matter." You know, physicists, when they do not want people to understand you, you know what happens? They create a new term, okay? So nobody knows what that definition is. So that's how I hated the discussion

Every time, new terms come in. We're talking about the physics, we're talking about the fundamentals, etc. Hey, what about the stream theory? What about supersymmetry? Those new terms are totally irrelevant. So that's why I try to say the so-called why people cannot even... Why we have so many technologies, right?

See, if the physicist who created this theory tell you, if you tell them you understand quantum mechanics, you are either, what is it, buffet or something, or crazy. So that means you don't know what I'm talking about.

So I fortunately have several students. But Niels Bohr still, I mean, I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit just for the sake of where things are going to go. I like to be challenged. Niels Bohr still held on to his model, though, right? Even though he said, let me go pull that quote up. Oh, yes, of course.

So what would you say to them? What would you say to them? They're saying, you know, okay, well that's fine, but he still held onto it. So there must be something. The reason I hold onto it because I,

He somehow makes this orbital orbits a frequency match some certain, you know, what is hydrogen in the spectrum, you know, somehow manipulated mathematically. And define those orbit has to certain shape, a certain distance, a certain frequency, something when you put all those requirements together, you do match something in testing.

That's how you make your work. How about this one? If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Yeah, that's the exact quote. Yes. There's another one. He claims either something crazy or something. Yeah. So that's a lot of interesting. How about Richard Feynman? I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman. That's true, yeah. Is that the one or is there another one? Richard Feynman on terms of, you know, the, yeah, the, what is it? Feynman diagram. So why did they, why did, I don't, I just don't understand. If they don't know what it is, why are they still going with it? I don't get it.

Because so complicated, because we got a fundamental wrong, nobody, because convoluted, you know, to the point that nobody really understand. Only the most bold person, brave person, dare to say something even they fundamentally does not even understand themselves. Got no notoriety. I don't know if these things happen to other fields too. People win award, say completely outrageous things. Yeah.

I don't believe, like Richard Furman, very smart man. Even NASA invited him as a panel member of a committee advisory during the first Challenger accident. Very smart person. But if you listen to himself, you will get a sense.

He doesn't believe anybody believe what he's doing. He may sometimes imply that he may not even understand what he's doing. Sorry about that. You're saying Feynman said that? Richard Feynman. Yeah, he's an honest person. If you listen to his talk, many versions of talk, you will understand what he's truly feeling. I believe people award him for his effort.

and you can use plain language to express complex concepts. But Dr. Yu, what is the Yuan Theory? The Yuan Theory is a physical theory trying to interpret everything in the universe with one particle, one fundamental force, and with one field, and with one principle, and with one universe. Just that simple, huh?

I hope that's simple to you. I like that. That's good. So what does your name Wei Ping Yu mean? People are learning about your name. What is your name? Wei Ping Yu, the name. Yeah, my first name is Wei Ping. And the last name is Yu. You want me to explain? You don't want people to know what it means? Wei Ping in China is maintain peace. And Yu means what? Yu, that's family name, does not have a particular meaning.

I wouldn't say there. I don't want to make up a meaning. Yeah, there's no meaning to it. Okay. So weeping means making world peace. That's good. Maybe that'll be your goal. Maybe that'll be your mission in life. You don't even know yet. Yeah. I'm gradually becomes, you know, super nature beings. Yeah.

Bye.