We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode What's Wrong with Physics? DemystifySci Hosts Join Dr Weiping Yu (Science and U)

What's Wrong with Physics? DemystifySci Hosts Join Dr Weiping Yu (Science and U)

2025/4/25
logo of podcast David Gornoski

David Gornoski

AI Chapters Transcript
Chapters
David Gornoski, Dr. Weiping Yu, Dr. Anastasia Bendebury, and Dr. Michael Shilo DeLay discuss the need for outsiders to shift scientific paradigms. They address the toxic zero-sum mindset in society that hinders innovation, the confusion of ideas and physical objects, and the confusion of science with technology.
  • The podcast aims to address the societal problem of a toxic zero-sum mindset that hinders innovation.
  • The hosts believe there's a confusion between ideas and physical objects, as well as between science and technology, which can lead to unproductive ventures.
  • The speakers aim to recreate the emotional space for people that are curious about science.

Shownotes Transcript

All right, so we're going to have a fun conversation today. We have two people with us who we just discovered their work, but it feels like they've been doing a lot of the same investigations and the same search for truth that we have been doing on A Neighbor's Choice. So we're going to have a very fruitful conversation. And that's because the hosts of the Demystify Psy podcast join us, Shiloh and Anastasia. How are you doing?

Really good. Thanks for having us. And we have, because we're doing a science show, we have our chief science advisor, physicist, Dr. Yu. How are you doing? Thank you for having me. I'm doing very well.

Now, I got to tell you guys, we like all the things that your show's about is just really right up our alley. Our whole premise of the show is that the problem we have in our society is this toxic zero-sum mindset that basically directs us into a cul-de-sac

of politics where we're always doing blame games, we're always doing scapegoating, no one's actually trying to solve problems to actually shift us out of what I think to be a kind of unnecessary dark age in terms of the world of physical innovation. We have a lot of innovation in terms of what's going on on apps,

There's an app for everything to make you look at the phone longer. But as Peter Thiel has said, we look at our newest iPhones while our subways are dilapidated and decaying from the 1960s. So there's something going on.

in my opinion, that has redirected our resources away from this kind of mindset we had at the earlier part of the last century, where people believe we have jets and flying cars and all these great abilities to revive the desert world.

and turn places back into an oasis. We thought we'd have cures of diseases right under our noses that would be so inexpensive and so non-intrusive. None of that really has panned out in a mass way.

And yet, you know, we're still believing that we've kind of reached the end of history as it relates to our sacred cows of knowledge. I happen to believe that the problem we have is scientism and this kind of priestly cast of science that has kind of created all of this unnecessary blockage for disruptive innovation that is human-centered and ethically oriented. And I think the holy of holies of scientism is physics.

And I think that's where, and I happen to associate the problem of why physics, and I know there's a lot of components here, and you guys have worked in scientific backgrounds, so I want to get you to weigh in. But I happen to believe that we are suffering what I call the Mowgli effect of physics, where whoever captures the world-destroying fire

and that is the atomic bomb, whatever field, whatever theories that were ascended at that time become kind of enshrined in untouchable glass that can't be touched as if, you know, we're going to dogmatize these theories and say this is not to be questioned, not to be challenged because any kind of priestly caste that can destroy the world over with their knowledge should be treated like religion rather than scientific inquiry. So...

That's kind of my big picture view of the kind of societal sense of things. So I wanted to get your, you know, kind of perspective on that and also how you came about developing your podcast. That's a big question. Yeah, you opened a bunch of cans of worms there. They're all issues that we deal with a lot with our work and our podcast and all the projects that we're wrapped up in.

I think there's a few pieces of the puzzle that do lend themselves towards a new dark age if we're not careful. One of them is the confusion of ideas and physical objects. So something like software versus hardware, which we can circle back on. And the other is the confusion of science with technology. And these two confusions, if we're not careful, can lead us into an endless spiral of chasing our own tail with different ventures.

Yeah, and I think that that's kind of why we started this project is that we just saw a lot of people that were really confused. People operate in the world because they have a path that is kind of prescribed for them. Like, I think that there's a lot of people that go into the sciences because they kind of figure that they're going to do experiments and maybe they'll get a Nobel Prize one day. It's this kind of like almost

half aware process by which they end up in these places and all of a sudden they wake up, they're in their 30s and realize that what they're doing more is writing grants and being preoccupied with the day-to-day process of maintaining the system than they are with this

magical sense that they had when they went in where they would end up like Darwin on the HMS Beagle taking stock of all of the different kinds of birds on all these islands and then coming up with these crazy theories. It's really far away from the promise of what it is to be a scientist, which is kind of innovative and

breaking trends and being curious and that's we're trying to recreate that that emotional space for people that are curious yeah you guys kind of go to that uh i saw some of your graphics and design is like the uh old-fashioned science shows of our childhood and you kind of have the puppet show going on are you guys still doing the puppets that was pretty cool no we are not the puppets were um

We were really worried at the beginning about showing our faces while also saying that a lot of science deserved to be revamped.

And so Shiloh one day was like, we should make puppets and we'll puppet. And I was like, that's a terrible idea. I don't know how to puppet. And Shiloh was like, no, no, no, it's going to be great. And so Shiloh dragged me kicking and screaming into the world of the puppets. And then it worked for a while. But one of our science mentors, this guy named Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who does a lot of work on the liquid sun, he sat us down and he was like, you can't keep doing this.

You cannot keep doing the puppets. This is not good. Stop it. So we stopped. I kind of have that being pulled in two directions aspect to myself as I moonlight in the professional wrestling world as a lounge singer. And, you know, I happen to believe that you can pursue anything

We do a lot on anthropology and physics and all these big topics, but sometimes you're just going to have a little fun too. I think a lot of people in society, and there's a good reason for some reason, but a lot of people say you have to pick one thing and stay in your lane and that's it. I don't think that's necessarily the case though. I think we need more polymath or people that are willing to play outside of the lines and outside of the divisions that we've constructed.

It's really funny that you say that. Sheldon's always talking about, what was that guy's name? Young? Oh, Thomas Young? Yeah. Yeah. As the quintessential polymath. Yeah. I mean, science is full of outsiders. Look, like you don't usually see paradigm shifts coming from within a really strict discipline because you need an outsider perspective to really see where things are breaking down. And if you've inherited a whole laundry list of assumptions from your mentor and from their mentor and so on and so forth, you...

you have a tendency to get lost in the details as opposed to seeing the bigger picture. So guys like, you know, the most famous paradigm shifters of all times from Copernicus to Darwin, we already mentioned, you know, these people weren't within the discipline that they ended up shifting. They were far outside of it. But it's also you have to recognize that it's a position that gets a tremendous amount of anger directed towards it.

Right. I think that we run across this all the time. We talk to people that are trying to upend paradigms and shift the way that we think about any topic, whether it's biology or chemistry or physics. And they're kind of annoyed and a little bit indignant that people are so mean to them about their paradigm breaking ideas.

But you go back through history and it's just every single person that's proposed an idea has been knocked around by the establishment, has been told that they're the dumbest piece of dirt that's ever been around. And it doesn't matter if they're brilliant. It doesn't matter if they're discovering, you know. Well, what Thomas Young, like, you know, father of

Essentially, the wave theory of light, as far as we really recognize it today, there's these blistering pieces in the London Times from his day. Edinburgh. Was it the Edinburgh Times? Okay. Where they're just railing against him about how dare you challenge Newton. He was a physician at the time.

But ultimately, just this brilliant man who actually did understand how light worked better than the people who came before him and the people who were at the top of the academy at the time.

and he's just getting ripped apart, you know, just the most searing, mean things, the same stuff you see today about outsider scientists. So like a huge part of our philosophy since the beginning has been, hey, we'll listen to an idea. If it can, if you can tell me a story that follows from A to B to C, I really want to hear you out. And so all of our conversations begin with trying to understand what someone's saying

And it's not revolutionary. It's just that we want to be able to steel man people's arguments before we start critiquing any of the underlying assumptions or anything else that goes into it. Let's just hear what's going on. And that's something that I think has been lost if it was ever around. Yeah, I think that, yeah, you've got to be able to... I came across Dr. Yu's work, and we'll let Dr. Yu explain his theory, but I...

It was a serendipitous moment that I encountered his work. So we were going to an evening in the stars at a place in Florida called Bach Tower, which is a garden place in the middle of Florida. And Dr. Yu was the scheduled speaker there.

And I remember seeing on the, there was a few different events that were going on at the same time in the evening. And we were trying to watch these bats. And I saw this thing, NASA physicist has a theory of everything. I said, well, I got to go see what this is about. And so, you know, I went over there to, it was standing room only on a Saturday night in a working class Americana city. And people were riveted as a person.

was holding court and presenting his theory of everything using ordinary physical demonstrations, using jump rope to show wave motion, using, and you know, he always uses props and everything. And I said, wow, this feels like something like from what you see in the movies and you read about the old way science used to be done, where it was something where people would have an event and they would explain things and there was, there was something really fun about that.

And when I was in the audience and I said, I think I just saw the physical image, the physical image.

explanation for something that I had been working on which was a mimetic theory, which is this anthropological theory developed by René Girard. I don't know if you're familiar with him. He was a professor out of Stanford University and he created a theory of everything for social sciences called mimetic theory that explains human desire and conflict and rivalry. His most famous student was Peter Thiel.

And he's made a big impact in a lot of Silicon Valley circles as they apply mimetic theory to trying to create business ideas. But I intuitively saw that there must be a physical basis for the social behavior patterns that Rene Girard was describing from a literary standpoint because of what Dr. Yu said, which was that everything is magnetic. There's only one particle.

One force, one field, one principle, and one universe. I said, I like this. I like simple things. And I like things that even a child can understand. And then I started following Dr. He was so engrossed holding court after his speech with people around him asking him all these questions. And he takes the most amount of time for everybody that asks. He'll spend hours with them.

So it's the exact opposite of what society says physicists are supposed to act like. They're supposed to be very rarefied, priestly, and very, you know, I will talk to you, talk to my handler. He didn't have that. He was very humble, and he was in the rush of, in the enthrallment of explaining his discovery, he handed me somebody else's business card. So it took me a while to track him down, but I...

But I tracked them down, and I said, I've got to learn more about your theory. So we filmed this documentary years ago. This was back in 2016, 2017. And I said, look, you know, because he said he's not going to publish papers in the peer-reviewed journals. And I said, well, if you don't do that, I think the only way they're going to listen to you is if you can predict discoveries and things that could be done that your map of physics says are possible that the current map says are not going to happen.

So you've got to do it the old-fashioned way. Like back when they believed there was a new world, you know, they had maps. And somebody had to get on a chartered boat and go over there and see if they land in the mass that they are predicting, you know. And that's kind of like the old-fashioned way of proving a new paradigm. And so that's how we got started together. But, Dr. Yu, what do you think? What are your thoughts on what we've talked about so far? Anything?

Oh, yes. So David just gave you a brief story about when we met and since that time, lots of magic things happened. You know, the Buck Tower, I was the first time I visited there. I feel like it's a holy place.

somehow I get into the garden, entire environment is different. I can receive some message from a super nature. I feel like entire body react is totally different. Yeah. So, so I did not expect that kind of response, uh, for science. Uh,

It's a wonderful story. And I do feel like I have, you know, I just came back from NASA that brings students to work day to day. I was supposed to be working from 9 to 4. I end up at 3. I start packing and get home probably, you know, like 4.30 something. So I, you know, David asked me, are you tired? I said, no, because we have two great guests.

I read some kind of brief bios about you and all graduate from one of the top universities and from the physics degree, Mike, right? And also PhD in what is it, microbiology or something?

Fantastic. It's all from the Ivy League school. So my question, when I excited, so this is from the system within, right? So one thing I always have this kind of concept, say, hey, people from Ivy League school or from so-called elite school in the United States,

I'm not sure if in the European too, they always somehow they are indoctrinated by certain philosophy. Probably controller is more so than regular universities.

So that's my perception. So my question for you is when do you find the science has mystery? So that's why you want to demystify science. When did you get this idea? So I believe that could be a moment you realize something. So when did you get this? I do have my story, but I want to listen to yours. I think it was charged, right? It was charged.

So I was studying bacteria and I was studying the electrical communication of bacteria. And so what happens is that we think about these cells as living by themselves in the world, but bacteria mostly live inside of these complex structures called biofilms that kind of behave more like multicellular organisms. And one of the ways in which they're able to do this

communal behavior is that they have these molecules that are electrically sensitive. So you can add charge to this molecule and it'll move through the biofilm to a different area and then it'll induce genetic changes and those genetic changes will induce architectural changes in the entire community and so you have this very dynamic space.

And we were studying also metabolism and all of metabolism is about the movement of charges, right? You're taking yes, you're taking sugars and you're taking electrons off of it and you have the electron transport chain. There's all these free radicals. There's all of these, you know, the NADF, NADH, FADH is like all of these molecules that do stuff. And all of it is based on the idea that there's charges moving. And I'm like, what is charge?

And no one can answer that question. It's like, it's, they can tell you that it's an electron or they can tell you that it's a proton and then you're like, okay, well, what's the difference? Like what, what gives one a positive charge and what gives one a negative charge? And the attitude is like, that's the dumbest question that you could ask. Like just, just do. Fundamental quantities, forget about it. And we're like, no, it has to be something that some physical body is doing, right? It's a dynamic concept.

So what is going on? What is the atom actually doing? And we were shocked that not only did nobody have the answer, but we were kind of treated like idiots for even asking the question. Oh, and then Shiloh started teaching a summer physics course.

And so in preparation for teaching that, we were trying to figure out how to tell all of these stories about lights and electricity and magnetism and gravity to... Were they undergrads or were they...

They were going into undergraduate. They were like before. It was like a bridge program. And it's unbelievably difficult, if not impossible, to explain any of these phenomena. Because one of the things we didn't quite get around to talking about was the difference between ideas, including mathematics, so descriptions of what you see,

versus actual mechanics of what's happening. And so this brings in the confusion of science and technology too, because the reason everybody is totally happy with the descriptive

mathematics, for the most part, is because it's sufficient for technological progress to a point, right? Whereas, you know, how the actual pieces do their magic is not necessarily interesting when you're just iterating and trying to parameterize the system so you can exploit it for some technological benefit.

end that you already essentially grasp the basics of anyways and you're kind of just swapping out pieces. It's a very engineering is a very trial and error based system, whereas science is deeply creative and imaginative. You have to hypothesize actions by actors you might not be able to see. You know, they had a famously

Atomic theory goes back for thousands of years, really. People hypothesized that the reality had to be physically constructed of little entities, right?

And then we have a very different conception of atoms at this point, but fundamentally, we're looking for stuff we can't see and we have to be comfortable with that and comfortable with hypotheses. And engineering is not comfortable with hypotheses, right? Like you want that airplane to fly. You don't want to hypothesize it's going to fly. You test it out, make models of it, refine the little pieces of it. And then, you know, eventually you come up with a system you can trust.

Science is a little trickier because you have to interpret the experimentation you do often, right? Experiments not going to tell you for sure what's happening, but it will help you rule out things that might get in the way of you understanding that. And so these two methods are actually more different than people realize. And I think that that's led to a lot of the confusion because look, it's amazing we're manipulating electricity to have this conversation across thousand miles right now.

But doesn't mean we understand necessarily in those mathematical descriptions what's happening at the atomic level.

So it's very subtle, but I think that it's created a great deal of confusion. We don't understand, you know, not to go on too much of a tangent here, but Marshall McLuhan, you know, we don't understand the extensions of man and how media technology is extending our concept and relationship with one another as well. So, I mean, this is like we're kind of, we have to kind of pretend to even do a Zoom video with, you know, with seriousness because of how, you know, these are just representations of,

This is not, you know, it's not us. I'm staring at a screen with glass, you know, made from some other country. But it's an illusion that we're seeing each other, I guess, in that way. I think that that just kind of goes to how nascent the experiment of trying to explain things really even is.

Like we've only been doing this for a couple of hundred years. Like, yeah, the Greeks tried it, but the Greeks were a little loony too. And so this modern incarnation of it is what late 1400s. If you're being really generous, like, I don't know that we should expect to be super good at it yet.

I happen, you know, hearing Dr. Yu criticizing some of the establishment perspectives on physics along the way, I came up with the word, and I don't know if others have used this word or if it has any meaning, but as it pertains to physics, I said, sounds like they're suffering from what I would call equationism, that everything has to start with this mathematical approach rather than starting incarnationally in the physical world first.

you know, and having equations are helpful, but they should... Every time I would try to describe Dr. Yu's theory to people who were indoctrinated into the conventional view of physics, they would say, well, I must first see his equations. Have they been published yet?

To the priest, have the priest accepted his equations yet? We cannot talk about this. Well, let's just talk about how things work in the real world. That's what he's doing. He's using demonstrations. No, that's not what physics is. You can't start there. It's not a profane thing like that. You must have equations first, and they have to be approved by other equation, mathematical-oriented folks. And then if they allow...

And it sounds like, to me, it's a total religious thing. If your dogmatic dissertation is approved by the priest, you will be allowed to speak to the public in an official capacity, not as a heretic. I would go one step further and say that it ends with the equations, too. Mathematics in general is a fantastic way to catalog patterns to describe what's happening, and at some parametric level,

which is great, but the idea that you have to actually give some physical explanation to why the equations say what they do, that's kind of been put aside since Newton's time. Newton famously even said, that's not our job. He didn't know what caused gravity. He just knew the equations that described it

And, you know, he went back and appended this piece to his magnum opus at some point where he was like, look, that's not what natural philosophers do. We just put math to this stuff. Maybe I think we think that someday he imagined people would give form to the equation. Somebody would conceive of an explanation, but he couldn't do it. And he sort of excused everybody.

from having to do that job too. And, you know, he's basically a God in such, you know, speaking of the religion and the religious aspects of this. Yeah.

And I don't say that in a pejorative sense. I came at the physics conversation from, again, the mimetic theory journey that I was on from an anthropological perspective. So I looked at it like, oh, wow, this has the same social structuring phenomena that I see with every religio, which is what binds us together. Okay, here we are with a very powerful elite-oriented religio that is at the core of Western religion.

identity and all these things, this is very powerful stuff here. You can't just walk in and say, I have a new theory. It just doesn't work that way. And it doesn't really work that way in almost any kind of religio in that sense. If you join the local Lions Club, these people have religious tribal kind of structures and in-groups and out-groups and scapegoats and heresies and

That's what keeps them in unity together. There's a lot of rivalry, internecine rivalry going on within these fields, but what binds them together is that they don't allow that. They don't allow those people. You saw that with the medical stuff. Did you guys have a road to Damascus moment where it all came to you at once?

that you needed to found, I mean you mentioned the concept that nobody had any explanation for charge. Was that your epiphany moment or was it a series of different things or another moment? I mean it's been a slow burn since then. I think that, you know, charge was the tip of the iceberg but all the basic atomic phenomena like gravity, electricity, magnetism, they all lacked physical explanations. Like they were very powerful, they were very powerful mathematic descriptions of those phenomena but

And I mean, I think what really, really fueled us was not that they were mysteries. That's expected, right? That there will be things, you know, we worked in academic research for years and there was plenty of mysteries that people were working on. What was crazy about this mystery was that not only was nobody working on it, everybody told us to get lost. Like it was a stupid question. And so that was, I think, what really fired us up. And honestly, it's still pretty fun to this day. And we still work on those mysteries quite a bit.

But I think that that was kind of what kicked off the party for us. Of course, COVID was a nightmare, but that wasn't really too mysterious to me what was going on. That's kind of a follow the money situation. I saw you guys got a write-up in Business Insider and stuff. And I said, you guys must have been... You weren't overt with your heresies yet if you were still getting good coverage. We had just started. Yeah, like that was still...

when we were, I think we were still puppets at that point, still for many years. And it was just, I don't know. I think that for us, it's been this. So, okay. I have this theory, which is that people and social groups have immune systems.

And so if you come at physics and you're like, they're all wrong, they're the priest class, we must break the priests and destroy what they've built, they're going to put up a really serious fight. And so my approach is... Can I just add, and nine times out of ten when someone says that, they're trying to replace the priest class with their priest class. Oh, yeah.

Like Shiloh had this amazing experience. He went to go see this guy, Peter Voigt at Columbia, who wrote a blog for a long time called Not Even Wrong. And it was a blog that was criticizing string theory for being super mathematical, unprovable, etc. Shiloh had been reading it since he was a kid. And he went into this meeting bright eyed and bushy tailed and was like, this guy knows, he understands, and he's going to tell me how it is.

And I saw him immediately after the meeting and he was like, he just wants to replace it with his own mathematical theory. Which is equally impenetrable.

And so it's like, I think that what I realized somewhere along the way is I'm like, it's much more interesting for me to figure out how did this happen? What are the places in history where things could have gone slightly differently and they didn't? And how is it possible to offer people a jumping off point that lets them think differently in a way that doesn't put them on their guard? Because I think at the end of the day, the goal is to

help shift the way that people think about these things. And open it up for more people to think about it too. Yeah, absolutely. And so I'm just kind of like, yeah, I think that people got lost. I think that people got really preoccupied with their hierarchies. I think that scientism and equationism and all these things definitely took over. But I'm like, I think that it's really a pendulum of history. And I want to not replace that kind of dogmatic thing

that was in the previous generations with a dogmatism that points at something else and is like, "This is the right way." Our way is the right way. And like a little bit of epistemic humility and less certainty. I'm very impressed when you mentioned about what is called a charge electricity.

and gravity, magnetism. So these are all fundamental concepts, actually, from my study in physics and eventually to my discovery. And these are the key questions, really, we should ask a long time ago. So the lady just asked, so we need to find that when in the history and the things started deviating

from what we consider as truth, right? And I find when, I don't know if you watch the podcast, the PBD podcast, interview with Howard, yeah,

with Terrence Howard and, you know, interview with him and with me as a panel, as a guest. You have not watched that one, right? Okay, so that's a good one. So we can start here. So one reason, you know, I'm impressed with your interview with Terrence because your tone and your treatment towards him, right, and the questions and something, you know, very open mind.

That's completely contrast to previous Joe Rogan's show, Brother Eric Weinstein. Actually, he called me. We were talking on the phone years ago.

maybe since 2017, you know, yeah. So he asked me about those things. So I know, so all these fundamental questions have never been questioning. So that means we all know there's something we do not understand physics, but we cannot find out where did it go wrong in physics. So now, if you look at, if you're watching that video, I made some explanation, but I just summarize here.

What I find is the first one is starting from 1785. That's Coulomb's, the French physicist, Coulomb's law. The law is fundamental law in physics. No problem with the law. The description of the law caused confusion. It describes we have two types of charges, one positive, one negative. No problem at all. However,

described as carried by two separate particles. I believe that might not be the intention. I'm not sure. I did not read the original script of how the French language is translated to. I did not read that. But the impression would be you have two type of charge, no problem, and carried by two particles,

Seems like no problem. And that, however, that evolved until what is the J.J. Thomson that 1897 discovered electron. Now the true problem exposed after J.J. Thomson started from what is the cathode ray test also discovered electron, right?

I believe he spent a couple years before nail down the term electron, which is defined as a negative charged particle. Do you remember that moment? Or maybe heard of that one, right? He discovered the electron and named it cause a negative charged particle. That's the moment physics started to go wrong. That's what I discovered. So do you have any questions? Because this is the central concept.

If we want to do deep, so we're starting to see things deviate from the, so getting wrong from the reality. So that's the moment. And since this concept is so important, I want you to tell, ask me or something. So you mentioned about us. Charge does not make sense. Where did the, where'd the charge come from? From negative electron, right? Once we have electron, we have a charge. So what is a charge? That's,

something missing from this definition of electron and I believe that he got it wrong. Great scientist, you know, something make a mistake so often, he still contributed. However, there's a simple mistake. Say electron is a real particle and carry negative charge. So what happens? So then somebody has to discover, you know, I believe he win Nobel Prize on this.

And then somebody else did a similar test. Found, hey, I found the particle bending, you know, go through the magnetic field, right? You get from there, bending the other world. So this is how we discovered there's a positive charge. So then we started to test, find we have a proton. At least three people win Nobel Prize on discovery of protons. And I believe have several people. So if we have a,

negative charge, positive charge, somebody discovered neutral charge. So neutrons, several people with Nobel Prize on that one. You see, start with one negative charged particle and then we manifested is we have a negative, we have a positive, we have a neutral, and all within one atom. Then how can we make the atom stable with different particles?

Then what happens? We started that news board, extended his academic advisor. I mean, that's a Russford, extended his model. So, hey, we have called the study called quantum mechanics model. And so try to match hydrogen light emission emitter spectrum.

Right. So that's where I don't want to keep talking. Do you have any questions about why I said the electron is not a negative charge? Do you have any questions on that? Have you ever thought about it? I mean, I think the word particle is suspect in this discussion from the get go. Right. So what do you what what does one mean by a particle? Because.

you know, if we are using this Boscovich point particle idea, then we end up with a mathematical artifice that is perhaps missing some important physical pieces. So, you know, I think for ordinary people on the street, they hear the word particle and they think of like a little piece of dust or something like that.

which is a statically conceived physical object, right? It has a surface that separates the outside from the inside of that structure that is essentially based on that boundary.

And that is not what a particle of fundamental physics is at all. It's actually a dynamic entity, right? It has some momentum inherent in it. It specifies some activity. And it's essentially a list of qualities on top of that. So it's really a bundle of information pertaining to some predictable experimental outcome, which is very abstract. So basically you've made this abstraction a quasi-trivial

physical body, even though it's not at all. And then you start performing motion with that idea, which is, you know, what the philosophers would call reification. So you misplace the concreteness of something. And yeah, everything gets lost in the chaos after that point. So I think we would identify that being a really important moment as well. Yes, we should define what is a particle. And I believe

Michael just mentioned about it. That's exactly where mathematics hijacked the true physics, deviated from the truth. Just because mathematics have a difficulty to describe finite volume, finite substance mathematically.

So they have to treat everything as a single point particle with zero volume. That's the problem. And then once they think that way, because that's the only way mathematics at that time, that's the only tool you mathematics can design. And then mathematics is a very simple rule, you know, raw tools to use. So that's why they started with that. Once they have an equation done, now,

They use that equation as the foundation of the truth and develop everything on top of it. And that's where we get physics wrong, hijacked by mathematics. And the mathematician's thinking started only from the equation. Without the equation, they cannot think about anything about the physical world. So that's where things go wrong. So let's define what is particle.

So in my view, just conventional, every matter, matter means something have a substance, not just say measure. Well, we thought our matter has a mass, right? Or measure of the substance. We do have a substance and the substance do have a volume. Okay. It's not a mathematical single point. Just by that simplification, it's already out of the physics, get physics out of the equation. So that's the problem.

And that's the mathematician's problem. They can only, only thinking, their whole thinking started from the equation, the symbols of the equation. So that's the problem with them. So since it's true matter, it has, it must have, we call the substance, right? Substance has a mass. Mass is a property.

you know, we're talking about measure of inertia or something, right? So it must have a physical property. Otherwise, you cannot make sense of Newton's law, right? So now we have to have a mass. Another thing, another thing is our understanding of the matter completely messed up. So, you know, okay, first we have a mass. Mass means have a matter. Matter, I mean, it has to have a finite volume, has a volume.

So particle has volume. If a particle does not have volume, it's not going to create all the volumes we have now, right? You said we all created by infinite infinitesimal volume zero point and created all the human being universe. That's just insane, right? You got it? So now, so that means particle has carry matter, right?

and the matter manifested in mechanical world is mass. So measure the resistance, you know, inertia, right? Yeah, mass. And then have a volume, the third part. So that's entire physics missing. Include, what is that?

The masochists, the masochists, you know, ancient Greeks. The third part is the most important. Democritus. You're talking about Democritus? Democritus, yeah. The great, great, great, great prophet. Which is, can you give a guess? What is the part truly we're missing from matter? Can you give a guess? It's a force. Every matter carries force. That's the inner, innate force. What do you mean it carries force?

I mean, look, physical objects can displace one another essentially, right? You can't have two physical objects in the same place at the same time. That's right! But the only real force is push. I mean, you're just hitting stuff, right? I mean, you can push against the back side of something, like with fibers they'll interlock, but it's still just displacement. That's external interaction. That's not the fundamental field force.

So I'm deeply suspicious of the field concept. Yes. And so maybe you can lay out why you think that fields are something separate from measurement of material in motion.

Okay, first of all, let me first answer the questions I have and then I explain how I define the field. So now we ask all fundamental things. We are talking about the fundamental concept of the atoms, right? Atom has a volume, have a mass. Missing one thing is every atom, every

fundamental particle, elementary particle, missing magnetic force, magnetic field force. So now let me define force. The so-called field, the so-called field is something you can influence any point in space.

You can have a non-zero inference, which means, you know, magnets can attract some things over distance, right? Can repel some things over distance. So that's a phenomenon itself. A warrant existing of a field means you have an inference on something over distance. So the attraction force and the repulsion force

you know anything nearby a magnet if if a similar magnetic particles nearby magnetic field so you will have a push or pull you you will have some kind of interaction with it so that's that's that's how i define a field means for every space you do have a value

in this case, the physical interaction value is a force. So it's not like, I don't know how, so Mike might be able to, so how mathematically defined those field

I think you defined it correctly. It's a region where every point has a value which is essentially location-based. It's a vector, generally speaking, a sea of vectors. The question really fundamentally becomes what are these vectors describing in terms of the material actors that are acting out the motions that are detected in these predicted or measured

Yeah, so when I say that I'm suspicious of the idea of the field as fundamental, I'm like, if you have a point in space that exerts influence on other things that you put into that space, then there has to be some kind of material interaction. Your field has to be made of something.

There is some more fundamental aspect that is required in order to be able to conceptualize the field in a rational way, because otherwise you run the risk of magic, I think. You ask a very important question. So this is related to what matter, what made up this field, is that right?

So we have to be really careful. The field is a dynamic concept, right? It involves motion. So it's something moving, doing something else. Yes. The field is not a static concept. Exactly. There must be some invisible actors doing some dance that is accounted for by the description, which we call the field. So that when you stick your detector in it, it's being affected by the material that is in motion at that place to tell you what the description of that location in space is.

Yes. So if we use instrument measure, you know, nearby magnets, you know, instrument will measure some kind of attraction force or repulsion force, right? Measure something, we feel like it's a measure of the object exerted. But I think, you know, the field really, so in my discovery, I found that, so whenever we have a magnetic, magnets say object there, so we measure fields,

So interaction, must interaction with a physical object, right? Without the interact with physical, it's a pure concept that doesn't come. So what kind of physical objects they are interact with at that particular point? So this made the necessity is we have to have a medium. And the medium are just regular particles, just way, way, way smaller. So a smaller, and this particle has to be

interact. So that's why if you have anything over space can react, there must be some matter over at that location interact with some objects, right? So it has matter there. And this is what I call the electromagnetic medium.

So we do have magnets and we have a medium. So that's two different things now. One is bigger objects, one is just like water in ocean. So we have something much much finer, smaller matters.

create like an ocean instead of, you know, instead of just a magnet. So we do have things. So that's where I started my discovery, say, hey, what is the smallest particle of matter in this universe? So I said, in order to have a light propagate, you know, light, light have a light source, right? Light source is just like through a pebble.

into a pond, create, initiate the initial vibration. So when we see light, light has to be carried by a medium. So that's why propagates, we can see it. So I said if we want to know what is the fundamental particle looks like, the fundamental particle must be a constituent of the medium. So what is the particle to make the medium which carry light?

That's where I started to make this discovery. So the first property in order to make a light propagate, number one, so this medium has to be elastic. You know, elastic, only elastic system, right? So that means if you, if you display, make a motion in one area and elastic medium can carry them,

due to the connection with elasticity, right, can carry this elastic wave. So number one, I said, okay, so the medium has to have an elasticity property. And the second thing is, if we look deeper, what makes elasticity? So I believe these questions, Michael, probably you are expert on this. You study what is elasticity of water molecules,

I have an answer, okay? But I want you to tell me what's your answer. What force makes things elastic? That's more architectural than force-based, right? Yeah, can we hold that idea for one second? I wanted to ask you why you think that the medium is separate from the atoms themselves.

Like the object, you said the magnet, there's a magnet which is separate from the medium. And that's the point where I have not been sold on that yet. David, that's the way academically we study step by step. We have to understand every step. So I like the way you mentioned about it. What's the difference between, let's say, magnets made by atoms. We have no problems, right? So what's the difference between medium and atoms? Can we say that?

Does that make sense? I'm curious, yeah, because... Because the medium is not made by atoms. Let me tell you that. I'm not sure about that myself, personally. Oh, that's all right. Well, not made by... Not that the medium is a bunch of atoms, but that the atoms themselves couldn't provide the medium if they had an extended architecture. No, atom itself cannot be. You know, normally when they say when atom, atom itself is...

what do you call it, electrical or magnetic, is a neutral particle. So the medium is not a magnetic neutral particle. Well, there's a way we tend to think about this. The way that we tend to think about this is that if you look at the radial distributional function of a hydrogen atom,

which is basically... It's like what gives chemists the shape of the orbitals and so forth, these nice pretty diagrams. And it tells you the distribution of the electron, the likelihood that you will find it, at any distance from the nucleus. At the nucleus, the likelihood is zero. At like 400 picometers from the nucleus is the maximum of the distribution. And then it falls off.

But when you get to the edge of the distribution, it doesn't fall to zero. It approaches zero and goes off to infinity.

And so the way that we've been conceptualizing of all of these phenomena of light, of electricity and magnetism, we see the atoms as being part of this rarefied web where the substance that makes the atom is this material organized into some kind of stable motion, but it has connections that go to the atoms next door and to all of the atoms around it. And so the medium that is

the field is these connections of the material that the atoms themselves are made out of stretching out in between them so that if there is a photon, so that if there is magnetism, there is electricity, these forces at a distance

it's these extensions of the atom to infinity that are actually providing the carrier of the signal. Because all of these things are just communications between atoms, whether it's gravity or electricity or magnetism or light. I think that's the part. So you know the problem.

but have not found that a root problem is deeper than the atom. It's subatomic particles. It's not atom. Deeper than atom. So I can explain. But you know, I believe if you think that way, I believe you may not able to explain even now. Let's make a prediction, okay? Based on your explanation, say,

So what's your explanation of a charge at this moment? Yeah, so, you know, everybody essentially accepts the radial distribution function of the electron to represent the outer surface of the atom. We're just saying the outer surface of the atom isn't this nice pretty shell that you get in the textbooks. If you follow the empirically derived math, it's saying that the outer shell of the atom is really furry, actually. It's got some sort of rarefied extensions to it.

that have to be continuous with the body. And so charge really just represents some motion of that surface material. We like to call the material that the atom is fashioned out of a fiber so that people don't get confused out of it. Don't confuse it with point particles. We avoid the word particle, but the fiber of the atom, the subatomic fiber that the atom is constructed out of.

That's in some sort of motion at the surface, which is dynamic. And we believe that the Fermi, essentially the math of spin gives us a reasonable approximation for what exactly that surface is doing. And of course, the projections from the shell of the atom are doing the same motion. And so they're able to convey that same action onto their neighbors, essentially. And so that's

you know, charge has to do with the relative orientation of the surface motion of the fiber on the atom as it does its spin one half dance, you know, across its surface and into its nucleus ultimately. Does that really make sense to you? Yes, well I think it's congruent with all the mathematics that I've ever seen. Right, you are talking about the mathematics and you are talking about that's exactly the problem of the current physics.

So I wanted to make sure... Well, just the mathematics that are derived from experimentation, right? It's just a descriptive language for the experiment. Right, right. It's always our job afterwards to explain what the equations are telling us, right? That's right. Right, so why are these bodies attracted at an inverse square law and so forth, right? And that has to do with their radial distribution of their substance that they're actually fashioned out of. So I like to ask Anastasia, I'm not sure if I can pronounce it right,

Does that make sense to you? Do you understand? He explained what the charge is. Look, if you have an atom that isn't spherical, it's toroidal, right? So imagine that the entire universe is filled with undifferentiated fiber. It's a sea of fiber that has no structure to it whatsoever. That's where you begin, if you are to begin.

And then let's say, and I don't think that this is necessarily possible, but let's say you have a single atom in this sea. What does that single hydrogen atom look? Well, what it looks like is it looks like a rotational torsional involuting motion. And so as the fibers begin to move in a specific way, they move in such a way where they rotate around the circumference once for each involution that takes place.

720 degrees around the equator and 360 degrees through the interior gives you spin one half and when you have that cohesive motion you have a difference in positive and negative charge because it's literally just an oppositional orientation of the motions because if you have

this torus, the outside of it has to be moving upwards and the inside of it has to be moving downwards in order for there to be a cohesive flow across the entire surface. And so then you have positive and negative inside of one structure and the thing that gives you positive or negative is motion, its direction of motion. And inside of one structure you'll always have either, like you can't have the inside of it and the outside of it moving in the same direction.

because that just is physically incompatible. I think actually Weinstein uses this, you know that weird little toy that's filled with the mica fluid and if the outside is moving up, the inside is moving down because that's the necessity of the donut organization. And so it makes sense to me. When we talk about this, I don't think that this is the only answer that's available.

I think that it is the one that for me allows me to see the motion in my mind and to see the orientation of it and to see everything is being networked together. So charge. So can you give a simple definition now based on all the explanation and understanding? So what is charge? Charge is the organized motion of the surface of an atom.

Yeah, where like the motion of the surface of one atom with respect to another atom defines its charge. It's really the orientation of that motion. So like a positively charged terminal would be a particular rotational surface of some material whose atoms are facing and rotating in one direction, and the negative would be the opposite. Okay, so what does your charge differ in the

from magnetism. Yes, so magnetism would follow naturally because it's the equatorial motion of that same material. It's just the same motion viewed from the equator equator. All right, so you still have this extended structure of the atom which is twisting and rotating in this way, but the magnetic effects will naturally occur at the equator at 90 degrees to the electric effects which are, you know, contact

dynamics between atomic surfaces that are actually transmitting in a line, like a gear box in a car. So what's the origin of magnetism? Well, the origin in what sense? Oh, so who produced magnetism?

How did it produce magnetism? Well, atoms in concerted motion produce magnetism. So it's like if you have a magnet-- The motion of atom-- so we know the electron is subatomic particles, right? Electron has a charge too, right? Well, we just agreed, though, that particle is kind of a broken word in this sense. Because I'm like, OK, let's think about metals, right? So you have a metal wire.

Yes. Like the wire, like, and let's say that, let's say the, the wire is one atom wide. So you have just atom on atom on atom on atom. That's the simplest way. Yeah. Sure. So you hold the wire in midair and there's nothing, there's no current flowing in it. There's no electron flowing. There's, it doesn't, it doesn't have a magnetic field.

And then when you connect it into a circuit and you close the switch, then all of the sudden you have these mysterious effects that arrive. And this is actually what's really interesting is because I don't know if you guys saw there was a video a couple of years ago now, Veritasium put it out where he was like, what happens if you have an electric circuit whose perimeter is one light year

But the distance between the two sides of the wire is actually very, very small. It's like some tiny fraction of the light year. Or I think it's like a light second. Let's not do a light year. And he's like, how soon does it take for you to observe current on the other side? Right. And it turns out that you actually as soon as you close the switch.

Current travels through the wire, yes, and will close the circuit eventually. But it begins also to grow out from the point on the other side of the wire and move through it in opposite directions. And so it's a motion that is transmitted through empty space to the other side of the wire, right?

And so if it's a single atom thick wire, what we're saying is that the electrons or the atoms start to rotate. The surface of the atoms begins to rotate in a cohesive motion. And there's hairs that are on the outside of the atoms, these extensions of the atoms, and those hairs sweep across the other side of the circuit, get those atoms to begin to move, and then that motion

spreads out from where the terminals of the circuit are and travels through the entire thing until you hit an equilibrium point when everybody is moving the exact same way. And then once you have that, you have the stable magnetic fields that is on the outside of a current carrying wire, then you can then you have the like stable vortex, so to speak, of

electricity that is orthogonal to magnetism, electric current in this direction, and then a magnetic field that sweeps around it. You introduce another mystery. So why electricity is 90 degree to magnetism, right? Yeah, that's another one. You know, that's the Jax Maxwell's equation tells you, right? Tells us, right? But why is that? So there's a physical explanation is

So you mentioned one very interesting. You said that each one wire, right? Each is by one atoms connected to each other. And you said that you connected in the circuit. And then you have an instantly

motion is that right well i mean it moves at the speed of transmission which is yeah which is about what are like six seventy percent of the speed of light let's just say uh the the best conducting material right and i i believe we have we share a one agreement common things you do not believe electricity is the flow of electron do you i don't think that

I don't think anybody really does. - Well, electron is a concept and we don't believe in moving concepts around this thing, right? So the electron represents-- - That's current electrical engineering textbook talking about the first thing. Electricity is a flow of particles, right? Flow of electron particles. So physical particles can directly go through, say in this case, wire is one atom thick.

Just one atom, the white. Electrons are traveling at almost 70% of the speed of light. They go through the atoms. They either go through the center of the atom or go through the surface of the atom. So that's what the current theory is.

which I believe is wrong. Yeah. Well, I think that they recognize that it's wrong because they're like, well, it's actually much slower. Like they recognize that the electrons in the circuit bump along at the speed of a garden. So how much do they recognize? So they recognize that they still have a particle traveling, just not at that angle, not at that speed.

Or not the size? The way that they deal with it is they're basically like, look, there's enough stiffness in the electron gas that as soon as you close the wire, the electrons that come out one end are not the same electrons that go out the other end.

They're not like, if you're at the positive terminal, the electron that moves very slowly is not the same electron that arrives at the negative terminal. So hyping. They get bumped, right? So when the electron hyping to the other one, bumping that, the other one have another electron hyping that one? I think anybody who's spent any time thinking about it realizes that it's a cobbled together approach that they're trying to fix

a deep incompatibility in the theory. But it's like one of those things where it's like, you know, you just, it's like when somebody farts, you don't point it out in public, you just kind of keep talking. Right, we never resolve it because the entire definition of electricity is wrong. It says flow of electron means implied

we have a particle that flow from there. You know, you just mentioned about maybe not the same electron, right? Maybe not the same particle, but something's flowing there, right? Yeah, but then if you really tear it apart, then you realize that the particle is not a physical object. And so none of these problems are even...

a problem because it started off with the assumption that you're moving these ideas around. Yeah. David, I hope you hear that. To begin with, then what you're talking about is the flow of current really, which is this propagation of motion from one atom to the next. And that's a far less paradoxical situation than trying to move these, what ordinary people think of as little grains of dust through a wire. It's not quite like that.

Mike, actually you find the answer. The answer is no particle flow.

through it, through the wire. It is what you just mentioned about it. It is a vibration, it's a wave motion. It's a vibration motion propagates because everything contact. You studied water molecule elasticity, right? That's where elasticity falls in there. Because of the elasticity, any or all, we'll call those oscillation or vibration.

So this is truly electricity. It's the oscillation of the particle. And then that's wave propagation. So that's where it is electricity, is true electricity would happen. The so-called flow of electron, that's a wrong concept. Let me explain further why I said it's a wrong concept. What I find is there is no, you know, you have electron flow. You have to have an electron inside of an atom.

Am I right? You have to have electrons inside the atom. And the electrons inside the atom have to have a motion. You have to assume electrons inside the atom

and the electron have a motion. So then you somehow make that motion, you translate that motion energy and start the flow along the wires that they said, oh, on the surface or something. You have to make that many assumptions. That's all now have. What I find there in an atom, one atom, there is no orbit, orbitals, orbits, or whatever clouds or electron distribution field. None of them exist.

There is no free rotating particle whatsoever in the atom. So that's why I believe we got the atoms wrong. So now I think you guys mentioned that everything started with atoms, right? Now I say the problem is deeper than the atom itself. The atom itself has no particle in rotation.

when there's no space between the called principal orbits orbitals or something yeah as a board defined of the quantum orbits so that's completely misled uh you know the real atom the real atom is just like a magnetic box let me show you i'm let's use this one as a real atom there is no

over distance like a quantum principle orbit somewhere and have electrons orbit that way. So that I found, that's something it's fundamentally we defined this is the Neos-Bord model is wrong. So if you are assuming that, let's assume that's right. Just like a planetary, solar planetary atom model. You do have a different electrons at different orbital.

rotating. You know why it has to rotate? If it's not rotating, because the nucleus in the middle have a positive charge and the electron has a negative charge. If not rotating, what happens?

the electromagnetic attraction, right? Gonna make them in contact. So that's gonna create the called matter antimatter catastrophe. So that means what happened? So energy dissipated. Matter disappeared becomes energy. Those are regardless of concept, but anyway. So because we are not allowed current theory, atom theory, not allowed the electron and nucleus in contact because matter, matter,

So then we have to keep it in order for this model to exist. So we have to have a rotating electron. If another rotating attract, keep rotating is rotating create a centrifugal force, right? Centrifugal force. So and the counterbalance of electromagnetic attraction. So that's why News Ball said, hey, because we have this called a single charge particle,

positive charged nucleus and negative charged electron. So that's why we have to have this complete rotation model. And this is where I am challenging about. If this model exists, so then would make every single atom to be a perpetual motion machine.

As a physics, the first fundamental principle which we know, there are no perpetual motion machines. Every energy could be dissipated, especially you have a revolving motion. So this is an accelerated motion, right? Whenever circular motion is accelerated motion, you have to have a force pushing them just like a magnet propulsor. So this is, you have a force pushing

pulling them, accelerating the motion. If you have this motion, this motion, acceleration motion, it's a self-dissipated energy. So if you consider every atom, how could the atom can exist? Constant rotation never stops. We know the atom probably is the most stable structure in the universe right now, right? So that's why we use atomic clock.

because it can last forever and almost never change property. So that's why we use a topical clock. So how could this, where comes the energy to keep every single atom has different orbitals of electrons constantly in motion, which make every single atom is a perpetual motion machine. So I thought that this is wrong. But why we made this wrong, that's what I initially, I tried to say that from Coulomb's law imply

charge carried by two different particles, what I really try to say is, that's my discovery, every single particle has both positive and negative charge. They are inseparable. So by that definition, the so-called electron we discovered is not a negative charged particle. It is negative.

Physical particle, we all know it. Since I told them during that podcast, I told them, everybody older than three years old, you should know this particle. A particle carry both positive and negative charge. One particle. I asked on the show, I said, I want to ask the audience, say, do you know which particles? It carry both positive and negative charge particle. And we all know it.

When Audien wrote the comment, magnet. So what I come all around to try to tell you one thing, electron is not a negative charged particle. It's a magnet. I think we see it really similarly in that we see the atom as a magnet, essentially. Yes. And the electron is just the outer surface of the atom. Electron is just a subatomic.

Part of subatomic power particle, right? You can it's not a thing like you we gotta like be really careful like an electron is like an idea It's not a physical object like anything that can only be defined as being in motion is not a Static object like if your definition includes motion if your definition includes momentum Yes, it's it's like saying that I

uh like i don't know a car is only the thing that's that's the the flow of traffic on the highway that's not what a car is that's a car in motion a car is a thing that has a structure that can be described when still what you're describing when what people are describing when they say electron is they're talking about

traffic on the highway and they're trying to treat traffic on the highway as being the car itself. And it's like, no, like it's, it's not. And that leads to enormous amounts of confusion. And so for us, that's what you, that's, that's what you're saying too, right? You're saying that, that electron does not exist. Oh, I mean, electron does not mean exist means electron as a negative charged particle.

So does a proton as a positively charged particle? They're motions. They're motions. That's not the existence. No, no, no. If a motion occurs, objects exist. Yeah, we have to be careful with the word exist. It can be really confusing. I mean... Yes, yes, we got it correct. Motion and particle are two different things. Motion describes the particle's space location versus time.

In order to describe motion, you have to have a particle. Without a particle, without the carrier of the matter, there's no motion there. If there's no matter, there's no motion, right? So whenever we talk about motion, motion is just a characteristic. Describe a location versus a time of some concrete object.

So I want to differentiate. That's why this word particle is so broken though, because the word particle in fundamental physics, it is not a physical object. It is a motion. It involves motion. It has a momentum. It's not a physical object. It's a motion. You think about it. If it's not a particle, so that means it has no mass, zero mass. Can we see that one?

Can you see that? It's a mask. Even no motion. You know, so, and describe a motion. So we have to have a mask matter somewhere, right?

Well, mass is another terribly confused idea, right? Because it is in some sense the way that we quantify gravity and inertia. But when we get to subatomic processes and we actually convert mass into its electrical counterpoint, the amount of effort necessary to deflect this column of ionized gas, essentially, in a

inside of a vacuum tube or something like that. So it becomes something very different when we get into these subatomic particle spaces. So now let's forget about the mathematical concept. The mathematical concept is not a real particle. But Dr. Yu, you're trying to redeem the word particle, and you're saying to get rid of it because it's too confused by the mathematician.

Well, you can't have it both ways. No, no, no. You can have it... We either use the word the way that mathematical physicists use it, or we come up with a new word to describe the material that's at the base of the motion. That's right. Well, I agree with that, Dr. Yu. You call your theory the universal particle theory. Yes. And he's saying, but that term means a mathematical concept, and you're talking about it in a physical sense, in a material sense. That's the word...

hijacked by theoretical physics, but that's not the common definition of a particle if you look at the dictionary.

Any particle is a part of a matter, and part of matter is containing some sort of substance. So it's not a purely concept. It has a physical property. It can resist motion. We let them have particle. We were basically like, you want particle, take particle. Yeah, we let the mathematical physicists keep it. We used the word fiber instead because they haven't ruined that. They like the word fiber.

Right? Oh, you want a fiber. I like the word fiber because nobody's ruined it yet. And everybody understands in like all the other sciences, a fiber is something that has this structure. It occupies volume. It has a boundary that separates the outside from the inside. It essentially represents a unit of substance.

And I feel like the mathematical business have ruined the word particle for all of eternity. And so we personally avoid it. And so it gets very confusing even in this conversation because we've all agreed that this word particle is not a mode of dust that everybody on the street thinks it is. And so that's why I think we're getting into... Well, in Dr. Yu's world, it is a little mode of dust, right? No, you know...

That's where... It's a little magnetic dust. A little tiny magnet. You know, all this confusion is because of the fake theory.

of quantum, this is called the standard model of physics, okay, the quantum theory. So that's all these concepts are confused by that one. So that's why, see, in quantum mechanics, even though we said that, you know, mathematically, we have to describe the core, the particle, use a point particle. We have a point particle, you know, they define it a different way. If you now use a point particle, which is like a regular particle, so we don't have to avoid that. But let's just go back and say point particle.

Even though we mathematically describe quantum mechanics as a point particle, we still say point particle has a mass. So where comes mass if it's just a point, have no volume? It's more like an effective mass, right? It's the force equivalent deflection of a unit of gravitational inertia, something like that. So if there is no, just think how could a single point interact or have initial, have initial, momentary initial, have interact with gravitational field?

if it does not have a matter. Well look, so I'm surprised that you point to Coulomb's law as being the place where physics fell apart because I'm like

Newton kind of set this in motion by saying that gravity was action at a distance. Hypothesis non fingo about the cause of gravity. And then so like just before Newton was Descartes and Descartes was like vortices, man, there's the plenum.

plenum everything is filled with substance everything is moving and that motion is what gives us all of these apparent phenomena and then Newton goes and he calculates it and he's like that doesn't make any sense it doesn't work out mathematically I don't know what does make sense and he gave up science at some point right he was always really into alchemy

and he gives it up he becomes this uh he becomes an agent of the Royal Mint and so he like dresses up in costume and like goes to bars and tries to catch people in the act of passing counterfeit currency and that's just kind of how his life ends right he's just like screw this I can't figure it out he's everybody tells him that he's literally the smartest person who's ever lived the poets are writing poems about how Newton is brilliant and Newton's like

I have no idea how this works. And then you fast forward and you get to Faraday. And Faraday is a chemist and Faraday is working on electricity and magnetism. And he's the first. So Orsted is the one that shows that the compass needle will deflect in the presence of a current carrying wire. And then Faraday does all of the work to show like how electricity and magnetism actually relate to each other.

but faraday is a chemist who's working with this model of chemistry where atoms aren't little bowling balls they're what's called point atoms so there's this guy boscovich i think robert or roger or something and he's a uh he's a theoretician and he's trying to figure out why it is that you can't have two objects in the same place at the same time and he's like you know what it is there's not actually anything at the location of the nucleus

What it is, is it's this mathematical point and the mathematical point is surrounded by forces. And as you approach the center of these forces, the repulsive force goes to infinity. And so if two things, because they're trying to figure out how to deal with atomic collisions.

with newtonian physics because they're like okay well if atoms are indestructible they also can't deform because they're they don't have subunits and so at the moment of collision the atoms have to be moving both forward and backwards and that's impossible so it comes up with this force diagram

And by the time that Faraday and Davies are doing their chemistry work, they're using the Boscovich force atom, which has been modified to have not just this like infinite repulsion next to the nucleus, but it also has these kind of sinusoidal patterns of force that extend in all directions around the nucleus. And so they're using that to justify how chemistry occurs. They're like,

If it was just forces, you can imagine that with enough heat and pressure, you could force any reaction to happen, but you can't. And so there must be some kind of compatibility between the resonances that's producing binding.

That's right. And now when you look at particle physics, you realize that what they've done is they've taken the mathematical force particles of the atom and they've just shrunk them down to the subatomic particles. And so it's the same problem from Newton to Faraday to particle physics.

where what they're talking about is they're talking about the detected behaviors and they're reifying the detective behaviors into substance. But what we're really seeing is we're just seeing motions and actions and reactions of the fundamental substance that things are made out of.

And like the atoms are made out of the same stuff as is doing the electricity and the magnetism and the bonding. It's just different organizations as far as we can tell. I just want to make a clarification. When you're talking about the atom, is that the same atom as the Greece, you know, the Greece philosopher talked about the atom or you're talking about the mathematical atom? What kind of atom you are? Or

or quantum mechanics described atom has interior motions or something. So like when Faraday is working, it is atomic theory is more or less

A modification of Greek theory, which is that the atoms are indestructible. Indestructible. And there's no substructure. Is that right? And that's exactly what they treat particles as, right? So you have like composite particles and then you have fundamental particles.

That's right. Fundamental, the elementary particles are literally the exact same thing as the mathematical indestructible atom. Right. Just now subunits of the atom. And so we haven't actually clarified any of the, like we, I think that where we started was you were like, we don't understand atoms. And I'm like, yeah, it's crazy. Like,

physics operates in this space where they're doing all of this, you know, particle detector stuff where they're just like hitting things against each other and seeing motions.

and instead of realizing that what they're seeing is motion that extends through the medium in the aftermath of a collision they're treating them as objects that get spewed out from some atom in empty space and i think we're on the exact same page about that like i think we deeply agree with you about that the specifics of like

How do the motions look? Is everything a magnet? Is it a particle or is it a fiber? This is in some ways like ornamentation. It's details that fall out of a deep agreement, which is like we have misconceived atoms terribly. We treat them as mathematical objects as opposed to- How do they agree with you?

We mistreated it. We constructed an atom model that cannot be existing in this universe. Atom has a planetary rotation type of atom. This kind of atom cannot stay on the test, say, with the conservation of energy. So everything is a perpetual motion machine.

How could this kind of atom exist? So that's what I'm going to just tell you what I discovered is there is no any motion part in the atom. So just like this kind of magnetic balls lumped together. So there, so, and then there isn't, and the reason is without this one is because we got, we, we defined the called the electron, negative charge particle because we got the electron wrong.

I just tell you my theory and you can see whether it makes sense to you. And how do we get the electron wrong? We assume the electron is single charged, negative charged or protons positive charged particle. I named them as a mono charged particle. So because I believe, I find mono charged particle cannot exist in this universe. This is a fact.

There's a funny clip we did on radio years ago, Dr. Brian Green on our show, where Dr. Hughes kept asking him if you could divide an electron, and it made Brian Green very triggered, and he went to lecture the audience for 10 minutes. Exactly.

David, let me just tell you the story. We interviewed Brian Greene years ago, right? That is pre-pandemic. Brian Greene came off like a nun who was chastising an unruly student for asking a subversive question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or something.

So that's what happened. You know, I, you guys, I consider you guys as peers and as a very smart, high intelligent. So that's why I'm so excited. I want to share my discovery with you. See if you can, we can come up with a consensus. The reason I found that the so-called single charge or mono charge cannot exist is purely based on Coulomb's law. Of course, I, okay, so let's, let's see. Electron,

No matter it's a physical concept, that's okay. It's abstract, it does not contain any matter, that's fine. But it has a mass, right? So, okay. So if electron, let's assume electron is the object. I just pick it up a circle.

And this object, we know it has mass because we measured even neutrinos. Neutrinos have a mass smaller than electrons, right? So we cannot say in this physical world, electrons are the smallest particle, right? We cannot say that since we discovered something is smaller. Okay, now my question is, see if it makes sense to you. Hypothetically, divide as two halves. Hypothetically.

Divide the two halves. You said, well, physically, you're based on what is a prank constant or something, you know, certain small, you cannot divide. We are not a physical divide. We are hypothetically divided. Can we do that one? Okay. Conceptual divide. Okay. Conceptual divide. Then what do we get? We divide a negative charged electron. So do we get a two half of negative charged electron?

I find that this somehow is a logical conclusion. So only three choices. If you divide by a next charged electron by half, either you have a two half of a next charged particle or you have one half next charged particle and one half positive charged particle or you have two halves all positive charged particle. Only three choices. So logical choice.

is you divide the negative charge particle, you should not come out with somehow smaller parts has a positive charge particle. Right? Okay. Let's assume you divide hypothetically, you know, geometrically, not physically. Okay. Geometrically, you make an electron smaller part. Can you put them back? Based on the Coulomb's law, if we have a like charge,

Lack of charge repel, that's Kuhn law and which I consider that is correct and the fundamental physics law. If hypothetically electron subdivided as two halves and you cannot put together two halves because violate the fundamental law of electricity or magnets. So that means lack of charge repel, opposite charge attract. Then if you cannot put them back together,

how could this particle existed in the first place well i mean our answer would be that it does the particle doesn't exist it's it's emotion it's it's an event and so what you're saying is if i destroy the event what happens when i try to make the event happen again and i'm like have you heard of kraut's law uh

I, I, I, I mean, it's a really old idea. That's probably been since, like, 1800s maybe. And there's, there's a couple of people that are kind of still playing with it. But it's the idea that, like, everything is multiples of hydrogen where it's like, hydrogen just happens to be the most fundamental orientation of matter. Right? It's like one positive, one negative, no neutron. It's just.

like the simplest structure. And then as you press hydrogens together in the great pressure at the center of stars, you start to get heavier and heavier and heavier elements because you're literally just squishing more hydrogens together. That sounds like a foundation of chemistry right now.

Yeah, he was a British chemist. Yeah, he was. And so it's like, I think that there's a lot of interesting thought experiments in like, okay, well, what happens when you break a hydrogen apart? What happens when you break a neutrino apart? Like, what is beta decay? Why do you get a proton and electron and like a little bit of extra squidgy energy? Right. But I think that the task of the next generation of physics is to come up with models that explain it.

It's already there. Yes. You said it comes next generation of model. I believe the model is already existing and I'm trying to explain to you. I believe you come back to say, it's not a particle, it's a motion. I try to define what is a particle and what's motion. Particle we define as a matter, is a amount of matter and it has volume.

It has mass. And I add one new thing which is absent from the history, is there's magnetism. But let's just say particle has matter. That means has matter. So this is a particle. Now you say it's not a real particle, it's a motion. Whenever we talk of motion, it's a description of the state of particles. That's what motion is. So motion at which state, at which location,

of the time. So motion cannot, you know, during that conference, during this podcast, Terence Howard actually used this one. When I asked him what is the fundamental particle, when electron, he tried to use motion, just like you said, use motion replace particle.

I did not counter him, right? But, you know, because that was not, we are not addressing the same point. But just say motion is described the state of the particle. You have the first, you have the particle and then you have a motion. Motion is a time, is a function of space versus time of this mass, right?

Yeah, I just want to make sure. I know you understand, but we may somehow just you talking about the motion over real particle. I feel like that's what the parents are talking about. I want to kind of lay out the plane here, but I just, you know, the whole, just the general principle, it seems like there's a lot of common agreement here. And like you said, we're working out a lot of the details that are, what was the word you used? Yeah.

Ornamentation. Ornamentation, yeah, I like that. So, you know, you have the general principle, I think we're on to the same thing. The question is, are we using different language to get there? Or maybe just different frameworks of thought. You know, Dr. Yu's theory, there is no photon. It's just this magnetic medium, these infinitely divisible little magnets that construct everything. And so would you say, what was the proper word that matter is?

And force have always existed eternally. Is that what you believe? Am I using the right word there? Force? Would you say force or field have always existed?

Who are you asking? Dr. Yu. Oh, yes. Yeah, I believe magnetism. Magnetism, you can say, is a dipole magnet, right? So for Dr. Yu, in the beginning, there was always an existing magnetic particle. Yeah, fundamental. Gravity is, what would you say? No, gravity is just too small when you have a magnetism in a particle.

gravity, the strength of gravity is equal to, what is it? So one charge of an electrical force, just like a one electron force, and equals to zero point, oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Let's say, so, oh, let's say one gravity, no, one, okay, one charge of electron and equals to

10 times 36 power of gravitational force. So that means gravity is so small. So that means zero point, you have to put 36 zeros and then one times

Electroforce. That's the standard of physics. The physics have a definition of the strength difference, right? So that means the difference between electroforce equivalent to 10 to the 36th power times of gravitation force. So that's the difference. So magnetic force is what binds galaxies together in your view, right? Yes.

Can I just be direct? What is magnetism to you? What is that? Is it just magic or what? Oh, yes. That's a good question. The original magnetism. The Kant theory says magnetism is due to spin or motion of electrons charged something. I said that there is no other charge than magnetic field. So-called charge. What is it? What makes the two magnets? Magnet force.

That's the effect, like what causes the force. Oh, right now I can only say the cause is number one, the cause is not the electron, any motion of the charge. There is no charge. The charge is static electro field in my theory. Static electro field, just the magnetic force, nothing else. What generates the magnetic force? Magnetic force naturally burns.

So it's just there. There's no cause. It's just like matter existed in the universe. We have a space-time and we have matter. And what I found is every single matter has to have a magnetic force in order to manifest all the universe we have. Without that force, because gravity is too small, gravity cannot bind any two particles together. And so I think that where we probably differ quite significantly

Is that we're like forces need causes. In a theory for me to be like, I like that theory, there cannot be anything that doesn't have an explanation. So I would actually, hold on, let me take one step back. I could clarify that. Go ahead. Well, physical theories need physical actors that are acting out the dances that give rise to the forces that present themselves experimentally.

And so you're left with the question of like, why is there something rather than nothing? Like, why does anything exist in the first place? Like, that's kind of like, I don't think that there's an explanation for that. Like, I don't think that there is a big bang. That becomes a religion's question. Exactly. Exactly. Like, let's leave it. Yes, yes. I know. I know that. You ask the key questions. That's right. I do not have, I know the origin of electrochart.

That's because from magnetic force. I know that one. I know the current theory turn around say, hey, origin of magnetic moment is from motion of electric charge. I said, that's wrong. Yeah, so I can say that one. But if based on the current theory, so what's the origin of a charge? I don't think that they can explain them either, right?

So in this case, I just say, electrical charge are magnetic force statically. Dynamic is a moving magnets, moving, that's a time varying magnetic field. That's called electrical field. That's based on the James Clark Maxwell's equation, right? You know, yeah, that's the, his equation, what is it? His third equation, you know, yeah. Electro, you know, time changing of magnetic field. That's B, right?

partial derivative of the B versus the time give you the electric field, right? I mean, I think this ultimately is a metaphysical question. It's like for us, physics has to begin with physical objects acting out some play that it gives rise to the phenomena. If your metaphysics says that there can just be disembodied forces that do stuff, then there's no amount of evidence or argumentation that will persuade you to come over to the other position.

So it's like we're not comfortable with disembodied forces having any sort of role in any physical theory without actors acting out the forces. But that's just our assumption about the universe because that's the way our everyday world seems to work, right? There's no forces. I wish somebody can tell me what is the origin of magnetic force. You know, I have good news. We are...

months away from publishing our book where we will lay out all of this. It's called Paradox Loss. It will be all about our model of the material atom. We will explain light, electricity, magnetism, gravity as the function of atoms and motion. So your smallest object is an atom? It's the fiber. Oh, fiber. So how is the fiber different than the stream?

In what sense? Oh, string theory, you know, smallest constituent is. So what's the difference? That's called a strand of energy. So what's your fiber? Well, the fiber has architecture and structure that allows it to engage with other fibers and be displaced or enmeshed with other fibers. And so the

The atom and all of its rarefied filaments which link the atoms to their neighbors are constructed from the same fiber, which is entirely hypothetical. It might be monotonous, it might be homogenous, it might be heterogeneous, there might be lots of different types of fiber. That's sort of what we use as the stand-in subunit for the atom and its extensions.

But the goal of the project is to explain all these phenomena as motions of that fiber and particular motions of that fiber in structures of the atom itself. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you're saying you guys reject the idea of a universe existing

purely and inherently as a disembodied force, you want an explanation as the creator, right? So you are talking about metaphysics, right? Well, we're just saying, like, what is physics if it's not starts with physical objects? Like, if it doesn't start with a material body... He's saying all matter has always existed eternally, and it's always magnetic in its property. Yeah, that's in my... And I would say that's not enough for... We're not arguing with that. Yeah.

I would say that's not enough for me. I would say I'm a Christian, so I would believe that there's a creator that's consciousness is imbued and magnetism is a physical description of what that consciousness might look like.

pervading in all particles. Look, there's a lot happening besides physics in the universe. If you need physics to describe the love you have for your wife, you've got problems. There's a lot of things happening that aren't physics. Physics is not the best approach to all of reality. But if we're going to do physics, then what the heck is it if it's not material bodies interacting with each other?

Like no spooky, weird stuff, no forces disembodied from reality, but like straight up material in motion. And your argument is if you can't explain why, uh,

matter has, in his view, fundamentally magnetic properties, then it's a just-so theory. Is that what you're saying? It's not that it's a just-so theory. It's that the theory must explain it in order to be brought to completion. In order to be physical, ultimately. That would be a perfect condition. Does your fiber carry charge? The motion of the fiber in organized

Structures. Structures produces charge, which is part of the atom. Like we have it, we have it, we have a preliminary version of it worked out that addresses all of the questions that we had when we started on this project. And we're going to put it out into the world and we want people to see

show us where it falls apart for them to explain the pieces that are missing because I don't think it's like a theory of everything. It's a way of taking what is apparent and trying to come up with some way that it hangs together in a way that makes more sense than equations.

I just make a prediction. So once you publish it, I hope people accept it, you know, look at everything logically. But I would say, hey, your fiber is made by you, the fundamental particle just connected.

magnetically connected as fibers. So everything they approve you, I would say, hey, fiber made by yuan particles, by magnetic particles. That's what I would say. So in your opinion, what substance made fiber? What's fiber made of?

Probably more fiber. Does every theory at some point have a just-so, like one just-so factor?

Yes, because I believe in like a creator service. Well, you just posited that to make everything fit. Well, everybody has one just so, right? You can't explain everything. What's a hypothesis? That's what a hypothesis is. You draw the boundary conditions on your theory. You don't explain everything all at once. You explain something and you use a hypothesis to do it. It's like the fiber is the hypothesis. If the atom is constructed of subunits of some form or size...

then their interactions should be sufficient to give rise to all of the atomic phenomenon that we see. And so the motions are individually explaining the phenomena,

But the fiber is just the hypothetical substance of the subunits of the atom itself. And so there's tremendous amounts of work to be done, even if this turns out to be a useful model for people. Because like Nastya said, it's not a theory of everything. It's just a framework for approaching extant knowledge about the atom. I just say that these are the things that need to happen. We need to have these conversations. And we need to find out what we agree with. I don't think you guys probably think much of

The reigning theories, it sounds like. You're not a fan of probably dark matter and dark energy and all these things that are antimatter. All these classical kind of tropes of modern pop science, views of physics, black holes. These are things that we, in my opinion, I don't find them to be very persuasive as existing.

At some point, when you realize that a reigning paradigm has enough holes in it, there's enough anomalies that are just not able to be explained anywhere near accuracy by it, there needs to be kind of a coalition dialogue that comes along where people can present some common agreements about what we are saying is real and what's not real, and then, like you said, working out the details, the ornamentals,

We can't put that, and I'm not saying anybody's doing that. I'm just saying in general, I think in the alternative science community that I've seen, like you said, everybody's always trying to say, I've got the final answer. And I've always told Dr. Yu, Dr. Yu truly believes he's figured it out. And I always say, look, I think he's got the best map I've seen. I want the best map because ultimately physics is a mental concept. It's a map to describe it is not the thing.

And the thing is what we're all living through reality, and to me, taking it back to the practical reality is we are living in an artificially dark age. We don't need to be there. And I believe that if we get a more accurate map

If Dr. Yu's map gets me much of where I need to see where the new world is, that I'm going to get on that. I'm going to get on my boat with that map and I'm going to go chart and head over to where I know I'm going to find something there. And maybe he didn't get one little div. I don't know. We'll see.

Because we won't know until we know. But, you know, that's kind of my practical approach to things is that his map is more accurate than any map I've seen so far. But I'd love to see other maps and see how they – I'd love to see – you know, I love it when independent things confirm a similar pattern up the mountain or whatever.

Like when I asked Dr. Yu, I said, what are some things that would be possible, and theoretically, if yuan is the only particle and it makes up our body, and therefore every particle in our body has a magnetic field and frequency and vibration and all these things, and I would ask him random questions like, well, what would you do with cancer if your theory is correct? And he said, I would take an antibiotic. And then he would explain the physics of how he saw antibiotics working in relation to the physics of a cancer cell.

And then I found a guy independently who was doing just that. He stumbled onto using doxycycline and azithromycin to cure breast cancer and metastatic cancer stem cells dramatically. Dr. Michael Lasanti at Southford University. He hadn't seen his work, but it's just the example that when you're pursuing the truth, it tends to coalesce in certain directions. Another thing I asked him was,

If your theory is correct, what's another thing? And he said you would be able to create elemental transmutation, you know, without, you know, taking elements. And then I find an independent guy named the late, great Dr. John Malusky. I don't know if you've ever heard of him, but he was a chemical engineer. We got to know. And he's taking glass and turning it into gold and platinum, rhodium and iridium using applied magnetic fields.

Just like Dr. Yu predicted to me. He didn't know about John Maluski's work prior to me finding him. Because Dr. Yu was content to just have his theory. And I was like, I was dragging him to make predictions. No, you're going to make predictions. Give me just random things that I'll ask you and tell me if we could, you know. And things like, you know, nuclear fusion is never going to work. Hot thermonuclear fusion is never going to work, according to Dr. Yu. It would be some type of lower temperature, right, LENR type thing.

and nuclear reactions would be something that we could pursue. These are things that we need to have on the table instead of allowing them to always be relegated to the fringe world because the world is suffering from this artificial level of scarcity of resources where we have to fight over mineral rights instead of creating new elements through trash. We could take trash and recycle them into rare earth elements without fighting over mineral rights.

We could have low-temperature nuclear reactors powering our HOAs or whatever, our communities, without having to worry about a Fukushima-level fear approach or having to pay the piper at the gas pump every day with these artificial wars. Or you could have, like you said, antibiotics or something else, B vitamins like my friend Georgie Dinkov or Thomas Seyfried, who I know you guys have had on. He's been on our show since 2017.

These are folks who are using the metabolic approach, which I think is downstream from something about what we're all talking about, you know, and whether it's electromagnetism or do you have a word for the fibers and the energy? Do you have a medium? Do you have a word for what's going on there with the dance? Material atomics.

Material? Material atomics. Okay. Is that the name of the theory or the energy or the life force? It's not really a theory. It's just a framework for approaching interpretation of experiments. Interesting. So what is like, do you have a word for life force or whatever, energy, magnetic, you know, electromagnetic? You said bioelectricity. Do you like that word or?

I mean, I think that we just we take the stuff that is a parents like there's metabolism. How do you explain metabolism? Cancer? How do you explain cancer? It's like, we're really careful to not be like, we have a theory. We're just like, I think we have a way of seeing things that might be helpful. Right? That's really like where it begins and ends. And you said something that I think is so important and so accurate, which is that things have gone off the rails.

I think we've mined out the paradigms that have worked for a long time, whether that's medicine or physics or chemistry or whatever else. And now we're in this intellectual foment where something has to replace the old ways of doing it and something will win because it is the thing that lets us do the most. The same way that like mathematics won because mathematics let us

do stuff on the basis of the equations.

Right. It's like the whole of the Industrial Revolution is powered by a bunch of equations. Everything that we're doing right now is powered by the equations and they worked. And I think that, Dr. Yu, you're on the right, the same tick as us, which is that, hey, perhaps there is some other way of conceptualizing things, of building mental models, of seeing things in the mind's eye that lets you accomplish something more than the math does.

And so I feel very reassured that you're out there and you're working on it and that there's tons of other people. And that's what we do with the podcast. We have this conference in Portugal called Beyond the Big Bang, where we're doing it for astrophysics. We're writing this book. It's a massive project. Like the podcast is a tiny thread of the new vision we have for the world, which is

countless minds, curious people trying to figure out what's next, what works better, what will get us to post-scarcity, what will allow us to have a world where nobody's hungry and nobody's cold and nobody's dying in wars. Let's get somewhere good. And the specifics of how the theory works is less important than does it get you down the road?

But it's the inciting incident, if you want to use that metaphor of the hero's journey, of like the inciting incident that shakes you out of your comfort zone to say, this is the Matrix. I don't want to be here anymore. I don't care about black holes. I don't want to live in this artificially induced dark age. Get me out of here. And then that, just like Dr. Yu had with his insight about what is light, and he starts going down this thought process, and then I see it, and I'm like,

I've got to live in this artificially scarce economy that's designed to fail for the vast majority of human life within this system. We can't do this anymore. We're not going to be ruled by finance. We have to... And so in my view, I look at stories like with Jesus feeding the fish and loaves to the 5,000 as a prophecy of what's going to happen in real life when people use nonviolent creative action, not...

petitioning the government or corporations to solve problems, but like you said, having these kind of conversations. And then when you have, everybody always says, well, they'll kill and they kill all the people who do the great science and they stole Nikola Tesla's documents. That's like this learned helpless mythology that we all have to never do anything bold or big because it's like, well, if you go past that line, they'll arrest you and put you back in the prison system. It's like, that's a learned helplessness.

And we can't let that mindset control the way we think about this stuff. And I'm glad that you guys are doing this because so few people, they tend to OD on red pills once they take a couple of them and they just go way, way into la-la land where you're coming up with all kinds of strange things or, again, making conspiratorial claims

fear-mongering be the dominant. Well, there's nothing we can do to stop people who predate us because they will assassinate. Well, no, if you have like thousands of podcasts and live streamers and independent media covering the next Nikola Tesla type discovery or invention that's downstream from these dialogues,

that are filled with the truth, then it becomes harder to stop an idea. Or like I like to say, no army can stop an incarnation whose time has come. Because it's not about the idea, it's about the incarnation of it. We're going to have 24-7 energy panels, right?

We're going to have anti-gravity. That's what we're talking about, and that's what we're working on with some of our friends in our group. So I'm glad that you guys are doing that, and let's stay in touch because our show has become kind of an information clearinghouse where there's a lot of stuff happening off the show. That's kind of the tip of the iceberg effect where the show is the tip of the iceberg, and we're having a lot of fun behind the scenes with the folks that we get to meet. I appreciate you guys coming on. So people can go to what website if they're interested in your conference?

DemystifySci.com. All right. And subscribe to Demystify Sci on YouTube. You guys are not getting throttled or anything. We got obliterated for a while on YouTube. They had deleted my channel during COVID. Oh, wow. So we had to go, but they brought it back. Took off half the videos, but we, you know.

Yeah, there's been some stuff. There will be spies. There will be saboteurs. But ultimately, the good guys always win. That's what I believe. Well, thank you guys for coming on. Dr. Yu, thanks for coming on. Thank you. I just want the audience to know we both share a lot of common agreement.

We all see the mystified, this is called the mystery. We see a lot of unexplained mysteries existing in the physics. So that's how we all try to make it better to audience. So I like that demystify, that word. I sometimes use in my presentation, I call the unlocking mystery of universe something and the demystify science. So thank you. You know, I

I love our exchange of ideas. Hopefully we keep in contact. Thank you so much for having us. Thank you both. Have a wonderful rest of your night.