正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Eric Weinstein dropped a chilling theory on Joe Rogan. Physics became “too dangerous” after the first hydrogen bomb in 1952. From that point on, the most powerful scientific community on Earth was gradually made ineffective through gatekeeping, early peer review systems, and other controls — all to prevent ideas...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

452,099 subscribers

186,477 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 次观看 • 1 年前

Joe Rogan learns the real reason for all the missing scientists from Eric Weinstein: ROGAN: “So what exactly are these scientists that went missing working on that’s so dangerous?” WEINSTEIN: “It’s really important to do great gatekeeping around mathematics and physics. It’s cryptography, it’s weaponry, and it’s propulsion.” ROGAN: “If some guy has cutting edge technology that could wipe out the fossil fuels industry it’s in their best financial interest to kill the guy at the top of this research to delay this technology 10 more years to make another $15 trillion dollars.”
1:57

Joe Rogan learns the real reason for all the missing scientists from Eric Weinstein: ROGAN: “So what exactly are these scientists that went missing working on that’s so dangerous?” WEINSTEIN: “It’s really important to do great gatekeeping around mathematics and physics. It’s cryptography, it’s weaponry, and it’s propulsion.” ROGAN: “If some guy has cutting edge technology that could wipe out the fossil fuels industry it’s in their best financial interest to kill the guy at the top of this research to delay this technology 10 more years to make another $15 trillion dollars.”

Joe Rogan Recaps

282,923 次观看 • 2 个月前

Eric Weinstein unleashes a chilling take on physics: The field froze in 1973—no meaningful change to the Lagrangian (the core mathematical engine of physics) since then, despite decades of effort. "No new ideas about how to change the Lagrangian that anybody finds exciting... Nobody goes to Stockholm to get a Nobel Prize because they changed the Lagrangian of the world." He argues a bizarre force field slams anyone exploring truly revolutionary ideas—like multiple dimensions of time or breakthroughs that could upend power balances—while physics is the only profession without full free speech. Under the "Restricted Data" doctrine (from the 1946/1954 Atomic Energy Acts & "Born Secret"), any new physics insight that might relate to nuclear weapons becomes classified the instant it's written or spoken—even if you're not in government. Violate it? You could face Espionage Act charges, potentially capital offenses. Weinstein's bet: There's no secret government physics office holding breakthroughs. Instead, smart people long ago decided open physics was too dangerous—because real advances could hand the President fusion power or worse. "The Department of Energy is really the Department of Physics... We're scared of the possibility of physics? We don't even want to talk about it." Clip from this 3:49 mind-bender—physics as the silenced superpower. Does this explain the stagnation... or is string theory just a dead-end distraction? Is physics deliberately "safe" to avoid existential risks? Your take—drop it below.
3:49

Eric Weinstein unleashes a chilling take on physics: The field froze in 1973—no meaningful change to the Lagrangian (the core mathematical engine of physics) since then, despite decades of effort. "No new ideas about how to change the Lagrangian that anybody finds exciting... Nobody goes to Stockholm to get a Nobel Prize because they changed the Lagrangian of the world." He argues a bizarre force field slams anyone exploring truly revolutionary ideas—like multiple dimensions of time or breakthroughs that could upend power balances—while physics is the only profession without full free speech. Under the "Restricted Data" doctrine (from the 1946/1954 Atomic Energy Acts & "Born Secret"), any new physics insight that might relate to nuclear weapons becomes classified the instant it's written or spoken—even if you're not in government. Violate it? You could face Espionage Act charges, potentially capital offenses. Weinstein's bet: There's no secret government physics office holding breakthroughs. Instead, smart people long ago decided open physics was too dangerous—because real advances could hand the President fusion power or worse. "The Department of Energy is really the Department of Physics... We're scared of the possibility of physics? We don't even want to talk about it." Clip from this 3:49 mind-bender—physics as the silenced superpower. Does this explain the stagnation... or is string theory just a dead-end distraction? Is physics deliberately "safe" to avoid existential risks? Your take—drop it below.

Camus

20,754 次观看 • 4 个月前

Eric Weinstein: "I know what some of these UAP are but I can't tell you" He told Joe Rogan "We've lost control of our own airspace, and undisclosed special access programs are at the center of it" Weinstein connects UAP incursions, secret programs, and real physics implications including how this ties into breakthroughs like Geometric Unity that challenge suppressed or hidden tech. He highlights the shutdown of El Paso airspace, linking it directly to White Sands: "I think we have a problem that we've lost control of our airspace." Weinstein points to multiple sources confirming patterns too consistent to dismiss, from craft sightings to programs operating outside normal channels that may involve advanced physics we're not publicly pursuing. This isn't fringe speculation it's about how undisclosed efforts could be holding back or redirecting major scientific progress while our skies are no longer fully ours. The conversation gets heavy on the real world stakes for physics and national security.
8:36

Eric Weinstein: "I know what some of these UAP are but I can't tell you" He told Joe Rogan "We've lost control of our own airspace, and undisclosed special access programs are at the center of it" Weinstein connects UAP incursions, secret programs, and real physics implications including how this ties into breakthroughs like Geometric Unity that challenge suppressed or hidden tech. He highlights the shutdown of El Paso airspace, linking it directly to White Sands: "I think we have a problem that we've lost control of our airspace." Weinstein points to multiple sources confirming patterns too consistent to dismiss, from craft sightings to programs operating outside normal channels that may involve advanced physics we're not publicly pursuing. This isn't fringe speculation it's about how undisclosed efforts could be holding back or redirecting major scientific progress while our skies are no longer fully ours. The conversation gets heavy on the real world stakes for physics and national security.

Interstellar

135,327 次观看 • 2 个月前

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project
1:09

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project

Shane Parrish

63,966 次观看 • 6 个月前

ELON: WE MUST STRIVE TO EXTEND BEYOND EARTH Elon: “A future where we are a spacefaring civilization and out there among the stars, I think that's very exciting. That is a thing we want. Whereas if you knew we would not be a spacefaring civilization but forever confined to Earth, this would not be a good future. That would be very sad, I think.” Joe Rogan: “Is it sad that we never leave because in 500 million years, the sun is going to boil the oceans?” Elon: “No, I just think if there are two futures and one future is we're out there among the stars and the things we read about and see in science fiction movies, the good ones, are true. We have these starships and we're going to see what other planets are like. We're a multiplanet species, and the scope and scale of consciousness is expanded across many civilizations and many planets and many star systems. This is a great future. This is a wonderful thing to me and that's what we should strive for.” Source: Elon Musk on The Joe Rogan Experience Joe Rogan, September 2018
1:05

ELON: WE MUST STRIVE TO EXTEND BEYOND EARTH Elon: “A future where we are a spacefaring civilization and out there among the stars, I think that's very exciting. That is a thing we want. Whereas if you knew we would not be a spacefaring civilization but forever confined to Earth, this would not be a good future. That would be very sad, I think.” Joe Rogan: “Is it sad that we never leave because in 500 million years, the sun is going to boil the oceans?” Elon: “No, I just think if there are two futures and one future is we're out there among the stars and the things we read about and see in science fiction movies, the good ones, are true. We have these starships and we're going to see what other planets are like. We're a multiplanet species, and the scope and scale of consciousness is expanded across many civilizations and many planets and many star systems. This is a great future. This is a wonderful thing to me and that's what we should strive for.” Source: Elon Musk on The Joe Rogan Experience Joe Rogan, September 2018

Mario Nawfal

70,920 次观看 • 7 个月前

A Proposal for Joe Rogan The MH370 videos are never going away. They are what really happened to the plane. The science will be proven in the future. Joe Rogan has been talking to people corroborating the same things this investigation has independently uncovered. My offer is to bring any expert from any field onto the show to debate my arguments. If at the end of the show you think I'm being in any way disingenuous or you just don't believe the videos can be authentic, I will agree to not mention the missing plane for a full year. Even people who think the videos are fake should find this offer appealing because they want me to stop talking about the case. This is the only way that happens. I am willing to put everything on the line for a single chance to convince the world that we have exotic technology that will reinterpret the laws of physics as we understand them. #MH370x #MH370
2:32

A Proposal for Joe Rogan The MH370 videos are never going away. They are what really happened to the plane. The science will be proven in the future. Joe Rogan has been talking to people corroborating the same things this investigation has independently uncovered. My offer is to bring any expert from any field onto the show to debate my arguments. If at the end of the show you think I'm being in any way disingenuous or you just don't believe the videos can be authentic, I will agree to not mention the missing plane for a full year. Even people who think the videos are fake should find this offer appealing because they want me to stop talking about the case. This is the only way that happens. I am willing to put everything on the line for a single chance to convince the world that we have exotic technology that will reinterpret the laws of physics as we understand them. #MH370x #MH370

Ashton Forbes

453,762 次观看 • 2 年前

“How confident are you that what you believe about the cosmos today will still hold a century from now?” ⁠ The legendary Astronomer Royal Martin Rees on the limits of knowledge: “In any science, you want to go beyond what we understand. In cosmology, it’s still conjectural what happened in that initial fraction of a second. These ideas will certainly change. The point is that when we go back to one second--and even perhaps to a millisecond--after the Big Bang, the physics was what we think we understand, because we can test it in the lab. But as you extrapolate further, the conditions become more and more extreme, beyond anything we can reproduce on Earth. And so it remains very speculative.”
1:29

“How confident are you that what you believe about the cosmos today will still hold a century from now?” ⁠ The legendary Astronomer Royal Martin Rees on the limits of knowledge: “In any science, you want to go beyond what we understand. In cosmology, it’s still conjectural what happened in that initial fraction of a second. These ideas will certainly change. The point is that when we go back to one second--and even perhaps to a millisecond--after the Big Bang, the physics was what we think we understand, because we can test it in the lab. But as you extrapolate further, the conditions become more and more extreme, beyond anything we can reproduce on Earth. And so it remains very speculative.”

Michael Shermer

20,734 次观看 • 11 个月前

"Very often what happens is that the architects die, and they leave a zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era." The whole time I was watching the discussion between Jesse Michels and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis, I felt like there was some darker thing lurking beneath the surface that connects the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics as a scientific discipline, the extreme secrecy surrounding the alleged UAP crash retrieval/reverse engineering program and the lack of any theoretical physicists working the problem, and the government's stated intention to control (per Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸) the future of AI -- a future where there's no point investing in AI startups because “we [the government] are going to make sure that AI is going to be a function of two or three large companies. We will directly regulate and control those companies. There will be no startups.” And there's the other part Andreessen recounted from his White House meeting. He was told by the [Biden] administration that "During the Cold War, we [the federal government] classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community — entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. If we decide we need to [for AI/math], we're going to do the same thing." Take a minute and think about that, because it's actually chilling. A clear precedent has been cited here -- one none of us knew about before Andreessen brought it to our attention -- and it raises two big questions: 1) Why? 2) HOW? Weinstein returns multiple times in this episode to the diminishingly small number of people who have the capacity to operate at the highest levels of physics and math. And whenever you have a small number of people who act as the natural gating function for something incredibly powerful, it's not a leap to imagine an additional layer of control being placed on them by pressure from outside. Whether that's through legal threats like "born secret," NDAs, direct threats of physical harm, money, regulation, etc., there are ways to lock down the gatekeepers so that they never do the thing -- at least not in public -- that the most powerful people in the world don't want them to do. Weinstein kept saying, about both the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics and the lack of physicists working the UAP problem, "this makes no sense." But it does make sense if you shift the frame to, "they don't want us to find the answers and are actively trying to stop us." The feeling I kept getting as I watched this fascinating discussion was that the legacy crash retrieval program used to have a lot more direct oversight and funding decades ago, but that the compartmentalization and secrecy around it turned it into more and more of an oxbow lake, and that as it got cut off from the conventional scientific community and defense establishment, it became more secretive, less well-funded, and less coordinated. So it kind of became its own siloed-off thing that fewer and fewer people knew about, but the people who did still know protected the territory fiercely. And then came the era of AAWSAP and AATIP and UAPTF, and without the deep, secret, institutional knowledge held by members of the legacy program, they tried to piece together what had happened in the past while not being able to penetrate the sort of firewall that existed partially because of controlled secrecy, and partially because of the firewalling effect of time. They were doing a lot of cold case file work, while running into the deepest of deep state secrecy efforts. That secrecy, at least based on my reading of the situation, was instituted decades ago, when the atomic-era scientific community (mostly the same group of geniuses that were at the top of the Manhattan Project) got together and -- probably at the behest of of the US government -- decided physics was becoming too dangerous if it continued down the path that it was on. So, as my spitball theory goes, they intentionally beached the entire enterprise on the shoals of string theory and quantized gravity and all the stuff Weinstein talks about everywhere he goes -- the "dogs that won't hunt" that are also "the only game in town." The very theories that have, in the real world, run physics aground. So let's come back to Andreessen's point here: they classified entire branches of physics and took them out of the research community, while real physics went off on a wild goose chase that has yielded precious few demonstrable results in the past half century or so. The effect is that the physics community has been off the scent for so long that anyone old enough to have held the knowledge that was shoved back into Pandora's proverbial box through extreme secrecy measures is now dead. And their taking of that knowledge to the grave may well be a critical part of the secrecy effort. Dead physicists tell no tales. I have this eerie sense that we scared ourselves shitless with certain discoveries (likely knowledge that followed from nuclear physics, which is itself still highly protected and curtailed) and decided that the only way to stop our headlong rush into world-ending catastrophe was to literally bury the knowledge and wait until everyone who had it died off. The government looks, at least to me, to have cauterized a destructive branch in the scientific timeline like they were the Time Variance Authority from Marvel comics. 80 years of claimed zero-progress in reverse-engineering alleged crashed or recovered UAPs. 40+ years of dead-ended physics. Only two or three major AI companies, one of which is now in a fight to the death with the Department of War. And the rumors that AI has "plateaued" or even "dead-ended" in its progress that keep springing up has potential echoes in the AI world of physics being diverted into String Theory. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist. I can't examine all the deeper particulars because I have neither the knowledge or the training. I only have surface level pattern recognition, and that tells me it all feels connected. The problem for the gatekeepers is that you can't bury knowledge that has been discovered once indefinitely. It's certain that all of this will be figured out again. And as Weinstein pointed out about a couple of non-physicists who figured out how to piece together nuclear weapons based on declassified information and publicly available knowledge, it IS happening. But it seems that at least on the individual basis, those green shoots are being pruned. Weinstein asks why none of the people who funded his education are "interested" in his Grand Unifying Theory. Weinstein is too well-known and too well-respected to just be taken out of play. They can't buy him off. They can't make him disappear without drawing more attention. So maybe they just hope that Geometric Unity will die on its own. Maybe they are behind the attacks on GU as something totally unserious. Maybe they have found a way to make other members of the physics community willing to look away. So, my question about this larger hypothetical operation to stop dangerous science and math is this: was it really just a massive kicking of the can down the road. Did they hoped it would buy us time? And if so, to what end? What are they waiting for? Can this game really be played forever? Maybe they think it can. Maybe they have an ongoing directive to keep suppressing this knowledge for as long as possible, and perhaps there's some secret core group whose job is to be the perpetual gatekeepers of potentially civilization-ending secrets. Maybe the Epstein connection to all of this was precisely because he was part of the operation to discover who was doing forbidden work and assess their progress. Maybe that's why, when he met Weinstein, he knew so much about GU. It's impossible to say with any certainty, but as a theory, it does have some real explanatory power. I find myself thinking of the fictional Brothers of the Cruciform Sword in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- a small, ancient, secret society whose job it was to keep tabs on people looking for the Holy Grail and stop them, so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Are we following the same track here? Could this, as crazy as it sounds, be the missing connective tissue in this mystery?
5:42

"Very often what happens is that the architects die, and they leave a zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era." The whole time I was watching the discussion between Jesse Michels and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis, I felt like there was some darker thing lurking beneath the surface that connects the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics as a scientific discipline, the extreme secrecy surrounding the alleged UAP crash retrieval/reverse engineering program and the lack of any theoretical physicists working the problem, and the government's stated intention to control (per Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸) the future of AI -- a future where there's no point investing in AI startups because “we [the government] are going to make sure that AI is going to be a function of two or three large companies. We will directly regulate and control those companies. There will be no startups.” And there's the other part Andreessen recounted from his White House meeting. He was told by the [Biden] administration that "During the Cold War, we [the federal government] classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community — entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. If we decide we need to [for AI/math], we're going to do the same thing." Take a minute and think about that, because it's actually chilling. A clear precedent has been cited here -- one none of us knew about before Andreessen brought it to our attention -- and it raises two big questions: 1) Why? 2) HOW? Weinstein returns multiple times in this episode to the diminishingly small number of people who have the capacity to operate at the highest levels of physics and math. And whenever you have a small number of people who act as the natural gating function for something incredibly powerful, it's not a leap to imagine an additional layer of control being placed on them by pressure from outside. Whether that's through legal threats like "born secret," NDAs, direct threats of physical harm, money, regulation, etc., there are ways to lock down the gatekeepers so that they never do the thing -- at least not in public -- that the most powerful people in the world don't want them to do. Weinstein kept saying, about both the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics and the lack of physicists working the UAP problem, "this makes no sense." But it does make sense if you shift the frame to, "they don't want us to find the answers and are actively trying to stop us." The feeling I kept getting as I watched this fascinating discussion was that the legacy crash retrieval program used to have a lot more direct oversight and funding decades ago, but that the compartmentalization and secrecy around it turned it into more and more of an oxbow lake, and that as it got cut off from the conventional scientific community and defense establishment, it became more secretive, less well-funded, and less coordinated. So it kind of became its own siloed-off thing that fewer and fewer people knew about, but the people who did still know protected the territory fiercely. And then came the era of AAWSAP and AATIP and UAPTF, and without the deep, secret, institutional knowledge held by members of the legacy program, they tried to piece together what had happened in the past while not being able to penetrate the sort of firewall that existed partially because of controlled secrecy, and partially because of the firewalling effect of time. They were doing a lot of cold case file work, while running into the deepest of deep state secrecy efforts. That secrecy, at least based on my reading of the situation, was instituted decades ago, when the atomic-era scientific community (mostly the same group of geniuses that were at the top of the Manhattan Project) got together and -- probably at the behest of of the US government -- decided physics was becoming too dangerous if it continued down the path that it was on. So, as my spitball theory goes, they intentionally beached the entire enterprise on the shoals of string theory and quantized gravity and all the stuff Weinstein talks about everywhere he goes -- the "dogs that won't hunt" that are also "the only game in town." The very theories that have, in the real world, run physics aground. So let's come back to Andreessen's point here: they classified entire branches of physics and took them out of the research community, while real physics went off on a wild goose chase that has yielded precious few demonstrable results in the past half century or so. The effect is that the physics community has been off the scent for so long that anyone old enough to have held the knowledge that was shoved back into Pandora's proverbial box through extreme secrecy measures is now dead. And their taking of that knowledge to the grave may well be a critical part of the secrecy effort. Dead physicists tell no tales. I have this eerie sense that we scared ourselves shitless with certain discoveries (likely knowledge that followed from nuclear physics, which is itself still highly protected and curtailed) and decided that the only way to stop our headlong rush into world-ending catastrophe was to literally bury the knowledge and wait until everyone who had it died off. The government looks, at least to me, to have cauterized a destructive branch in the scientific timeline like they were the Time Variance Authority from Marvel comics. 80 years of claimed zero-progress in reverse-engineering alleged crashed or recovered UAPs. 40+ years of dead-ended physics. Only two or three major AI companies, one of which is now in a fight to the death with the Department of War. And the rumors that AI has "plateaued" or even "dead-ended" in its progress that keep springing up has potential echoes in the AI world of physics being diverted into String Theory. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist. I can't examine all the deeper particulars because I have neither the knowledge or the training. I only have surface level pattern recognition, and that tells me it all feels connected. The problem for the gatekeepers is that you can't bury knowledge that has been discovered once indefinitely. It's certain that all of this will be figured out again. And as Weinstein pointed out about a couple of non-physicists who figured out how to piece together nuclear weapons based on declassified information and publicly available knowledge, it IS happening. But it seems that at least on the individual basis, those green shoots are being pruned. Weinstein asks why none of the people who funded his education are "interested" in his Grand Unifying Theory. Weinstein is too well-known and too well-respected to just be taken out of play. They can't buy him off. They can't make him disappear without drawing more attention. So maybe they just hope that Geometric Unity will die on its own. Maybe they are behind the attacks on GU as something totally unserious. Maybe they have found a way to make other members of the physics community willing to look away. So, my question about this larger hypothetical operation to stop dangerous science and math is this: was it really just a massive kicking of the can down the road. Did they hoped it would buy us time? And if so, to what end? What are they waiting for? Can this game really be played forever? Maybe they think it can. Maybe they have an ongoing directive to keep suppressing this knowledge for as long as possible, and perhaps there's some secret core group whose job is to be the perpetual gatekeepers of potentially civilization-ending secrets. Maybe the Epstein connection to all of this was precisely because he was part of the operation to discover who was doing forbidden work and assess their progress. Maybe that's why, when he met Weinstein, he knew so much about GU. It's impossible to say with any certainty, but as a theory, it does have some real explanatory power. I find myself thinking of the fictional Brothers of the Cruciform Sword in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- a small, ancient, secret society whose job it was to keep tabs on people looking for the Holy Grail and stop them, so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Are we following the same track here? Could this, as crazy as it sounds, be the missing connective tissue in this mystery?

Steve Skojec

13,976 次观看 • 4 个月前

💬 what is the song that you think turned out the best, or the one who have the most affection for (excluding the one being released now) 🍑 i think it’s super. it was a song that turned seventeen into heroes. when i think about it now, how did we even manage to practice it like that. looking back it is still unbelievable, we matched so well, everything fell into place for this song to be made. we really became heroes through that song, so it is my all time favourite song
0:51

💬 what is the song that you think turned out the best, or the one who have the most affection for (excluding the one being released now) 🍑 i think it’s super. it was a song that turned seventeen into heroes. when i think about it now, how did we even manage to practice it like that. looking back it is still unbelievable, we matched so well, everything fell into place for this song to be made. we really became heroes through that song, so it is my all time favourite song

🌌

261,160 次观看 • 1 年前

Physicist William Happer and MIT's Richard Lindzen just went on the Joe Rogan podcast. For once, real physicists, not activists, got mainstream airtime. "The theory that CO2 is the climate's control knob doesn't work," said Happer. He added that Lindzen and others could have made far more progress "if they hadn't been forced to deal with this CO2 cult." Rogan agreed, himself calling the movement "religious" and "cult-like." Most activists don't understand the science, they just repeat what fits their ideology and parrot the failed forecasts made by bad actors. But the tide is turning, and the science is finally being heard.
0:34

Physicist William Happer and MIT's Richard Lindzen just went on the Joe Rogan podcast. For once, real physicists, not activists, got mainstream airtime. "The theory that CO2 is the climate's control knob doesn't work," said Happer. He added that Lindzen and others could have made far more progress "if they hadn't been forced to deal with this CO2 cult." Rogan agreed, himself calling the movement "religious" and "cult-like." Most activists don't understand the science, they just repeat what fits their ideology and parrot the failed forecasts made by bad actors. But the tide is turning, and the science is finally being heard.

Electroverse

61,155 次观看 • 4 个月前

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.
4:05

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.

Camus

536,973 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨 BREAKING: Eric Weinstein convinced interstellar UFOs prove unknown physics beyond general relativity! 😱🛸👽 "UFOs are impossible to reverse-engineer with our current laws of physics." “Isn’t it much more plausible that if craft were true… that it’s basically proof that general relativity is a constricting framework, and that there’s something beyond it?” "I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with general relativity." Eric Davis: “I agree with that.” Weinstein: “So why are you using general relativity?” Does this mean deep state projects have secretly unlocked new physics? What do you think— are we on the brink of a physics revolution? Have you seen evidence of advanced tech? #UFO #Physics
3:29

🚨 BREAKING: Eric Weinstein convinced interstellar UFOs prove unknown physics beyond general relativity! 😱🛸👽 "UFOs are impossible to reverse-engineer with our current laws of physics." “Isn’t it much more plausible that if craft were true… that it’s basically proof that general relativity is a constricting framework, and that there’s something beyond it?” "I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with general relativity." Eric Davis: “I agree with that.” Weinstein: “So why are you using general relativity?” Does this mean deep state projects have secretly unlocked new physics? What do you think— are we on the brink of a physics revolution? Have you seen evidence of advanced tech? #UFO #Physics

Interstellar

112,029 次观看 • 4 个月前

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.
0:54

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨🛸 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan just dropped a BOMBSHELL! She's seen evidence of ALIEN TECH so advanced, it's like handing an iPhone to a caveman—we can't even grasp how it works! 😱🛸 What could this tech look like? Imagine seamless anti-gravity propulsion that defies physics, self-healing materials that regenerate like living tissue, or quantum computers that process thoughts faster than light. Mind-bending stuff that could rewrite energy, travel, and reality itself! Can we reverse engineer it? Absolutely—humans are ingenious! Think how we cracked the atom or mapped the genome. With global collab (and maybe some AI help 😉), we'll unlock it eventually. But what if it's booby-trapped? Or requires alien biology? Wild possibilities! Watch the clip below and tell me: Do you believe her? What's YOUR theory on alien tech? 👽🔥 #UFO #AlienTech #JoeRogan #AnnaPaulinaLuna #Extraterrestrial
0:27

🚨🛸 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan just dropped a BOMBSHELL! She's seen evidence of ALIEN TECH so advanced, it's like handing an iPhone to a caveman—we can't even grasp how it works! 😱🛸 What could this tech look like? Imagine seamless anti-gravity propulsion that defies physics, self-healing materials that regenerate like living tissue, or quantum computers that process thoughts faster than light. Mind-bending stuff that could rewrite energy, travel, and reality itself! Can we reverse engineer it? Absolutely—humans are ingenious! Think how we cracked the atom or mapped the genome. With global collab (and maybe some AI help 😉), we'll unlock it eventually. But what if it's booby-trapped? Or requires alien biology? Wild possibilities! Watch the clip below and tell me: Do you believe her? What's YOUR theory on alien tech? 👽🔥 #UFO #AlienTech #JoeRogan #AnnaPaulinaLuna #Extraterrestrial

Interstellar

31,728 次观看 • 6 个月前

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”
1:31

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 次观看 • 1 年前

SpaceX builds rockets. Rockets run on chemical propulsion. Chemical propulsion has a ceiling. It can reach Mars. Maybe deeper into the solar system. But interstellar travel requires physics that doesn’t exist yet. Weinstein: “You can’t get to the stars using SpaceX because it’s a chemical rocket company.” The ceiling isn’t the universe’s. It’s ours. Weinstein: “One of his slogans is ad astra, to the stars.” To the stars. From a man who knows better than anyone that his rockets can’t reach them. You don’t declare a destination your vehicle can’t reach unless you already know what replaces it. The rockets were never the endgame. Weinstein: “I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term researcher, he believes only in engineers.” The breakthroughs that would get humanity past chemical propulsion should have happened decades ago. They didn’t. Not because the physics is impossible. Because the institutions responsible for discovering it optimized for everything except discovery. Grant cycles. Tenure politics. Citation metrics. The entire incentive structure of modern science rewards safe, incremental work and punishes the kind of risk that produces breakthroughs. The system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed. It was just never designed for discovery. Weinstein: “I think what he’s doing is he’s building Grok to do science in a time when humans are too corrupt to be truthful and real.” Musk looked at the entire global scientific establishment and decided it was faster to build a mind that could do the physics than to fix the institutions that wouldn’t. That calculation alone tells you everything about the state of modern science. Everyone sees xAI competing with OpenAI and Anthropic in the chatbot race. Weinstein is saying it was never in the chatbot race. It’s in the physics race. The one nobody else is running. Weinstein: “Look at the logo for Grok, I think it’s like a black hole profile. Look at its slogan, to understand the universe.” Not to assist. Not to optimize. To understand the universe. SpaceX is the vehicle. xAI is the destination. One builds the ship. The other discovers how far it can go. The distance to the stars was never measured in light years. It was measured in the limits of the mind reaching for them. The most ambitious project on Earth right now isn’t a rocket program. It’s an AI being built to find the physics that makes rockets obsolete.
1:35

SpaceX builds rockets. Rockets run on chemical propulsion. Chemical propulsion has a ceiling. It can reach Mars. Maybe deeper into the solar system. But interstellar travel requires physics that doesn’t exist yet. Weinstein: “You can’t get to the stars using SpaceX because it’s a chemical rocket company.” The ceiling isn’t the universe’s. It’s ours. Weinstein: “One of his slogans is ad astra, to the stars.” To the stars. From a man who knows better than anyone that his rockets can’t reach them. You don’t declare a destination your vehicle can’t reach unless you already know what replaces it. The rockets were never the endgame. Weinstein: “I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term researcher, he believes only in engineers.” The breakthroughs that would get humanity past chemical propulsion should have happened decades ago. They didn’t. Not because the physics is impossible. Because the institutions responsible for discovering it optimized for everything except discovery. Grant cycles. Tenure politics. Citation metrics. The entire incentive structure of modern science rewards safe, incremental work and punishes the kind of risk that produces breakthroughs. The system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed. It was just never designed for discovery. Weinstein: “I think what he’s doing is he’s building Grok to do science in a time when humans are too corrupt to be truthful and real.” Musk looked at the entire global scientific establishment and decided it was faster to build a mind that could do the physics than to fix the institutions that wouldn’t. That calculation alone tells you everything about the state of modern science. Everyone sees xAI competing with OpenAI and Anthropic in the chatbot race. Weinstein is saying it was never in the chatbot race. It’s in the physics race. The one nobody else is running. Weinstein: “Look at the logo for Grok, I think it’s like a black hole profile. Look at its slogan, to understand the universe.” Not to assist. Not to optimize. To understand the universe. SpaceX is the vehicle. xAI is the destination. One builds the ship. The other discovers how far it can go. The distance to the stars was never measured in light years. It was measured in the limits of the mind reaching for them. The most ambitious project on Earth right now isn’t a rocket program. It’s an AI being built to find the physics that makes rockets obsolete.

Dustin

99,352 次观看 • 3 天前

Ossoff: This is what small men like Donald Trump and Mike Collins will never understand — that our national greatness flows not through our blood or our genes, but through our ideas and through our care for one another. How amazing is it that the most powerful nation on Earth proclaims as its core values that all are created equal, with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no matter how humble our beginnings, no matter our ancestry, or when we arrived on these shores?
1:03

Ossoff: This is what small men like Donald Trump and Mike Collins will never understand — that our national greatness flows not through our blood or our genes, but through our ideas and through our care for one another. How amazing is it that the most powerful nation on Earth proclaims as its core values that all are created equal, with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no matter how humble our beginnings, no matter our ancestry, or when we arrived on these shores?

Team Ossoff

15,072 次观看 • 15 天前

Resonance: Beings of Frequency One of the best documentaries on human bioelectricity and EMF/EF/RF ever made. If you think that the science on this subject has already been settled and it's not harmful or influential, then you haven't read the bio-initiative report yet. There are also declassified documents from the soviet era that detail how impactful these technologies are on physiology, behavior, and overall health. Here is another report on EMF as a weapon, done by CNN in 1985. This was nearly 40 years ago and it was already very advanced. Imagine what we have now.
1:28:21

Resonance: Beings of Frequency One of the best documentaries on human bioelectricity and EMF/EF/RF ever made. If you think that the science on this subject has already been settled and it's not harmful or influential, then you haven't read the bio-initiative report yet. There are also declassified documents from the soviet era that detail how impactful these technologies are on physiology, behavior, and overall health. Here is another report on EMF as a weapon, done by CNN in 1985. This was nearly 40 years ago and it was already very advanced. Imagine what we have now.

Inversionism

37,636 次观看 • 2 年前