Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - What Really Happened on the Moon?

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/yt to win a meteorite 💥 Brian Keating sits in the guest chair on Julian Dorey's podcast. This fascinating conversation dives deep into the heart of science, skepticism, and the culture wars swirling around them. Together, Brian and Julian tackle everything from wild theories about NASA, the South Pole, and the moon landing, to the challenges of scientific gatekeeping, the allure of conspiracy thinking, and the importance—and limitations—of critical thinking. You'll hear candid reflections on podcast rivalries, the pitfalls of confirmation bias, and the struggles scientists face in the public eye. Brian offers a behind-the-scenes look into debates with figures like Terrence Howard, the claims of Bart Sibrel, and the real impact of science denial. Plus, you'll get personal stories from Brian’s own adventures at the South Pole and insights into why science sometimes gets it gloriously, or painfully, wrong. - Key Takeaways: 00:00 Choosing Grad School Over NASA 07:56 Misleading Findings and Self-Deception 13:24 "Moon Rock Mystery: Colors Explained" 16:19 Nobel Laureate Show Dilemma 25:33 "Questioning Experts and Conspiracies" 31:09 Nostalgia for Past Snow Days 35:12 South Pole Tragedy: Fatal Expedition 41:16 "Exploring Uncharted Places" 45:40 Nordic Power Struggles and Empire Decline 48:44 Dark Matter or Modified Gravity? 54:55 Podcaster's Open-Minded Approach 59:53 Challenging Math: Terence Howard's View 01:06:58 Critique of Platform Misuse 01:11:10 Animal Mourning and Human Awareness 01:17:45 Debate on Science and Vaccine Misinformation 01:21:40 The Mayor's Low Threshold Dilemma - Join this channel to get access to perks like monthly Office Hours: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join 📚 Get a copy of my books: Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner, with life changing interviews with 9 Nobel Prizewinners: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu My tell-all cosmic memoir Losing the Nobel Prize: http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA The first-ever audiobook from Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un 📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺 Neil Turok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5cFLN65fI Frank Wilczek https://youtu.be/3z8RqKMQHe0?sub_confirmation=1 Eric Weinstein vs. Stephen Wolfram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4?sub_confirmation=1 Sir Roger Penrose: https://youtu.be/AMuqyAvX7Wo Sabine Hossenfelder: https://youtu.be/g00ilS6tBvs Avi Loeb: https://youtu.be/N9lUceHsLRw Follow me to ask questions of my guests: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast #universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground #intotheimpossible #briankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavat Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Must be 21 to enter. Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot.

It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill, four-burner gas grill, on special buy for only $199. And entertain all season with the Hampton Bay, West Grove's seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $49. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, price invalid May 14th, May 27th. U.S. only exclusions apply. See Home Depot.com slash price match for details.

Welcome to this special crossover episode of The Into the Impossible podcast featuring me on Julian Dorey's podcast. I was actually the guest that got him to a million subscribers. And in this episode, we talked about a phenomenal range of topics ranging from Terrence Howard and Weeping You to NASA hoaxes to the South Pole and Antarctica. And why we hadn't gone back for 50 years before teams like the United States Navy went there in the 19th, I also discussed my research into gravity and whether or not the actual moon landing took place. So join us and let's go deep into the impossible. When's this big debate with Terrence Howard happening? Terence Howard and I have been secretly communicating through about five different channels.

Five different channels. Five different podcasters. Maybe you'd be the one to make it actually happen. Yeah, Patrick, that David. gave me a name check while he was on with this kind of, um, uh, really disappointing example of a NASA physicist, this guy, Dr. Way Ping Yu, who Patrick's team actually got his name wrong on the show notes. That was kind of funny. Like, you don't even research this guy's name how to spell it. Uh, that was kind of embarrassing. But, you know, I like Patrick. He, he's, does some good stuff. But, uh,

but, uh, but in this case, yeah, it was, uh, it was kind of a little bit embarrassing. I said for Terrence, because he went out to talk about his, you know, his theory, the lynchpin, his theory of, you know, one times one equals two, and his theory of, well, don't laugh, you know, he's got, he's got a lot of math, math attention. No, it's just bringing back memories. It was an incredible podcast. Memories of, you know, a couple months ago. But now he's got this claim that he's solved the three-body problem, that he understands

how the planet Saturn was formed. And so they bring on, so let's say that's somewhat legitimate, there's something he wants talk about. Plus he's talking about how he went to like ditty parties and all sorts of crazy or he didn't go to ditty parties and his man. He wanted to fuck me. His bad his man card is still in effect. But the problem was he ended up, you know, having this guy on to talk about like if you invite me on and then you have on, you know, somebody who wants to talk about the flat earth. It's really doing me a disservice, right? So I felt like he brought, Patrick brought on this guy who knows nothing about Terrence's theory and had his own theory, which is that the universe doesn't have.

have any other forces besides electricity. This is what Weeping Shoots. This is what Weiping You, Dr. Weiping You of NASA. Don't forget, he's a NASA scientist. So to his credit, yeah, he puts on his resume, you know, he doesn't speak for NASA. He is not a representative on the podcast of NASA. But in reality, people see NASA scientists occur. He's a lot of weight. You know, I almost work for NASA. I did work for NASA as an undergraduate, and I was almost hired by them as an employee after college. But I realized if I went to NASA after college, you know, my dream, you know, be complete at age 21, 22. So I said, oh, let me go to grad school. Let me get my Ph.D. And then if they want to pay me, you know, $29,000 back in 1993,

they'll want to pay me $33,000, you know, in 2000 when I get my PhD. And by then I decided that I didn't want to work for NASA. I wanted to do other things. But, but in reality, NASA carries a lot of weight. And for that reason, to have on someone like him talking about his own theory, basically it's called the electric universe, that everything in the universe is plasma and currents and it sounds plausible if you have, you know, a junior high school level education and physics. But the fact of the matter is every single thing he said about science was discredited. How was it discredited? I don't know anything about it. Yeah, I mean, he's claiming, for example, that the proton is held together by electric and magnetic forces.

He's claiming that gravity is electricity and magnetism, not actual gravitational force. He claimed, And so he has his own theories about how all these things are structured, totally nonsensical, completely refuted by all of 20th century and 21st century physics, including quantum mechanics. He claimed that atoms don't have orbitals. Quantum mechanics isn't real. They don't have spectra. Some of these things are the most accurately tested observations in all of science, not just in physics, in all of science.

So if you go to like Wikipedia and you say, like, what's the most accurately tested theory that we have? It's quantum mechanics. And there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. can get into that. But the bottom line is we know for sure that atoms have these properties called orbitals that behave in a probabilistic function and we can determine how accurately we can measure these things to 14 decimal places. Okay, so a decimal point and then 14 digits later, we have a number. Something like that, like the frequency at which interstellar hydrogen

oscillates at back and forth, it flips back and forth because it's a positive, it's just one positive charge, one negative charge. The positive and negative charges oscillate basically are flipping their spins. 1.4 billion times per second. But we know that, we know that accuracy of 14, it's not just 1.4 times 10 or 14 billion and 14, sorry, it's 1.4 billion. We don't just know that to 1.4.2.4.2.05, 27, 5, 6, that's to 14th decimal place.

That's exquisite. I mean, it's put that into, you know, language that, you know, someone could understand. It's more accurate than going from here in New Jersey to the top of the Empire State Building and getting there within an accuracy of one human hair. that's that's more that's that's more coarse than 14 digits of precision and the ratio of the distances between here and there okay so it's just astounding how accurate science knows things accurately and

precisely is how close you are to the correct answer precise is how many digits of precision do you have on that number okay so if you're throwing darts at a darkboard and you're trying to hit the bullseye accuracy is how close you are to the bullseye on average but you'll never get exactly to the molecule to the quark right so precision is how close to do multiple estimates or multiple throws of a dart at the dart board converge on that right answer. But accuracy and precision, I'm looking at this from pure layman's term, are dependent on the variables that you have at your disposal to come up with that. If the variables change, is it possible, and I'm not just picking out this one example, but is it possible that something that would

have been perceived to be accurate down to a human hair suddenly goes up in smoke? No, it won't be something that's accurate. If it's truly accurate, it's, that's, that's accurate. that value. You're saying you've measured it to that value. Let me give you an example. You mentioned this in your podcast, which is awesome with Claudia Durham. Oh, thank you. Gravity. And you actually mentioned it as a compliment to me. So you're actually, I should be thanking me and said of thank you. But you mentioned that we measured this thing, and we thought it was worthy of the biggest Nobel Prize ever in history. That was the discovery of the quantum origin of the universe called inflation. But in reality, we found Schmutz,

these microscopic meteorite particles that you get if you go to my website, Brian Keating.com. You got one? You got yours there. This is for your super producer, Joey. I got one for him too after the episode. So we were actually measuring these microscopic meteorites

that form this twisting pattern that led us to the confirmation bias, assumption that we had detected the spark that had ignited the Big Bang. We actually measured that exquisitely precisely. Okay? So the measurement still stands up that we measure this pattern

to many significant figures, many digits of precision. However, we interpreted, the interpretation was that we measured this inflationary signal. In that sense, we're inaccurate. So something doesn't get more or less accurate. It is what it is, and you can calibrate it and you can become closer. So what we had to do is build an entirely new experiment and say that experiment is only going to look for the schmuts, the dust, the crap that we don't want to see. And then by focusing in on what we don't want,

then we can subtract it from the total, what we saw, which is cosmic signal plus the dust signal. We have a dust-only signal. So you subtract the dust-only signal from the cosmology plus dust signal. And what you're left with would be the cosmic signal. When we did that subtraction, we came up with nothing. So that means that the original thing we reported as being only cosmological was actually mostly, if not all, dust. Okay, so that's an example of how you got more accurate over time, but you had to do a whole new other experiment. And that experiment can't measure the same thing that you want to detect. Okay, so you want to detect dark energy, dark matter. you have to build a separate experiment that traces and tracks out, well, how could I fool myself?

How could I have effed up by making a mistake by tricking myself into thinking that I found out about what I was trying to look for? And this is a big problem for people like the UFO hunters and stuff. They never proposed, they only propose one hypothesis. And then everything can only be used to justify and further increase confidence in a hypothesis. It's confirmation bias. So it's prone to confirmation bias. It's not saying that's wrong or that they're lying or whatever. But let's say, for example, you could have an alternative hypothesis, and then you want to do an experiment on that. So let's say one of the alternative hypotheses is it's just lasers and people are shooting lasers off of swamp gas and that these train pilots are seeing lasers on swamp gas. And aren't they stupid? Okay, that's a hypothesis. You can test that scientifically and you could falsify. You could show, oh, no, no, it's not that. There's no such thing. The drones flying over New Jersey. Those weren't drones. Those are something else. You hypothesize they were drones. So what do we do?

built a whole bunch of FLIR systems, and we saw all these things doing flip-flops on TikTok. No, no, no, that wasn't a drone. So now you've excluded one hypothesis. But because you excluded that one hypothesis, cat lasers, swamp gas, and drones, that doesn't mean that the alternative hypothesis is true. That's right. You have to do another experiment to see, how could you even silly yourself to think that these are UAPs? And that could be other things. It could be, well, there's actually much more complicated phenomena.

We're called social science engineering, where the government's effing with the minds of these people in an order to root out who's being loyal to the U.S. government. That's a hypothesis, right? And in fact, it may be the true one, that they are actually, the Pentagon was misleading people, they're tricking the pilots, they were doing this and that. That's actually thousands of times in terms of probabilistic space, more likely.

It doesn't mean that they're right or these people are lying. It just means that, like, what's more likely? Interstellar beings are traveling across interdimensional distances in order to do almost nothing on Earth and slightly hide their behavior? earth or or that these things are figments of people's imaginations or injected into them or hypnotize or whatever those are much more likely doesn't mean they're along it doesn't mean that they think that they're lying and that they know that they're lying it's just that is that a more simple explanation

if so we have to consider it right and i i think that this is obviously this goes well beyond just science this is kind of in life when we look at people with opinions and you know the i guess like pure consensus that people come to, but it's like, you could have scenarios where 99.9% of the time, the explanation is the simpler explanation. And then the 0.1% of the time, it's actually not. And you could prove it. The problem becomes the people who protect quote unquote the 99.9% of the time, then every time you bring up one example will be like, well, this is definitely in that. And they never have the example where they're like, yeah, this might be in the 0.1%. And I think, think this is where like you know i actually really enjoyed listening to turns Howard obviously

a lot of it was a leap upon a leap upon a leap upon a leap and i think most of what he says is is very disprovable but what i can appreciate about a guy like that is that maybe he went too far with it but if you push the boundaries of saying well science is about for example like science itself is about asking questions so let's ask these questions and let's try to let's try to relitigate some things in the past just to see if we got it all the way right. I think that could, or wrong, that could be a positive impact in a space like this. It could be, but you have to look at the preponderance of something, right? So there's something that's entirely 100% good or bad. Religion, it's not entirely good or bad. You know, democracy, not entirely good or bad. It's that we can

go on down on a list. Relitigating stuff for the sake of relitigating stuff without a purpose, say the moon landing. This guy, Bart Cibrell, you know him well, right? So, So having, you know, people that really truly believe that the moon landing did not happen. Okay. So that's a claim. That's a, that's a science-based claim. So you could bring up Bart Zibra. I did a video about Bart Sibral and the Halloween. Did you ever have them on? He won't debate. It's weird. I thought, didn't you have them on? No. You didn't. Somebody had him. Oh, Danny, yeah. Danny Hanna. Yeah. I thank you for introducing me to Danny Hennon. They mentioned me. Danny Jones. Yeah, Danny Jones. And he, so Bart told me something, which I didn't know, because he's, I think. after he was on Joe Rogan show, I wrote to Joe Rogan. I was like, Joe, hey, remember I gave you this moon rock? Not only did I give him a meteorite, sorry, Julian, sorry, Joe.

But I gave him a moon rock, and I actually gave him a Mars rock because I was like, holy crap. You gave him a moon rock and a Mars rock? Get the fuck out, Brian. Okay, fine. See you guys. When you hit a million on this episode, I will bring you a Mars rock as a birthday present. I brought you a magic crystal. Thank you.

And we were going to talk about the magic crystal, and we're going to talk about that. All right, I'll take the crystal comes with me. But the point is, Bart claims this for some, let's just say the moon landing didn't have. Okay, whatever. But what's the reason for the conspiracy? Oh, it's just closed the loop. So he told, so I told Joe, what the hell's going on? I told you all this stuff about the moon landing.

I even brought you a moon rock. You know, what happened? I hope, you know, nobody smoked it or whatever. But like, where, you know, where's the moon rock? You can see because Bart was saying, oh, the moon is in the pictures doesn't look white like it should. if it was truly there and not a camera artifact. And I said, the moon rock I gave you actually looks pinkish orange. And you can just take it out if you still have it, Joe.

And you can prove to yourself that, no, the moon isn't pure white. It's not like a piece of pure white, you know, ivory snow. It is, in fact, has all these different colors because it's made of multiple different materials, Joe. And we know that because the materials they brought back are the same as the moon rock materials that I gave to him in terms of chemical composition, the same as the spectroscopic images. And we know the distance to the moon exquisitely accurately because the moon, landing astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, put down these retro-reflecting little reflectors on the moon's surface that bounce light back with its precise property

that one of my colleagues and neighbors at UCSD, he's retired now, Tom Murphy, measures the distance to the moon to within one millimeter every single second that he's doing these measurements with 10 to the 14th photons per second in a burst. The reason he's doing it is that to prove the moon landing occurred. That's an incidental discovery courtesy of the fact that we did go to the moon. He's actually trying to test gravity. theories of gravity that have different modifications at long and short distances that could be a

sign of quantum gravity. So in other words, he's doing something totally different. Oh, he happened to confirm that the moon landing happened. That wasn't the main goal of what he was doing and he is doing in his research. Likewise, other people have done other types of experiments with seismology of asteroids and moons and things like that to see if moons have quakes. What is the moon's core like? They have all sorts of instruments that were left, claimed to be left by the NASA astronauts, can be seen from photographs of the moon's surface by our enemies like the Russians,

and scientists that would like nothing better than to prove that, hey, actually, wait, something is a big conspiracy and a fraud. You've got to remember. Scientists want to prove conspiracies, you know, of nature wrong all the time. That's what we want to do. We want to uncover quantum gravity,

want to understand the Big Bang, want to understand if life exists outside the Earth. If the universe is inflationary? If the universe is inflationary, if there are multiple universes. versus we are obsessed with disproving the narrative. Remember what Feynman said. Feynman said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,

but not the malevolence of experts. In other words, we say that we go to the moon, not to say how great we are and give us more money. And that's what people like Bart said, well, Clinton Clinton. NASA is an evil organization. He actually got punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin. It's a funny video.

That's a funny video. And none of these reasons, I told Joe, I'm happy to come on and debate him. Apparently, Joe did get in touch with him, according to the interview he did with Danny. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing,

I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose Google Fi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google FiR Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization

during times of high network usage. They talk about me, you know, interview getting in. He's like, well, I don't want to talk to anyone besides the scientists. Like, I feel bad about the scientist, you know, because they're getting tricked by big NASA. And I'm like, well, I'm a scientist. I'm happy to debate you. But, you know, I didn't want to just have them on my show. And I don't think that really does me any, you know, great.

Why not? If I want to have on, you know, the next, I've had on 21 Nobel Prize winners. Next week will be 22. If you were to see a channel and you've been to Stockholm, you've actually. won the Nobel Prize unlike, unlike Brian Keating, you go there. You have this, you know, sort of scientific credibility and legitimacy to want to maintain. If you go on a show, and it's Billy Carson and Terrence Howard and Bart Sibrell, and then, oh, every now and then it's, you know, it's Eric Weinstein or Mitchie O'CACU or, you know, and then you're like, well, what is this guy?

Like, what is he doing? Does he do Nobel Prize winning or is he out for clicks? And so, you know, I'm considering talking with Terrence because we've been approached, both of us been approached by Patrick Bet David and by Pierce Morgan and their people. But, you know, the reason I'd want to do something with Terrence is because I have an actual laboratory that he could come, you know, we both live in Southern California. He claims he has a laboratory and he'd love to show me his stuff, show me his, the linchpin, the, like this incredible copter that assembles itself in midair that has these weird geometric properties. And he does have patents and so forth that I'd like to kind of, you know, because you can get a patent tomorrow. You know, I always say like,

A patent is not necessarily proof of genius. Like, there are things you can't get patented if you attempt to violate the laws of physics. Second law of thermodynamics are famously people try to get perpetual motion machines patented. So, but more than that, I mean, if I say, look, here's this magic crystal, which we're going to talk about, and here's a meteorite, and I say, well, you can't patent the meteorite because it's a naturally occurring phenomenon. You can't patent the crystal because it's naturally good. But if you somehow embedded this in here and claim that it, you know, it vibrates a certain frequency, which it does and those frequencies, you know, on your chakras here, and I hope you don't clip this, you know, so we're like, physicists is the chock. I don't even know what a chakra is, to be honest

with you. But the point being, you can patent that. Yeah. But you can patent combination. You can patent, you can patent a pencil lead and you can't patent an eraser, but you put the eraser on top of the pencil. I have two patents. That's what I heard. I never made it penny off any of them. So the fact that Terrence has patents is not dispositive, that he's right or wrong. It doesn't really mean that much. We have to investigate. What do they actually do? Have they been used? Have they been applied? Has anyone commercialized? them because the market is a damn good. You know, capitalism always wins at some level, despite with the future mayor of the city across the...

At the source subject. Across the river here might say, capitalism always wins. So in the end, the marketplace told me that my two patents, which I thought were really cool, sophisticated things, I invented at Caltech and UCSD, no, nobody wanted, nobody commercialized that they sit there. They'll probably never be used. That's okay. You take certain swings and you, and you miss on most of them. But the thing I'm trying to get across is, having on a claim about something scientific, that's fine. But if your motive is to discredit NASA and discredit the one organization that can, you know, conclusively that makes life better for

every single person that ever gets on an airplane, I told you, I almost worked for NASA after graduation. Yeah. It was offered a job at NASA after working at NASA for a summer between my junior and senior summers in college at NASA Langley Research Center, which is where they used to train, you know, when they landed on the moon, they had a practice in like zero-g. but they can't get zero G, almost zero G or one-third G on Earth, right? So they built this enormous contraption at Asa Langley. I got to see it. And it was like bungee cords.

And it was a real eagle lunar lander-like object. And it was flying and it could almost simulate the low amount of gravity. But also these retro rockets. It was one of the coolest things ever. So Neil Armstrong actually had abort and eject from it. Almost died before the moon launch attempt was made in 1967. Anyway, that's where I was working. And I was working on the following problem.

When you get on an airplane, every single plane you've flown on, has on average about 22,000 hours of flight time. Okay? Let that sink in for a second. You're stepping on a thing that's older than you, by far as older than you. I mean, most of these, except for the brand new ones, which have their own problems, right? But even they. Made a few documentaries on those. Planes have to fly about 95% of the time.

You drive your car about 5% of its lifetime if you have a car. Planes are exactly the opposite. They have to fly to make money. So that means almost every hour of the day, they're flying. flying 55 minutes or whatever, of every hour, of every day, of every year, since they were built, okay, say 20,000 hours on it. That means they've probably had about 10,000 pressurization cycles if the average flight time is about two hours.

So they've cycled the pressure, you know, 20,000, 10,000 times over that 20, 30, 40-year period that they've been in service. Totally safe. Why? Because they check every single, you know, inspections they do for the airlines, checks what's called non-destructively. The airline is actually, you ever look at the airplane's skin? I advise all your listeners.

Forget on a plane. The airplane's skin? The airplane's skin is a tiny bit of aluminum, thinner than is meteorite. It's about a couple hundred mills, which is a couple hundred thousandths of an inch. That's all it is. If it was much thicker, it would be too heavy to fly. It's aluminum. Aluminum has properties that it will tolerate some amount of expansion and contraction.

But most of the plane is held together. You see the plane is held together. How do you think a plane skin is held together? You ever look at the skin of a plane? I try not to think about that shit, Brian. Okay, well, you should think about it. I get a little nervous. That's why you don't come to me in California.

You stay here in New Jersey. I'm completely powerless up there in the sky. So you see these rivets. There are rivets, which are expansion joints that hold things together, like bolts or whatever. Those only have the following purpose. Their job is to hold the two surfaces of the airplanes wing together, while the glue, which is actually holding them together, is setting and bonding. So, there's a glue surface. I didn't know this before I worked at NASA.

NASA won't think I want to know this, but keep going. So the plane's held together. by glue. It looks like it's held together by rivets, but the rivets, again, just keep it in place. You ever build like, you know, models when you're a kid and you get that, you know, or rockets, Estes glue or whatever. You have this glue and that's what holds it together. Well, the glue can only survive so many expansions and contractions too. Okay, so you're not going to come out to visit anymore. Yeah, I mean, when I lived in Italy and we'd take the flight from like Rome to Sicily, I swear to God, there was fucking duct tape on the wings. This is sounding a lot like that.

It was scary. That's because they don't have NASA, right? Well, they're They do have nasty. They have a nass. They have a nasty logo. They actually call the logo the meatball. All right, watch it. No, they do. They call it the meatball.

So that skin, so they have to have a way of inspecting it. But how do you inspect something that's glued together to make sure the glue hasn't broken apart? That's a physics problem. How do you inspect? Two surfaces are laminated together. They're held by bolts. You can look at the bolts, but they don't tell you what's really doing the strength that's holding it together. There's a glue.

So we invented this type of what's called non-destructive evaluation, NDE, that use thermal imaging, ultrasonic imaging. So you don't have to take it apart to see inside. It's like an x-ray for the plane, but you can't shoot up a giant x-ray machine on every single airplane surface. But you can scan out with a laser or with a thermal imaging sensor. And so we built simple devices like that back. So any person who gets on an airplane,

including Bart to get to from wherever he lives to go see Joe Rogan or to go see Danny in Florida, he had to get on a plane, he's trusting his life to the very organization he's trying to discredit. You see the hypocrisy. Oh, that's interesting. And so for that reason amongst many, I don't think it is worth debating every single person who wants to criticize. Now, Terrence is doing something else.

Terrence is saying that, like, mathematics and big physics and all sorts of things are trying to suppress his knowledge because it provides infinite energy and all sorts of other things. Well, we actually already have an infinite energy source, it's called the sun. It floats up every day above us. It doesn't charge money. It doesn't go on vacations. doesn't quit or call in sick.

And we could have effectively infinite Kardashev level to whatever it is energy sources for the whole planet if we had. And we have the means to do it. You know, China's making really cheap solar panels. We could buy them. So the thing that and we get, we actually are a net exporter of oil here in America. So it's not like we need the Persian Gulf and we need, you know, Iran and we need all these other countries.

We actually produce more oil than we can sell and consume within America. So the, the claim that what's happening is that Terrence's ideas are. are being suppressed about his ideas about math, his ideas about physics, and his ideas about energy, and so forth, are being suppressed. I find to be completely without merit because there's no incentive to do that, nor is there any organization of professional physicists. The reason that people criticize NASA is because it's the closest to kind of a pristine reputational organization of scientists that there is.

Canizzo has been completely unscientific, and it shows when she uses things like Wi-Fi to say how bad science is and how bad the invention. out of NASA were that actually literally are giving her the mouthpiece that she has to speak ill about NASA. I mean, it's on many different levels. It's probably like a badge of honor to be criticized by her lately. But to say things like these things are impossible to get to the moon because you had to go through the Van Allen belt. It's such preposterous nonsense. And yet, and yet I did this reaction video to Bart Cibral and people are like, oh, Bart crushes you and Bard snows. people want to believe that there's a vast conspiracy of a cabal of people manipulating and kind of oppressing them as a way to explain their own, you know,

tawdry failures in their own lives. So there's a few important things we should talk about here. Number one, when it comes to the fact that something like the moon itself is now being questioned as a conspiracy, it's a part of, and I understand this psychologically, It's a part of throwing the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon in society because you had quote unquote experts and I'm using that as the broadest term here, right? Really kind of fuck people over in the pandemic and people realize that some of the very things that they were suppressed for saying ended up being true. Not everything, but a lot of things were. So now everyone that's an expert has a degree from insert university here and is in insert industry here is now no longer.

trustable. I think there's a lot of truth in the mindset of like even Joe Rogan. I don't know Joe Rogan. I've never talked with him. But, you know, when he has that bit where he's like before the pandemic, I would have told you that, you know, vaccines were the greatest thing ever invented. After the pandemic, I'd tell you, I'd tell you it's all fucked and we didn't go to the moon. I think there's some feeling there of legit reaction anger in his part. This is a guy who's made his career talking to all different types of people and felt like he was duped. And then was attacked for being right on a lot of things too. So I get that. And so now it's opened up the door for people like Bart Sabrell to come in and make these claims. Now, if we're just, let's just start with

the actual claim right there. First of all, my, even before I get to science, right, and some of like the equations you said your friend was making on on the moon and proving exactly where it was and what the coloration was and how the light hit and everything, even before that. I'm like, think of every ally we have in the world, starting with Britain. There is not one country. on earth that would have not wanted to disprove that we went to the moon when we did it because it was like you know it was like a it was like a talent show competition so if we didn't do it someone was going to come out and say that that's number one number two though and this goes to where people like the barts and people who will back someone like a bart bring it up where i'm like there is

an interesting question here people say like we've had enormous exponential technology growth over time and yet the one thing that we seem to not have exponentially grown on is going to the moon, which we did in 1969. So as a scientist, how do you reckon with the fact that we haven't like prioritized really doing that and exploring that as far as we know? Let me take you back really far. I've been to the South Pole Antarctica twice. It's an amazingly boring place.

It makes New Jersey look like the, no, no, it's a... I'm just kidding. I can't tell. I can't tell. the south pole is imagine going out into the middle of the Atlantic go out like four or five hundred miles you can't see land you can't see boats can't say anything freeze it paint it white that's what the south pole looks like it's just frozen snow it's 9,000 feet of snow that have accumulated over millions of years of just snowfall every year snow just comes down but what about the Nazi bases on the pyramids and the pyramids well exactly right I know you're going to clip that you're covering up for all this stuff now That's right. I'm covering up for big, big pharaoh. It was actually once a tropical paradise.

That is for sure. So we went there. I've been there twice. And each time I go there, I kind of somewhat regret it. The first time you get there, it's like, ah, cool, this is great, take a selfie. And then within a couple hours, you're bored. And all you can do is work,

which is the reason that we go there is because it's one of the best places on Earth to do astronomy of the kind that we do, where it's dark half the year. Sun doesn't come above the horizon from March 12. 21st. It goes below the horizon, comes up September 21st. And because of that, and it's cold, high altitude nature, it's very good for looking at microwaves because water absorbs microbes.

This coffee can be heated up because it has water in it, in addition to the vodka and whiskey that Joe puts into it. It can be heated up because water vibrates at a certain frequency as stimulated by microwaves, and that causes rotational energy, converts the energy into heat, thermal energy. And that's how, so, but the lesson is water absorbs microwaves. So you'd like to be in space where there's no water, if you're looking for photons from the Big Bang that have traveled for 13.8 billion years to get to your telescope, right? You don't want to get absorbed in a water molecule here in New Jersey or in San Diego even. If you go, if you took a glass and you extended it to space and you said how much water is in that glass on a very humid day in a very humid place, it would be almost this much water. It's about 10, 10 centimeters or so of water. It could be that high, okay, 100 millimeters of water. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save?

Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected.

When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. In San Diego, which is a desert, it's called a coastal desert. on average it's about one centimeter. So it's maybe 10 times less than it would be in the Amazon jungle, okay?

So that's a few extent, and it doesn't matter how wide the glass is. You just extend it to space. It will always come up to this level. If you go to the South Pole, it's less than one-third of one millimeter, 300 microns of water, condensed water above the South Pole up into space.

So it's almost like being in space. But even those, you know, and it's still trillions of molecules of water, don't get me wrong, but it's still not anywhere near as good as being in space, but it's still much, much better. That's why we go there. It's hard to think about that, though, because you're thinking about glaciers.

You know, like ice caps. There's no glaciers there, yeah. Yeah, it's just pure ice. Pure ice. Yeah, it's like a snow desert. But it's so cold. Remember when you were a kid when I was a kid and I lived in Westchester and Long Island? It would be sometimes we listen to the AM radio.

Oh, you know, Dobbs Ferry School is closed because of snow days, right? Like nowadays, unfortunately because of global warming, global climate change, definitely not a hoax. The amount of snow days you get is almost negligible here compared to when I was a kid. we used to get 10 feet of snow a year easily around here. Now you don't get it so much. But that was the greatest sound on Earth when you heard like, Dobbs Ferry, you know, school is canceled. It was great.

The reason that you don't, sometimes it wouldn't, it would be so cold and there would have been snow, but the snow actually condensed out of the atmosphere because cold air holds less humidity and therefore less water and less precipitation possibility than does warm air, which is why the tropics and places like the jungle and Amazon, those are much more moist places.

places, right? So we go to South Pole because it's dry. It's almost like going to space. Now, the reason that it was first discovered, you know, it wasn't discovered until 1911. December 1911. Nobody reached a South Pole wasn't. Nobody reached a South Pole for all of humanity's history until 1911. And then two teams of people reached it within three weeks of each other. The Norwegian team led by this guy, Roald Amundsen, who had tried to get to the north. This guy was a stud. He and his team tried to get to the North Pole first. They were beaten by some team whose name I can't remember. It's interesting because he's more famous for reaching the South Pole. And the North Pole is not on a continent. There's no continent underneath the North Pole,

but there is a continent underneath the South Pole, Antarctica. He immediately turned around in the middle of, so this would have been the northern, this would have been the northern summer, and he went and he tried to reach the South Pole and be the first person to reach the South Pole. He didn't know there was a British team, which was also trying to do it much more methodically, and they had already kind of reached Antarctica, but they were waiting their turn to get to the South Pole waiting through the winter, which is the Northern Hemisphere Summer, when he failed to be the first of the North Pole,

Amundsen turns around epic guy. Got to the South Pole. He beats the British team by three weeks. Because he used this team of dogs. So what you're looking at on screen is probably big mad. Is Amundsen's team. So this is the Amundsen's team picture, but this is taken by

I think this picture it says below. Pictures they arrive in December 1911. So that's Roald Amundsen and his team. So this is a selfie of them at the South Pole. A selfie. This is a basic, yeah, it's just a picture taken by an old-fashioned camera. Yeah, they had an Insta 360.

No. I forget how they did it. But see how, like, it's hard to tell on the picture, but the background's completely flat and white. So three weeks later, this British team, who doesn't know this team is there. Careful with that word flat. What? Flat.

Careful with that word flat when we're talking about polls. It looks flat, yeah, exactly. But, you know, it's true that the Flat Earth Society has, you know, members all around the globe. So as the British team was coming. up, you can see things for about 10 miles away. They saw this flag sticking out of the ice, okay? They saw it about 10 miles before they got there. It was almost half a day. So they realized, wow, we just got screwed. Imagine like, and this would be like, and I'm going to make the

analogy, Neil Armstrong stepping out of the eagle, you know, sipping on some tang, and then all of a sudden he lands and he looks down as a Soviet Union's flag that he crashed on, okay? Imagine a crushing disappointment. And all the more so, because not seen in the selfie picture there was about 10 sled dogs. and the reason they're not seen they pulled them from the coast of Antarctica where they arrive by ship the reason is because they're inside their stomach right now they ate the dogs

they eat the dogs they ate the cats of the people that live I swear they're eating the dogs they're eating the cats they literally eating everything they literally ate their sled dogs and the British would not use it so if you look up the British team

they didn't use sled dogs British knew that they wouldn't they couldn't bear to eat their own dogs so they didn't even bring dogs, which made things much worse for them. I respect that, though. Yeah. Now they had to carry all the food and fuel for themselves. They were also picking up meteorites and stuff

like that. There's their team. So that's their selfie. Three weeks later, see, that's January 1912. So it's only three weeks different. So that would be like the Russians landed on the moon three weeks after us. Now, God, look at their skin. They're all roasted because it's so sunny down there. You get sunblinded and burned. And then all those guys died.

They all died in March of 1912 because they had took too long together. there, that three-week difference was the difference between life and death. But why? Because the weather changes so fast at the South Pole as it approaches sunset, which is in the end of March, March 21st, that they got bitterly cold, incredibly windy. They ran out of food and fuel, and they basically froze to death on the ice. Wow.

They were about 10 miles away. They had left, they had to leave these caches, C-A-H-E, of food and fuel and stuff, and they were only a few miles away from their final cache that would have caused them to survive. But they didn't. And then eventually the next summer, their team was still stuck in Antarctica on the coast, a place called McMurdo, which is where we go is from the U.S. base that's there. And they sent their team out in the next summer, like five or six months, you know, six months after they died and collected their frozen bodies and brought them back to Britain. How do you even get to Antarctica? Take a ship?

Well, now you can take a ship. I wouldn't do that. I get pretty badly seasick. You can take one to like Neil deGrasse Tyson. I just saw him after. He was there over Christmas break. He took a ship from Chile, a place called Puntos Arenas, which is in the southern tip of Chile.

And you sail there, but you're really going to like barely the Antarctic. You know, it's like there's a big peninsula of Antarctica that sticks up. North, part of it goes north of the Antarctic Circle. So in other words, it's lower, it's like 60 degrees south latitude instead of 66 degrees south latitude, which is where the sun never sets or rises beyond a certain point, just like the north. Hemisphere has the same thing. So you can take a boat there. No, scientists, the only way you can get to the South Pole is if you're a scientist or

support staff, you do carpentry, plumbing, dentists, not dentistry, medically. You could be a doctor there. That's the only reason you can get to the South Pole. So you can't just go. You can't be militarily. You can buy a ticket. And rich guys were doing that once when I was there from Forbes magazine. Some guy, there's a thing where you can land at 99 degrees, sorry, 89 degrees south latitudes.

which is one degree, which is 60 nautical miles from the South geographic pole. And then they ski that 60 mile leg. It's called ski the last degree. But they're not really allowed to spend much time in the station or like sleep there or whatever. So they get picked up by a ski plane. That sounds miserable. So that's one of the worst ways you can get there. But nowadays, no, we go from Los Angeles to Christchurch, New Zealand, through Auckland, New Zealand.

You fly commercially to each one of those places. And then in Christchurch, the U.S. has a base, you know, that they share supplies with the New Zealand, the mighty New Zealand Air Force, whose logo is a Kiwi bird, which is a flightless bird. You get on a C-130 cargo plane, and you fly there.

It takes 11 hour. The first time I went there in 2005, we attempted it. They go more than halfway to the Antarctic coast from New Zealand, and that's to wait for the weather to turn around, or if it's going to change, they don't want to have. And then they don't have enough fuel to make it back to Christchurch. So they landed in New Zealand.

Dunedin, which is the very most southern tip of New Zealand, then they refuel and then come back. It's called a boomerang when you fly all the way out. It took 13, 14 hours to go nowhere. I just came back. Woke up 5.30 in the morning. Came back 7 o'clock at night, and that was my day. And then the next day, we made it to the coast. From there, you take another plane. This is one of the planes like the F-22 or the B-2 that the U.S. Air Force does not allow to be exported. It's called an LC-130. So, Joe, you can look up L-C-1-30. It's a ski plane. That's a really cool plane. It's flown by New York Air National Guard. My homies up there in New York. Hey, guys, if you haven't already subscribed, please hit that subscribe button. It's a huge huge help. Thank you.

It's one of the few planes that's not exportable by law to any other country because it's too valuable strategically. So you get on that and it's operated by the National Science Foundation and the New York Air National Guard. And they operate six flights a day to the South Pole from the coast of McMurdo, which is where we get up. Six flights a day? Six flights a day. Sunday, yeah. Well, oh, the other cool thing that they do, this plane has enough fuel for about 10 hours of flight time. It's only three hours to get to the South Pole. But the South Pole runs on JP 11, which is the type of jet fuel that these planes run on. They use the jet fuel. They pump it

off the jet, off the turboprop. They pump it into a storage container, and they use that to power the station. So they use a diesel generator. Diesel is basically like jet fuel. That's carousine, very similar to it. That's how all the electricity is power. So the plane flies up, But let's say it's got three-thirds. It's got 100% of its fuel. Takes off from McMurdo. Flies to the South Pole. That took three hours of its capacity.

Then they pump off about two or three hours of its remaining capacity, leaving about four hours left maximum. Then it flies back with three hours, lands with one hour. So what it's doing is it's using it as basically one of a jerry cans. So these planes, that's why you need it so many times a day. Plus, there's a lot of people that come in and out during the summer. During the winter, no one flies. You can't fly because the fuel would freeze.

Yeah. And the plane gets destroyed. It's a hundred million dollar aircraft. that's pretty rare. So they don't fly it. So you can't get in or out. There are people that have been rescued, you know, but only after a long period of time is very dangerous operation. They had a higher commercial pilots. There was one time that happened in the past 50 years. But why did I bring this up, Julian? Are you worried about this tangent that I've been on for the last 10 minutes? I love your tangents because they got good stories to them. I got to let you leave.

Yeah. So you asked me, well, isn't it kind of suspicious that the U.S. didn't go back? Well, I have an example of why this is not unusual at all. The second team to get to the South Pole occurred in 1912, as I said. The British team led by Robert Falcon Scott. They all died. The next people to get there was in 1956, something called the Antarctic Treaty. Now, before that, that was a continent. No one had ever been to that place on the entire continent. That was a huge thing. I mean, there weren't many things that were undiscovered on earth and unexplored by human beings, even in 1912, 1911. It was like the last blank spot on the map, so to speak. But that's also that's also that we know of.

Well, you mean there's like a secret place? Sure. I mean, there are places that haven't been climbed or some mountains. Yeah, like were there? But were there expeditions that were made there that, you know, just weren't talked about it. It's not like we had cameras down there saying, oh, we got them on security feed.

There's still probably some place that no human being. I mean, I'm sure there's places you've been, you know, very few of maybe no people. I mean, I felt like that when I was at the South Pole, you know, for sure. I was like, did anyone ever go to this exact square inch of, the South. But is that really what matter? I mean, it's sort of like the South Pole is important because it's it's geographically important to the Earth.

There's only two poles on Earth and only one of them has a continent underneath it, right? So you can build a base there that won't melt away on an iceberg the next year. But the reason I'm bringing it up, you have to take yourself back to that time. In 1911, 1912, it was as big a deal to get to the South Pole as it was 50 years later to get to the moon. Really? Yes, it was a huge source of national pride. In fact, when they died, the guys that died, they knew they were going to die

in Free-to-death. They wrote it like, we did it for God, for England, and for our families, or something like. And he said, please, God take care of our families. Like, his order was family, God, and England. That was what he was doing it for. It was national pride. It was a huge source of national pride. Think about all the things that we have in, like, why is New York so important to the whole world? Because it's a source of commerce. It's a source of transportation. It's an international city. It's a source of pride to the country, right? It's the biggest city in America, not in the northern North America, but it's the biggest city in America. It's a capital, financial capital, population. It's an incredibly important place.

We take pride in it. That's why it's is controversial when you have a mayor who wants to do certain things and maybe take down the prestige of the city or whatever, the economic basis. So that's people get upset about it. It's a source of pride for you, right? You don't want to see it go bad. Your team, your Philly, Philadelphia, Philly, the source of pride. It's a city. It's something that you do. It's a nationalistic. It's built into human beings as a tribal species. Getting to the moon was just like that. I mean, you can sort of also glean that fact from the observation that there was only one other country that plausibly could have gotten there around the same time, and that was the Soviets, right, that were out in the former Soviet Union.

They were the only ones that had the capability. When they were kind of depleted economically at the end of the Cold War, and just by virtue of being a communistic, bloated country, on the verge of eventual collapse just 20 years later. I mean, it collapsed 20 years later. And that was on a down swing. They realized that part of why the U.S. wanted to go there is to bankrupt them. You know, it was basically forced their hand. They were so, and a lot of people think this was a legitimate conspiracy. You know, all conspiracies are wrong. Like, you and I can conspire to go to dinner tonight. That doesn't mean that they're evil or whatever. Part of the U.S. military's conspiracy was like, we can outspend them into bankruptcy by making it so important to their source of national

pride and what communism and all these things mean, like Soyuz and Union, and it's like their national flag was the name of their first, you know, Sputnik and so forth. Those are all the names of very important concepts in socialism and communism. So for them, it was not only their country, but it was the whole notion, economic notion of communism and spreading that kind of doctrine worldwide and the hegemony of the communist society around the world. So force them to have to try to do that. Our chess move, you know, like the worst thing that you can have in. a battle according to our mutual friend that you connect me, and Drew Bustamante, is that psychologically allow your enemy to force every single move that you do. Like right now in Iran,

Israel's so far in their heads, they can't even use like the internet or email. They can't use anything electronic or communicating on paper. And Israel knows that and so they know there's going to be a lag between when an order is given and when the order is not, you know, actually enacted upon. So they can now operate at any level that they want. They're actually controlling the enemy, even though they're not like forcing them with a gun to their. head to Ayatollah's head, they're still able to control exactly what they're doing, more or less. And that's why they didn't mount any kind of attack. They knew exactly what they were going to do in the attack on the Qatar base and stuff. Right. The ambition comes in all shapes and sizes.

At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. The U.S. was in the Soviets head just like that. And they have people operating in our government. They have spies. that stole the nuclear technology for the A-bomb, for the hydrogen bomb, you know, they did both ways. I mean, it wasn't just like we were the only ones that were not a spy. Obviously, we fought this 50-year-long Cold War with them, but eventually they collapsed, right? So part of this was the search for national grandeur. And back then, by the way, Norway wasn't like some country the way it is now and like part of NATO or whatever and just like a trade.

They were kind of like a vassal of the Soviet Union in some ways. and they had their own kind of designs on power in the Nordic countries over Sweden. Sweden's also, you know, is a huge economic. It's actually bigger than Norway now. But back then it was kind of like one giant country, and they had sort of aims on becoming an economic superpower themselves. And so for England, the world's only, you know, the biggest superpower, the master of commerce and trade,

a country that established, you know, the sun never sets on the British Empire for them to lose. This is the first real battle that they lost. And it marked kind of, if you look back, historically, it kind of marked the descendancy of their imperialistic, you know, kind of dominance over the planet, over commerce, which then affected the South Pole. The South Pole, losing the race to the South Pole.

Wow. So this is a long-winded way of saying it's entirely plausible that the, and actually it was easier for them to reach the South Pole than to reach to go to the moon. I mean, there were other countries involved that could have gotten, the U.S. could have gotten to the South Pole. In fact, we flew over the South Pole, Adam of Bird, flew over the South Pole and a plane, you know, only a couple of dozen years after a plane was invented. You know, so we could have done it probably.

So there were other countries, but the moon landing, only two countries could have done it. One was being economically crippled by the other one and by its own policies and communism in general tends to do that. And because of that, it's entirely plausible to me that they didn't reach it. And the fact that they also had these lunar probes, remember I said my friend Tom Murphy, shoots lasers or did shoot lasers to measure the distance to the moon, the precision of the moon, the precision of one millimeter in order to test theories of gravity. See, Julian, there's a concept called dark matter. You've probably heard of it.

Yes, we're going to talk about that. Yeah, we should talk about that. Dark matter is this mysterious substance or perhaps, remember, you always have to have an alternative explanation. You can't just go so deep into your explanation that it could only be UFOs or it can only be quantum gravity or it can only be a theory of everything or can only be dark matter. Right now, the leading candidate that explains why galaxies behave in the certain peculiar way that they behave, is that there's

an cloud of massive particles that don't interact with photons. And there's examples of those that we already know about that we detect called neutrinos. Neutrinos are massive. They have tiny, tiny massive. The lightest masses of the elementary particles,

the 17 elementary particles. Three of them are neutrinos. They have masses below 0.1 electron where the electron is the most massive, the least massive particle whose mass we know. We don't know the exact mass of the neutrino yet. We hope to do that with the Simon's Observatory

and other projects. We can talk about how we're going to do that. But it's not like this chunk of meteorite that you get at my website. Because this meteorite is dark in space. If there's no sun or light around it, it appears dark. And it affects gravitationally

the trajectory of other objects around it via Newton's laws of gravitation, right? It has mass and it can affect things gravitationally. Well, dark matter is just like this, except you can't see it. It should really be called invisible matter because it's massive, but it's transparent.

You really can't see it. You can't see through. You can't detect it. You can't do anything with it. It's not like this that just doesn't glow in its own accord. So that's dark matter, what we call dark matter.

But there's an alternative explanation for dark matter, which is that, no, no, no. There's no such thing as dark matter because a lot of people believe it's nonsense because we haven't seen it and we're claiming that it makes up 85% of the mass of the universe

in the form of matter. And you idiot physicists are claiming that this exists. And there are legitimate physicists who say, no, what actually is happening, is that at incredibly large scales, the scale of a galaxy,

that gravity actually has to be deviated from the way that Newton taught us that things behave as inverse square. It's actually a little bit different from an inverse square law. Or that F doesn't equal MA. So the force on an object normally equals its mass, this crystal, magic crystal that we still need to talk about,

has some mass, some, you know, maybe 100 grams, and it's in an Earth's gravitational field. It will accelerate 9.8 meters per second every second. No. They say no. Actually, at very low accelerations, far below 9.8 meters per second squared, we're talking like fractions of a billionth of a meter per second squared because these things operate on such large scales that if the gravitational force were much stronger than that, the modification were stronger than that, they would be going faster in the speed of light given the age of the universe. So these have to be very low accelerations. But we can't test

low accelerations on Earth because the mass of the Earth is too big, even though it's weak, gravity is weak, it still is too big to see this microscopic trillions of the gravitational force field on Earth. But they say, no, if you modify Newton's laws, not Einstein, forget about Einstein, you modify Isaac Newton's laws, you can actually account for dark matter without any new particle. You get the behavior of these galaxies and clusters of galaxies that astronomers are reported for the last hundred years. So that's an alternative.

Now, that's partially why colleagues are shooting lasers at the moon, because they want to test, not on Earth because the Earth's gravity is too strong and not on the Moon because the Moon's gravity is too strong but in the space time between the Earth and the Moon and look for small deviations between the Newtonian behavior and this proposed modified Newtonian dynamics called Mond. It's sort of,

it may have some relevance to what Claudia DeRom talked about here with gravity has mass. That blew my mind. It is. It's actually much more plausible, in fact, that gravity is modified on intergalactic distances then that gravity has a mass. Can you say that in English? Okay. So what Claudia is claiming is that

on the entirety of the entire cosmos, gravity may not propagate at the speed of light. Gravity may propagate slower because it's not actually caused by massless particles called gravitons. It's a modified version of that that propagates because anything that has mass cannot travel at the speed of light.

Therefore, in her mind, these Claudians or whatever the particles are in her model, they travel slightly slower than the speed of light. It's harder to test that because you essentially need the entirety of the cosmos to test that. Whereas with dark matter, the claim is it's in this room right now. Like the gravity of the dark matter, yeah, it's in the room with you right now. It's calling from you. It's calling from your living.

Exactly. Right. Where did the spot on the teddy? Where did the dark matter hurt you? So because of all these features, it's actually easier to falsify, which is a good thing, the dark matter hypothesis. That said, we haven't falsified it yet. But these people are shooting lasers at the moon. Again, I'm trying to come back to why do we believe the moon landing haven't?

Not only is it true that people are testing the precision with thinner than this to accuracy, better than the thickness of this meteorite, they're actually testing it for reasons to prove this prevailing model wrong. In other words, they're also kind of conspiracy theories. They want to prove that, no, gravity is not what Newton said it is. It has to be modified from what Newton said it was. That's a good thing. But to do that, they're actually accidentally proving that the moon landing happened.

as is the fact you made a psychological kind of appealed or sociological appeal. You said, isn't it weird that no one went back in 50 years? Okay. Well, here's an example. So from society where the exact same thing happened. Immense amounts of resources were expended. Lives were lost. People, you know, economies were diverted to doing this whole project.

Wait, lives were lost. Oh, yeah. On the way there. Yeah. And the moon, too. A lot of astronauts died. Yep. Not, you know, not too many, thankfully.

But, but, and then all these things were made. and even things they don't dispute. Like, again, they're using telecommunications. We have satellites. We have things that are on the moon that were placed there. They won't dispute that. So this is a long-winded way of saying that the more different directions you have

to explore a scientific claim, the harder it is to falsify it. But that's a good thing. You should ask people to ask. So when they say the moon landing didn't happen, the only things that they'll usually point to are the O'Van-Belts or too toxic to human being, which again is using the principles of science

and physics and physics, and physiology. They're using like basic notions of it to try to refute the scientific endeavor itself, which claims beyond a reasonable doubt that the moon landing did occur. I find that very disingenuous. And, you know, it's also one of those things

like I know in America, we have our problems and, you know, we've done things in the past that aren't great for sure. But there's so much great that I'm so proud to live in this country for. And I think something like getting to the fucking moon is incredible. So when,

it becomes like mainstream to be like yeah that shit never happened i'm almost like you know can we take this anger like out on the cia or something that's like you know more deserves it more and it's always the same people the anti-semites the people so no one says like you don't hear kansas own saying well actually charles linberg who's a rabid anti-sumite uh we actually removed his name from the san diego airport it used be called linberg field it's not called san diego airport uh because of his support for nazi you know propaganda at least himself he wasn't like going on killing jews um but no one ever said like i don't to Canada saying, well, look, there's much less proof that he made it all the way across the Atlantic.

And actually, that's much less probable that he made it across the Atlantic with no other help. It's what gets clicks, though, too. That's very, that's unfortunate. Now, I want to go back to, though, your point of you personally weighing, like, well, can I bring on someone like a Bart Sabrella or something like that? Obviously, I haven't invited on Bart Sobrow. I'm going to be honest, I'm not that interested in it. I've seen his other podcast before.

but like I wouldn't say like he's not allowed on my show or something like that like if one day I want to do it I'd be like okay I'll do it The difference between you and me and this is where I see it from your perspective is I'm not a physicist Right I'm a fucking podcast I sit in an armchair that doesn't even have fucking arms on it you know what I mean And so when I get these perspectives it's kind of my job and a part of my being as someone who's not the expert on one set thing Sure to get all the different perspectives and talk about it. an enormous platform. You're a million subscribers strong, just on YouTube. I mean, think of how many other million might be listening to it, might be seeing it,

might be seeing clips, all sorts of things. You've probably, you know, at some level, influence, you know, a fraction of the Earth's surface that's not insignificant, okay? So you have a much bigger, you know, people that listen to my podcast, very different demographic than listen to your podcast. Yeah, but I see what you're saying. But if I get all the perspectives covered and I make it clear that, like, hey, I know less about this thing.

Or maybe I know more about that thing right there. Right. That's just asking questions. Sure. Look, I don't have a problem. You can invite whoever you want. I can invite whoever I want. It's not been a problem.

I mean, I have people that have problems with those people that I've had on who are legitimate PhDs and science, right? So, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't have them on. I'm not even saying, like, I would punch a guy in the face if I saw him like Buzz Alderman did. I just think his motives are questionable. Speaking about Bart in particular. That could be fair. I think Terrence legitimately believes that he, he is being suppressed.

I believe that he's been traumatized psychologically by Hollywood, by certain contractual things. I know he's had, he's involved in various lawsuits and so forth. I don't think he does his self-of-favor when he criticized, challenges people like this guy, Professor Dave. You know, he chish challenge, you know, he wants to have a duel with him. He wants to have a duel? That's what, that's what Dave said on his pocket. Like a legal duel under Texas law kind of thing? No, like a gun duel, like a battle of knives.

Yeah, yeah. Oh, that's legal. Okay. I didn't know. I'm pretty sure that's legal in Texas. Yeah. Right? They'd be doing that Aaron Burr's shit down there.

Yeah, Dave did a video about that. You should do that in Brooklyn, Joe. See how that works out. So, you know, I consider Terrence not to be a friend, but we've communicated. He's friendly. Let me say we're friendly. He seems like a really good guy. And again, I think he's, I love him as an actor.

I think he's done incredible work. And I think he's a genuinely creative individual. And so for that reason, the only reason I say, well, you know, should I have him on my podcast or should I be? versus Bart Sibral or whatever, it's just like there's only so much time in the day. As you said, I'm a professor of physics. I've got, you know, 30 undergraduates. I've got four graduate students. I have to mentor them postdocs. I have to shepherd their career. I spend a day a week on a podcast. For me, it has to be a pleasure. Like, if I'm not enjoying what I'm doing, I'm not going to do it. I'm not doing it.

So you wouldn't enjoy it if you could talk with someone in a fair way, not to do gotcha shit, but to sit down and have a discussion and in that discussion be able to get across points that are going to maybe win over people who previously would have thought something that you view is objectively wrong. Do you think Bart is capable of being won over? Like, do you think any amount of evidence that? No, not him. Okay. So fine.

So you agree. So we're not debating him. No, debating the people that could be listening. And then like Terrence, for example, Terrence was on Joe Rogan with Eric Weinstein. That was a very good episode. It was a very good episode. Millions of people saw it. And then afterwards, Terence went on Patrick Bet David and talked about.

Eric and how he was, you know, concerned and thought Eric, you know, did some disrespectful things to him. And in fact, it didn't seem like Terrence was all that happy with that, with that interview with, on Joe Rogan. He felt like Eric was, you know, not giving him what he called a peer review. And Eric said it's not going to be a peer review. I'm not his peer. Or he's not my peer. And I think, you know, Terrence maybe consider that to be, you know, offensive or I don't want to speak for either one of the guys.

But the point being, what's the upside? like is it going to be enjoyable to like debate one times one equals two which i did so so here's my alternatives i did reaction videos about bart i so demonstrated how completely fallacious all of his points are one by one maybe i was about a year ago if i had to do it over again maybe i wouldn't be so you know snide or condescending or just snarky about it and i've i've improved how i do that like i did a reaction video to this other guy eric learner who claims the big bang didn't happen or this channel astrium who's like promoting stephen hawking in a way that's illegitimate. So I've moderated that. Or when I did a turn-

out on the bone here. I keep going. Yeah. So then, yeah, I did a reaction to Terrence Howard. I went through why is, why, or are we 100% sure that one times one equals two? All these different things. Here's the bottom line. You can't, you can't prove anything in science. Science is not about proving. I can't prove to you that this thing has a mass of, you know, 13 grams or whatever it does, right? I can't prove to you it's going to go down exactly at the because science is not about proof in the way that people use the word proof. People use the word proof in one of two different ways. Mathematical proof, which is certainty, which, by the way, Terence Howard doesn't believe in, right? So he's saying that one times one equals two,

which means he violates all the laws of arithmetic, basic laws of rational and irrational numbers. And I went through that. I might show the piano axioms. There's laws of mathematics that go through and it's complicated to show that one plus one equals two and that one times one equals one. It takes hundreds of pages of abstruse math, but you can do it. You can prove what math can prove. There's a certain set of laws that can't be proven. That's Gertil's Incompleteness theorem. Not far from here in Princeton, New Jersey, girdle's grave. You can go visit it. One of the grays... We'll do it right after. Let's say, yeah, maybe we'll do it, you know, before lunch. And so you can prove what's not provable, but in science, you can't prove anything. The job of a scientist is not to prove. It's to

falsify. Yes. It's to prove things wrong. It's to prove that your claims are incorrect. But again, I could say this meteorite weighs exactly 13.0 grams, and I'm wrong. But if I say it's less than 100,000 grams, I'm right. That's inaccurate. Sorry, that's accurate, but it's imprecise. Remember what I said before? accuracy is how close. It's true, it's less than, but who cares? It's not precise. I want to say it's less than 14.0.07, whatever.

But so the point is you can't prove a physical fact about anything. Therefore, you can't convince someone whose only standard is that I prove something to you because it's not possible. And even for people like Terrence,

it's not possible to convince him using laws that are provable, the laws of logic, axiomatic set theory. I can't prove it to him because he won't accept it. I could say to him, look, the studio promised you

if you do another episode of Empire, twice as much as you got last time. And he says, okay, well, two is one plus one. So now it's going to be two times two, which is going to equal to the four. And so now you're going to actually pay. No, they would say this is total nonsense. Like, we're not going to pay you, you know, $4 million.

We said we're going to pay you $1 million for you one to use terms like an action times an action reaction. Yeah. None of that is mathematical. So therefore, I don't know if it's because he's an artist, to be honest. I know artists. I think there's a big piece of that because like when he. My brother's an artist.

When he goes, one times one is one. But hold on. when he I'm talking about how his brain ways work because one thing I will say about Terrence Howard and listening to him he's not done oh no he's a very smart guy it's just like he's one of the top people I'd like to just you know we just spend some time talking about acting with that doesn't mean that he's right obviously which is what we're getting at but the way he was thinking about that where he's like when does an action with another action not have a bigger action it's like in theory that's right there's no common lexicon like if there's this famous you know notion and precursor to the Turing test. You've heard a Turing test. Of course. Yeah. It's artificially generally intelligent.

Right? There's another one called like a Chinese room where you'll basically, you and I are in two different rooms. We both speak English, but the guy between us is Chinese. And he's translating for us from me into English, into Chinese, back to English for you or something like that. He doesn't actually have to know anything about what I'm talking about dark matter. I'm talking about the moon landing.

Some guy named Carl, you know, called Kirk Gerdall and Candice. I mean, can you imagine that transcript? Like how watch. Like pick some peasant. some uneducated person who knows the language who can speak. He's not illiterate or she or whatever in China. Put him in the middle. Put her in the middle. And they're just translating back and forth. They don't know what the hell we're talking about. They don't have to know what we're talking about. But there's a law and you can encode everything mathematically and see if it makes sense, you know,

in terms of logical consistency. You can't do that with certain things. You can't, again, you have to have inputs from the external physical world that you and I have to agree upon, right? If we agreed to meet a certain time in place. And your definition of time is something from like the Navajo Chautau Indians had a different notion of time than, say, Western colonizers had or whatever, right? So, okay, so when you say we're going to meet a certain time, like, that didn't make sense. It doesn't mean that they're laid or not, but you have to give the external inputs. Then we can agree on something. That's calibration. I can't, you know, see the actual benefit. Yes, I'll get a lot of views. But judging from you to, I mean, first of all, that's not a huge goal of somebody in life, right?

getting views about science. Ask me something I'm proud of, right? I'm very proud of interviewed, like I said, 21 Nobel Prize winners, pop people like Claudia Duram and, you know, other friends and people that you and I know together. And I'm putting together sort of a university of people that I wish I'd gone to.

Now, there's a subset of that university which should do critical thinking. And I agree. Sometimes you can have an exceptionally important and impactful conversation about the importance of critical thinking. Yes. But how much of my time do I want to spend on that?

I see where you're coming from. But when you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed-sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast.

That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. I think that as someone who is very smart like yourself, legitimately lifetime in the space like yourself as a physicist, someone who is as connected across the physics community as anyone I've ever come across, the value of how, and you're a good guy too, you're fun to talk with.

Like the value of sitting down and having the conversation, I don't envy the fact that you have to think about your physics community as well in the sense that you're like, well, how will insert ex-physicist right here think of me having Y person on the show? I don't think you should have to think like that. I think that bringing on, like, let's stay with Bart Sobrel as an example, bringing him on, bringing on Bart Sobrel doesn't mean that Brian Keating is defined by Bart Sobrell. It means that Brian Keating is bringing on a guy who has a different perspective that he not only completely disagrees with, but also thinks he can scientifically prove that he has wrong.

And I have a lot of people like that. And so that's what I'm saying. Like you shouldn't have, in my opinion, you shouldn't have to think like that. If you want to talk with someone whose ideas you think are bad, do it. And like if that means that like this physicist isn't going to come on your show in the future, then fuck them. You know what? Like they, what are we doing here? I guess you have to, it's a matter of degree.

If you want to talk about, well, how much time. Because again, I can spend my whole life debating, debunking and our channels. do that and channels to do it better than I do it. They're also channel. Do a lot of it. Yeah, exactly. But there's, you know, there's a limited amount of time, attention that I can devote to this while still teaching, you know, hundreds of undergraduates and graduate students and, and postdocs and do scientific research. And the issue is that it also always comes down to this fundamental thing, which Terrence accused me of, which I think is legitimate. I think he's absolutely right. I am a gatekeeper at some level. And I think we need gatekeepers, right? I have a gate. I think I, well, let me give an

example. I have a gate around my pool at home because I have young kids and they have friends that come over that can't swim. Is that a bad thing? Should I not have a gate around my pool? I don't think it's a parallel example. Well, let me give you other examples. So we have things called peer review and science. So scientific peer review is incredibly analogous to gatekeeping. It is 100% analogous to gatekeeping. And now people will say, well, there are certain things that, you know, shouldn't go through. And there's certain people, you know, that should be allowed to get platform and they can't do this. It's like these campus protests. Okay, so you get these campus protests. People come up and scream about Israel as being genocide at their graduation. What are they doing? They're physically using the platform that they did

create. It's like if I came on here and I said, into the impossible, Dr. Brian King, that's all I did, just came on here. Like, would you air that episode? All I did is talk about your competitors or talk about people that are in the same space as you. Wow, you're not that good and like, oh, you suck and you do this and you believe that Israel's not competing in genocide, whatever he said, okay? At some level, you'd say, look, this doesn't serve me. This person's using me, using my platform to influence people in my audience to hear things that they want to hear. Now, they could be legitimate, but they didn't go out and create their own platform. They didn't go out and create Columbia University, did they? They're using the name Columbia University for the prestige to amplify some cause that they have that they believe in

with great passion. Now, I don't think that's legitimate. I don't think if you invite someone to your show and they use it as a platform to only speak ill about you and to speak positively about themselves and to amplify their own credibility. I don't think it actually works. I think it turns more people off. So peer review, cakekeeping, legal safety, actual gates. Do you see where that goes too far, though? So here's where it went too far.

In 2020, the COVID pandemic and the lab leak suppression of voices against the lab leak hypothesis, people that said it was racist to say it came from China. said it was better to say that they eat penguins, bats, and other shit, than to say that it actually escaped from the lab inside of Wuhan where there was no trail of things from the wet market, but there was 100% captivity of what was called, you know, what was called, what do they call the actual platform that they were trying to, they were modifying this to genetic, the fern cleavage site. They were doing all this stuff for, you know, for basically enhancing the functionality of this

possibly virus, engineered virus, 100% an engineered virus that have been modified from some naturally occurring virus. Okay? There were people that spoke up about that. They were suppressed, okay? They were kept out of journals. Their names were smeared. They were taken out of their university fundraising. They were put on probation. One of them is now the director of the National Institute of Health.

He's actually one of my closest friends, and his name is Jay Bauticharya. He was on my show during COVID when he was still out of, when it was 2020, 2021, rather. when he had been called a you know this fraudulently fringe epidemiologist by francis collins director of the n iH and and tony fouchy none other than our friend tony fouchy um a great italian american actually i met a guy who went to the italian uh the high school that that tony fouchy spoke at his name steve fuller anyway the the point being we don't blame fouchy that's right that's right italian americans exactly so um so yeah so i so

Can it go too far? Yes. Can it not? Can it also be an important thing for replication? You said before, science is about doing, like, confronting, you know, this or that. I actually don't agree with that. I'm meant to kind of pause it at that point. Maybe hit the WTF button.

That's a new one. I haven't heard that one before. So there is no such thing as science. Okay. So science is just a Latin word that means knowledge. Okay. So anything could be nile. Anything could be science.

Anything could be knowledge, right? It doesn't mean wisdom, by the way. That's sapiens. Sapienza. So the Italians had some great great ones that we know use.

That's what we're called homo sapiens. We're wise. We're not knowledgeable things. I mean, chimpanzees know a lot more about finding termites in an anthill than I do

or in a termite mound. So they have knowledge. Do they have wisdom? I don't know. Homosapian, the man who is wise about? What is he not knowledgeable about? He knows that we're going to die.

Humans are the only animals that are born know very soon after birth. We can't walk as fast as a horse can or we don't have claws and talons like an eagle. But we know, know we're going to die. No other animals do. Maybe 10 minutes before they die, they might know

something's up, but it's very different. That's what we're not knowledge of. And in fact, that's what it says in Genesis, what are you going to be knowledgeable if you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It's called the tree of life. It means that you know you're going to die and actually in the Talmudic interpretation of it. I never thought about that. That's where it comes from. Animals not knowing if they're going to die. There's only a few different animals who exhibit behavior collectively. Elephants are one where like some elephants about to die. to die and they circle around each other and they have some ritual. They do seem to exhibit mourning, but it's not like you knew you're going to die at age seven.

I'm not that you're going to die at age seven, but you knew at seven years old. I have a seven-year-old kid. They know they're going to die someday. They have an abstract notion of what it's like. Now it's, let me tell you something. As you get older, it's very grave, no pun intended on your mind that you're going to die because you only have so much time on the earth. Right now it feels infinite.

What are you in, 30s, something like that? I'm in my 50s, right? So when I started thinking about like, do I want to have Bart Cibral? You know, do I want to spend like, by the way, having him on means the following. He comes to my studio. He looks at my laboratory. We have a crew.

It's a day. It's a day of my life dedicated to him. Or do I want to spend time with my seven-year-old? Or do I want to spend time with you? Or do I want to do it remotely? Or do I want to go on Danny show or Joe Rogan show? Then why talk about him? Why talk about him?

Why make videos on him if you don't want to talk with him? That would be the rebuttal there. I think you can also do what he's doing, which is what I'm doing now. So he went on a podcast to talk about the reasons we didn't go to the moon. now I'm on a podcast talking about the proof that we did go to within the domains and restrictions of the word proof. And you don't think it'd be positive and something you'd feel good about afterwards, especially given the preponderance of the evidence you have to talk with them. I've changed my mind on things scientifically. Did I not write it?

I mean, you said to Claudia, that was one of the impressive things that you're like to. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. That's a mark of a scientist. Yes. Someone who's willing to do that. Now, he's not a scientist. Candice Owens not a scientist.

Terrence Howard, not a scientist. is now training, formal training, no education in that way, self-taught or whatever. But when you see people that are, that have done things also that are malicious, the way he treated Buzz Aldrin or was with Basaldron, the aspersions that he cast upon these other astronauts that he claimed, you know, that confess things to him and then later on sued him. I mean, Barts, okay, so let's leave BART out of it. I think Barts an exceptionally kind of difficult persona, one that's easily. refuted remotely. There's no like need. There's, there's no facts that are going to change about the

Apollo moon landing, laser ranging finding instrument that I put, that I told you about, the lunar seismology project. The fact that our enemies, the Soviet Union had an exact same plan called Lunachad, which means Mars Walker. They did the exact same. They want to measure the distance of the moon, too, to prove their, they had a gravity, they had a gravity and atomic program rivaling on. They were the only country rivaled on, right? They built the exact same thing. Guess what? We saw what their landers had put there, but they used the ones that the Apollo astronauts put there with actual photographs of it. And so you can go online and find pictures of the Apollo 11 moon landing site with footprints and the astronauts, with the flag and

you can see it from our enemies. So what does that tell you? Is that this elaborate hoax, as he's suggesting, would it be not more difficult? Which would have been harder? To go to the moon when we already had gone, I mean, he doesn't dispute that we were in the Gemini program. The Gemini program is a precursor to the Apollo landing when they showed the Gemini meant twins. You could dock together a spacecraft in space in orbit and the high Earth orbit surrounding the Earth and then bring the astronauts back

because they had to land on the moon, bring the lander back up to the command module, then docked and then the landing module back on Earth was totally different. So they had this very complex. A Gemini, he doesn't dispute that. We have like photographs and he doesn't dispute the astronauts left the Earth.

So where were they? we're the, so, and then you have to convince our enemy at the time that we, to also, on our behalf, it would be like Iran is going to say like, actually, or Hamas, let me say like this, Hamas coming out and saying, Israel's not committing genesis. Like, do you, like, that would be pretty hard to do, right? It'd be hard. Wouldn't be easier to create peace almost between Israeli. I mean, it's hard to do that too, between Israel and, and Hamas. Like, that could happen, right? Trump could make it happen, right? Could be Abraham. I mean, do you think the Abraham Accords were possible 20 years ago? I didn't think that would be, that would be possible.

possible? Or do you think Iran could fall in 12 days in a war that, you know, like nobody thought they thought they were the most powerful military in the Middle East, 92 million people? They fell in a couple of two bombers flew overhead, right? They're now back to the negotiating table, right? Can you mention convincing? Like, it's almost harder to get them to the negotiating table without the B2s. Then in other words, people say, oh, the B2s were a hoax. Like, we didn't actually do it. We never dropped a bomb on them. The Ford was a mistake. That's just a little tiny blip on that, right? All these things point to the fact that it's...

I wish they were a hoax. Right. It's almost harder to make up the hoax. It would have cost more money to make up the hoax. So a person like that is not scientific. Bart is not a scientist. He's not going to listen to evidence. All these things are rash.

He knows. I don't think he will. I don't think he'll listen evidence. So then what is the point from... What's the upside? Because a bunch of people watch my video? There's a lot of people right now who, again, they be out with the bathwater and I get it,

are just pissed at the entire expert. class so they are going with anything. It can be anything. And there's some things I'll see. I'm like, ah, they might have a point there. And there's other things. I'm like, what? What are we doing? And I think that part of the problem is the over gatekeeping. Now, I want to go back to that point you were making. I see what you're saying, where you're like, you have to have some level of a standard. I don't disagree with that. The problem is the gatekeeping in the past 10 years in society got to such an insane level that it was shutting out people like Jay Baticharia and stuff like that. Which is why I had him on my show. That's right. But he's also a

legitimate scientist. He also believes in peer review, by the way. He also believes in replication. He believes in double-blind studies. He believes in vaccines. He believes in a lot of things that even the more fringe people in the RFK camp maybe would take issue with, which is a reason that I actually have some more confidence in RFK, right? He's allowing to be, you know, into the kind of national health discussion, people, he wouldn't have been, Jay wouldn't have been promoted to NAHH or if it wasn't,

if RFK, you know, basically nixed it, right? So I give RFK some credit for that. I think he's assinine about certain other things scientifically. And I'd have him on,

I'd have him on a second. I know that would make people mad. I have people from my funding agency say, why do you have on, you know, why did you go on Rogan? Your funding agency? I have funding agencies,

like National and National Science Foundation, other things, um, that were upset when I went on Joe Rogan. They were upset. You went on Joe Rogan. They were upset. Every fucking great.

physicists in the world has been on that show. I don't think every great physicists have been on there. Not not everyone. There's been a couple of great physicists, but he's on, you know, a great number of people that are out there and completely on scientific. And I think their perspective was, look, you know, there's a, that's a person who's platform people that are anti-vax, that are believe autism has caused by vaccines and things that are demonstrably false, that even people like Jay don't believe, Jay Bata-Turie does not

believe that the measles vaccine causes autism. I mean, he doesn't believe that. I don't know if RFK believes that or not. I know that he's had these vaccines himself. I know that my kids have had vaccines, right? But let me get back to this point about things like the conversation and gaykeeping. So I start every two or three hours, I get an email, Professor Keating. I've got this great idea.

And then I, you can insert them like, theory of everything. A substructure of the neutrino, new math proof, alien visitation to me. I've experienced alien visitation. I get a lot of those. Get all these different. And pick your theory, okay? Pick your fringe out there, scientific theory. I can't get it published.

I tried this archive, which is a public domain, but it's actually moderated, so it's almost impossible for non-academic, not non-people that don't have. Dotedu email addresses, which if you have one, you're guaranteed to win one of these meteorites to go to Briankeen.com slash edu,

because I love to support young academicians. I actually having a new book come out about, you know, how to succeed as a graduate student, as a scientist, as a scientist in training that's coming out in September. Don't talk to Bart Subbrough. That's why succeed. Chapter 1.

No, nine Nobel Prize winners. Instead of talking to Bart, I talked to nine Nobel Prize winners instead. And transcribed and annotated everything that they had to advise me and not my listeners about. But so I started doing the following thing. You have this infinite energy supply. You have this way that revolutionizes physics. They always say, I'm not good with math.

But if you help me, we can split the Nobel Prize. I'll keep the money, you keep the, whatever. So I said, okay, great, great. This is what I'm going to do. Every month, one hour a month, the last Friday of the month, typically, I will have an office hour. Okay? And if you want to come in, I'll talk to anybody and no judgment. You can tell me about the flat earth.

You can tell me about one times one equals two. You can tell me that there's a substructure to the quark. You can tell me all these different things. Whatever you want to do, we can talk of string theory is bogus, here's why. You can talk about your favorite theory. But here's the catch. I'm going to charge you for it. I can get paid as a consultant to speak at, you know, not to speak, but to influence, you know,

patents and so forth, I can get $1,000 an hour for consultation. Yeah. And so I say, but I don't even say I'm going to charge you at necessarily $1,000, unless you want to, if you want a private conversation with a physicist, for one hour, I will charge you a thousand dollars. And I donate, but that has to go to charity. Okay. So I say, you have to donate to a charity of my choice, which is usually, there's a food,

it's terrible. At UCSD, we have people that are food insecure. In other words, students that can't afford to pay tuition. and to pay for food. So that's called the Triton Food Pantry. Look it up. I'm a big supporter of them. So I say donate $1,000 to Triton Food Pantry.

I don't get a penny of it. Or you can join for an hour. Oh, if you can't come to the, you know, if that's too much for you, fine. You can join my Patreon and so forth. You pay $19.99 a month for membership on my YouTube channel. And then you have an hour with me. And you got to lock them in for a year. You got to lock them in.

Well, I don't do. I just say you can just do it for one. Right. Lock them in for you. So we'll talk about merch later on to Julia. Okay. So you know how many people take me up on that? Remember, this is world-changing.

Four. Yeah. You know, I had four people on last time. And I make it totally accessible. I don't record, I don't, you know, unless they want me to record. I recorded one of them once because people have these ideas about, you know, the universe is a plasma. Or the Big Bang never happened. That's another big one that people want to talk to me about.

I'm wrong about the Big Bang my whole life. Career is a waste of time. So people won't put their money where their mouth is. Remember, capitalism always wins. despite what Zornan wants us to believe. The mayor, Zornhan, Hasfashalam, we say. So the point being,

if we have a very low threshold, but you were so convinced of your erectitude, and you just needed to have five minutes of someone's idea, someone's time, you think that they'd be willing to do it. But these are people that, like, they really want to just get this under their belt that they talk to this,

like I had people, I put a heart on a comment they made on some video, and then they'll find my email, at Brian Keating.com, which is not hard to find, and they'll write me. And they'll be like, you know, you're harder to comment. Now can you take a look at my theory of everything? Oh, God. I'm like, okay, I don't think you understand. But if you want me to, here, sure, yeah, I'll see you on next Friday. Just pay $19.99 a month. They won't do it. You want a private audience, $1,000 to food pantry at UCSD? They don't do it. So I don't think these are fundamentally

serious people, nor do I think they're capable of changing their mind. I've never had one. I get this a lot lately, too. I've put my theory into grok or chat GPT. and it came out, no objections given whatsoever. It's like, that's like one, it's like asking your mother. Like, did I do a good job on the podcast, Mommy? You know, like, no. It's not going to.

My mom would be like, no. He's screwed up. My mom would be like, you did this wrong, you did that wrong. If you enjoyed this part one of my special conversation with Julian Doreh. I know you're going to love part two, but until that's ready, enjoy my brutal takedown of Bart Cibrell's complete nonsense about denying the moon landing. Click here, and don't forget to like comment and subscribe

to my channel and to Julian's as well. Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up, and audit dread? It's time for Vanta. Vanta automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place, and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clear visibility, bastard deals,

zero chaos. Call it compliance, or call it, Compliance. Get it? Join the 15,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to VANTA.com slash com.