Julian Dorey Podcast - #325 - Astrophysicist on Intelligent Life, Dark Matter & Antarctica Mystery | Brian Keating

Episode Date: August 1, 2025

SPONSORS: 1) FUM: Head to https://www.tryfum.com/JULIAN and use promo code JULIAN to get your free gift with purchase and start the Good Habit today 2) GhostBed: Use Code "JULIAN" to get 10% off GhostBed Sitewide: https://ghostbed.com/julian PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey WATCH BRIAN KEATING'S PREVIOUS EPISODE: https://youtu.be/R0G7WUqHwqw (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Dr. Brian Keating is an astrophysicist, award-winning author, and science popularizer. BRIAN LINKS: Brian YouTube: https://youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Brian Apple Podcast: https://apple.co/39UaHlB Brian Spotify Podcast: https://spoti.fi/3vpfXok Brian Website: https://BrianKeating.com FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 – Terrance Howard, Dr. Weiping Yu, NASA rejection, quantum mechanics, UFO hunters, social science 12:33 – Simple Explanations, Bart Sibrel, Falsifiability, NASA, Airplane Lifespan 23:02 – Airplane Glue, Infinite Energy, Moon Landing Hoax, Global Proof 33:14 – South Pole, Amundsen, Antarctica Access, LC-130s, U.S. Return 46:54 – South Pole = Moon, Soviets, Dark Matter, Gravity Debate 58:15 – Moon Deniers, Complex Claims, Scientific Method, Lexicon Issues 01:09:40 – Physicist Pushback, Mortality Awareness, Julian’s Opinion 01:17:49 – Talking to Bart, RFK Jr, Rogan Backlash, $1K Consult 01:26:33 – Big Bang Theories, Cosmologist Stats, Twinkling Stars, CMB 01:42:26 – Water Isotopes, Wild Discoveries, Galaxy Structure, Kepler’s Law 01:59:04 – Galaxies 50M LY Away, Accidental Science, Dark Energy 02:07:09 – Big Rip, Hubble Constant, Scientific Excitement, Elon Convo 02:17:54 – Procreation, Dating Advice, David Sachs, Basic Research 02:27:50 – Human Consciousness, Wisdom vs Knowledge, Earth Focus 02:38:10 – Mars Journey, New Book, Jim Simons, Alien Life 02:50:57 – Musk Debate 02:57:05 – Brian's Work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 325 - Brian Keating Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Doesn't it start to make the probability that there is intelligent life out there damn near 100% as we get farther and farther here? Astronomers built the very first new telescope to look at images of galaxies and stars millions of light years away. In 10 hours, discovered 2,000 asteroids discovered this mysterious substance, considered to be dark matter that causes the universe to expand, to inflate, to get bigger every day, and the universe could, in fact, collapse. If I told you this, right now in 2025, what would you put the odds of humanity? existing for another 1,000 to 10,000 years. If you get convinced that going to Mars is the civilizational prospect, we need basic physics research.

He thinks it will take 1,000 starship launches to build a bubble dome type city there. What's his estimated time to reach Mars? Something like nine months. That's the fastest you can get there. Now, why is that important? He obviously thinks that there is some urgent reason to go to Mars now because right now there seems to be evidence that the dark energy... Hey guys, if you're not following me on Spotify,

to five, please hit that follow button and leave a five-star review. They're both a huge huge help. Thank you. Yeah, Patrick, that David gave me a name check while he was on with this kind of really disappointing example of a NASA physicist, this guy, Dr. Weeping You, 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. That was kind of embarrassing. But, you know, I like Patrick. He does some good stuff. But at this case, yeah, it was kind of a little bit embarrassing. I said, Terrence because he went out to talk about his you know his theory the lynchpin his theory of um 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 uh 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 uh so they bring on so let's say that's somewhat legitimate there's something he wants to talk about plus he's talking about how he went to like diddy parties and all sorts of crazy or he didn't go to ditty parties and his man wanted to fuck me his his his man card is still in effect uh 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 terence's theory and had his own theory which is is that the universe doesn't have any other forces besides electricity.

This is what Weiping Shoe thought. 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. 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, my dream, you know, be complete at age 21, 22. So I said, 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 I didn't want to work for NASA.

I want to do other things. 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, 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. Okay. He's claiming that gravity is electricity and magnetism, not actual gravitational force. He claimed, so he has his own theories about how all these things are structured, totally nonsensical, completely refuted by all of 20th century and 24th 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. We 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 1.4.4.2.005, 27, 5, 6, that's a 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 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 precisely is how many digits of precision do you have on that number okay so if you're throwing darts at a dart board 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 multiple estimates or multiple throws

of a dart at the dartboard 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 that something that's accurate. If it's truly accurate, at 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 Duram.

Oh, thank you. 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 producer. 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. 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, of dust. 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. 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 the 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 hypothesized they were drones. So what do we do? We built a whole bunch of fleer systems and we saw all these things doing flip-flops on TikTok and no, no. 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 mislead 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 were 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 on Earth.

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 wrong it doesn't mean that they think that they're lying and that they know that they're lying it's just 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 this is where, like, you know, I actually really enjoyed listening to Terrence 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 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 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? And so there's nothing that's entirely 100% good or bad. Religion, it's not entirely good or bad. You know, democracy, not entirely good or bad. We can go on down a list. Guys, this is really hard for me to talk about. A lot of this hits close to home.

I know many of you out there are going to be able to relate to this, but we all have some family members and close friends. that vape and i have one sitting next to me right here producer joe yeah who was a horrendous vapor can't stop won't stop can't stop won't stop until he found fume if you're a part of the 50 percent of people who attempt to quit vaping each year you need to equip yourself with the right tools for the job and there's no better tool to break up with your bad habit than this episode sponsor fume the award-winning flavored air device loved by over a half a million customers Here's why. Fume is twice as effective as the solutions you've tried, and it's back with lab-tested safety studies, so both doctors and customers agree. Fume is the good habit, and it's one-third the cost of your bad habit.

Would you say it's also a nice field? It's fidget-friendly? Absolutely. It really helps that oral fixation. Oh, yeah. That's important. It's perfect for keeping my hands busy and my mind at ease during stressful moments. What's your favorite flavor? Mango, brother. Good stuff. It gives you that great feeling in your sense.

throat that the alternative would pause but it's actually good for you and by the way all of fumes cores that joe's using right now are natural flavors with no nicotine and no vapor so start your guilt-free journey with the good habit and use code julian to get a free gift with your purchase and begin your overdue breakup just head to tryfume dot com slash julian link in description below that's t r y f um com slash julian and use code julian at checkout to start your good habit today litigating stuff for the sake of relitigating stuff without a purpose say the moon landing and this guy bart Cibrell you know him well right so um 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 um so you could bring up Bart Cibro I did a video about Bart Cibrell and did you ever have him on um he won't debate it's weird I thought didn't you have him on no you didn't somebody Danny. Oh, Danny, yeah. You're buddy of Danny Hanam. Yeah, who I thank you for introduce me to Danny. So Danny Hanamon, they mentioned me. Danny Jones, we're talking about. Yeah, Danny Jones. And he, so Bart told me something, which I didn't know, because 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. I gave him a moon rock and a

Mars rock. Well, yeah. Okay, fine. See you guys. When you hit a million on this episode, episode, I will bring you a Mars Rock as a birthday present. I brought you a magic crystal. Then we were going to talk about the magic crystal, and we're going to talk about that. All right. I'll take the crystal. 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 a closed 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's uh if it was truly there and not a camera artifact it would look 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,

tons 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 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

exclusively claimed to be left by the NASA astronauts can be seen from photographs of the moon 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 exist outside the earth. If the universe is inflationary? If the universe is inflationary, if there are multiple universes.

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 Zibor will claim. 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. They talk about me, you know, interview getting in. He's like, well, I don't want to talk to anyone besides the scientist. 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. And, 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 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 Ocuckoo or, you know, and then you're like, well, what is this guy? Like, what is he doing? Like, 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, 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 thin 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't 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 other 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 it. Nobody commercialized it. They sit there. They'll probably never. be used, that's okay. You take certain swings 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, you know, but they couldn't get zero G, almost zero G, or one-third G on Earth, right? So they built this enormous contraption at NASA Langley, and 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 can things ever. So Neil Armstrong actually had to 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. 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 this, 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 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 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 probably had about 10,000 pressurization cycles if the average flight time is about two hours so they've cycled the pressure to you know 20 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 skin? I advise all your listeners, forget on the plane. Turn right. 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 top 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's 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 that. 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, they're 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 ponding.

So there's a glue surface. I didn't know this before I worked at NASA. I don'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 should, again, just keep it in place. You ever build, like, you know, models when you're a kid and you get the, you know, or rockets, SD's 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 that was scary that's because they don't have nass right well they do have nass they have a nasa there's a spicy logo they actually call the logo the meatball so that's uh all right watch it so the um no they do they call it um so that's 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 as 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't scan it 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 depress his knowledge because it provides infinite energy and all sorts of other things. Well, we actually already have an infinite energy source called the sun. It floats up every day above

us. It doesn't charge money. It doesn't go on vacations. It 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 get by the thing that and 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 claim that what's happening is that Terence's ideas 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 in 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. Candiceau has been completely unscientific, and it shows when she uses things like Wi-Fi to say how bad science is and how bad the inventions out of NASA were that actually literally are giving her the mouthpiece that she has to speak ill about NASA. I mean, 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, it was 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 Cibrell and people are like, oh, Bart crushes you and Bart snows. People want to believe that there's a vast conspiracy of a cabal of people manipulating and, you know, 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 not 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 realized that some of the very things that they were suppressed for sex. 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 open 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 um i've been to the south pole antarctica twice it's an amazingly boring place it makes new jersey look like that no no it's it's i'm just kidding i can't tell i can't tell um the the the south pole is imagine going out into the middle of the atlantic go out like four 500 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 well the pyramids and the pyramids well exactly right

I know you're gonna clip that you're covering up for all this stuff now 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 21st, it goes below the horizon, comes up September 21st. You know the feeling. Hours of deep conversation, wild theories, and hard questions. Then it's midnight and your brain's still in overdrive. That's when having the right mattress makes all the difference.

Because mental recovery needs physical recovery. And if your bed isn't helping you sleep, it's slowing you down. Ghostbed gets it. Their mattresses are built with cooling and comfort in mind so you can actually rest. Whether you run hot year round or just want a bed that won't trap heat like others do, Ghostbed has you covered. Every mattress in their lineup is designed for cooling. But the Ghostbed Lux model is the standout.

It's got patented cooling tech and a cool-to-the-touch cover that instantly helps you wind down. Not sure if the lux is the right fit, head to ghostbed.com slash Julian and take their quick mattress quiz. You'll get a personalized recommendation based on how you sleep, whether you share the bed, and more. Every ghost bed includes their exclusive pro core layer for extra support through your back and hips, a 101 night sleep trial, and a 20 to 25-year warranty. And right now, Julian Dory listeners and first-time customers are going to get an extra 10. 10% off on top of already reduced prices. Just go to ghostbed.com slash Julian. Link a description below and use code Julian, J-U-L-I-A-N at checkout.

That's ghostbed.com slash Julian. Promocode Julian at checkout and upgrade your sleep with Ghostbed, makers of the coolest beds in the world. And because of that, and it's cold, high altitude nature, it's very good for looking at microids 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 put it 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 a 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 centimeters or so of water. It could be that high, okay, 100 millimeters of water. 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 if you extend, and it doesn't matter how wide the glass is. You just extend the 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 it's 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 I'm fortunately because of global warming global climate change definitely not a hoax the the amount of snow days you get is almost negligible here compared to when I was a kid we used to get 10 you know 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 know sometimes it was

wouldn't it would be so cold and there would have been snow but the snow actually condensed out of the atmosphere because that 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 right um 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 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.

And he immediately turned around in the middle of, so this would have been the northern, this would have been the northern summer trying to, 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... They were 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. Okay.

Selfie. This is a basically, 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 in 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 while we're talking about poles. 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, imagine like, and this would be like, and I'm going to make the analogy, Neil Armstrong stepping out of the eagle sipping on some tang and then all of a sudden he lands and he looks down it's a Soviet Union's flag that he crashed on 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 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 because now 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 they that's their selfie three weeks later see that's january 1912 so it's only three weeks difference. So that'll 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 to get there. That three week difference was the difference between life and death. 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. They ran. 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, you know, C-A-S-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.

Can't be militarily. You can't 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 south latitudes. So it's 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, one of the, 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 the 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 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 it 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, and my homies up there in New York. 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... Six flights a day? Six flights a day except for 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 J.P.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 kerosene very similar to it that's how all the electricity is power so the plane flies up 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 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 is is using it as a 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 a summer.

During the winter, no one flies. You can't fly because the fuel would freeze. 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 to hire 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 weave. 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 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, it was 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, 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 that, you know, very few of maybe no people about it. 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 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 State 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 a huge source of 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 a biggest city in America, not in the northern North America, but it's the biggest city in America and so it's a capital, financial capital, population, it's an incredibly important place. We take pride in it. That's why it's 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 base of it. So that's people get upset.

about it's source of pride for you right you don't want to see it go bad uh your team your philly philadelphia philis the source of pride like it's a city it's something that you do it's sort of nationalistic it's built into human beings as tribal species yes getting to the moon was just like that i mean you you can sort of also uh glean that fact from the 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 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 communistic, bloated country on the verge of eventual collapse just 20 years later. I mean, they 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, 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. 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 with me, Andrew 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, email, they can't use anything electronic or communicating on paper. Like that, 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. 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 U.S. was in the Soviet's head, just like that. And they had people operating in our government. They had spies that stole the nuclear technology for the A-bomb,

for the hydrogen bomb they did both ways I mean it wasn't just like we were the only ones 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 and they had their own kind of designs on power in the Nordic countries over Sweden Sweden. You know, 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, you know,

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 Bird, flew over the South Pole in 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 of the precision of one millimeter in order to test theories of gravity? See, Julian, there's a concept called dark magic. 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 can 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 are 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 volt where the electron is the most massive, most 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 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, you know, 85% of the mass of the universe

in the form of matter, and you idiot physicists are claiming that this exists, and they're a legitimate physicist 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 trillionth 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 Duram talked about here with the gravity has a mass. That blew my mind. It is. It's actually much more plausible, in fact, that gravity is modified on intergalactic distances

than 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 Claudions 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 here it's calling from where did you touch you 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, there are 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 appeal or sociological appeal. So 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, a lot of lives were lost. Yeah, and the moon too.

A lot of astronauts died. Yep. Right? 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 and but that's a good thing you should ask people to so when they say the moon landing didn't happen the only things that they'll usually point to are the oh van allen belts are too toxic to human being which again is using the principles of science and physics and physics and physics 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. comes, 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 that go. So no one says, like, you don't hear Candaceone saying, well, actually Charles Lindbergh, who's a rabid anti-Semite. We actually removed his name from the San Diego airport. It used to be called Lindbergfield. It's not called San Diego Airport because of his support for Nazi, you know, propaganda, at least himself. He wasn't like going on and killing Jews. But no one ever said, like, I don't see Candace. 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. Right. Of course. 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 Sabrella. 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. all 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 an enormous platform you're a million subscriber 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 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 that's just asking questions and i'm sure but i 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 in 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. Something about Bart in particular. That could be fair. I think Terrence legitimately believes that 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 like a legal duel under texas law kind of thing no like a gun duel like a battle yeah yeah that's legal okay i didn't know it's legal in texas yeah right they'd be doing that erin burr shit down there did a video about that um you should do that in brooklyn joe see how that works out so you know i i consider terrence not to be a friend but 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 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 i'd wrap you know should i have him on my podcast or should i be versus bart cibro 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 the 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,

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 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, Terrence went on Patrick Bad 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, uh, 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 can maybe consider that to be, you know, offensive or I don't want to speak for either one of the guys. But, but the point being, um, 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, and 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 we 100% sure that one times one equals two? All these different things. Here's the bottom one. 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, Terrence 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 the 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, prove. There's a certain set of laws that can't be proven. That's girdle's incompleteness theorem. I'm not far from here in Princeton, New Jersey,

girdle's grave. You can go visit it. One of the greatest... We'll get out 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. I'm wrong. But if I say it's less than a 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 clear. It's true. It's less than, but who cares? It's not precise. I want to say it's less than 14.007, 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, they'll pay you 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 think there's a big piece of that because like when he My brother's an artist When he believes 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 dumb 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 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 is precursor to the Turing test. You've heard a Turing test. Of course, it is artificially generally intelligent. Right, there's another one called, like, a Chinese room where 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. I'm talking about dark matter. I'm talking about the moon landing. some guy named Carl, you know, called Kirk Girdle

and Candace. I mean, can you imagine that transcript? Like how wild. Like pick some peasant, you know, 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 can't, 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 Navar Choctaw Indians had a different notion of time than, then 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. will benefit. Yes, I'll get a lot of views. But judging from YouTube, 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, top 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 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 and who's 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 Sobrell as an example, bringing him on, bringing on Bart Sobrell 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 is wrong. And I have 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, 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 that do that and channels that do it better than I do it. They're also channel. Do a lot of way. 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, and, you know,

and postdocs and do scientific research and the the issue is that it also always comes down to this the fundamental thing which terence 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 we need them 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 they 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 example. So we have things called peer review in 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 shouldn't go through and there are certain people, you know, that should be allowed to get platformed and they can't do this. It's like these campus protests.

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 not 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. It 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're doing all this stuff uh for you know for basically enhancing the functionality of this web you know possibly virus you know 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 at, when it was 2020, 2021, rather, when he had been called a, you know, this fraudulently fringe epidemiologist

by Francis Collins, director of the NIH, and Tony Fauci, none other than our friend, Tony Fauci, a great Italian American. Actually, I met a guy who went to the Italian, the high school that Tony Fauci spoke at. His name's Steve Fuller. Anyway, the point being...

We don't claim Fauci. That's right. I just want to throw that out there on behalf of all Italian Americans. Exactly. So, yeah, 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. But... What? The F? The bad.

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

Sapiens. So the Italians had some great, great ones that we now use. That's what we're called homo sapiens. 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. Homo sapien, the man who is wise. What is he wise about? What is he not knowledgeable about? He knows that we're going to die. Humans are the only animals that are born no 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 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 are about 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 mean, not that you're going to die at age seven, but you knew at seven years old, right? I have a seven-year-old kid. They know they're going to die. 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 start 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 7-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 or 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 like in something you'd feel good about afterwards especially given the preponderance of the evidence Have I shown you evidence that I've changed my mind on things scientifically? Did I not, right? I mean, you said to Claudia, that was one of the impressive things that you're like about, right?

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. No 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 Buzz Aldrin. 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, Bart's, okay, so let's leave Bart out of it. I think Bart's an exceptionally kind of difficult persona, one that's easily refuted remotely. There's no, like, need, there's no facts that are going to change about the Apollo moon landing, laser ranging, finding instrument 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 went to measure the distance to the moon too to prove their... They had a gravity... They had a gravity and atomic program rivaling arm. They were the only country rivaled on, right? They built the exact same thing. Guess what? We saw what their landers 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 in 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 doc, then that, um, the landing module back on earth was totally different, right? So they had this very complex, but a Gemini, he doesn't dispute that, okay? We have like, you know, photographs and he doesn't dispute the astronauts left

the earth. He doesn't, so, so where were they? 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, that would be pretty hard to do, right? Wouldn't be easier to create peace almost between Israeli? I mean, it's hard to do that, too, between Israel 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. 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 hours, when a couple of B-2 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 the words people say oh the B2s were a hoax like we didn't actually do it they never dropped the bomb on them the fordose a mistake like that's just a little tiny blip on that right all these things point to the fact I wish they were oh 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 evidence. So then what is the point from, what's the upside? Because there's a lot of people watch my video. There's a lot of people right now who again, baby 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.

Yes, that's true. And he also believes in peer review, by the way. That's true. 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 RF camp maybe would take issue with, which is a reason that I actually have some more confidence in RF, right?

He's allowing to be, you know, into the kind of national health discussion people. He wouldn't have been, he wouldn't have been promoted to NAA, if RF, 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, scientific. 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, that were upset when I went on Joe Rogan. They were upset.

You went on Joe Rogan. They were upset. Every fucking great physicist 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 out 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 Batatari 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 in 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 their 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 dot edu email addresses, which if you have one, you're guaranteed to win one of these meteorites. Go to Brian Keating.com slash edu, because I love to support young academicians.

I'm 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 Zabro. That's why you succeed. Chapter 100. 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. Because I can get paid as a consultant to speak at, you know, not to speak,

but to, you know, have 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 $1,000. 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 bag. 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. 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 once. Right. Lock them in for a year.

So we'll talk about merch later on to Julia. Okay. So, you know how many people take me up on that with me? 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 Zornhan wants us to believe. The mayor, Zorhan, ah, gosh, Shoshalam, 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 physics. Like, I had people, I put a heart on a comment they made on some video, and then they'll find my email at briancaiding.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 of, 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 screwed up.

My mom would be like, you did this wrong, you did that wrong. And you just point you say, mom? I appreciate that. I got seven figures, baby. You just tell that to your mom. I do not have seven figures, but one day I'll tell her that. Seven, no, seven figures of audience size. You're going to have that today, probably, right?

Well, no, I mean, across the four channels, we've had that. Yeah. You're probably below that away, right? Yeah, yeah. You have multiple channels, that's right. Yeah, four. Well, I have five technically, but the fifth is a test channel. That's way too much.

But you're going to hit a million on the main one, right? That's the one amount. Would you rather have five with only 500K subscribers forever, or would you rather have one with one million subscribers? Five with 500K? Really? Even though there's almost certainly overlap between. And that's just because of how YouTube works.

I don't like this. YouTube like specific content. So if I do three, hour episodes on a channel that's not the channel that they want me to put out 15 minute clips on right now there's guys like chris williamson's amazing like he's made it work yeah uh he did that from the beginning and made that bet so there are exceptions to it you can do it but it hasn't it didn't work when we were trying it and when we moved to making that like specific type of content for example like eight to 15 minute content a second channel that's great yeah that one took off but did the main one take off

because of that it helped the main one for sure yeah it doesn't They keep them separate. It's not like you're inextricably linked in the algorithm between the two, but it helped and it does help for sure. I can see it when we get residual, like when an episode, when we're making a bunch of clips and Alessi's cooking stuff that does well for an episode, it will residually push back onto the main episode. Not as much as I think it should, but like you take it where you can get it, man. You know what I mean? Let me hit the battle around. Oh, yeah.

We'll be right back. All right. We're back. Real quick, though, because you keep mentioning it as well. What are people arguing about the Big Bang these days? Because they're trying to say, like, maybe that's not what caused the universe. Like, what are your thoughts there? Yeah.

So there's a whole kind of, again, anti-authoritarian standpoint, which is to question all narratives, which is that the Big Bang never happened. So that's the cosmological equivalent of flat Earth, of moon landing denial, et cetera, is that actually, you know, NASA or Big Space, there's this podcast, sorry, there's this channel called the Thunderbolts channel, this guy, Will Thornhill or Thornbird or something like that, and they make all these videos about the, it's called the Electric Universe. And there's this guy not far from here in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania called Eric Lerner, who's been writing for 37 years now that the Big Bang never happened. And his evidence always is, whatever, the latest new telescope discovery or you know project is in cosmology in astronomy that that evidence is actually counter evidence to the big bang narrative and that NASA or the big you know big

cosmology again there's there are more people that play um professional sports or more people that play you know in the NBA than there are professional cosmologists in fact one NBA team one let me just go to your beloved Phillies okay uh your beloved Phillies that's the MLB that's right okay we're gonna go I know. We're going to go there. Major League, okay, here we go. Major League Big Bang, in terms of how many professional experimental cosmologists like me are there, is fewer than on the Phillies. Just one team, okay, that are professors, that build instrumentation, that look.

So to think that we're some massive cabal that's conspiracy, in fact, it's almost like, you know, the people I think Jews are running the world. Like, Jews are 0.2% of the world's population, and something like 20% of the Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews. And I'm not saying there's any correlation, but I'm... Got to do better at gatekeeping in this room, my brother. We got a little flea in here. Whenever I said, you know, something bad about the Phillies, you know. I got the second best tea steak in the world. That was a Nazi fly.

It wasn't too happy. Is that you, Candace? Kansas fly-ins? So, yeah, yeah, right. So when you look at the ability of a small group to influence, like, NASA's small group of individuals, you know, that have this outsized impact. There's always going to be this tendency for people to look for ulterior waves that they could have done stuff illegitimately, either conspiracy or Rothschilds or, you know, like I said, the NASA controls or big cosmologists, nothing of the sort. In fact, it's a testimony to how amazing that group of individuals like NASA was, that a tiny fraction of the budget.

You know, the humans, sorry, the U.S. population of women spend, and maybe some men, but spend more on lipstick every year than NASA's budget by far. Okay. They spend, you know, NASA's as much as under $20 billion. That's like pennies. It's nothing out of, you know, just in the military, which actually benefited a lot from GPS, laser ranging, what's called adaptive optics. So we have sniper scopes, okay, that the SEAL teams use, you know, I have relatives that are in the teams. And they use sniper scopes that use what's called adaptive optics. Adaptive optics. Yeah, adaptive optics is the reconciliation that astronomers realize they needed to do because of the following nursery. rhyme. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Stars don't twinkle naturally, okay? They don't twinkle of their own

accord, losing or gaining energy, despite what some fool's claim on the internet. They're actually twinkling because the atmosphere contains cells of different density, pressure, et cetera, and different composition of gases and different amounts of water vapor. Those gases over different regions of time will act like lenses that refract and bend and change the trajectory of light, such that different pathways of the light will be affected, like little lenses going in front of the camera. If you kept putting lenses randomly in

at different sizes in front of your camera, the same exact thing would happen. The image that you see would twinkle. So an astronomers realize this sucks, and we've got to get rid of it, but we can't afford a space telescope. You know, there's only been two optical, you know, even near-infrared space telescopes

that astronomers have ever used. One of them was Hubble, and now we have James Webb telescope. James Webb is not even an optical telescope. It's an infrared telescope. So it's really only been one major, you know, pretty picture-producing optical telescope in space in human history, okay? And it's not like other countries are making great space telescopes the way the U.S. has.

Again, another tremendous accomplishment by NASA wouldn't have been possible, if not for the fact that we went to the moon. But besides all that, the fact that the atmosphere causes things to twinkle is because there's atmosphere between us and the objects in space. We don't like that because it blurs out the image. It makes it much less easy to see the resolution of it. and it distorts and changes the properties of what you're looking at because you're looking to this dirty window imagine you're trying to look at your neighbor

through a spyglass here well that's exactly what a sniper's trying to do right a sniper's trying to look through a mile you know one of my relatives I won't say who can has a confirmed kill at over three miles okay imagine three miles away three miles away and it's not Andrew boost him out of how

we wish he was in my family but he's not Andrew's probably been able to reach out pretty large distances I mean snipers are amazing right but they have to deal with Andrews is a sniper. I don't know if he's done that in the past. I'm sure he's done a lot of shit. I don't know if he's been sniping.

I don't want to get him more free clout, you know? He's got enough free clout out there. He's got a great little industry going on there. Every day, everyday sniper. Yes, every day, sponsored by CIA. That's right. So the same thing happens if you're on Earth. If you're trying to hit a target three miles away, that's a lot of atmosphere between

you and that target. You ever seen like you're driving in the West and you see like a mirage on the road or you see this like the warping of like the image on the road? I've only ever been to Vegas in Milwaukee. Well, Vegas will be a place where you can see just this exact phenomenon. Yeah, but I was on the strip. Okay, you weren't out driving in the desert. Next time we'll come out, we have my cousin owns a shooting range out there.

No cocaine in the desert. No, okay, no, no, no drop-offs. It's like, oh, shit. No hangovers. No hangover five. We'll stop at four. Anyway, the atmosphere has turbulence, and that makes it hard to hit a target at more than a few months. So now what the astronomers built,

to look at images of galaxies and stars millions of light years away. Now, a sniper on Earth can look at millions, you know, thousands of meters away, okay? So they can correct for the atmospheric distortion using the technology that was invented for astronomy. So these are all just benefits that accrue, okay? So I forgot exactly how we got on the subject, but I know we were talking about developments in astronomy. Well, it was the Big Bang and how people had been saying that's... That's right. So people have been saying this for a long time.

Every time that something new comes out in data, and the most recent example is a James Webb Space Telescope, according to these proponents of the no Big Bang hypothesis. They don't believe in the Big Bang at all. They believe something completely nonsensical called Tired Light, which we can talk about. It's basically a static universe. The universe has been here forever.

Unlike the fact that we know for, you know, as near as we can know for certainty in scientific facts, about 13 miles from here is Holmdel, New Jersey. There used to be a laboratory there called Bell Labs, And they invented a lot of the technology, like the transistor, the laser, the radio, telecommunications, cell phone devices. Right. What they were trying to do is build the first communications. So there used to be only one cell phone carrier.

And basically one telephone company in the whole world. It was AT&T. It was Bell. And Bell Labs was here in Holm Bell, about 12 miles away from here, something like that. Well, that's where they shoot severance now. Yeah, is that really? Oh, okay, cool. I think so.

Yeah, it makes sense. It's kind of a dystopian vibe to it. So Bell Labs was tasked with the following thing. Radio waves were being sent and bounced off of the early satellites that were launched in the early 1960s from California, from near Pasadena, where I used to work at Caltech, bouncing up to a satellite and then echoing that exact signal back down to Earth back to New Jersey. So it was the first transcontinental communication using bouncing of radio waves off of a satellite, which is the only thing high enough in space to get. But when scientists here named Penzius and Wilson, they were looking and they saw the signal, but it was really noisy. It would be like as if you were paying to film this in 4K and you were getting like 144P. It was horrible, static, noise, it was just awful.

I'm like, what the hell? I'm paying millions of dollars, billions of dollars. And I'm getting this crappy image. What is causing that? Well, behind the satellite that they were looking at is the cosmos, is all this heat left over from the Big Bang. And that was called the cosmic microwave background radiation, the CMB. which is this 3 Kelvin signal that these two astronomers that were working for our technology company trying to improve their telecommunications communication ability they weren't trying to detect the big bang in other words

they had no ulterior motives they just want to understand it and then my grandfather phd grandfather david wilkinson and his colleagues at princeton university realized that the static that they were seeing behind the satellite was actually coming from the big bang itself or the cosmos itself that was the discovery of the CMB in 1965, it's the 60th anniversary of it, actually last month was. And this was...

Like they could see it? Say it again, they could see it as static as radio waves. So it was a radio telescope, just like my... Some that happened billions of years ago.

They can see it as a radio wave. It's happening right now. Yeah. The universe is redshifting. It's getting bigger and so the light's getting colder and colder farther and farther away,

but it's still moving towards us as the universe expands. It goes from high wave length short wavelengths to long wavelengths. So you can trace those wavelengths to an initial, I'm going to use a fake term but an initial

wave, I'm going to call it, that is the big bang itself. Everything that's above absolute zero in temperature emits radiation. You're emitting radiation now. We're about 300 Kelvin, what's called Kelvin, so it's 90 degrees, 98 degrees Fahrenheit, convert it to Kelvin and maybe it's 310 Kelvin. A Kelvin's the absolute temperature scale. If you cool something down to zero Kelvin, all of its motion stops. Heat is just a random mode, what we call the random motion of molecules. You can stop it, you can slow it down, but you can only do that with an infinite an amount of energy, cooling it down to absolute zero. So everything in the universe, you've ever seen anything in space is above zero Kelvin.

That means it's emitting waves of radios or microwaves, depending on how much its temperature is. The sun is 5,000 Kelvin. And that's why it emits light. We're emitting heat. You could detect your girlfriend or whatever, right? You could come up really close to her, not touch her, and you can feel the infrared heat coming up. That's 300 Kelvin radiation. That's in the infrared.

That's a heat. In the, the universe has been cooling on. so much that's gone from visible light or x-rays and gamma rays, the highest form of energetic light there is, from the initial heat that was left over from the fusion of the first elements after the Big Bang. That heat was all pervasive, exists in all directions at all time.

And as the universe has been expanding, when you expand an oven, you cool it down. You ever spray off one of those cleaners of your computer, the freon cans or whatever, that clean off your computer, with dusters, right? What happens to the can? It gets colder. Yes.

Because you're expanding the gas, it cools it. it. So the universe expands the heat in the universe is cooling down. So it went from 3,000 Kelvin, which is where hydrogen forms, to 3 Kelvin over the course of 13.8 billion years. Crazy fucking cold, too. Exactly. Yeah, you can do it. I actually had this little cyst frozen on my forehead there with some of this gas last week. Yeah, I actually took it off. I wouldn't have known until you showed me. Now I'm going to look at it the whole time. I'm a cosmetologist. You know, I got to show you the hair, what goes on behind the makeup.

Let's make sure we get that in 144. That's right. Don't get that 144P. So the point being, they found this radiation source, heat radiation, that had cooled off from 3,000 Kelvin to 3 Kelvin, meaning the universe is expanded by a factor of 1,000, which means the universe has gotten 1,000 times bigger since that very first light. You talk about this with, put the timestamp in there, Joe, at two hours and something minutes in the Claudia Doran episode, you talk about last scattering surface, okay? Come on, man. My guy, let's get me. Got to give me something here. I'm a longtime listener, second time guest. so so the point is we know for sure what temperature this occurred at we know how long the universe

is expanding for we know all these different properties of the universe but in order to explain those phenomena again people are going to use properties of science that sound plausible to the uneducated so instead of that he and other people say no the universe isn't expanding it's static it's been here forever it's eternal it's never changed in size which goes against everything that we know from the measurements of galaxies by Hubble, to the measurements of the cosmic microwave background, to the abundance of the elements in this glass of water. You know, this water contains elements

that aren't just hydrogen oxide, and they contain isotopes of things. I'm not talking about the hard water of New Jersey, which is a problem. I know you went down to the Mettelands and scoops them up. That's right. So elements... All elements have to bury you.

Have things called isotopes, right? So isotope is the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus, but different numbers of neutrons. So it has different atomic weight. Hydrogen has three different isotopes. Ordinary hydrogen is just a single proton surrounded by single electron. There's another form of hydrogen called deuterium.

Deuterium has a proton and a neutron and one electron. The electron is negatively charged. The proton is positively charged, and the neutron is neutrally charged. Then there's another one called tritium. Have you ever heard trigicon sites or something on a fancy watch? There's another word I'm thinking of that someone said in here, but it's different. Yeah, so tritium has two neutrons and one proton and one electron.

The electron is responsible for the chemistry of the atom, and the number of neutrons are the nuclear properties for fusion and fission and all sorts of other things. It still comes out to zero, obviously. The charge comes out to zero total charge or else it would be electrically charged, which some people violate in their theory, these thorn birds or whatever they're called thunderbolts. They talk about the universe has this net electric charge,

which is completely false, and I have a video coming out about that. On my second channel, because I do take advice from you, I have a smaller channel. Professor Keating experiments. We'll have both linked down below. Yes, that's right. So in this glass of water is evidence that the Big Bang occurred because the amount of the ratio of the amount of the second isotope of hydrogen, which is called deuterium, to the third isotope called tritium, and the first isotope called proteum or just normal hydrogen, those agree exactly with the properties of a universe that was once incredible. incredibly hot, incredibly dense, and had a certain temperature. So the temperature, density, and pressure of the universe, as predicted by theory, is exactly

borne out by water you got from the tap here in New Jersey. Okay, so this is proof. These are fossils. Remember, all we can do in science as cosmologists, rather, we're looking through time machines, right? A telescope is a time. I don't see you as you are right now. You're about three feet away.

Light takes one foot, one nanosecond to go each foot. So I see you three nanoseconds ago. The sun is eight minutes away by light travel time. time, right? That means if seven minutes ago the sun disappeared, we wouldn't know it for another minute, right? We wouldn't feel anything. Everything would go on, right? How do we know it? There's no force, nothing goes fast in the speed of light, including gravity. So, and according to Claudia, it goes slower. Gravity can actually travel slower than light, and that's a different podcast that you already did. So we have fossils. We have fossil photons that come from the heat of the Big Bang. We have fossil protons and neutrons that come from the Big Bang, and only from the model of the Big Bang. There's no way to explain the abundance of the ratio of Dutis. terium, tritium, and proteum inside this glass of water, except for the fact that there was a big bag. Because stars don't make hydrogen. Stars don't make isotopes of hydrogen.

Deuterium's very fragile. It breaks apart very easily. The only way that it occurs is if the universe was born with it. Now, these meteorites, these come from stars that exploded. So when a star, which is primarily made of hydrogen and helium, once it tries to make things in its core like iron, which is why this meteorite is so heavy and magnetic, if you have a magnet here, we can play around that.

But this is actually Joe's, so I'm going to give it to it. I don't want to damage it. But this did fall from Earth into, you know, fall from space into Earth. And this meteorite is made of, has isotopes that are some of which are radioactive, which tell us its age as well. And its age is younger than the age of the universe, but older than the age of the Earth. So this is actually older than the age of the Earth by isotopic abundance ratios. We know that very accurately.

It's composition, which you get when you go to my website. You get a copy of its composition. It's fingerprint. It's chemistry. all points to a hot thermal origin of this meteorite that's extremely different from the way that the hydrogen formed in that. There's no hydrogen in this meteorite. When a supernova blows up, which is what produced this,

it doesn't make any hydrogen. In fact, you can tell the absence of hydrogen that certain supernova occurred, which is now giving us energy, giving us evidence that dark energy may not be constant. So the last three months have been as revolutionary for cosmology. Yeah, everyone's talking about this. As any period in my history since I was a graduate student in the late 90s when the first announcements that there was such a thing as dark energy and something called a cosmological constant may be present.

And in the last few months, I've had on my podcast three or four different episodes about dark energy and dark matter and how they might not be what cosmologists thought they were for the last two generations of cosmologists. And what's the new evidence here that's, that's, that's, driving at this yeah so the new evidence that we're seeing comes from two different types of instruments one is the newly commissioned Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile

not far from where are Simon's Observatory Telescope is yeah where's Simons by the way Simon's Observatory is north of Santiago Chile in the Atacama Desert so it's called the Dryas Desert on Earth it's at 17,000 feet above sea level so you need oxygen when you go up there you need ultraviolet protection

it's like being on the surface of the planet Mars, see how blue the sky is. So if you go out here in New Jersey on a sunny day, if that ever happens, you look out. It's sunny out here, Brian. It was sunny. Yeah, it was way too sunny yesterday. Don't be taking so run out on me. Okay. So now look at the, look above the horizon. You see how it gets like blue pretty quick. As you look along exactly at the horizon, it's kind of whitish, and that's a proof of that we live on a round planet because it's atmospheric column density is much thicker on the horizontal direction. And, goes down exponential, you know, it goes down

as one over the secant of the angle. But you see how blue it gets? Yes. If you were out here, and look at this image of the, you happen to have this nice beautiful image of the New York skyline here. See how much wider it is at the same degree of altitude above the horizon here? That's because there's

much more water vapor and particles and smog and stuff in the, in the, uh, in the, uh, along the atmosphere here in the city, then there is 17,000 feet above our current elevation. That's why you can't see a lot of stars here, but you can see them all there. In part, yeah.

We're not looking for stars, but exactly. So you see how, so right above us, if you were to look straight up here, it would be blue, but it would be about as blue as it is here at only a few degrees above the horizon. That's why we go to the Chile. It's extremely clear skies, low amounts of water in the atmosphere, and extremely

dark, and it's completely different. We see different constellations, which is another proof that we live on a round planet, because you don't have that phenomenon if we lived in a flat planet. We have a website. Go to simonsobservatory. dot org Joe and you'll see our brand new website looks really cool and we got some drones flying over there so that's what it looks at see how like the motion graphics yeah isn't that cool we're doing it for the clicks now um so those there's three telescopes that we've built over the last

this is eight years in the making so this if you were coming from the big bang if you were a photon coming from the big bang this is about what you'd see about a microsecond nanosecond before you ended your 14 billion year-long journey. Now, the telescope that I'm going to talk about next, there's two telescopes. One is in the northern hemisphere. It's called DESE, dark energy spectroscopic instrument. And then the other one is called... Dark energy spectroscopic instrument. Yes. Desi is an acronym. And the other one is called the Vera Rubin Observatory. Now, Vera Rubin was one of the first people, along with my late colleague Margaret Burbage, to detect the presence of dark matter in galaxies. She observed that galaxies are rotating way too fast.

So imagine like here, people are coming in and out because it's a really important center of gravity for entertainment, for finance, or everything. So imagine you're just looking at the people that are here and you said, well, let me compare that to Topeka, Kansas, okay, just picking some random city out. Well, why aren't there the same number of people coming in and out? Well, there's not as much gravitational poll

in terms of finance, commerce, entertainment, media, all these other things in Topeka than there is in New York. blindly, if an alien were looking, why are there more people coming in and out of New York City or Newark or Hoboken than out of Topeka? Well, they'd have to go through this analysis. But she noticed that there's way more people, if you like, in the outskirts, in the boondocks of our galaxy and other galaxies,

in that there's much more mass out there. And it's causing the stars to rotate far faster and the galaxy itself to rotate much faster than it would if all the mass that we had in a galaxy was giving off light the way that even this means, meteorite gives off heat. Can you explain that some more? You lost me a little bit.

Okay. So if you have a galaxy is a giant collection of stars, gas, dust, and now we know dark matter as well. And what happens is a spiral galaxy. There's a couple different types of galaxies, but the one that the Milky Way is, and Drameter Galaxy is, and many others are spirals. Over billions of years, the stars have been accelerated into this constant, stable, whirlpool, Vordix-looking pattern that we call a spiral galaxy. If you measure the individual velocity of the stars as a function of their distance from the black hole at the center of those galaxies, you see how fast they rise.

If it were like the solar system, okay, the planets in our solar system orbit around the central mass and the solar system, which is the sun. The sun contains 99.8% of the mass of our solar system. The planets rotate with a 99.9.80 knows that. Yeah, it's almost 100%. Yeah, Jupiter's on 0.1%. Saturn's about 0.007, and then Earth is almost. is nothing. Yep, that's right. And then there's, you know, so if you look at their plot, Johannes Kepler demonstrated the 1600s. If you plot their velocities, the planet's velocities go down as one divided by the square root of the distance from the center, which is the

sun. Okay, so the Pluto and Neptune go around much slower. If they're four times as far away, they go down as one over the square root of four or two times, one over square or two times the rate that the Earth goes. Okay. So things that are farther away. Jupiter takes 12 years to go around the sun, Earth takes one year to go around the sun. Mars takes about two years to go around the sun. It's about the square root of two times farther away. So that's called Kepler's law.

Kepler's, one of Kepler's laws is that the period that it takes a planet to go around it is proportional to the velocity that a planet goes around the star is proportional to one over the square root of the distance, okay? That's just a law, and it comes from Newton's Law's Gravity. He didn't know that, but that's where it comes from. Thanks, Isaac.

If stars were like little, sorry, if stars orbiting around the galaxy were just like planets orbiting around a star, then their velocity should also go down as one over the square root of the distance. It's just Kepler's law. There's no reason why a star would behave different than a galaxy or a planet. What Vera Rubin and Margaret Burbage and others discovered was that wasn't the case. Fritz's wiki is another guy. They actually found that instead of going down, the velocity stops going down and maintains its velocity way beyond. the point where you can see the spiral and there's some, implying

that there's some mass, way beyond the light radius of the galaxy, it means that there's some mass that's causing their velocity to remain high as if the sun were much more massive, but it's only much more massive for the ones that are farther away. So it's very bizarre. And Rubin and Burbage

and Zwicki, they all discovered this phenomenon, that there seems to be what's considered to be dark matter. In other words, matter, that doesn't give off light. There's no source of light that's caused by these. Now, it could be black holes. It could be anything that's massive could cause this. Is that just so hard for me to conceptualize this whenever, whenever we talk about it? Think about you versus like a toddler. You're swinging, you ever put like a ball on a rope and

you're swinging around your head? Who can swing the ball faster? You are a toddler. I can. Or you or your girlfriend or whatever. You're more massive. So the more massive you are, the faster you can swing something around you before you start to get perturbed. Like, eventually you can do it, right? So that's exactly what's happening. So the more massive, the galaxy is, the more velocity can be at the outskirts of that galaxy, of the stars the outskirts of the galaxy. And these, but the thing is, these stars in the galaxy are moving as if there's like, you know, Ronnie Coleman or, you know, some huge guy at the center swinging around.

But all we see is this little tiny, you know, whatever, some person, your girlfriend, or whatever, at the center. And so it seems inconceivable that all the mass of that galaxy or the object swinging around is due to this, you know, person that you can see. It must mean there's some other force. Now, if you're underneath her or you're wearing her clothes or something, you're there, then yes, you could explain it. So there's some missing mass, some missing strength

that's causing things to rotate faster than observed. Now, we haven't seen that. That's the whole controversy. Yes. We can't see these particles. We should be able to see them, detect them, if they're like particles of mass. And that's part of one of the goals of the Simon's Observatory

and other projects to detect that. But the very first kind of, you know, new telescope dedicated to Vera Rubin just came online. And so there's this telescope in the Southern Hemisphere. It's over eight meters across, bigger than the Hubble telescope, bigger than the James Webb Telescope. And its whole job is to scan the sky every single day

and make, instead of taking a still picture like that, it makes movies of the universe. It's a first motion picture camera in ultra-high-res. So the cameras that you're using 4K, right? So that's like 2,200 by 1800. something. Well, these are still, but I'll stay with it. Okay, so stay with it. So this camera that's in the Vera Ruben Telescope is a 3.2 gigapix, billion pixel camera.

It would be something like a thousand or 200 of those. A billion pixels? We have that? Well, they built it, especially. The U.S. government and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, other places, Department of Energy, all these places. Billion pixels. Three billion pixels. So it's like 100 or 1,000 of the, and these things have to be cooled.

These, unlike the cameras that you guys are using or your iPhone, they have to be cooled down to be as sensitive as possible to these different wavelength bands that they're seeing. So this is a cooled camera inside of a chamber that is a vacuum chamber too because you can't cool something out if you don't put it in a vacuum.

So it's this massive camera. If you look up the camera, Joe, look up VRO camera, Chile. And these sensors were also partially invented at Bell Land. So they're doing this but moving. Yep. And they're making a movie looking for things that are transients, things that are moving, that shouldn't be moving,

they're able to take the deepest images ever made. You can actually just go to my YouTube channel about that, and I'll show you some of the videos. Yeah, we'll free plug while we're out. Yeah, exactly. That's right. That's what we're here for, Brian. All I'm paying for. That's what I use my platform for. Free plugs.

Not for these cranks like, you know. I'm even just blown away by that picture, though. I love looking and stuff like that. So what video are you looking for, Brian? It's in the playlist. Go to videos, Joe, and then click on the second one. Ruben's first data. There is.

All right, hold on. Let me turn this volume one so we can hear it. Oh, you're not subscribed. Oh, there you go. That's not my account. That's his account. All right. Just want to be clear that.

Give it a thumbs up. There you go. Thumbs up. Can we hear that from your speaker, Joe? Is that what we're doing? Let me just make sure I got it here. Let it rip. What you're about to see is an exclusive interview

with the leaders of one of the most exciting observatories ever built, the Vera Rubin Observatory. In just 10 hours, you captured over 2,000 asteroids, which is something like a hundred times faster than the discovery rate around the whole planet. Some of these asteroids could be Earth killers. And that same technology is set to revolutionize our understanding of dark matter, peering into the massive Virgo cluster with when you finally... So what I show, I'll go back to where I said the Virgo cluster. go forward a little yeah which is something like a hundred times faster than the

we'll talk about the asteroid discovery around the whole planet some of these asteroids could be earth killers and that same technology is set to revolutionize our understanding of dark matter peering into a massive verbal cluster okay so this is the first cluster that they looked at what you're seeing here the things that have like crosses on them those are stars in our galaxy

everything else that doesn't have a cross on it is a galaxy in another part of the universe Some of these are like 50 million light years away from the area. 50 million light years away, and we can see it. And we can see if they're moving, and we can zoom in on them, which you can do it. There's a tool in the video description called Sky View app or whatever, and you can zoom it. This image is just like the first image that you get, and it's like a telephoto lens. This image, he showed me when we did the interview with Mario Eurich, you can zoom in on a galaxy

and basically do it like a 200-powered telescope, but you can do whatever you want with it. All this data is free. It's available to the public when they're not hiding it. They're not saying, oh, there's some classified information there. And some of the information that I can detect, the thing I let off with, is that in 10 hours, discovered 2,000 asteroids. Now, why is that important? Well, a lot of these were discovered.

They were never known. And some of these could eventually be something that could threaten the Earth. So they have tracked, and he goes on to talk about in the interview. He's one of the leaders of the time domain, which looks for things that are basically making a movie of the universe. So it's the first time we've had a dynamic telescope. literally it's the first time we had a video camera on the universe with this sized type of telescope with this resolution so it can do anything and the coolest thing about it is that anybody has access to it it's like you have your own eight meter diameter eight meter diameter telescope it's bigger than this building when i hear something though like what did you say is 50 billion light years away is that right million 50 million either way yeah that's right like it's that doesn't even process for me like how we have created something on this earth where we can actually see that that's right that's one of the beautiful things about science, which is why I'm such a huge

promoter and cheerleader of it, and unabashedly so, and I believe it should be protected and kept, these were not built by people who were like had to, in order to have like some wild-eyed idea, like there's no person, Einstein, a thousand Einstein's working in isolation, as smart as he was, could not have done this. It took the cumulative efforts of thousands of people, billions of millions of dollars, it's not quite a billion dollar experiment, but it's millions of dollars and it's built up over time in order to,

focus, no pun intended, on serendipity. So serendipity is the one tool we have in science to guard against confirmation bias. Imagine you're not looking for something, but you find it, versus if you're looking for it and you find it. So that's what happened with the CMB. The Cosmicrae background, which is my area of expertise, was found by accident. Remember, I said they were looking for a communication satellite with excess noise. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang. They didn't even think it had. They didn't know what they had discovered. They had to ask scientists, theorists, and others to collaborate with them, and they were trying to win their own Nobel Prize, these other guys, including my PhD grandfather, my academic grandfather.

And so the point is, when you do these measurements, you don't know what you're going to look for if you do a measurement and you're not trying to find something. That in some sense is the purest thing you could possibly discover. Like penicillin was discovered by accident. A guy left out some cheese or some mold and he discovered actually the bacteria won't be, you know, capable of digesting it, it acts as a toxin to them, and that was then developed into penicillin. It wasn't saying, like, hmm, let me invent this thing that will then be used to cure, you know, as an antibiotic. The x-ray. X-ray was invented basically, uh, accidentally. This guy, William Rengen. Really? Yeah, he was experimenting with just like electrons in a tube. And then he noticed

that he had a piece of film in the other room. And the film kept getting exposed. And it had this pattern of the case that it was in. Then he took his wife and he said, honey, put your hand here. And then he fired the electrons in this tube. at her hand and she saw her bones of the first x-ray in history if you look up Rentkin X-ray I think her name was Martha I always wonder what it would be to be like a fly

on the wall in a room like this like holy shit don't move don't fucking move we are never having to pay our mortgage late again there it is wow that's the original one right there that's the first x-ray of a human body form god that even looks like pretty good today that was the first Nobel Prize too in physics

and that was part of the Nobel Prize desire was to create things that would have a beneficiary effect on human flourishing. In fact, it has. I mean, anyone who's out of tooth pulled knows how important is to have an x-rays. So if that's Vera Rubin, it's going to revolutionize our,

find things serendipitously. It'll find things intentionally, like it's looking for asteroids but what if one of those asteroids on a collision course to prevent the earth and getting destroyed, you know, we've got to call Bruce Willis and get them out there, right? So this is, you know, part of the... Don't forget Ben Affleck. That's right.

So we get all these serendipitous benefits from all these types of tools and technology. Now, dark energy, which you should pivot to, is a completely different thing. So dark energy is an invisible energy, and so in that sense it's invisible, so it has that similarity to dark matter, but it acts completely differently. Matter tends to only gravitationally attract. That's what's weird about gravity versus the other forces. Electricity, positive negative charges. right magnetism north and south magnetic poles they can attract or they can repel but gravity only

attracts it's weird but there's something effectively called anti-gravity which is real but it's incredibly weak and dilute and that's what dark energy is dark energy is like a repulsive form of gravity that causes the universe to expand to inflate to get bigger every day and to get bigger at a faster rate as time goes on why does that why is that anti-gravity so to expand the universe so in the, in Einstein's theory of relativity, when you add in energy into empty space, the empty space effectively is causing repulsion, gravitational repulsion. It almost acts as if you have two like charges together. Remember, I said gravity only, gravity acts as if it's always has two different charges, but there's only one type of charge. That's just this mass, right? There's no like

anti-mass and mass, but all mass attracts as if one was positive and one was negative, but that's just because gravity itself is universally attractive. But if you have pure energy, you, you that suffuses space itself, the space can get bigger without the matter within it getting bigger. So it acts as if it's like blowing up air pressure inside of a balloon or tension and stretching out a rubber band

or something like that. It acts as if it's repulsive gravity and it has appeared as since the time of Einstein. So in 1917, 1915, when Einstein came up with his law of general relativity, 10 years after the speed of light, special relativity, he came up with a law

that described how the universe as a whole Hull could be expanding or contracting, but he observed at the time they didn't know of anything that was expanding or contracting. They thought the universe was static at that time. So in 1915, the model of the universe was that the universe was eternal. And so nobody believed that the universe was. And actually, that's all the evidence showed. When you look at a star, the only things that move in space are the planets that we can see, planets and asteroids. We couldn't see, we can't see the galaxies moving unless you had a very powerful spectrum. So why did they say the universe was internal well? Was eternal? Yeah. Because if it's not changing,

the notion is that it has always been there that way didn't need to have a creation, didn't need a creator, it didn't, and there were a lot of biases against the kind of Big Bang narrative at the time. But actually the Big Bang model was proposed by LaMaitre, this guy was a Belgian Catholic priest in the late 1920s, that actually know the universe should be expanding. Einstein didn't believe it, and he put into his laws of physics,

he put in this fudge factor called the cosmological constant, which was, in order for the universe to remain stable and static, and static, he had to prevent the gravitational collapse of the matter that he could see with his eyes, stars, planets, et cetera. He knew there was matter, so there had to be something keeping it from collapsing, or else he wouldn't be there asking the question of why the universe wasn't collapsing.

So he put in this thing. He later called it his biggest blunder. It's called the cosmological constant. And what has been known since 1998 was that he was actually right that there should be a cosmological constant, but it doesn't keep the universe static and it doesn't make the universe contract,

it makes the universe expand. So that was a possibility he did not consider it. He thought it's not contracting, as it would if there's only matter. So there should be some buoyant force that keeps the universe from contracting that he called the cosmological constant of a vacuum energy. Now we know there is some form of vacuum energy. What was discovered in March and February this year by the DESE dark energy spectroscopic instrument was that there seems to be evidence that the dark energy component is not a constant,

that it's varying with time and that, in fact, it's getting weaker over time and that the universe, even though it's expanding now and the expansion rate is accelerating, eventually that expansion rate will stop accelerating, come to neutral, and then it will start decelerating, and the universe could, in fact, collapse. Like a sucking sound kind of thing.

Or, yeah, it could be a giant sucking sound. Or it could taper off asymptotically and just expand and dilute over an infinite period of time. So there's possibilities that it expands forever, rips apart, all the matter, all the energy in the universe effectively rips apart after a finite time. That's called the big rip. Yeah, but does a big rip happen like in a snap of a finger kind of deal? Yeah, at the end of time it does. Yeah. At the end of time when the vacuum itself is decaying and ripping apart. Yeah, every, every atom in the, right now the universe is expanding,

but we are not expanding. I mean, you know, Brooklyn's not expanding, as Alvey said. Well, that's a win for everyone. That's right. Our waistlines might expand in my case. But, but the the key discovered by DESE is that that constant, which we thought would lead to the eventual heat, what's called the heat death of the universe, where the universe continues to expand slowly, cooling over time, such that there's only photons left at the very end of time,

but that takes an infinite or very long period of time, maybe tens of billions of years or so, tens to 100 times longer than the observable age of the universe today. What Desi has found is that that may happen much faster. Again, keep paying your taxes out there, I'm talking to you, because the universe will not be changing on any rapid time scale, but it is kind of this paradigm that we now know that there is dark energy,

but that it's not a constant amount of dark energy. The amount of dark energy seems to be decreasing. It's not a slam dunk yet, and there are other observatories, hopefully like Simon's observatory and maybe even Rubin Observatory, that will provide evidence, but the, but the evidence that the universe is simple and explained by just dark matter alone plus a cosmological constant, that seems to be in a lot of trouble. And in fact, there are people that say that even the measurements of certain parameters, the most important one is called the Hubble parameter. The Hubble parameter tells you, as you go out in distance, how fast is a given galaxy moving away from every other galaxy. That constant is the most important number in cosmology. It's related

to how old the universe is. Right now, there are two different measurements. And just yesterday, the team at the South Pole that operates a parallel telescope to the ones that I was involved with called Bicep, their telescope is called the South Pole Telescope, they announced that there is a discrepancy in the Hubble constant that's at something like almost a one in a hundred million chance of being a fluke, like some really tiny number that they made a mistake, that they make measurements of the cosmos in the early state when it was young, when the CMB was first formed.

And then observation using supernova and more local instrumentation, like that was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2011, that instrument is showing a much larger value for the Hubble constant. And they don't agree. And the chance of them being fluke disagreement, each one says they know the result to better than 1% precision, and they disagree at six times the individual uncertainty of each one. So there's basically one, it would have to be a fluke that they're both accurate,

and it's just a fluke who happened to measure, you know, one of them at the low end of one of them at that measurement is now was released yesterday by the south pole telescope and it's the largest you know it exceeds the threshold of scientific credibility like it's it's now at such a level that you almost can't consider the measurements to ever be consistent again so we have to explain how do the universe expand differently at early times versus now it could be because the cosmological constant is different at early times or late times or and we have evidence for that at something like 1 in 30,000 percent chance of being wrong by fluke but these two different measurements are really exciting see that's another difference between a scientist and a fraud

a scientist is excited when there's a discrepancy we don't say like oh we you know keeping prove that actually there's uh there's lunar laser ranging modules that have been so actually like um i should be excited because now it means that um we're closer to truth like we have a better example something entirely, you never thought about. Yeah, maybe there's actually, okay, maybe that proves their aliens that are there that took them the lunar module there and so that would be more, I mean, I'm just making that up.

But the point is, a scientist should be the most excited to be proven wrong, because that's how science progresses, right? If we thought Newton was the final word, we'd think that the speed of light is infinite, gravity is infinite, it's always one over R, that there's no subatomic particle. I mean, think about all the things that, if you stop science at any point in time,

you ruin progress in humanity. Yes. Even though each individual scientist is wrong. I'm wrong. I'm wrong. And if I say the Earth is a sphere, I'm wrong too. I mean, we had this debate last time. You made it into a viral clip, and I clipped it from your clip.

I remember that. You know, it's not a perfect sphere, but it's much more of a sphere. I thought you're going flat earth on me when you said that. I was like, oh, shit, here we go. Well, now you brought that in. So we got our little display over it. Yeah, keep that back there as a reminder. But if you look at the universe, the universe is actually smoother than that globe.

So that globe is not a relief cloud, doesn't have mountains on or anything like that. But even if it did, the size of the size of the size of the, the mountains relative to the size of the radius of the earth is larger than how rough the universe is. In other words, the universe is more smooth, isotropic, and homogeneous on its largest scales than the globe is on its largest skills or the actual Earth is on its largest skills. Meaning like, hold on, let me back that up. So the mountains within a globe relative to the radius of the earth are larger than what it would be on the hypothetical, air quotes, there are mountains that exist in the in the universe in relation to the earth city that's right

okay the universal fluctuations and density and pressure at the early times so the the challenge is that um you don't have kids yet that you know i don't right not that i know not that you know about okay so i have kids so when your kids turn two please let me you have can we need more people you know Elon's all concerned about i'm looking forward to you have kids i'll definitely have several best thing in life yeah no bar now but having with the person that you love the most that's best that's the key brian you gotta find the right one i have the algorithm i told it to lex he never he never didn't listen to me either all these guys let think of how many unmarried podcasters that i love andrewman dear friend unmarried i mean andrewerman knows how to juggle on my dog shout out to the focus

on that guy made up some of that's i'll bet some of us made up but shout out to the focus okay let's go through these guys okay because you're you're in a rarefied air and i want to convince with least one of you I've met. Okay, so I've talked to Theo Vaughn. I haven't been on a show, but I've talked to him. He's Unmarried Male Podcasts, No Kids. Andrew Huberman, Unmarried Mail Podcasts are no kids. Lex Friedman, Unmarried Bugger. Chris Williamson, Unmarried Bogas is Stephen Bartlett. You seen a pattern here? There are way too many of you guys. Maybe I got to do better. I mean, I'm working on. Hopefully you will, because the world needs more. Yes. Little, uh, little Julian's out there and Julian. Yeah, I don't think, I don't think life would be fulfilling without that. If you didn't find

I mean, obviously, like, you have, but if you didn't find, like, your counterpart or someone, you know, the woman that can, that can keep you honest and also support you and everything you do, and then also, like, have your kids and raise them and, you know, continue the evolutionary cycle, I don't see the, personally, I don't really see the point to life if you don't have that. Yeah, I mean, people worry about, oh, the, you know, legacy, and even people like Elon, who's got a lot of kids. I mean, you have to understand. He has so many kids. He doesn't know how many kids he has. I mean, they're coming out of the woodwork left and right. I think he's got to be careful. Yeah, he definitely needs to be careful.

He's definitely got this kind of Messiah complex. I talked to him for a few minutes on my podcast last year, and I tried to kind of convey to him that the Mars reality is not as important as basically fundamental physics and astronomy and cut off. How do you feel about that? Well, I kind of wasn't. as good as maybe you would have been about it. I made it more personal.

I said, look, Elon, you want to go to Mars? And he's like, yeah. And I said, well, which one of your kids are you going to leave behind? And he was on, his son was on the podcast. It was on X. It was a Twitter space, X spaces. And his mom and his son, you know, his son was there and his mom was there. And I could hear him playing in the background.

I'm like, you and I are both fathers. You've had the tragic, unfortunate occurrence of losing a child in your life. You know, thank, you know, hopefully. that won't ever happen again or anybody that we love. But you know how painful it is to say goodbye to a kid. And yet you know you can't bring X

to Mars with you. It's not safe. It's not prudent. And plus, it's not within his free will domain of expression. Like, he might not want to go to Mars because you want to go to Mars. So you'd be dooming him if you took him.

So I don't think you'd take him, right? He said, yeah. And I said, so who are you going to leave behind? How is that going to go? And then his mom jumped in. And said, well, we don't want to talk about anything unpleasant here. And she cut it off.

So I talked to him for 10 minutes. I did get in a couple of questions about cosmology, and he's very interested in space and physics, and hopefully he'll take care of because the Starlink satellites actually contaminate some of the radio waves that we're looking for from the same evening. How do they contaminate it? They broadcast in the exact frequency range that we're looking for.

So you shoot it down? I don't think you can take it on much. No, that'll be dangerous. You're not out there with the fucking collisionic off. Come on. Get the Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up there with the jackhammers. So anyway, no, life makes sense. that's only when you have something beyond yourself to think about.

And I think with these guys, and I've totally every single one, it's not like talking out of school, but you look at that and you say, well, I'm waiting for the right person. Okay, so I have a simple algorithm for men to find the right person. So it's obviously important to man to want to have an attractive partner. Let's just take heterosexual. That's not all I'm familiar with right now,

but I'm sure it applies equally for non-heterosexual. but heterosexual men want to find a beautiful girl at some level and woman at some level I don't think that's too sexist it's an imperative even men who are gay want to find a beautiful man right I mean it's not like a mystery humans the males are very visually stimulated etc it's part of our propagation mechanism but I said look you don't necessarily want to find like the hottest woman in the world necessarily because it might be something that's difficult for you I heard this woman I actually became friends with this woman woman, her name, her stage name is Ava Lovia.

Her name's Candice, I forget her last name. She's a podcaster. She's also, she's also, no, it's Candice, not Candice, not Candace. Okay. Candace Horbath, Horbass, Horvich. You need to have Candace Owens on your podcast. That would pay to see that. The scientific, you guys have settled your differences.

It would be like, you know, Newton and Leibnitz, you know, going back and forth. I don't know what that means, but you could tell your differences. Discoverers of calculus, you know, their pen, their pen letter. I didn't do two. well calculus for that it's okay um so uh so she wrote me she's uh she turns out she's a adult film star um but but but even so i don't even know how i got on this topic but but she oh no she had she said like i've dated like some football players and and whenever i date um a man after i've dated a football player one of her friends told me this you know like

oh it's the men are upset because you know like they feel like they can't compete with a football player you know and i'm like oh well that's like kind of stupid but but anyway let me let me just get back to men. I said, look, the way to find your mate is to date a woman that's attractive, but such that if you met, if you did marry this girl and you had a daughter, would you want the daughter to be like the woman that you marry? In other words, if you met some super hot Kardashian, I don't know, whoever is some person that's not considered as a wholesome or some smoking hot, is that what you want your daughter to be? OnlyFans model. Let's say many men find only fans i mean something like half of all men in certain age group are on only

fans looking at women right would you want your daughter to be on only fans i think almost no men who have daughters and probably half of them have daughters they don't want so that's an algorithm then you should stop when you find a woman who is uh someone who you would want your daughter to be you'd want your daughter to be attractive like you don't want her to be like ugly or you know not care about her physical you know body and take care of herself right i want my daughters to do that or anything so you know i don't want them to be on only fan so stop date date as much as possible but find someone who you'd be proud to have as a daughter in miniature form and i i think that's amazing advice and i think there's i think there's something that's going a little wrong not not

obviously for all men but for at least a subset of men these days where there's i guess like some sort of odd competition on looks that then gets to trying to land whether it be an actual only fans model or someone that could pass for that if you know what i mean absolutely and we're getting away from the initial wiring that i think it's affecting women you know i i think i think a lot of women now more than ever and i think it's our fault as men don't understand what men want and i'm not talking about 23 year olds who are fresh out of college and are going to fuck everything with the pulse i'm talking about people that are a little bit older than that and are starting to think about life it's like for me the i am evolutionarily

wired. Of course, yes, I want a good-looking woman and someone with an amazing personality, but I am evolutionarily wired to identify a woman who I think is going to be an amazing mom. Yeah. And there are a lot of men who I think are fishing in the wrong pond. Yeah. Look at the who won't admit that that's what they want. Exactly. Right. By the way, the Tate's have kids. Right. Do they not? Yeah. I would love to see, actually, I don't like it in people's personal's life, but it'd be interesting to see that dynamic there. Absolutely. So, anyway, that's an algorithm. I don't know how we got on that from dark energy.

I mean, dark energy in dating is very similar concepts. That's right. Dark matter is what you get when you change your baby's diaper. I mean, there's no doubt about that. Look at you with the jokes. You got the comedian laughing over here. So I think the bottom line is, you know, this is an incredibly interesting and probably in a region that will look back in time. We'll say this is very upheaval.

There was a lot of upheaval at this time, both in society and science. Look, I was very supportive of a lot of. A lot of things President Trump is doing. A lot of my friends are involved in the administration. I think one of the big mistakes he's doing is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with the, you know, like, oh, you know, COVID was a big, huge mistake. We should, you know, just ditch everything. I'm glad Jay Bautachari is in there. He's a very sober, sensible scientist.

He's wonderful what he does. I think he's got the best interest of the country at heart. And he suffered for science. I mean, he was persecuted, literally persecuted, like Galileo. But at the same token, you know, to say, like, oh, we're going to, like, ditch most of NASA's discovery capability. We're going to cancel telescopes because it saves a little bit and allows Doge or whatever to claim that they saved, you know, it's billion dollars. It sounds like a lot of money. Yeah, it's true.

Like, these telescopes, they cost a lot of money to put them into space because we want to make damn sure they don't blow up. Like, look at Elon's rockets. I mean, they have something like a 42% failure rate. I mean, they're blowing up all the time. Now, it's because he's doing big things. Now, is the best thing, what I worry about, and I have no inside knowledge about this at all, as many people as I know in the government, what I'm afraid of is that he influenced people like David Sachs, and who's the president's special scientific advisor and also crypto czar.

He's going to say he's a crypto czar. And he, by his own admission, is incredibly disinterested in science. I had David Friedberg from the Olin podcast on my podcast about two years ago. David's the science guru, and whenever he would talk about science on the podcast, literally David Sachs would leave the room, be like, like, I don't know, this is boring nerd shit. I don't care or whatever. And, like, he's now one of the scientific advisors to the president of the United States.

That's interesting. Oh, I didn't know that. Imagine if I told you this, Julian, and you're just looking for, like, you're just Trump, who has no curiosity about science. I don't think, I mean, he last looked up at the sun when there was an eclipse and he almost fraud. I don't think he has any scientific. Yeah.

Mine's, I don't think he's like, you know, an idiot. I think he's very smart. And he's very good, you know, it's been very good for America in many accounts. But not in science. And so I think he's listening to people like SACS and like, and again, it's pure speculation, but, and they're saying, look, Mars is the most important thing. We've got to get to Mars. And so it's going to boost contracts for SpaceX. Again, I'm not just speculating here, but I'm free to do it. I'm not giving any financial advice. But the point being, if you think that going to Mars with chemical rockets is somehow going to, you know, benefit, you know, humanity's quest for fundamental understanding of dark energy, dark matter, propulsion, you know, getting to the stars. I mean, there's no one. And Eric Weinstein, was on my show recently. He said, look, if you look at what he's doing and you know that he was a physics major

at UPenn. Elon was. And Eric was an undergraduate at UPenn, I think around the same time, maybe a little bit before. A lot of talent coming through, Philly. Yeah, there is. There is. That's certainly one of the top IVIs after Brown. But the point trying to make is,

if you get convinced that, like, going to Mars is this civilizational prospect, which is Elon's, you know, main focus, then why wouldn't you diversify your portfolio a little bit and say, look, we need basic physics research, gravity research, we need fundamental physics, we need theories of everything perhaps, we need cosmology projects. Rather than say, look, the only way to get there is to put a certain amount of specific impulse into a chemical rocket that will allow us to get there every 21 months, possibly with people that are prisoners that didn't want to go to Mars in the first place,

and certainly the people that were born there of, not of their own volition. In other words, getting to Mars and starting a new civilization, it's a very different prospect that may have no bearing on what we claim to be is doing as fundamental physics and science. Before I get to the multi-planetary aspect, because I do want to take into that. But is it as simple as you're saying, like, SpaceX needs more departments kind of deal? Departments? No. I mean, if you dumped another trillion dollars into SpaceX, would it accelerate visits to Mars?

I'm sure it would. But if they were studying gravity and all the different variables that you just talked about, Is that way? Because you're implying that that's not, he's focused on one thing. He needs to focus on 10 things. Yes. The diversity of the physics portfolio means that we need more basic fundamental research, which means that you do stuff and you have serendipitous discoveries. You have things that you don't count on. You can't plan on serendipity by definition. So we study the elements, the basic forces, fields that work in physics. Imagine if you said, you know, in 1850 or something, you said, I want to go to Mars or to the moon and put people on the moon. And you said, well, how are you going to get there? And they said, well, we're going to either study physics and understand, you know, technology and propulsion or things like that, or we're going to have, like, wait for the Martians that they thought lived on Mars, literally, or people that lived on the moon. They actually didn't know if there were any inhabitants there

to come to Earth and bring us there. Like, there's one where you're actively participating and you're laying the groundwork fundamentally. And there's those brute force method of getting there using the technology of today only and the technology of today, by the way, was established, you know, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes this point all the time. There's nothing that Elon has done so far that NASA hasn't done and didn't do 50 years ago and in some ways better than what Elon's doing, right? I mean, Elon hasn't landed anything on the moon lately, right? So, and I'm not saying that he's dumb or stupid or whatever, but what is the fundamental point?

Elon, what, as you know, you're an educated, a person. You're not a scientist by your own admission, right? Why is he going? Why does he want us to go to Mars? Well, he's talked about his whole life. He's had five main goals, and one of them is a multi-planetary existence. Why? Because he thinks that it won't be sustainable for humanity if it continues at a growth rate,

which right now he's concerned about the opposite. But if over time it continues at an overgrowth rate, he believes there will be a need, and I'm simplifying his full explanation, but he believes that there will be a need for us to have access to another planet where we can use its resources and live off of those resources. I mean, his main thing is to extend human consciousness. He thinks consciousness is the most conservative quantity in the universe that we only achieve consciousness after 13.7 billion years or something like that or even less, right? I mean, remember, 0.1 billion years, 100 million years.

Humans have only been conscious for maybe 100,000, 150,000, maybe 200,000 years, something like that, where we've had communication, long-term legacies, transmission of information with language, alphabets, and so forth, maybe 100,000 years. Out of a 13.8 billion year history, I mean, that's, you know, a few parts intend to snip it yeah it's nothing it's an eyeling right so he's saying that's the most fragile thing and so we want to deposit that somewhere okay well one way but then you can always ask why like keep and keep pursuing that why is it important to to maintain human consciousness why why is that important because it's the greatest gift that we know of on this in in our world

that we can conceive the idea that we can have a civilization that communicates with each other at a way higher level than other species on this planet do and that the chances of that even happening were so slim and yet here we are okay so you just made you just made you just finalized the argument to have kids by the way absolutely everything you said translates 100% so why you and other men andrew and Chris and all these guys should have kids right yes right um because the same principles should apply but again you have to keep saying well then if that's true then um so then you're saying that a future life a future consciousness is actually worth some fraction of a present amount of money and time and consciousness

and so forth in the intention. So there has to be some trade-off between how much you apply there, right? So here's a crass example. He's going to abandon one of his current kids or 13 of his, maybe all 14 or 15 or however many says you. He's got a lot more than that. He's going to abandon them. Abandon them.

So he's not going to be the consciousness loving ideological father, biological father, biological, he's already abandoned. He's already basically disavowed one of them, right? The one that is a trans, right? He doesn't, she doesn't talk to him. he or he she whatever i don't want to get into trying stuff but but they don't talk to each other right and they hate each other um and so because of that he's alienated one so how much is a current child worth compared to a future possible child may not even exist by the way so these are these

big questions which i don't think he's fully grasped i don't think he's a very deep like he i don't think he ruminates about things like this i think actually sometimes it's important to have a philosophical maybe even a religious perspective on things like this to get perspective to get to get some wisdom in there. Again, science doesn't mean wisdom. It means knowledge. Science is a process by which we collect facts. We vet them. We test them. We stress test them. And then we get a consensus on what is limited to not be falsifiable. And that is the process of science. So I don't think, purely thinking engineering-wise, or he's greatest engineer maybe in history. Certainly is an incredibly accomplished person. He's like three months older than me. Amazing, amazing person.

Would I trade my life with his? Not in a billion. years not in a nanosecond. His life, according to even himself, his torture, is pure torture. Inside of Elon's mind is a torture chamber that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The distractions, the compulsions, the OCD, the Asperger, whatever he's dealing with, the suffering, the demons that drive him to sleep almost not at all, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, to use other substances, to not have

contact with one of my children if I were him, it's unthinkable. So you have to wonder, you know, like, the ultimate purpose of that and if so if it's future consciousness which is easier it's like the UFO thing like which is more plausible the UFOs of visited earth rectally probed our friends and neighbors you know made crop circles and built the pyramids and Stonehenge or that there's you know cultural socio-economic explanations uh psychological explanations people were drugged or teased by their friends haze by the US government which we know exist i mean totally gaslit people for decades they weren't doing this i said they were a long

time this is probably what they're doing or testing technology out like radar reflecting spheres and cubes and whatever all that stuff is that more plausible is it more easy to extend consciousness to other planets or to extend consciousness to this planet on earth imagine if he dumped a trillion dollars into saving the earth whatever that means preventing nuclear war um getting rid of you know engineered viruses uh you know enhanced purposes uh asteroid deflection um and simultaneously put you know 0.1% of that trillion dollars into fundamental physics research, math research, computer science research. Look, last time I was here was 2023, end of 2023. November. November. And that was just when chat GPT3 came out. It was right around then. It was a watershed moment, just like, I think it'll be a

watershed moment. We look back in the cosmological constant, not being constant. Since then, everything's different, right? So many things have changed in my teaching and my life and my kids' life. I taught my daughter how to make a song and it actually taught her how to prompt properly because she tried to make it sound like she prompted it like, I like Duolipa, I wanted to sound like do a Lipa, and the prompt came back from Sara, Sona, you can't do that, you can't use, that's a forbidden word,

you can't use any hardest names because it's a violation or copyright, even if you're doing it in the style of it. So she learned how to prompt from that. Like she learned, okay, this is acceptable. So the machines are training us now. Are they going to train us in physics? I don't know. I don't know if Grock is capable of construction.

a curved space time from a Rumanian manifold the way that Einstein did, just sitting and thinking about falling in an elevator who's cable broke, okay? Can a computer do that? Can a computer mimic and modulate just by sure GPU and LLM power married together? I don't know. I don't know if that's how the brain works. Just because neural networks work that way, that doesn't mean that's the magic in the machine. What if there was 0.01% of the trillion dollars is going to cost to get some robots to Mars? And by the way, we send people there, we're gone on expeditions there, but we don't try to set up a human, a planet living there. I mean, the surface is poisonous.

You've got a crawl walk even before you run, if that were even possible. But it's different. It's known to be thoroughly uninhabitable. I mean, it's completely... What makes it just for people out there who aren't familiar? What makes it unenhabitable? There's a book, Zach Wienersmith and his wife Kelly wrote a book called City on Mars, an incredibly skeptical take on all the conditions, both economic, physiological,

physical, you know, chemical, atmosphere. pressure, all these different things. One of the things, you know, they say is the surface, just to get there is a hazardous radiation exposure dose. You know, the same people who think we never went to the moon because the Van Allen belt surrounding the earth would poison or radiate the human body beyond recognition. Not only believe that it's possible for Elon to go to Mars,

but that you're going to take babies and zygotes and embryos and people that didn't choose to be born on the surface of Mars. Criminals are going to be born on the surface of Mars. Criminals? Well, I mean, think about how many, 0.1% of the U.S. population are felons right so we have i thought you were saying we were taking like criminals there to fuck or something so every time you go and see your phillies play there's like 10 murderers or 10 felons and there's 20 alcoholics there's convicted rapist and philly yeah that's true that's

san diegiana's beautiful america's finest city but but here's the point if you go and you say that this is your priority you're tacitly saying that i don't have other priorities including currently inhabited Earth. Earth is the only place we know where this consciousness flickers as a flame. Why not see what the undersea water has, I told you, the Antarctic was only explored 112 years ago.

Yeah. First, for the first time, there's parts there we don't even know about. The pyramid's not being part of them. Okay, the period, pyramid under the ice. Okay, we'll get to that next time. That's number three. Don't shut that down. Podcast number three, I got to go. But, but eventually, we could look at colonizing underneath the ocean.

There's tons more resources right here. right here in, you know, in the Atlantic Ocean than there are. And what about conserving the resources that are in, you know, species that are dying, et cetera, and in modulating some of the effects from the climate, not saying all of its manmade, but, you know, how can we modulate those effects? How could we make human life flourish here? So consciousness, the life of a human being now being weighted far more than a potential future human being who may not have a job, thanks to AI, may not have to rely on universal basic income,

may not be sitting around writing the poetry that the socialist paradise dreams of right so there's a lot of problems with living in the future and that's the whole effective altruism kind of nonsensical you know scam that sam bankman freed and others were big proponents of but yeah like how do you wait what a future human life is worth based on your

conventional social mores today who gets to say what it's worth Elon Musk I mean no no one gets to say what it's I mean would you by the way if he said to you Julian hey there are starships leaving tomorrow do you want to come you want to be the second man on Mars. Oh, by the way. Right.

And you're probably like a huge supporter and fan of Elon. I mean, I'm a fan. I'm a lot of stuff he does. I'm not a fan boy. Right. And there are, there are, I do have to say this. There are just some patterns with him that he's exhibited that I've just noticed more over the last couple years that I'd be lying if I told you that's in line with what good people do.

And I think one of those things is like some of his, I don't know, personal insemination. of women and all that and it's like I get it you're trying to populate the planet that's awesome but I think the way that he treats some of it is wrong objectively yeah no I agree but you know he's got 200 and something million followers I bet one one it's a go fuck his stuff he's got 200 200 Julian Dore's uh podcast um but no I mean I would bet on one percent of them let's say 0.1 percent wants to go to Mars with it there's thousands of people right it's to me to think about you know kind of if you i just don't think it's been thought through

fully whereas we know the basic research basic scientific research that these things pan out in ways that you can't predict in other words he's trying to take us he's an engineer he's trying to take a certain track which is apply money apply certain you know benzene and chemical rocket things together and the rocket go fast and it will reach you know mars in a certain but yeah what's his estimated time to reach mars do we well the soonest mars can be reached is something like nine months that's the fastest you can get there longest than it's on the other side of the solar system is something like 21 months or something like that but obviously you time it to be like that but in terms of the total amount of mass it has to be reached there and then you have to geiform i mean

no one's going to want to live in a bubble dome like he thinks it will take something like a thousand starship launches to build basically a bubble dome type city there okay um but to thousand starship launches yeah in terms of total metric tons to orbit it's trillion dollars oh yeah that's right well you know he's on track to be you know he is the richest person in the world and he's probably he got that yeah no but governments do and i think if he has the ear of people like president trump still after calling him a mhdine idiotan after accusing him of being on the epstein far that that went away real fast didn't that was pretty amazing i regret some of the things i said yeah i mean i wonder if i could take that back that doesn't work with my

I regret some of the things we said, honey, when I threw that at you and she threw it at me. All right, well, I got to head uptown. I'm going to head out tonight to an event where I'm going to be talking about these meteorites. Again, you can get them on my website. But next time I talk, I want to talk to you about something really cool. Because my next book is going to be about this magical person who brought me to New York City this time, Jim Simons. So Jim Simons was kind of like my scientific godfather mentor. He happened to be one of the richest guys in the world, but he was also one of the most curious people in the world.

He invented things in mathematics that have applicability, everything from genetics to quantum computers, to cosmology, to string theory, and beyond. And he was up until his dying day, he basically was commanding me, issuing me challenges to go out and discover this phenomenon, which is related to this magic crystal. So I kept teasing the magic crystal. So you have huge retention. This video is going to have like a flat retention curve. 99%. Come on, you know I got a YouTube it up. So take a look at this thing here.

Here's my card. This is you get when you get it onto my mailing list there. This is like a Costco lifetime membership card right here. Yeah, that's pretty nice. So now put this magic crystal, which is mostly clear, right? You say it's got some little cracks in it, but take a look and tell me, describe for the audience listening, perhaps when you put it over some text. What happens to the text? It's a little foggy.

Okay, so put it down flat. the card and the crystal down flat. This is called Icelandic spar or... Now it doubles it. It doubles it. Perfect. This crystal is called bi-refringence. Buy, like bisexual.

Yeah. Bicycle. Bi-refringent. It has two refractive indices. Two different directions for light to propagate in. Your glasses have one. If you had glasses made of this stuff, you go nuts. Now, this is a polarizer.

What I have here is called an optical polarizer. What it's going to do is kill off of those two polarization states that have different indices of refraction tell me what happen put the card you guys fidget too much put it flat put it flat but both of them flat and now put that on top of it separately uh we're on top well you put it separately first just to show that not it doesn't do anything it just makes it darker right it just makes it darker right it just makes it dark so on your cameras right now you don't have any nd filter shame on you joe shame what's an endie filter joe that's that yeah what's it's a neutral density filter so it allows

the aperture to remain open more so you get a little more motioned blur. It cuts down on the intensity by a certain power. I hope you know what he's talking about. Yeah, good. There are other ones called circular polarized filters, and then there are ultraviolet light filters. It's a good tip out there for expensive lens kind of horrors like me. There's a beautiful camera shop

around the corner. It's amazing. I should go take a look. Well, we got B&H on 34th. It's over here too? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go check them out. Barroa Shem. I've got to go check out. So when you look at that through the polarizer, it just dims everything. That's all it does. Killing off half the light. Now, if you put it on top, and now, you

might have to rotate the circle, the polarizer. Now it's all single. Now it's making it single. So it's killed off one of the two images that was distorting the view that you have of the card. In the cosmos, there are in claims that the universe does the same thing as that crystal. In other words, it appears as if the universe, according to researchers using data from the Planck experiment, that there's a delay or there's a slower propagation of light. Like Claudia thinks for gravity, but this is for light. light may slow down slightly based on its polarization.

That is an idea that is related to what Jim Simons invented called the Churn Simons, a topological invariant. What we're looking for at the Simon's Observatory is to determine whether or not we can see this, it's called cosmic birefringence. Byrefringence is the double refraction. Why you saw two images, the polarizer kills one of them allows you see clearly in one light only.

Now, one last experiment you could do there, and this is actually what we're doing to Simon's Observatory. So put the crystal, the birefringent calcium crystal, put that on top of the text. Put the polarizer on, it kills it off.

Now, rotate the polarizer about its center and tell me what happens to the letters that you see. Just keep the crystal on the card fixed. So just rotate it like this. Just spin it, yep.

What do you see happening? They get darker. It gets darker, and then it gets lighter and you can see it again. Yes. That's called modulation. What you're doing

is you're changing. Oh, and they change. Change positions. Change positions, right. So you're basically killing on a... Oh, my ADD is going to go nuts with a desolate. It's pretty wild, right? This is incredible stuff.

This is fundamental physics. To determine if, on cosmic scales, if the universe behaves as if it's filled with this crystalline refractive index material is one of my top goals because it turns out to be related to properties of dark matter. It could be that the dark, what we call dark matter, it's just what's called a heavy photon, a photon that actually has mass,

but we've never seen it because we've never seen far enough back that the effects, This is a huge effect here. I mean, you can see it with your eye, basically. But imagine if the effect is like parts per trillion, and we've never been able to look far enough into space until now at the Simon's Observatory. So one of the goals of the Simons, the one I'm most interested in

because it was the one that Jim Simons thought, this is a guy who had a mega yacht, had a G650. He was a hedge fund, right? He started a hedge fund, and he had run it more successful. Then he pivoted. So this is his career. He's a mathematician. He's the first chairman of this SUNY-Stony Brook math department,

which is where he hired my father. And so they were colleagues, and that's how I got to know him. He already had my father. My father was a professor at Cornell. He moved down to work with John Stony Brook. Yeah, he died last year. He died a year ago. And that's why tomorrow is a memorial kind of tribute to him.

We're going to have some of the greatest physicist Nobel Prize winners. Just ripping bodes till the end. He actually was a, yeah, he smoked merit, filterless, usually for 65 years. He died May 10th, yeah. So tomorrow we're going on. We're having an event for him. We're honoring his life, his legacy, a scientific contribution. but one of the ones that he always kind of wanted is he had the 650 he had the limo he had the golfs

you know he had the mega yacht um but he wanted a Nobel Prize that's really funny the man who had everything I got him an asteroid I have this asteroid named Jim Simons after him oh that's right Wikipedia you'll probably find it there too 6618 Jim Simon I didn't know until Eric went on with Rogan back in February 2003 in that episode where they where he's like Michukaku. Michukaku is out of control. But, like, he talked about this guy, and I really never knew about this guy before then.

He was a fascinating. Yeah, Eric, you know, projects a lot of stuff onto him. Like, maybe he was involved in gravity research and then funding, like, super secret technical organization near Brookhaven National Labs and Stony Brook and the hedge funds of cover, a CIA cover. I don't agree with him. I mean, he told me, and actually on my podcast with him last month,

he said that, you know, Jim told him that it was actually much more boring than he suspected. And I knew that, He told me that the secret that they had. Well, that's what I would tell them to if I was working for CIA. Yeah, but it's hard, again, it's hard to have a conspiracy of cover up, whether it's about assassinations, whether it's about UFOs, or whether it's about CIA, you know, involvement in the math department. You know, it's maybe you can control it over one or two guys or gals, but then their spouses, their kids, they want to put something in their will. They want to do anything.

Yeah, you just kill them. Right. So that's what they say. They say, two people can keep a conspiracy if one of them's dead. That's a famous, famous. This isn't hard. A famous saying, right? So anyway, the next time I come back,

I hope that we'll have information that either refutes the claim made by, quite frankly, they're kind of competitor. I mean, I've been looking for the signal. They claimed they detected it using this billion-dollar satellite called Planck data, and they're great scientists. And I'm kind of trying to see if they're right or wrong,

and I've been working on this for a long time. But no matter who's right, we want to know the answer. And so I'm comfortable being wrong. But if it does turn out to be there, it would be incredibly ironic because it would mean that Jim Simons, beyond the grave, is now experiencing this Nobel Prize-worthy discovery that only he was legitimately responsible for, both in terms of funding the observatory, funding the team, funding the basic scientific research, and providing the inspiration to millions of people

to be fascinated with stuff in the cosmos for the betterment of mankind. Really, he's like a modern-day Alfred Nobel. I was. Can you get a Nobel Prize posthumously? No, that's one of the problems that I wrote about in my book, first book, losing the robot price. It's about how it's cruel, unfair, and inaccurate description of how scientific method works. It doesn't work that way. You know, science is not about, like, oh, you happen to be alive when this thing came.

No, it matters. It's like, we still use Newton's laws over certain ranges, and then someone comes along and shows that Newton's wrong named Albert Einstein, and then someone will come along later on and prove that Einstein's wrong, and that actually, you know, Claudia or, you know, somebody else. That's how it works. And my job is the experimentalist, is provided

the data that then discovers or refutes what they claims are being made and hopefully gets us on a pathway that's closer to the truth as we see farther away last question three as we see farther away though we're talking about distances today that just blow my mind and obviously the the exploration aspect of science is moving up at a at a fast rate as we look farther away though and begin to actually conceptualize just how many galaxies there are or that we didn't know about before or how much matter or lack thereof might be in some of these. Mathematically speaking, doesn't it start to make the possibility that the probability that there is intelligent life out there, meaning like an alien, as we would consider it here,

doesn't that make it damn near 100% as we get farther and farther here? I don't think so. I mean, I've had this debate. Again, going back to Antarctica. So when I was in Antarctica, I think at one point in time, I was probably the most overweight person on the entire continent you know 25 percent body five well no that's the point yeah it's this huge amount of space though it's basically argument you're making space is proportional to content right so like just because you have a lot of space like there's an awful lot of you know uh of hard disk space

in in the cloud so to speak right does that mean it's all filled up there's a lot of content on there too but it's a fraction of what there could be on antarctica right now in the middle of their winter it's actually going to be the coldest night it's going to be about 100 below zero Fahrenheit. So on July 4th every year, they do what's called the 300 degree club. They go outside. They go into a sauna. There's a sauna at the South Pole. It goes to 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Then they go outside for the ultimate cold plunge, except they don't lie down. They run around. You can only wear your shoes or else your clothes will freeze your body and freeze off your junk. So they go out from 200 degrees positive to negative 100 degrees and run around the South Pole, which is just like a flagpole, basically.

And then they come in that's called the 300 degree club, experiencing a delta temperature of 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Insane. You can't imagine it. If you spit, your spit freezing in mid air, your eyeballs could freeze in mid air. But anyway, that's a tradition down there. Who the hell wants to do that? There's right now 40 people there. So it's a continent. It could support billions of, literally every single person on Earth could fit in a one cubic mile cube. Did you know that? If you took everybody in Earth, put them in a blender, they fit in one mile. A cube from here to a minute. Well, or so don't put them in a blender. They fit in a two cubic mile. I mean, How big do you think you are in a blender versus, you know, fully extended?

Maybe two miles. Does that make it any less tiny compared to the size of the earth? There's almost nobody on Earth compared to the size of what the Earth could support. So you telling me the universe has a radius, which we know to be true, of 45 billion light years. I mean, we know that to be true? Yeah, that's how far away the CMB is. That's where the CMB last scattering surface that you talked about in timestamp two hours and 14 minutes with Claudia Durham comes from. Don't you remember?

Do I know your time stands better than you do you do? On this count, you do. That's a first in the history of our show. Nice job. So when you look at the universe, you see how what we're observing, again, could not be there. Like, these things could have disappeared. So I like to, let me even just spot you all that. Let me just say, in our galaxy.

Let's just focus on things that plausibly could have come to Earth in the 30,000 years since human beings in modern form came about in, you know, the Mesopotamian region of the Middle East, right? 30,000 light years away and traveling at the speed of light and they got it that's a volume about the size of our galaxy okay or an area the size of our galaxy in radius um in that regime there's we have zero evidence even though there's literally a hundred billion stars in our galaxy each one has maybe 10 hundred planets just like ours does right minor planets big planets all it takes is one though brian all it takes is one planet all it takes is one but there's also zero evidence for any of them to be there so if you have

something that says you can't have this like again perpetual motion machine or you have some symmetry principle that says that there's no possibility whatsoever of getting um of getting some angular rotation that doesn't produce what's called angular momentum like there are things in physics called conservation conservation of energy right so all it takes is one well all it takes is one violation of conservation of energy yeah but we've never seen that we have no evidence for that we have principles of physics that are based downstream on that of not not occurring and here's the other thing. You say it all takes is one, but I can come up right now with a probabilistic estimate, the Fermi paradox solution called the Drake equation. And it has all these terms in it,

but there's one term that we have no idea about, which is how long does a civilization last for? So even let me stipulate that there's been millions of civilizations, but our galaxy is billions of years old. So that means if each one doesn't last for more than a thousand years, Which, I mean, do you, what would you put the odds of humanity existing right now in 2025 for another 1,000 to 10,000 years? The odds? Yeah. At 1,000, I'd say the odds are excellent at 10,000. It gets dicey.

I think Musk would say the odds of 10 years from now is pretty low. Or else why would he put all his money into it? If you told Elon. Well, why is he building rockets on a time scale to get to Mars in 2035? I know, but that seems a little dumer. Ten years is crazy. You're talking about civilization collapse. He obviously thinks that there.

is some urgent reason to go to Mars now. Look, if you try to invent the iPod in 1985, you probably could have. I mean, there were hard disks back then. There were certainly Walkman. I had a Walkman probably before you were born. And so you could have put one together. It would have cost a trillion dollars, right?

But if you waited until, okay, now they shrank down to one inch diameter disk drive that could fit a thousand MP3 files and you waited for the MP3 compression algorithm to be invented, now is much easier for you to invent the iPod, right? So you don't want to do things now. In fact, Steve Jobs famously said, like, I don't give away money now because if I give away a dollar now, that's $100 I don't give away when I die. And he gave away all his money when he died.

And some people think that's illegitimate. And some say it's not a good way to give charity. I'm not going to comment on that. But the point is, it's always easier, it gets faster. Moore's Law. Just think about Moore's Law. If you try to invent an iPhone today, you could not do it. I mean, an iPhone 100 years ago, you couldn't do it.

But if you wait 200 years, it'll be like, we literally do things in our lab classes that won Nobel Prize is 50 years ago. In other words, technology, instrumentation, analysis, compression, algorithms, computing, all these things are going to make things exponentially easier. So why not just wait? The answer is he doesn't think we're going to last that long. He legitimately thinks we need to get to Mars and back up that hard drive of consciousness in the next decade or two decades. Now, you can argue with that, but it's certainly not, you couldn't convince me that he thinks

a thousand years from now, meaning that he doesn't think consciousness to flicker will be not extinguished a thousand years from now. you seem to be more optimistic i'm not going to argue which way or another but the point being you have to make this estimate but the fact that you and i can't really agree on it he maybe disagrees with all both of us the fact is that just points to the fact that even if there was a technological civilization with opposable thumbs that can make an iphone that can make a that we don't know how long they can last for they could last for a thousand years but they probably don't last for millions of years so they're either there they were there and they're dead right or they're coming in the

future, right, after a million years more of evolution, and maybe they're watching us or doing something else. But just the mere fact that space is big has no bearing on the probability of life existing elsewhere, let alone technological. I would say if that's the only variable you're looking at it through, that would be correct. However, when you start to look at the existence of these other stars, and then you consider what we don't even know about our own planets in this little solar system right here and now extrapolate that across, I'll just say thousands, but it's probably more, you know, thousands of other solar systems that could exist. Again, that's where it starts to get to me. I've heard this argument many times, but it's kind of like a gambler's foul. Like, okay, so it's only

worked here, but it's got to work somewhere else because the problem that there's so much time is elaps and the universe is so big. But all those things, if I told you this, we wouldn't be here if Jupiter wasn't about the size that it is right now. We wouldn't be here if the moon wasn't exactly where it is with the exact same size that it is. Forget about us going to the moon, okay? So, and now you ask the probability, how many different things are responsible for our existence, going back just in our solar system? So like the position of the moon, the size of the moon relative to the Earth, the size of Jupiter and the other outer planets that there aren't other ones. You know, most stars in the galaxy are double stars. We don't have a double star

that makes things easier for stable orbits to develop. And so on. And we also were hit by a massive asteroid called Thea back about four and a half billion. years before. That's where this asteroid fragment, the meteorite, comes from, comes from that huge collision of the pre-existing solar system. If that occurred after, say, the moon had formed, we wouldn't be here. The moon wouldn't have formed, and probably would have been obliterated the Earth-Moon double planet system. If the comet that hit the Yucatan Peninsula, killing off the dinosaurs, if that occurred before the asteroid that hit the Earth or pre-Earth that formed the moon, if that happened before and didn't

kill off the dinosaurs, we wouldn't be here, right? Because dinosaurs would have out-competed us and we couldn't survive. So all these different collisions. And lastly, there are things called the comets that seat prior to the water on Earth's oceans. If those came before Thea or after the dinosaurs, you know,

wiping asteroid, we also wouldn't be here. So there's three different types of collisions. They had to happen in exact right order. They had to occur in the exact environment of our solar system when afterwards there were, you know, before which there were oxygen oxygenation of microbes and afterwards there were prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells that had cellular

membranes all these things any of them change in order that wouldn't have now this could be in use and distort it as argument for god or design i don't think that's relevant we're just talking about life intelligent life all these variables just take 10 of them and say each one has a part in a thousand of a current which i think is very low i mean the odds of the asteroid hitting the earth pro-to-earth and forming the moon coming before the asteroid that killed the dinosaur that killed the dinosaur that's like a trillion to one odds but let's just call it a thousand to one do you make it as favorable as possible for you now take ten different things size of jupiter distance of the moon formation of the moon before after the formation before the formation of the

dinosaur killing as a there get 10 of those things each one is a part in a thousand you get 10 to the one to the one over 10 power so you take one over 10 to 10 to the 30th power one in 10 to the 30th. There's only one times 10 to the 24th stars in the entire observable universe. In our galaxy, there's 10 to the 10 to the 12th at most. Stars in our galaxy, maybe 10 to the 11th.

So now you take those, that means it's one in a trillion odds that we're here. Okay. So I, that we're not, that we are not alone. So these are just, I mean, astronomical numbers, it's very hard to multiply large numbers by almost infinitesimal numbers. You can get any answer you want.

And so because of that, I don't like, the argument that oh space is very big and therefore there has to be life there's no evidence for that it sounds good feels good doesn't pay the bills there's a lot to dig into there but i know you got to leave dr keating chapter three this we will definitely do that in chapter three yeah let's i like the way he's thinking i like the way he's thinking but listen i i love talking with you brought it's a lot of fun and you got a lot on the bone there that you're always looking at you're also one the most connected guys within the physics space have ever talked with so i know you're talking to a lot different perspectives so thank you as always for stopping by thank you for most of me all right

all right and we'll have the links down to your youtube channels yeah below and then we should put your website down there too yeah brian keating dot com you got it all right everybody else you know what it is give it a thought get back to me peace thank you guys for watching the episode if you haven't already please hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video they're both a huge huge help and if you would like to follow me on instagram and x those links are in my description below level excitement with BetMGM Casino, now introducing our hottest exclusive, Friends, the One with Multi-Drop. Your favorite classic television show is being reimagined into your favorite casino game featuring iconic images from the show. Spin our new exclusive because we're not on a break.

Play Friends, the One with Multidrop exclusively at BetMGM Casino. Want even more options? Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games from Blackjack to poker. Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with I-Gaming Ontario.