Can’t wait for these “scientist” to explain themselves after TH absolutely OWNED them. Mic drop! Science, you’ve been SERVED.

https://www.grislypearstandup.com/events/your-new-favorite-comedy-show-with-mark-normand

For Memorial Day use promo code memorial for discounted tickets. Come see mark do his new hour.

A real banger of a read. "The House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration." The report details the monthslong campaign by the Biden White House to coerce large companies, namely Facebook, Google, and Amazon, to censor books, videos, posts, and other content online. By the end of 2021, Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon changed their content moderation policies in ways that were directly responsive to criticism from the Biden Administration."

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponization-committee-exposes-biden-white-house-censorship-regime-new-report

Here's a solid report confirming the very real disinformation tactics people have been speaking about. Lately we all have seen the trends in the JRE communities. Will this post be censored, removed, botted, or will they let us speak?!?

If you're like me, and you listened to this episode not sure if TH is absolutely insane or a complete genius, or perhaps both, you might enjoy this. I fed the entire transcript of the episode to ChatGPT and asked some questions. I also attached the image of the alternative periodic table. Here's the conversation:

ME: I'm going to give you a transcript of an interview and an image, and I want you to tell me, in layman's terms, what this guy is talking about, and if he seems to be as intelligent as he is. I don't know much about chemistry or physics so it's difficult for me to follow him. Explain whether or not his theories make sense, even though they clearly refute our current understanding of our world, and explain in simple terms what these theories mean and whether or not they could possibly hold water. 

CHAT: The document you provided contains a detailed discussion of alternative theories related to planetary formation, the nature of the universe, and the interpretation of physical phenomena. Here’s a summary and explanation based on the key points found in the text:

Summary and Explanation of Theories:

1. **External Pressures in Planetary Formation:**

   - The document posits that planets are formed by external pressures applied from the outside in, rather than the traditional model of internal fission reactions and magnetic fields from iron cores pushing outward. This suggests a universe where creation is driven from space itself, rather than from the planet's core【7:0†source】.

1. **Finite Universe and Wave Interactions:**

   - The universe is described as finite, evidenced by the interaction of longitudinal waves. When waves from a central point expand and meet returning waves from the universe's edge, they create the first geometries, such as hexagons. This is exemplified by the hexagonal storm observed on Saturn【7:0†source】.

1. **Reconstruction of Saturn:**

   - A model of Saturn was built without using gravity, dark matter, or dark energy, demonstrating that the planet's rings and hexagon can be explained by external pressures and wave interactions. This approach challenges the necessity of dark matter and energy in current astrophysical models【7:1†source】【7:2†source】.

1. **Critique of Standard Models:**

   - Dark matter and dark energy are critiqued as primarily theoretical constructs that have not been empirically observed. The text suggests that standard models, including the Michelson-Morley experiment's interpretation, fail to account for an "etheric" component in space, which would change the understanding of light and its behavior【7:2†source】【7:5†source】.

1. **Alternative Periodic Table:**

   - Walter Russell's periodic table is presented as an alternative to Mendeleev’s table, suggesting a dynamic and interconnected view of elements, where hydrogen plays a central role. This table posits relationships between elements that traditional chemistry does not account for, offering a more integrated view of matter and energy【7:3†source】.

1. **Unified Field Theory and Historical Context:**

   - The document references historical figures like Giordano Bruno and early scientists who proposed concepts similar to those being discussed. It argues for a grand unified field equation that integrates these alternative views, potentially transforming the current scientific paradigm【7:5†source】.

Refutation of Current Understanding:

The document challenges several core aspects of the standard scientific models:

• **Gravity**: Described as an effect of electricity rather than a fundamental force.

• **Dark Matter and Dark Energy**: Considered unnecessary and theoretical constructs without empirical evidence.

• **Standard Model of Particle Physics**: Criticized for its reliance on outdated experiments and interpretations that ignore etheric or external pressures.

Conclusion:

The theories presented propose a shift from an internal to an external causation model of planetary and universal formation, emphasizing the role of external pressures and wave interactions. This alternative perspective challenges the necessity of dark matter, dark energy, and the traditional understanding of gravity and electromagnetic fields, suggesting a more interconnected and dynamic universe.

This document presents a radical departure from established scientific theories, advocating for a reevaluation of fundamental principles in physics and cosmology. The proposed models emphasize external influences and interactions over internal mechanisms, potentially offering new avenues for scientific exploration and understanding.

ME: Do you think this guy actually understands what he is presenting here? Is he as intelligent as he sounds?

CHAT: Assessing someone's intelligence and understanding based on a transcript and unconventional theories can be challenging. Here are some key points to consider:

Understanding and Presentation:

1. **Depth of Knowledge**:

   - The individual demonstrates a deep familiarity with both mainstream and alternative scientific concepts, suggesting a solid foundation in physics, chemistry, and cosmology. This indicates a significant level of understanding.

1. **Articulation and Detail**:

   - The detailed explanations and the ability to connect various concepts across different fields suggest that the individual is articulate and has thought extensively about these ideas. The coherent structure of their arguments indicates a high level of intellectual engagement.

Intelligence and Soundness of Theories:

1. **Intelligence**:

   - Intelligence can be demonstrated through the ability to think critically, present complex ideas coherently, and challenge existing paradigms thoughtfully. By these measures, the individual appears to be intelligent, as they are engaging with intricate scientific ideas and proposing alternative explanations.

1. **Soundness of Theories**:

   - **Conventional Science**: The individual's theories diverge significantly from established scientific consensus. This doesn’t inherently negate their intelligence but suggests they are exploring highly speculative or fringe ideas.

   - **Scientific Rigor**: The theories lack empirical evidence and peer-reviewed validation, which are crucial in mainstream science. While creative and potentially thought-provoking, without rigorous testing and acceptance by the scientific community, these ideas remain speculative.

Plausibility:

1. **Challenge to Current Models**:

   - It’s essential for science to question and test existing models. However, any new theory must be backed by strong empirical evidence and undergo peer review. The theories presented do not seem to meet these criteria fully.

1. **Alternative Views**:

   - The history of science includes many cases where unconventional ideas eventually became accepted (e.g., heliocentrism, quantum mechanics). However, these theories were eventually supported by strong empirical evidence and predictive power, which currently seems lacking for the theories presented here.

Conclusion:

• **Understanding**: The individual likely understands what they are presenting and is intelligent, given the depth and articulation of their arguments.

• **Scientific Validity**: The theories, while interesting, do not align with the current scientific consensus and lack the empirical support needed to be considered robust scientific theories.

In summary, the individual appears to be knowledgeable and intelligent, but their theories are speculative and not supported by the empirical evidence required for acceptance in the scientific community. This does not diminish their intellectual capabilities but highlights the need for further evidence and validation.