NASA Chief: "We Just Built Antigravity Propulsion!”

It just had to be. So I spent two decades looking at hidden bullet.

You do think you've discovered a propulsion mechanism that can get us interstellar travel. I take those lifters and I put them in a plastic box and put on a scale. We've turned it on to think lifts up in the weeks. Flatlines does not move at all. Still about 200 micronyls of force of still inside.

“How many variations of this experiment do you think you've tried?”

We are close to 2000. 2000 instances of the experiment are 2000 variations. Holy sh*t. Each one is tested multiple times. If you were to apply that to like a satellite in space in a zero gravity environment.

It would accelerate with the power off. You can't explain that to the scientific community. It just can't. The idea that you could just charge it up and leave it there. And it gets thrust like it hurts my brain to even imagine how is that possible. These are very weird things.

It's like you create this thrust mode that just keeps going. I don't think I'm bending space timing. Vivienne. For over a century humanity's journey to the stars has been held hostage by a simple, unyielding truth. Newton's third law.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. It's the law that powers every rocket, every satellite, every probe we've ever launched. And it's also the law that keeps us trapped here on Earth. In order to get to the closest habitable planet in our very own Milky Way galaxy, a place called Proxima Centauri B, it would take you 50 to 80,000 years in a chemical combustion rocket.

You would die before even getting 1% of the way there. And if you somehow figured out a way to live for thousands of years, by the time you came back to Earth after a trip like that, it would be totally unrecognizable. You'd be playing out the ending of the planet of the apes. You'll make it up!

“To go anywhere in space, you have to carry fuel.”

Massive amounts of it. Over 90% of any rocket's mass at launch is just propellant, pure fuel. Burned and ejected out of the back to push the remaining 10% forward. Launching a rocket to get a satellite into space is like flying a fully loaded 747 to deliver a suitcase.

One of the challenges we have to solve is over to refilling, where we dock on a little bit and transfer a propellant. The modern king of rocketry, and Mr. Occupy Mars himself, Elon Musk, has publicly stated that Newton's laws are the end all be all for space travel. For some reason, he's quite adamant about that.

There's no way around Newton's third law, really.

You basically have to expel mass.

“The original godfather of American rocketry Jack Parsons believed this as well.”

In 1936, he and some colleagues at Caltech began launching the first rocket cests in Western Pasadena. But what most people don't know is that a decade before Jack Parsons, in the 1920s, there was someone else at Caltech, with some very different ideas for deep space travel. Townsend Brown, Townsend Brown, Townsend Brown, there's a guy named Townsend Brown. Okay, okay, Townsend Brown.

Brown had stumbled onto something that mainstream science still refuses to acknowledge. A possible break in Newton's laws, a new force, or perhaps, a way to manipulate gravity itself with electromagnetism. Unifying these two fundamental forces has been the holy grail of physics for the last century. What Einstein died searching for? Townsend Brown discovered that when you apply a high voltage to certain asymmetric capacitors,

they produce thrust, no fuel, no exhaust, no propellant, just electricity, converted directly into motion, a new model for space propulsion that could eliminate crude chemical combustion forever. Brown called his anti-gravity work, Electro-Grovitics. Meanwhile, physics textbooks called it impossible, and because of that, he was dismissed, ridiculed, and eventually erased from the official story of physics.

But if you dig a bit deeper and read his incredible biography by Paul Schatzkin,

you start to piece together a very different picture. One in which Townsend Brown isn't easily dismissed as an amateur quack. In fact, his work was witnessed by the highest levels of government and military. Now we're getting some interesting territory. People like notorious Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis Lamey, who courted Brown constantly,

people like Edward Teller, the father of the Hydrogen Bomb. Bill Lear, the founder of the first private jet, and Agnew Bonson,

a lieutenant Colonel from Wright Airfield, who went on to become a general, named Victor Bertrandius, witnessed Brown's gravitation experiments in Los Angeles in 1952.

“He was quoted as saying, "Believe it or not, I think I just saw a flying saucer,”

and it frightened me." And if that's not all. We have audio of a deathbed confession from French Aerospace Executive, Jacques Corneone, who witnessed Brown's successful experiments in a vacuum chamber in 1956 and Paris explicitly stated he witnessed a positive result.

This is to go along with an 120-page report around that specific experiment that's widely available online today. Nonetheless, stigma, tech protection, and scientific suppression are all very real. Brown's work is still likely classified by the Navy to this day.

Over the last 70 years, Brown's experiments never went away.

They just went underground. They've been replicated all over the world in places as far as Japan, but usually by persistent hobbyist teams or aerospace engineers stringing some funds together and operating out of pure passion. But in deep black American Aerospace, I believe Brown's work still exists

in the form of whispers and vital sub compartments, where it gets explored further. Okay, so that's the backdrop. Newton has a stuck-on-earth industry titans like Elon can't be bothered to explore new propulsion modalities,

and towns in Brown is a total ghost relegated to quirky UFO circles. That is, until today, inside a quiet lab in Florida, NASA's lead electrostatic scientist, a man named Dr. Charles Bueller, has been running the same gravity-altering tests as Thomas Townsend Brown. When we see about 0.1 grams, the corresponds to about 1,000,000-nutrust.

Only this time, with modern instruments, more rigorous controls, and decades of electrostatics expertise from his work at Kennedy Space Center behind him. And what he's measuring is thrust, real, repeatable, directional thrust, no combustion, no reaction mass, the future of space travel. We say we have an energy crisis, oh my god, the energy crisis.

It could be considered an energy crisis, but it's really a force crisis.

“It's a transportation crisis, how do you get an object from here to here?”

At his company, Exodus propulsion technologies, Mueller isn't just replicating Townsend Brown's work. He's validating it, scaling it, showing literal weight loss on scales due to upward thrust. Again, Mueller is not some mid-level guy at NASA. He's the lead electrostatic scientist in the entire agency.

And you're also, I believe, about to be the president of the electrostatic society, too. That's great. And he's contributed to fundamental principles to the field of electrostatics that are now widely accepted. The question is no longer whether the byfield Brown effect is real or not.

The question is, where could this lead human in? How can we scale this up and what is the theoretical physics behind it? On this last question, Charles goes deeper on this show than he has in any other interview on his own quantum electrodynamic space theory around how this force works. And I brought in my friend, a brilliant MIT trained physicist named David Chester

to help stress test in sharpened Mueller's theory.

“What happens when propulsion no longer requires fuel?”

When the tyranny of rocket equations finally breaks?

Without further ado, please welcome this week's amazing American alchemist.

NASA and Exodus propulsions very own. Dr. Charles Bueler. "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk."

"We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk."

"We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk."

"We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk." "We're looking for Elon Musk."

"We're looking for Elon Musk."

Before we continue, I want to take a second to think one of my favorite products in the world.

Keytone IQ for sponsoring today's episode. Keytone IQ is one of the very few things I use that gives me clean, sustainable energy without the crash. It's just this little shot and I take a drink and I feel like I'm on fire. No ups, no downs, no nervous system weirdness, just clean clear mental energy. The reason it works is pretty simple.

It gives your brain's keytones, which are almost by definition, it's most efficient fuel source. Instead of pushing your system, it actually feeds it.

So when you drink this, it supports deep focus, long conversations, and sustained mental performance. It was originally developed through a multimillion-dollar military program designed for high stress environments where cognitive performance really matters. And today, it's used by founders, researchers, podcasters like myself and people who need their mind to work when it counts.

I always take a sip of one of these things before long podcasts.

This product is also really personal for me because I've known the founders Jeff and Michael for over a decade. These guys are awesome, and for as long as I've known them, they've tried every supplement, biohack, and utropic under the sun. So it was a pretty good signal to me that they decided to start a company around Keytones. I use Keytone IQ regularly, it's like a mental cheat code, and it's genuinely one of the cleanest energy sources I've ever found. So before we get back into the episode, please visit Keytone.com/Alchemy for 30% off your subscription order.

Plus, receive a free gift with your second shipment. Again, that's Keytone.com/Alchemy for 30% off your order. Or you can find Keytone IQ at Target Store's nationwide and get your first shot free. Seriously, this stuff works. Thanks so much to Keytone IQ for sponsoring today's episode. Everyone talks about the Bermuda Triangle, but no one warns you about it's colder, weirder cousin.

In the heart of Alaska lies the Alaska Triangle, where planes disappear, hikers vanish,

“and the only thing that shows up reliably is my wild-alask and company seafood box.”

I'm being serious here, guys. I definitely don't trust flying over portals, but I do trust this fish. Most seafood, I can't even look at it without wondering if it was farmed in a glowing bat near a nuclear power plant. But this fish, 100% wild caught, flash frozen off the boat. Delivered straight to my door like it teleported through one of Eric Davis's wormholes,

and it still tastes better than just about anything your cousin microwaves. No antibiotics, no additives, no fish farm sludge, just real fish. Co-host salmon, Pacific halibut, and my favorite, the Salkai salmon. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust.

Go to wildalaskin.com/jessie for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood.

That's wildalaskin.com/jessie for $35 off your first order. Thank you so much to wildalaskin company for sponsoring this episode. I'm here with Charles Bueler, who this is a holy grail interview for me. I'm like a kid on Christmas, because I've been like the search for Bueler. Ever since, you know, we connected a couple years ago, because I made this Townsend Brown documentary.

And as you know, in my audience knows, I'm obsessed with this mid-century inventor, Thomas Townsend Brown.

“I think he found a real force that lies outside of either the forefront of mental forces,”

might have merged gravity and electromagnetism. I don't quite know. But something that transcends kind of our chemical combustion modalities that will take us interstellar. And as soon as I came out with that, a bunch of people hit me up, and they're like, "You gotta talk to Charles Bueler." He's the lead electrostatic scientist at NASA. And he's been doing this experiment, but his own kind of version of it.

But his updated better version of it in a vacuum chamber, he's had access to for a decade plus. And so we connected a little bit, we kind of fell off. I'm so grateful to have you here now. It's just a total honor. And you're also, I believe, about to be the president of the electrostatic society too. That's great.

So you have the credentials to say, if you're saying that we found another force,

“you have as good of credentials as anybody. Is that right?”

I mean, you don't know what we'll say.

I think I know enough about electrostatics to say that, but we're always still learning.

What's your current job title? So I am the lead scientists of NASA's electrostatics and surface physics laboratory at part of Swampworks Kennedy Space Center. So before I go on, I have to divers to make everyone aware that this is not a affiliated with NASA. Any of this work that we're doing. Absolutely.

We're not given any credits to NASA in this. Disclaimer accepted. I think maybe it's a little bizarre that NASA wouldn't want to immediately kind of jump on this work. But they're probably going to be a customer later on. They're not working this technology at NASA.

That's not in my laboratory, we're not. But you are, is it safe to say you're the lead electrostatics scientist at all of NASA? I would say that. I mean, we only have one electrostatics lab in all of NASA. And I lead it.

And you run it.

Yeah. Okay. So again, if this sort of force were attributable to basic electrostatics, you would know. Sure.

Let's back up a second. And, you know, that's a really impressive, cool title.

“What does somebody who leads electrostatics at NASA do?”

Our lab does a lot of things. It was founded about 26 years ago by Dr. Carlos Gay, a physicist who spent a summer working at Kennedy Space Center, came back the following year and started the lab. We do electrostatics at NASA at Kennedy Space Center because of incidents that occurred in the 1960s. So there was an incident that trapped 11 people in a spin test facility,

where they accidentally set off a rocket, a solid rocket. And there were some casualties there. So we also had the Apollo fire that you've heard about. So we've lost, I think, 14 people to electrostatics at NASA. So Kennedy Space Center has kind of led this effort to study this phenomena and test it.

And a lot of the tests that we do that we've been doing date to the 1960s, long before they had standardized testing from electrostatics. So Dr. Carlos Gay filmed a film to a four-day research arm of that test, about 26 years ago. Aren't there also issues with lunar dust getting attracted to the lunar lander and electrostatics, sort of allowing or removing the dust or something like that, is that a thing?

Yes.

“So when I get on the stand and I talk about these things,”

my pedestal, I always talk about the safety indeed to study electrostatics,

but no one pays us to study electrostatics. You know, it's a case by case thing where people will give us funding to look at and investigate just like any other investigation. But it doesn't pay the bills. So what we've done is we've understood some of the needs for NASA that are in the electrostatics realm, for example, the dust mitigation aspect.

So dust is considered one of the two greatest challenges that have to be overcome for long-term human presence in the moon or Mars. The dust was very problematic for the Apollo astronauts, where they couldn't even do a fourth EVA. They could do three.

They couldn't do four. Dust would clog the soots and get into the arms, to the helmet, into the joints, and it just prevented further EVAs extra vehicle activities. So the dust mitigation is the serious ones taken by NASA. I think every center is working on it.

But we actually have many dust mitigation technologies that we've developed over the years. Our primary one is the electrodynamic dust shield, the EDS. So this uses a surface that has embedded electrodes inside of it, that lifts and removes dust without moving parts or gases or fluids or anything. So we can embed that into glass, we can embed that into thermal radiators, solar panels, solar rays,

all kinds of materials. Very cool. And wasn't there recently like a lunar dust mission? That's right. So we almost just over a year ago, we landed our EDS payload, had nine EDSs on there.

So there were six EDSs used to get dust onto us, so we can use our EDS to get show that we can get it off. So we tested a thermal radiator EDS, we tested a glass EDS on the moon and a camera EDS. So we tested the technology on the lunar surface. Successful. Very exciting.

That's amazing.

So you worked 25 years on something, you finally get it to the moon and it works.

You're pretty happy. Congratulations. Yeah, we'd suck if it didn't after 25 years. Yeah. There's a lot of sunk costs, the water time and effort and energy.

“One other very credibility enhancing thing about you that I think it's really important to know.”

Is you've contributed to the field of electrostatics outside of this anomalous force that you're talking about. Is that right? That's right. So, you know, I've been in electrostatics for 26 years and it's been around obviously for a very long time. But it doesn't get the attention that the other scientific disciplines get.

I don't feel. It shouldn't be the case where I come in as a young kid. And I should not be discovering phenomena in electrostatics. You know, like I did with the showing that there's no brush just charges in high vacuum conditions. High vacuum conditions.

I know obviously people don't have access to that. But it was not, you know, generally accepted that this did not happen under vacuum. You know, pulling off charges from an insulator. We know that happens very well in air. Why doesn't that happen in high vacuum?

When we were able to show that you cannot get the brush just charges the way you do. In vacuum is you do air.

Which could be, you know, expected, but it was never shown.

This is a little bit surprising.

“And you were the first person that showed that as far as I can tell, yeah.”

And then literature. So, and that's, you know, obviously because I had interest to do that for the NASA mission. Not a lot of people want to do electrostatics in high vacuum, but something I love to do every day. Clearly. And the other phenomenon that I discovered, which I thought would be child's play for sure,

would be the fact that if you take a vet of particles of all the same size and tilt them, they would roll over top of each other. And the ones that do the rolling are positive and the ones left behind are negative. This is very intriguing because for particle charging dynamics, we know that in volcanoes and winds cloud formation, the larger particles will become positive and the smaller ones will become negative.

So, there's a size difference.

We don't exactly know why it occurs, but I was the first to show it has nothing to do with size.

It has to do with dynamics. So, the particles that partake in the interactions more often will become positive than the ones that do not. So, if you have a cloud mixture of bigger particles, giant spheres with small particles, the bigger ones are getting bombarded a lot. So, you'll have the ability to sample more than the smaller ones. The bigger ones will be positive and the smaller ones will be negative.

There's some basic ban theory reasons why that might happen surface state theory, but that was ever showed that.

“What are the practical implications of both those kind of more conventional contributions to electrostatics?”

Probably negative electrostatic beneficial, that's where you separate materials. We do that a lot of times when we separate plastics and you recycle them, you can chop them up. And you can tell the high density from the low density polyethylene by tri-book charging them together and to find particles. Butting them in a field, one goes one way, one goes the other. So, you can separate plastics that way.

There's a lot of different uses of tri-book charge electrostatic, the charge materials for industry. That's one case. Obviously, it explains lightning, cloud and ground lightning, volcanoes and things like that nature. There's a lot of interest in our community on the tri-book electrification of materials, especially for the moon Mars programs. How does, because you're honestly, you're probably living the dream of many nerdy kids in their bedrooms. Right now thinking about NASA and working in sort of cool physics and electrostatics, doing stuff for them.

What's your journey there? How did you get hooked up with NASA? Yeah. That's a long one.

Well, essentially, I've always had a fascination with space as a kid. I've always had.

Now, and that didn't end when I went to graduate school and after I graduated. So, you know, my PhDs in theoretical, condensed matter physics. I got that at Florida State University while working at the National High Magnificent Field Lab. And after that, you know, the grad students, we went different directions. Some stayed in academia, some got jobs in the industry or whatnot, and I decided to go to NASA.

And there was an opening for a postdoc, and the electrostatics lab under Dr. Carlos Caye is trying to start that laboratory. Back in Florida, I was living in Tennessee at the time. I said, "It's a chance to get into NASA, see what it's about." You know, what was there to learn on electrostatics? Everything's known. It's Maxwell's equations. This can't be anything to learn there.

And when I got there, I realized that even the most fundamental studies on electrostatics were not complete. Even understanding how you rub two materials together and you separate them once plus, once minus, how does that even happen? They didn't even know if it was the electrons responsible, ions, material transfer, all the above, none of the above. So, there was a lot to learn. So, I found it to be a very interesting field of physics that the mainstream community just cared too much about.

So, I found it as a nice way to learn and to learn something new.

“And that's what got me excited about electrostatics when I got there.”

And what really got me excited is it could help people. I could solve problems. That's what electrostatics does. It solves problems. And it's involved in just about every industry. Whether it's making the dust masks for the, those are made by 3M, those 95 masks to fighting COVID. Those are electric filters. So, you actually make those using electrostatics.

And they actually work for 8 or 9 hours because they can trap those nanometer particles. You don't know these things. Microphones are all electrostatics properties. That's an electric. So, there's so many different fields that electrostatics dives into.

There, the biologists are there, chemists are there. It's a very wide open discipline because they all need help in electrostatics. And they're all advancing that field. And so, I could use what I learned there to apply to NASA. So, whether it's the EDS technology that came from that community or other technologies that we learned from that community like the electrostatic precipitation. That's air filtration. There are so many, so many technologies that come out of that field.

So, it was originally discovered by, you know, founded by the scientists at zerox back in the 70s. So, it has a very rich, deep history in America, in that North New York area with Cornell and are not going to go back. And these companies that are, you know, very permanent back in the 60s and 70s, form together the electrostatic society. And they share that technology with people.

It's fascinating. Yeah, I always found it interesting that towns in Brown along with his thruster work, which, you know, involved, you know,

involved, you know, what he thought would lead to interstellar travel.

“He also, I believe, was responsible for the patents that ended up, you know, sharper image ended up buying them.”

And it was like an eye on, you know, air filter or something. And so, I found that really fascinating. At what point did you get the idea that maybe there was another force here that could take us to the stars and that chemical combustion and the rockets that you don't work maybe directly on, but you work, you know, around with your work at Kennedy Space Center, might not be, you know, the frontier of space travel.

I always knew there was something else, something more than just Newton's laws.

So, I kind of tailored my career just to try and understand physics enough, to see if this, to see if something else could be done. Just anything. So, this goes way back into high school. So, I started doing tests in high school, I started doing tests in college, I built rigs in graduate school. So, I never really ended it. But, so, I continued to do it, but it's hard to say when that it's start.

I've always believed, it's just a belief that there had to be a better way to move an object from point A to point B, there just had to be. Newton's laws is great, relativity wasn't very useful to me, probably because it just didn't know it. But, electricity magnetism seemed to have a nice appeal because, you know, it's 19th century, it had to be 19th century equivalent to it. To conservation had to be. So, I spent, I don't know, two decades looking at the conversion from fuel momentum to mechanical momentum.

If you're familiar with that field. So, essentially, you can convert momentum stored in the field into real momentum. They've done that in the '70s with the angular momentum.

But, the linear analog to it was always hindered by a third momentum called hidden momentum.

So, I went, I went out and let me try to find systems that did not have hidden momentum. Fascinating.

“Well, we're going to dive deep into that and your theories around it. But, I think first, just, you know, for the lay audience, mass ejection is the current kind of paradigm.”

And so, yet, Newton's third law, and it's just, you know, you expel a ton of mass. A lot of these rockets, like, look at, like, you know, SpaceX's, you know, Starship, it's mostly fuel in the rocket itself. That's, that's most of the tonnage is just fuel. And then, you obviously have a, you know, a decently high payload capacity on top of that. But, that's a very small percentage of the overall rocket. And so, it's very inefficient from that standpoint. And then, because you have a limited amount of fuel, you can't really get to, like, Proxima Centauri B.

And if you could, it would take you 80,000 years with current speeds. And that's, like, the closest habitable planet. So, I always, you know, bring these things up because even if Elon Musk were sitting in your chair, there's no argument he would have to defeat, that's just physics. You know, like, there's nothing he could say to that. And so, I think what you're looking into is, like, the most, you know, people can come back with first principles arguments and say wrong. But, like, it's the most important thing.

For space, it absolutely is. There's no question. Because, like you said, 95% of the, of a rocket's mass is just fuel. Yes. And it's, you expel it almost immediately, then you're done with it.

“So, then you're just, using inertia to get you wherever you need to go, and then you have a little bit of fuel to get back.”

But, you know, just a amount of fuel that's going to take to get to Mars. How many starships it's going to take? That have to be fuel just to get to Mars. It's a standing. It's a credible amount of mass of fuel.

But the starship burns nine tenths of its fuel tank. It goes into lower the orbit. Then it does butt to butt refueling with another starship that goes up, burns nine tenths of its fuel tank.

“And then that gets disposed of. So you hand up with two tenths. You have to do that eight more times.”

Then you have, you know, the full tank. And then that goes to the moon. And that's just the moon. That's not even Mars. Oh, it's, it's astounding. The numbers I've seen. And it's astounding. It's, it doesn't seem rational.

It doesn't. And, you never bet against Elon. He, you know, any engineering fee.

You know, people were saying starship itself wouldn't work. And the, the pez dispenser flap that allowed the starlings to come out was like, you know, that was, we get ripped off and that they're all these things they had. And it seems like it's starting to work. You know, it has orbited earth. And then there's still, you know, modifications and updates they need to make.

So, you know, not pouring cold water on that engineering effort. But again, I do think from a physics perspective, from a pure design perspective, if there is this other force, we should obviously be looking into it. I mean, it's got to be a better way. And I always believed ever since I've started studying science, it there has to be another way. So even though even as a young kid, totally,

it doesn't, it doesn't make sense. Yeah, I agree. It doesn't make sense. Yeah, it's like, so I kind of just tailored my, my career just, just understanding science, what we knew about it, everything that I could.

So, it clearly you had this kind of imagination and just preconceived idea that maybe we could

“transcend the limits of chemical combustion.”

Maybe there was something sitting in electromagnetism this 19th century modality. Describe and hopefully in detail kind of in visceral detail.

The first time you witnessed this force and what it felt like.

I would say the first time I witnessed it, they're a force based on the theory that I had, it was probably 2010. So, that was 2010 with my brother-in-law. Future brother-in-law. We were married then, but he was in the laboratory working with me and I set up an experiment

ahead and run it. Now, the other scientist I was working on, on another project. You know, thought I was just full of BS, which is perfect. Fine. So he did not help us at all.

He's a seasoned physicist, you know, very well known in his field. And it just thought I was just doing garbage. And that's fine. I don't care. So I still had, you know, my brother-in-law Nathan do the experiment in the laboratory.

And we were looking at a laser on a wall so you can see small displacements force in a chamber. It was an air chamber, it was an vacuum chamber. And he did the test and we saw the laser move in the car. That's pretty cool. That's supposed to do that.

I thought. And my colleague, Dr. Clements, said, stopped when he was doing, went over to Nathan. Okay, you've done this. You've done this. So can I do that?

He just completely immersed in that experiment after that. Yeah. Wow. It was like, what is happening here? This is really crazy.

It's something is weird.

So that was the first time that was very, very exciting for me because it was the first

time we all seen it and it happened to be a world-class scientist there to help us. You know, it was actually like, wow. What happened here? So you kind of converted him almost. At least into thinking it was worthy of him.

I didn't need to say anything else after that. Yeah, that's amazing. It's he now a believer. Oh, I think so. He's seen it a few times.

And what's his background? He is in electrostatics. Okay. He is my mentor. And what's his name?

Dr. Sid Clements. Dr. Sid Clements. Okay. So he is my mentor. So that's where I learned electrostatic.

That's wild, but he saw your experiment. And he was like, oh my god, there's something out there. There's something there. There's something there. It's exciting.

It was an exciting moment. That's incredibly exciting. And so you see this.

“And what do you think is the next step at that point?”

Because you know, you see this little displacement. This laser displacement based on this possible force. Do you design a new experiment right after that? We designed many experiments after that. And it let us down many different paths.

You know, it's kind of how this goes. If you don't know exactly what's happening, it can lead you down different paths. Some were successful, some were moderates successful, some weren't. Really didn't hit too much success after that until I met Andrew.

Okay. Here's the story with that. If you're interested. I'm very. So we had a colleague.

Andrew and I, a friend named Mike. He knew about us working on this independently for years.

Never did.

“He wanted to see if we can do it independently.”

You know, like a race against.

I don't know who. So he's playing dumb. He was playing dumb. You knew about this force. And he was just like, let's see how far that.

Yeah. He knew Andrew was working on it. He knew I was working on it. He just wanted to see who was. Who would win the race.

Oh, Jesus. That's like this like mackey of Ellie and level. It's like 40 chess goals. You know, and Mike, his. His excitement was that, you know, how we were not.

We were both working at NASA or as contractors. Or Ben at NASA. And he was just. It's just super excited that we were not doing this at NASA. It's like what this has a chance.

Because what you get at NASA and get a bureaucracy and get in the government. There's a lot of ways that can be hindered. So he was loving that we decided to do that outside of. Of work.

Of course, at the time I wasn't working at NASA.

I was a con-- I was a consultant for Xon mobile. But um. So we worked together because Andrew needed an electrostatics guy. Andrew was new. He was getting into the realm of electrostatics.

Hmm. So his Andrew's background. Andrew? Yeah. Andrew got regime.

He is an engineer. He's been an engineer for gosh 35 years or so. And he goes by Drew. And he. So he wasn't getting into this via electrostatics.

If that's the case, what exactly was he doing? Well, he uses in the term electrostatics. Uh. Interesting. So this is the Thomas Townsend Brown.

So he's using that. He's in that. It was in that camp. I love it. I'm in that camp.

I'm not exactly there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I might. They will see. I don't know.

I'm still on the fence on the. Well, well, we'll meet in the middle, we'll figure it out. Yeah. It's me. It was a little pretentious.

Okay. You're doing gravity and with electrostatics. Maybe. So you meet Drew and then what happens? So at the time I was working with the.

The fuel momentum converting into linear momentum. Steph. I wasn't in the gravity world. I was in the fuel momentum world. So we go to Drew's house.

I take my wife. And we spent, you know, four or five hours looking at his setup. Looking at what he's doing. And I gave him a lot of pointers.

“I think you try this, try that, try this.”

You know, all the things I would do electrostatics to help him along. He has experimented like very different than mine. His was just a needle. I will literally needle in a, in a, in a, in a teflon casing. Um.

I said, you know, it's pretty interesting. Um, if he's getting forces or that, that's kind of interesting. I don't know how you would. Until my wife told me as leaving the driveway. My wife is like, isn't that the same force you're working on?

Just manifested differently. She's a physicist too. She's the best. Wow. So she like we go back and forth on these things.

She announces. Well, she is. Wow. What does she do there? She's in the launch services program.

Cool. So she doesn't have her PhD in physics. Um, she's taken engineering physics and undergrad. And she's really good at math. So if I need help with math, I just, I get like, hey, Janessa, help me with this.

I'm pretty cynical. She all like a baby on her arm. Okay. Fine. I'll do it for you.

That's all. She'll come in and look at the whiteboard. She's like, this is not right. She's very smart. That's fun to bounce off of her.

Um. But, uh, she, she was, she was clear.

“She's like, no, you, you should look at this.”

You're forced that you're trying to do with his setup. See if you're working on the same thing just a different twist as well. That can't be right. So I went back to my lab and I made a needle. But I did it differently using what I thought would work.

And I would, you know, I put a, this video's at this on our website. You put a, a, a tube over the end of the needle. And you put scotch tape on the tube. So there's no iron when getting out. Yeah, shove the needle in that tube.

You can case it aren't too. And then I cranked up my power supply and that thing moved three, four feet in the air. And I sent that video to drew us as, and drew us like, oh, I guess we're working together now. Wow. Um, so you have achieved how much force roughly now with your current experiments.

Additives somewhere to five to ten million Newton range.

Okay. And so for people listening, if you were to apply that to like, satellite in space in a microgravity or zero gravity environment, that would be huge. Sure. You might be able to do initial markets.

That's what we're comfortable with. We're at space company. We all work at the space agency different levels, not just NASA, but, you know, the peripherals. And this is where we're comfortable with. There's definitely, when we say, when do we, unity?

Well, we've hidden unity for space. And unity for moon, Mars, all of these places. So we can make flying cars in the moon and Mars and all of that.

Yep.

Without any significantly huge development.

It could theoretically lead to deep space exploration. You could help maintain orbits for satellites where there's orbital decay. That's what that's where it opens. Okay. And you can move these satellites maybe to other orbits as well.

Like, there's a company called impulse space. They're like, you know, they do like kick stages where you would move, you know, between orbits where maybe you'd go up on SpaceX ride share with another group of satellites. But you'd want to move and do a dedicated orbit. You could use a thruster like this to do something like that.

No doubt. That's what our goal is. Super cool. And then what about like replacing rockets? Could we ever do that with this?

Look at earth unity. We don't need rockets, right? That's true. I have to think about things a little differently.

“But could the 10 million items of thrust turn into newtons of thrust?”

And could we end up launching things into space with this, you know, Exodus method or this other, that's our main goal to try to do that?

You know, that's where we, the self launchers, we, is what we call it.

Do you have blue prints around this self-launcher? Do you have no sense of the energy requirements or anything like that? Or we, we don't. Okay. But we're on the path.

So we know what we need to do. We just have to go set out and do it. Have you gone up in over the 2000 iterations? Have you gone up in millions of thrust? Sure.

Okay. So you have a sense of the levers to get more thrust. There are levers. And there are several. Uh-huh.

And we're trying to optimize those. And what are the primary levers? There's like we talked about voltage. Yeah. The materials properties break down strength and materials.

And the type of signals we send. The physical limits on the materials. Oh, there's so many. What are the ideal materials for this sort of experiment? Well, dealing with high voltage.

So we need, you know, materials with high, dialectic breakdown strength. But we also have permutivity issues. We have to contend with geometry issues. We have to contend with statics to patient issues.

We have to contend with. There are a lot of other issues. And that's just the DC. When you get to, uh, you know, other frequencies, or you get to other exotic types, you know, charge injection

and electrodes. Things can get even wackier. Yeah. So we are looking at some of the interesting materials. Now that have other properties,

which I'm going to keep to ourselves for now. There's something that's very, very interesting for now. Just see if it goes anywhere. We could lead to nowhere. Yeah.

Let's go. You know, there's other things out there. And the Townsend Brown context, Barium titanate and Bismuth often come up. Are either of those relevant to your experiences?

Well, we have some, some, uh, experiments with barium titanate a couple of years ago. Yeah. Good high permutivity powder. Mm-hmm.

Um, I don't know what the results of those were. There weren't, uh, particularly in string. What was the other one you said? Uh, Bismuth.

Oh, Bismuth. Yeah. Yeah. I've seen Bismuth a lot. Bismuth looks like fun.

Mm-hmm. I'd love to test with some Bismuth. Um, there's some cool things that they found. Arts, parts, materials. Yep.

Um, which is kind of neat, because they had some weird geometries in there, which I would project that we would have needed. Mm-hmm. But to see that real life already made.

Oh, that's kind of cool. Yeah. I can't wait to go test those exotics. But that's down the road for us. Yep.

We're going to try to say focused and do what we're good at right now.

“And then work on the more exotic stuff later, I think.”

And so in doing these experiments, uh, did you have access to a vacuum chamber? Because I feel like it's been a lot of, the, the reason, you know,

everybody always questions me on this.

They're like, this experiment sounds very simple. 'Cause I always bring up the town's and brown experiment. And I'm like, why has nobody done it yet? And I say, I give to you reasons. I say, people always try to explain it away via the eye on wind.

And it's so similar to the eye on wind related experiments that it's easy to do that. It's always easy to say there's ambient ionization in the vacuum. That's number one. And then number two, access to an industrial grade vacuum chamber is pretty limited. And it's obviously very expensive.

And so did you have access, uh, you know, based on your kind of NASA background? Yes. You know, Drew and I have access to a chamber. He's got one at his house.

He's very resourceful. Amazing. He funded it himself. It's a nice size vacuum chamber. He also has a second one that he's going to get online soon,

which is almost a walk in size vacuum chamber. So very pricey, but hopefully with some funding, we get that thing up to par running. But yes, so we do have access to a high vacuum chamber. That's where we do most of our tests.

“And let me let's describe to the audience why it's important that I on wind can't get out.”

Because this is how, you know, I learned about all this stuff through Thomas Townsend Brown.

So Thomas Townsend Brown's this super interesting mysterious guy who pops up at extremely high levels of aerospace. He was at the Navy for very long time.

“He was at Martin Corporation the year that Skunk Works was formed in 1942 or three.”

There's an FBI document that is circulated now and out about him. And says that he's the lead radar scientist in the entire Navy. He knows more about radar than anybody in the Navy. We have a lot of evidence that his electro hydrodynamics work, you know, this electric field to manipulate airflow work ended up in the B2 stealth bomber.

So you have like two out of three things that he's talking about,

definitely being legit. And then the third thing he's saying is I've merged electromagnetism and gravity.

And he talks about electrogovidics and it's specifically two experiments. 1956 in Paris of which we have a witness who there's an audio recording of a deathbed confession in 2009. This guy's John Corneon who's a technical consultant for sued West, which is, you know, an aerospace corporation there. And you know, they say there is a force that is not only measurable in a vacuum at 10 to the negative six tour. But the force exceeds what you would ever see outside of a vacuum.

And then he does the same experiment at the Bonson Labs, the Institute of Field Physics in North Carolina. And it's this remarkable thing where you have this guy, two out of the three things he's saying probably right, you have, you know, he's dealing with Curtis Lame and the Rand Corporation, all these super high up people. And then this electrogovidics thing just gets stigmatized and people just kind of forget about it. And it almost feels like he's trying to, he has this wounded prairie chicken routine where he's trying to stigmatize his own work.

And so it's, it's fascinating. And the reason so this is very long-winded, but you mentioned I and wind. The way people write off any of these experiments, including Thomas Townsend Browns, is they say that these capacitor experiments, especially if they take place, not in a vacuum. You end up with ionized air, the ionized air, then bounces off of other air particles and it's basically just Newton's law taking place and then you get thrust.

So that's very different than showing this in a vacuum chamber or in this case you mitigated ion in, in another way is that right. Well, you kind of have to, yeah otherwise you'll see the ion wind thrust.

“So you can either cap it, it closes in a volume, whatever you have to do, but you don't want the ion wind to be playing a role here.”

And one of the things that's different about the force that we're talking about in the ion wind force is in terms of geometry is that the devices will move with the wind. So imagine a rocket moving in the direction that the exhaust is. That's crazy. So you have to remove the ion wind because of the stigma from it. Yep.

There's a lot of scientists have tried to do these things and they've seen the ion wind and it's not a real force in the sense. It's not a propellantless force. There's propellant there wind. Yep. But the other thing is not, that's a different thing. Yeah. That's a completely different beast.

And you would be an authority and your ability to delineate between. I do videos where I take those the lifters and I put them in a plastic box and put on a scale. Yeah. And you watch the wheat and you turn it on the thing lifts up and the wheat flat lines is not move at all.

So Drew was like, "Man, I've never seen that video before." That's conservation momentum right there.

That's what I and Wind is doing. Yep. So that's exactly like all that you have all these DIY videos of these balsa wood lifters with tinfoil. And you have the ions moving around the copper coil or whatever. And then you end up with thrust.

But that is not this electromagnetic force or what you are calling, you know, this Exodus force or, you know, electric static variation force, whatever it is. That is different. That is another force.

“So it's important for, you know, any experimental physicists who want a poor cold water on this.”

And the funny thing is brown himself would use the electro hydrodynamic stuff. The stuff involving ion wind to cover for the electric evidics. He would literally like, because it's 95% similar. But it's not the same thing. And again, you are in a kind of an authoritative position in order to, you know, you have the ability to delineate between those two things.

Yeah. That's important. I think it is really important. Yeah.

And it's important because it's the always the first order debunk on this entire thing.

And so you do this experiment that eliminates or controls for ion wind. I'm assuming you since then have done a series of experiments to control for all sorts of other possible confounding variables.

So after Drew and I did these experiments in 2016, I think we spent about two years trying to package it.

Now there's one thing to put a hundred thousand volts on a device and have it move around in the room. Drew and I both knew that was completely impractical.

“You can't do anything with that because you have to make something to attach it to a vehicle to a rocket to something that people have to be around.”

And this better damn well going side of grounded box. So we made a lot of effort. Took a lot of effort those two years to get the sucker packaged up in a way so it can actually be transportable and confined. So that was the initial pull to go into to get into a system where we can actually enclose everything. Cool enforcers are the biggest killer in vacuum or an air.

So you can, you know, you can plahive voltage to something. It'll attract to the wall, floors, ceilings far away. It can still do that. So you have to make sure that everything you do is instead of a very well-grounded ferritic age. So that is another one of our test checks and balances.

You know, do we have it inside of a ferritic age? Is it all completely house?

Is it feels trapped within the system?

Do we spin it the other way? There's a lot of checks and balances that we have to do along the way. So ferritic age would eliminate magnetic field interference? No. Okay.

Only electric field interference.

“And then you also need vacuum chamber because is that right or no?”

You don't need it. It's a lot easier. Okay. Because you get rid of the air, the gas breaks down. The chameleon volts per meter, fields. So the gas is start breaking down.

And when they break down, they create their own charges. And when they create their own charges, you can put charges where you don't want it. You can short. You can have charges leaking around the side. It really messes with you.

So to do things in airs is a bit more complicated than vacuum vacuum. You don't have to worry about that. Moistures are the biggest killers, especially in Florida. So you want to do stuff in a very dry environment or high vacuum if you can. So you're saying that in a vacuum chamber you get more thrust.

You could make a system work better. Yes. Interesting. Well, that's talented Brown also said you'd get more thrust. You get more thrust because the field limit is not 10 to the sixth anymore.

It's 10 to the eighth. Right? So that's because it goes. The forces are related to pressure. They go up by field squared.

So instead of 10 to the sixth squared is 10 to the 12. 10 to the eighth squared is 10 to the sixth team. So now you have four there's magnitude potential higher thrust. Just on the on the exterior part of the of your thrusters. Hmm.

Yeah. So there's more to draw from from the field. That's right. This is a field effect. It's not a voltage effect.

Hmm. It's fascinating. Yeah, it's so interesting. And it's but it really flies in the face of the debunkers saying that it's attributable to iron wind because in an environment where there is less iron wind, you are getting more thrust.

And it might be due to this field effect, but still you're controlling for the iron wind. Yeah, just what they're saying is accounting for the thrust. Yes.

“And you have to also when you're in a vacuum chamber, now you have a new fall city, which could be the wall.”

So the vacuum chamber giant metal ground. So you want to make sure that you put your test device whatever it is in the side of a ferritic cage and then you measure the force on the ferritic cage, nothing else, not what's inside of it, the whole box has to move. So you got to measure that. That makes sure that what you're seeing is real.

Then you got to take notes suck around so that you're not being attracted to the wall through the ferritic cage.

So you want to make sure you're always going in the correct direction.

So describe the current kind of state of the art experimental set up on this. So that's basically what I was saying. Yeah, we'll put it at a box and it'd be a ferritic cage. A lot of ways to make ferritic cages ground it really, really well. If you do have voltage coming from outside or if you put the voltage inside you have to make sure it's yielded really, really well. You don't want any cooling attraction to the walls with the housing or anything like that.

We've gotten good with lower to our voltage way, way down. We don't need 30, 40,000 volts, like we did 10 years ago. We put all contained and then reverse it, make sure it works, put it in air, save it works, put it in the mass, put on the scale, save it works. Do the pendulum, do the rotator, do the spinner, do everything to make sure it's real because we hate falsities. They're, we hate them.

We don't want them. Okay, so what we have here is a thruster that is set on top of the scale in room air. Okay, so what Bueller is basically saying here is that he's testing a small experimental in air thruster to show that it actually works. His team puts the thruster on a sensitive scale, next they connected to electricity. About 480 volts to be exact.

If you look to the bottom right of the screen, you'll see the voltage that is applied. You can also see the current in the center, the electric field time, the runtime. So this is a 42 minute video that we spent up to five minutes. They watch to see if the scale reading changes as a result of the thrust. We turn on the voltage here, it's about minus 48 volts.

Within a few seconds, the force starts to be applied to the thruster, which is on top of the scale.

“And it goes in the negative direction that's lifting up.”

They're specifically demonstrating that the force is real and controllable. Enough to lift about 0.1 grams.

When we see about 0.1 grams, that corresponds to about 1 million Newton the thrust.

When they turn the power off, the force goes away. So we leave it on for a few seconds, and then we turn it back off. And then you can see that it'll come back down. They repeat this to show it's not a fluke. So what we'll do is we'll do this again.

We'll turn it back on, get it back up to the limited range, let it sit for a few seconds. So what we're showing is that you can actually turn this force on and off. They then flip the thruster upside down and run the test again. So you'll see that here in a moment. And the reason why we have it off the scale itself, we do not want any attraction of the thruster to the scale itself.

Although the fields are very, very weak, and in most cases there is a fairity shield. We also want to make it so that's very, very far away. Finally, they take full precautions to make sure nothing else is affecting the measurement. So we flip the thruster, we diagonalize it basically, diagonalize the gas as we neutralize any charge at the scales. And then we retire the scale.

It's typical.

That's what's needed for scale testing.

“This thruster itself is surrounded by ground plates.”

So we try to minimize the field that escapes. But just in case, we neutralize it anyway. And then we turn the voltage back on. In this case, before 180 volts or so, wait a few seconds. The thruster kicks on.

And then we see the forces is in the positive directions. Now it's being pulled down. Now the force pushes down instead of up. This proves that the thruster itself is creating the force. Not some outside interference.

Or attraction to the scale. Like electrical interference. Or the thruster just sticking to the scale. I would say this video proves the force fairly definitively to any skeptic.

But you could technically say that this experiment requires a vacuum chamber

because open air can get ionized. Again, ionized wind can result in thrust based on Newton's classical laws. But 480 volts isn't nearly enough to ionize the air. So it's kind of a moot point.

“But just for good measure, here is another variation of the experiment.”

Also showing thrust. This time, in a vacuum chamber. What we have here is a vacuum test highlighting actual movement in vacuum, using a dual thruster pack in the vertical spinner orientation. And how we measure the forces here is we have pegs at the bottom of the stand

that are about 2 milliliters apart. And the deflection once the thruster is turned on. It moves at about 14 milliliters, which corresponds to roughly about 2.5 milliliters of thrust. Let me turn this device on. These devices are actuated externally to the vacuum chamber through a Bluetooth connection.

I can't contact with anything, but the ITO walls that surround the thruster pack, shown by that clear transparent plastic, is perfectly grounded. So that eliminates coolum attraction to the wall. We're also in high vacuum, so there's no ion wind interference. Just to highlight that these thrusters are actually developing thrust internally,

not an external effect. So power systems inside the chamber, all the high voltages and case, surround with an Indian monoxide shooting, and thruster does come on as expected and co-off as expected for these earlier versions. So that is a nice way to show that there is actual physical movement

in high vacuum for not just recording force measurements without actually corresponding that to real force. So these are just two out of the 2000 experimental variations from Charles, Drew, and the Exodus team. If you're an experimental physicist with a credible background,

maybe you have a PhD or your professor at a top 200 physics department. And you're a bit bored and interested in exotic propulsion. And you want to see one of these experiments with me, live in person, to help vet it and maybe change the world in the process. Hit me up at [email protected].

Skeptics are extremely welcome. I want people who are in good faith trying to poke holes in the experimental setup here. If I were to pluck a random experimental physicist from an elite college and place him in front of this experiment.

The exact experiment you just described is there anything they could say to deny the empirical effect that you're seeing. I honestly don't know. I mean, as far as we can tell, the electrostatics community and with my colleagues, because as DC

then eliminates all the magnetic effects. So you can get all kinds of weird stuff happening when you have magnetic going on, or it's magnetic field or whatnot. DC is direct current. If you had alternating current, you'd have weird magnetic field effect.

So you'd have to account for any fake readings with that. Yes, if you have AC, you sure. Interesting. Okay, so that eliminates a lot of that. And then when you turn it off and it's still there,

that eliminates a lot of that. Right? So now you really are scratching your head like what is happening here. And that's where we're at. What is happening here?

Is there anything that they can hang their head on as far as being

through prosaic physics forces that are now.

I mean, I think if you look at every single experiment, you could say, well, that's my p-fake because of this. Okay, we'll put it over here. Oh, well, now it's maybe fake because of this. Yeah, we'll put it over here.

Yeah, so show me a rock. What about this? Okay, now do this, do that. So is there anything left? It's what I'm trying to ask.

“If you have to stress test your own, if there is,”

it's something quite exotic that I have no idea what it would- Hmm. I don't know what else it would be. It's shown itself over and over again. How many variations of this experiment?

Do you think you've tried sequentially from 2010 till today? Well, since Drew and I, we've been keeping track. We are close to 2000. Oh my god. 2000 instances of the experiment are 2000 variations.

2000 variations.

Holy, 2000 test articles.

Each one's tested multiple times. Wow. Folders of folders. Has anybody come in thoroughly examined during experiment? And come out skeptical or has everybody that's thoroughly examined it,

come out saying there's something here. I would say the latter for sure. There's something there. You cannot think of one person who is still like, I spent, you know, a day plus with the team.

And I still, you know, think I can explain it with some other, you know, force. I haven't worked with some conventional. I can't really think of anyone. Granted, there's not that many people have seen it. You know, a couple dozen or so, but.

But I don't think so. You know, what's really cool though is some people have called me up and say, you know, I represent an investor. I, you know, I would, I would like to. The investor would like to.

You know, invest in your company or whatever. I said, okay, well, you have to do. You have to fly down. You have to see it. Put your hands on it.

Usually, that's the kind of the routine.

He's all I don't need to do that. What do you mean? All right, but one of my garage. I got one million. You showed us how to do it.

So I just did it. Wow. So it's been the opposite. The people have been very taken into this and they're very excited about it. That's amazing.

So the people with a no can do it. And the people that have seen it. I just don't know if they know what they're seeing. But they definitely like it. And they're probably not good enough to vet it.

I would say because take, vetting it would take a lot more. A lot more work.

“And I think it would take a lot more expertise.”

We haven't had too many. You know, other, you know, doctor Clemens and there's other physicists that have seen it that have said anything negative about it. We haven't seen anything that have said it negative. But we haven't seen.

It hasn't been exposed to the entire scientific community either. I think in this field, it's hard to find who are those people. Who would be interested in it? My hope is that one thing I didn't want to mention. I think everybody should be interested in it.

Well, I think so. Yeah. You know, my. When we are hosting the Electrostatic Society of American Conference this year, my lab is.

That's in Coco Beach, Florida. And I would have do a live demo of this. What is there in June? Can I come and film? You can.

Ah, the amazing. Let's go. I'm so excited. The Electrostatic Society of America is just a happy. It's called a friendly society.

Cool. I know. And this is an electrostatic phenomena. So, you know, we're going to highlight how electrostatics is so necessary for space.

“And propulsion is one of the things I think it could help.”

I'm not sure. So, I'm going to mention that. Why don't you submit this to peer review and try to get it kind of academically checked off. I'm trying.

Okay. It's just a very busy person. Yeah, you're busy. But I want to see this. I know.

I do too. But, you know, there's the path. Right now we're focused on getting the company started as we get some funding to really get the forces up. Yeah.

That's our main focus. Yeah. The peer review and all of that's going to take 20 years. So, I'm starting that. I don't know if it'll take 20 years.

Maybe 30. Why? It's just weird. It just will. It's too different.

It's because of the antibodies. Yeah. This feels been poisoned multiple times for our century. You know, I would say that. And then I think people are becoming more and more open to these sorts of effects.

You're familiar with Sunny White. True. So, you know, he's led them. He's another NASA guy at NASA Eagle Works. He is kind of similar to you, where, you know, he's has this kind of pretty credentialed

impressive background. And he's claiming to 1.5 kilowatts, you know, powering up a little micro chip based on the Kazimir effect. Yeah. And the Kazimir effect is this long, legendary kind of anomalous effect that if you were

to walk into elite physics, you know, departments. I don't think you'd get too many people denying the effect itself.

And it seems like there's some sort of maybe quantum vacuum fluctuation thing going

“on between them and the plates attract in this sort of anomalous interesting way.”

And he's claiming to be able to tap into that, which is, I hate the word zero point energy. The term, you know, is so quirky. But it is that. And so you have that.

You have Beatrice Viorial. I don't know if you're familiar with her. And I don't know if you're into UFO stuff. I don't want to muddy the waters too much. But she's at Stockholm University.

And she's, you know, again, like traditional astrophysics credentials. Really impressive, you know, astronomer. And she went back and looked at these plates from the Palomar Observatory, which is, you know, the was the most in use observatory in the late 40s and early 50s. And she looked at the plates from 49 to 57.

So pre-sputnik. And she found all these transients. These light reflecting objects that are flat and mirror-like.

And seem to exist somewhere probably in geostationary orbit.

So kind of like outer, you know, earth orbit. And it's short flashes and not streaks. There are associated with things that are extremely flat and extremely reflected. Wow. Like mirrors. That makes it more fun.

Like mirrors. And they're exactly how all the early CIA documents would describe UFOs. And they show up 68% more around nuclear detonations, which is we know UFOs are kind of attracted to nukes. Out of those 2,700 days, if there's no nuclear test, there's a transient on 11% of those days. But if there's been a nuclear test the day before,

it's almost 19% of those days have a transient. So that 11 versus 19 is about a 68% increase in risk for a transient if you've had a nuclear test. And she got that passed through a peer review. So I don't know.

“I think the world is opening up to this stuff.”

And my hope is that 30 years is a way over estimate. And I hear you. I mean, academia is totally close-minded and dogmatic. But I think sometimes you just have to walk through the front door. You just have to knock and the lets you in.

Wow. I'm going to be the front door. I'm going to be the house at length. I love that. You don't peer review on a paper. The physics people are going to debate for decades.

Sure. I like having the website and Drew and having videos how to make the things. Yeah. You don't believe me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This has been very helpful.

So you'll be able to have done this. So you'll do this like you have like these DIY videos where to go do this at home. Yeah. Wow. And then where are these videos?

I don't know our website. Oh wow. And where where is that? Exodusspace.com or whatever. ExusPropulsion.space.

ExodusPropulsion.space. Check that out. And you've shown your experiments with all of the configurations that we're not all of them. Okay. We have to keep some stuff quiet.

Okay. Cool.

“So are you doing like lateral propeller experiments or are you doing things that involve like lifting objects?”

We're not lifting objects yet in earth gravity. Okay. I'm measuring the forces of these objects. Yeah. And seeing how much their force can lift is compared to earth gravity.

Got it. So we do have thrusters that are theoretically capable to lift themselves up.

The problem is all of the hardware that goes with it.

The voltages and the powers and the wires and the framing and all that other stuff is not there yet. So you'd have to, it's like saying your car engine can lift the engine. Can move the engine down the street but no tires and no frames and it's not very useful. Sure. But for right now for what we have for lunar applications space applications.

Oh, it's awesome. It would be fantastic. That's amazing. So in microgravity or no gravity environments. Yeah.

You'll get a ton of thrusters. Sure. That's amazing. And you're seeing weight reduction. Is that right?

Well, we were seeing that the weight reduction would be something we're seeing. Not mass reduction. Be careful. Okay. Yeah.

I know that gets thrown around just over all the time. You're reducing the mass. Definitely not negative mass. Yeah. But yeah.

So we do those tasks. We have videos. I can share some with you. Please, where we put stuff on the scales and we turn it on. It gets lighter.

You flip it over. It gets heavier. We are going through a peer review. Okay. It's amazing.

For our second patent. Oh cool. The salmoner's office is doing a thorough peer review. They're the ones going down that path. Okay.

Great. Which is apparently equivalent to a scientific peer review. So that's what I've been told. Amazing. So they're reaching out to the people that have done it.

reaching out to people who have signed affidavids.

So they're going through that process now.

“What inspired you to pursue kind of more exotic propulsion to begin with?”

Did you have any childhood experiences around this sort of stuff? Yes. Yes, I did.

So we always had a fascination with UFOs.

And I think it's been around a long time. Just strange phenomena. But I think it really hit home. I think it was 11 or 12. We worked our haunted house.

My dad would make haunted houses in our garage in New York. Really? What does that even mean? Make haunted houses. My dad built a haunted house for the hotel that he worked at.

Giant holiday in, I think it was, or Hilton in Connecticut. And there was a massive haunted house. His job was to build the whole darn thing. So he liked that. So the next year we did it in our house.

And we charged people like 50 cents to get in and go through the haunted house. And it was probably, I think it was a 9 by 11 single car garage. Quunted house. And we made $1100. So many people showed up as crazy.

It was a lot of fun.

But, you know, we had a haunted house.

And it would go on for several weeks. One night while I was there working it. A whole bunch of cars came in the driveway. And I recognized one of the kids getting out of the car. So Charlie, go look at that. And he shows me, you know, we look up.

And there's a six bright white lights at the top of the trees. Just hanging over the trees. Just going over the road. Just, you know, not moving very fast. Just hanging out in formation.

No sound, no window, nothing. And all these cars were following this these lights for several days. This happened over a course of several days. Was this like a night? A famous UFO wave or flap or something.

It was. It was in the papers and all that jazz. And all these new work and the mid 80s. It was a lot of fun. You know, I was, I thought that was pretty cool.

So I kind of like geared my career towards trying to understand some of that stuff. I just wanted to know how that was. And it got me interested in physics.

“I think science and general, I was always interested in science.”

Did they look like orbs or were they, were they a part of a formation? Or do you think they were part of the same crowd? I think they were different craft. I think they were just separate crafts. Why?

I didn't see a solid object or anything. And so this was for days at a time. And it would have come every night. They'd come back and they'd be different parts of the city. I don't know what they had.

They were doing why they were there. But it was pretty cool. Pretty wild. This is about the same time. Where somebody said they saw the men in black,

which I thought was hysterical. Well, because I was, you know, we were trickle treating out my friends. And we ran into another group of friends. And that group of friends of hey. These two weird guys showed up.

And these 1920s outfits. And they said, you know, if you see something weird, they said, just close your eyes and tell it to land. Do you guys know what the heck that means? I knew what it was.

I said, where are these guys? They're right over there. So we went running to go look for them about it. I didn't find anybody. But you knew of the men.

I knew the phenomenon. No one knew what the men in black were in 1980s. They're early 80s. I don't think that was a thing. But I'd like to study that stuff.

So I knew what I knew of who that was or what that was. That's fascinating. So I thought, oh, this is cool. How can we learn more about this UFO flap? Does it have kind of a name that it's been kind of preserved by,

or is there a way to search it? Or you could just look a Brewster New York Brewster New York. Okay. Probably 86 or 85. So we're in that range.

Wow. These papers and television almost weekly carried reports of the sightings from different places throughout the area. I witnessed this all reported seeing the same thing. I looked up and right over my head virtually.

It wasn't far off. It was sort of my head and very still. It was a rim of lights in the shape of a triangle. It was just a tremendous object. It was anywhere from wing to wing tip about 50 or 60 yards.

These were very, very unusual lights.

I never seen anything like it in my life.

And so I pulled my car over and I had to take a look. But it was in the paper.

“I remember that because it lasted several days.”

And you hinted to me that you hadn't even more surreal experience. That was not a surreal experience. That was just me seeing some lights. That's surreal for many people. Just lights.

It was lights. But yeah. I had a more intense experience. I would say many years later. A wife and I experienced this.

And this was pretty cool event. Now that it's over. A little terrifying at the time. But we live in Coco Beach. So we went out to the beach one night.

I would say night 30, 10 o'clock at night. And we only was there.

This is maybe 10 years ago.

And maybe 12 years ago. So we live close to the Patrick Air Force Base, which is south of us. And so out of the ocean. Maybe about three miles outside south of us in the ocean. I would say about three miles.

We could kind of gauge how far things are apart. Because we're used to all the rivers and the raw three miles wide. So this is about three miles out of the ocean. We see a red light. Just a beacon.

Just believe it. I don't know big deal. Just a boat. Thousands of boats. But not that night.

Turned out thousands of boats. And it gets brighter. Then it gets brighter. And we're like, man, that's getting kind of bright. What is that?

What? You know.

Be good so don't get that bright.

It's just got to be boat. Maybe someone's in trouble. And then it gets really bright. And then it explodes. So we see this giant, I don't want to say mushroom cloud.

But it got very, very bright. So bright. It lit up the whole beach. As far as the eye can see. You know, all the way from Cape Canaveral all the way down.

“And I said, man, God, what the heck happened there?”

Well, I feel like that's crazy. Clearly someone's going to call the police and tell them that a boat exploded. You know, we're on the beach. We didn't have phones or anything at the time. Like what the heck is that?

So I would say five minutes later. Wasn't that long? Ten minutes. We see one of the helicopters from the Air Force base go out to it. So they get up and they fly over.

And they hover right over. It's still blanking. It's not exploding. It's still there. Still blanking.

Just a nice pace. Pling. Pling. Helicopter hangs over. Looks at it.

Doesn't do anything.

It goes all the way back.

So like, well, are they going to help the people? Well, they're going to go, you know, rescue him or they're going to do any of that. Nothing. That is so weird. That's when he got fun.

So now, as we're watching this thing, it's about 10, 15, 20 minutes into it. It gets closer. It's still blanking. It's getting closer. It's leaving.

It's moving. And then, I guess, within a mile. So it was up three miles. It was up two miles. It's two about a half a mile.

“And then, somewhere at that, I think about a half a mile.”

It's not one night anymore. It's split into six. And it's not just getting bright. These orange, pinkish lights split and then they started rotating. And they just started rotating, like bicycle spokes on a wheel.

And they kept getting closer. And then, we go onto the water and come back out. Under the water, come back out. Under the water, come back out. Like, this is really weird.

And they got closer to us. So when it got about a quarter mile or maybe a thousand yards out, we're like, okay, we're going to walk up the beach now. This has been fun. That's a little bit too close.

I kept following us. I kept closer. I got closer. I got brighter. I got brighter. And I think it was about when they got about. I wouldn't even be exaggerating for said 50 yards. I mean, like, that close.

I started getting a little scared. And I, I know she was getting scared. Then, after about 40 minutes of looking at these lights, and trying to run from them, but not full out sprint, but kind of just walking super fast.

Like, like, 12 blocks. It went up. And then, um, then we walk home. And it was terrifying, but it was, that's super scary, but it was scary enough.

Because I didn't know what the heck that was. That's wild. What year was this? Probably 20, 13. Okay, someone in there.

So you had already started your work on the more exotic propulsion stuff. Probably a couple years in by then, for sure. That's fascinating. It's so interesting. So you saw this thing out in the distance.

And then it started to loop in and out of the water. And then approach you. And it got to like 50 yards-ish away. Yeah, it got really close. Could you be on the waves?

Like, where the waves started.

“Did it still look like the same morphist light at 50 yards?”

Or, could you make out the structure? There's no, I couldn't see a structure. Just six or seven lights going in a pattern. Like, faster, slower, faster, slower. In and out of the water like the water wasn't there.

And just it was responding to us. Really? Well, I said, why? Because that's a common thing for people to say you've had UFO experience. If we went up, it went up.

If we went faster, it went faster. It was mirroring. It was mirroring us. Did you get any sort of consciousness download or feel mentally locked in with it? Or anything like that?

No. Yeah. So these lights are kind of common over there. If you're studying these type of lights, because you live near a cruise ship, the port.

Steven Greer takes his group down there.

To that same, almost that same beach about 40 minutes south. To look and, you know, kind of conjure up the lights. So in the have that other friends since then have the same experience. There's a similar experience, which I thought was super cool. Because he was out of the beach with his family.

And they saw it later night. They're only ones on the beach. They saw them too. This is like maybe 70 years later. So it's pretty weird stuff that's happened.

“What do you think this Patrick Air Force based helicopter was doing?”

Do you think it was doing recon on this UFO? Or if no idea. So interesting. The way it behaved was just like, oh, it's these darn lights again. It didn't act.

But it looked like it was intentionally dispatched from Patrick Air Force. After that very large bright event, which was blinding to look at is how bright it was. They addressed it and went out there and looked at it. It's still saw they're getting bright dim bright dim. It was very bright still, not blinding bright, but it's very bright.

And it just, that's good.

I just went back home. Do you ever get one step cookier and say, why did this happen to me? Do you have something to do with the work that I'm pursuing? I don't think so. It happened a lot of people have seen these things.

You know, these lights, they follow cruise ships and boats. There's a lot of weird videos of it. So they're probably just chasing people. Yeah. If I had a guess, I don't think I'm anything special.

Just following people. Well, I might follow the person he's working on. Interstellar propulsion a little more disproportionately. Did you know that Thomas Townsend Brown had a very similar experience? Yes.

He has an I know being sex off. He was very outstanding. I used to ride my horse up that ridge. It approached him. He actually approached him.

And as he said, he learned so much. Standing there with that ball. And he said that he learned so much. Standing there with that ball. And he said that he learned so much.

Standing there with that ball. And he said that he learned so much.

“Standing there with that ball of light that he went back to his.”

Which at the time was he had a lab in Pasadena. It was funded by his parents. So he had his own private lab. And he said he went to work immediately. And he worked.

That was the beginning of his own work. And he said that everything that he ever learned about his work. It learned instantly. Wow. Wow.

So you got that's so fascinating. I wish I got a download of it. I've been 10 years further ahead. Yeah. Maybe you've gotten a lot of downloads.

You just don't know it. You know.

It's it's always interesting how, you know,

the science is treated like, oh, it's you're just figuring this out. Like, you figure out the last, you know, term of an equation on a chalkboard or something. And often if you were to probe the scientist in many cases,

I don't know if this comports with your experience. It's far more like revelation. It's like, it just hit me. Yeah. You know, it's the rock where you're talking about the rock,

the rock, you know, staring at the fire in Cambridge and just downloading the Dirac equation or heisenberg at Elgoland, you know, figuring out quantum leaps and, you know,

probability matrices or whatever around, you know, electron shells. And so this is a very common experience. I don't know if you've ever had and I would say, yeah, some of the the math is just very discreet as,

oh, we'll try this and the leap there and then months go by. Oh, I'll do try this. Oh, yeah, that works better. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. It's more sense. Whether it's experimental or theoretical, yeah, it doesn't, it's not a super gradual thing.

Yeah. It does have, you know, step functions to it for sure. I don't think if you put one of these debunker types, like Michael Schermer or, you know,

Neil deGrasse Tyson, I don't think if they were in front of either view, they would be able to beat you in an argument. Like, oh, the argument to have to anyone. Just go try it. Go try it.

Yeah. Seriously. Don't take my word for it. Yes. Go build this thing in your garage.

“I think they'd be too arrogant to show up,”

but I think if Neil deGrasse Tyson were in a room with your experiment, I don't think he could explain it. And that seems like a really important fact that you have one side that's like showing in effect. You have 2,000 iterations of that effect.

You are an expert in this field. You've contributed to, you know, really important things to the field itself that are conventionally now, you know, accepted. And you say you're getting an effect.

And then you have somebody else who's just smuggly dismissing it. Like, I'm going to go with you over the smugness missile. You know, that's how science works. You know, it is inherently skeptical. Yeah.

You gotta understand everything the theory, the modeling, the experiment. So I expect it. This is why I didn't go the peer review route.

For say, went the other peer review route, which is through the.

What's the kid office? It's a good, um, that's a good attitude to have. And, uh, you know, yeah, the patent office. There you go. It's smart.

It just, just make money off. You just commercialize it. Yeah. You know, let's just do that. And if they're wrong, there you go.

You went in the free market. Yeah. No, totally. So it's still peer reviewed. The examiner's office is peer reviewing it.

Yeah. But in the meantime, I'll just keep building way. Yeah. I'm going to wait. Having said that, I like, you know, Thomas Cune talks about, you know,

in the structure of scientific revolutions. How science moves more around politics than it does truth. And I do think the fact that you lead electric statics at NASA is this really important thing. There is the kind of, you know, patent, you know, commercial route that you can take. You can just do the kind of startup thing and just win on your own.

And then there's another part of me where I'm like, you know,

Neal's board didn't create the first semiconductor company.

And you know, if you really are, you know, contributing to fundamental physics in the form of this new force, I like that you're coming on this show and that you have videos and you're telling people to do it at home, because it's hard to know where that even leads. And I hope you know that. And so I do think, um, you just letting this out in a public way.

“I think also will amount to a Cambrian explosion of people working on new cool ideas.”

And I think the more you let it out, the more you become a lighthouse for like, you kind of did it first and the other high agency people who do other variations of what you're doing will come to you. And so I think it's this flywheel where I do think being public about it is that really the right thing. Because God forbid, I mean, you have like all these other scientists that spend like their lives in secrecy. And then sometimes they, you know, the frameworks that they've helped establish just kind of go away.

And they're still stigmatized to this day and it towns around bring a great example. So I agree with that. I think getting them out there letting people see it. This is something that's just too important to be bottled up completely. Yeah, this is be fair.

This is a new force. It's just what it is, whether it's a gravitational force or some other quantum mechanical effect. It's too important to just say, no, no, no, I'm going to work on it until I'm done. And I'll let you see it at the end. That's not what this should be. Yeah, you know, we need this.

Yeah, we need it. We need it now. You know, we say we have an energy crisis. Oh my God, the energy crisis. Well, it could be considered an energy crisis, but it's really a force crisis.

“It's a transportation crisis. How do you get an object from here to here?”

That is the real problem. Absolutely. And we've been flying with Boeing 747s or equivalents, you know, for the last 60 years. It's just crazy. We've seen total stagnation and the world of transportation.

And so, so the world needs this. The world absolutely needs. If I can help, I will. Well, I love that attitude. That's, that's awesome.

Um, you mentioned a patent, a second patent. Your first patent. There was a national security hold on it. Is that right? We don't know.

Okay. But it's possible. What does that even mean? Some patents apparently go through the Department of Defense. Okay.

Before they released. Depending on the nature of the patent.

And some never see the light of day.

Right. There's the invention. See the act of 1950. Yeah.

“I believe that's that was one of the risks that we were aware of.”

Fascinating. So, this is the weird thing about these sorts of experiments. There is so much smoke. Not only from you. I know a lot of engineers who've worked at aerospace corporations.

You know, Lockheed, North Rift, those sorts of companies. And they give you a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge. They often can't say that there's anything to, you know, the Bifel Brown experiment. But, you know, it's often you're on the right path, buddy. And there's weird things happen with high, you know, electric field strengths, short distances.

And with, you know, big gradients or eight, you know, asymmetry, you know, that often that always comes up. And it is, it's there's something going on. Am I wrong to say this? Because I look a lot of the physics is above my pay grade. But there is just an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that there's a there there here.

It seems like that. Have you met others who've probably converged across the same force that you have. They've, they've kind of stumbled onto it. I have to think about that. I can't think of anyone on the top of my head.

But it's possible. I, to be fair, I haven't done that much research on the electric robotics and all those folks. I started reading some of the books. And there are a lot of books on this stuff.

I'm tired of this. And everyone has a theory and I just tried to have to sit through that to see where the experiments. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, the old adages, everyone, everyone has a theory, but no one believes a theory. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the experiment doesn't believe his own experiments, but everyone believes the experiments.

But if you look at how science gets pushed forward to me, the experimental physics is a bigger tell that the theory is like a prison or something.

And so I, I never like, you know, this can't work because theory.

“Like, I think it's, this worked. And we have to explain it with a new theory.”

Yeah, and it's like the Kazimir Faker, like some, and maybe the Kazimir Faker makes sense in quantum lecture dynamics. I don't know, but there are a lot of these, you know, what's a good example, like black body radiation in the 1860s with Gustav Kerchov. It was, it should have produced this ultraviolet catastrophe. And it didn't. And it was because of, you know, Quanta, which plunk discovered 40 years later. And so there are a lot of these sorts of examples. And you can't say the anomaly isn't right because of the theory.

And there's just so much anecdotal evidence around this anomaly working. Yeah, I think there are other examples. I gave some of those in the apec. Some of the examples of what this, how this force might manifest. You don't even know that you're seeing it. Like momentum anomalies for spacecraft when they go around the earth.

And they get to the Van Allen belt, say this beat up or they slow down, just by going through the picking up charge as they go through the Van Allen belts.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. So they have to actually add extra fuel to spacecraft account for that. They don't know where it comes from. That's fascinating. So there's all kinds of things like that. So those momentum anomalies are possibly attributable to this force. I think so, it's possible.

And you're calling this the Exodus force and your company is Exodus space. That's right. Yeah, the force is really two forces. There's a surface force in the volume force. We call the surface force. That's actually electrostatic pressure force, just because it comes from electrostatic pressure. And then we have a divergence in the E field force for the volume element.

Because the integral is a surface in the volume component, at least a classical version, which is not truly correct. It's close. But it's obviously, you can't explain this force, I think, in classical mechanics.

“If you have to use quantum, but at least a classical kind of steers you in the right direction,”

because you can actually build something on that to test it. But to be fair, it has to be a quantum mechanical effect.

It's not a classical effect. What we're seeing, which has always been known.

Why are you sure it's not a classical effect? Well, from one we're not conserving energy in the classical world, right? You know, we put something on the scale and we turn it off, it should go off. Because the fields are intact, the force remains. So now we're dealing with something else, just like the Casimir for effect.

It's dealing with something else. You don't need power for the Casimir effect. You could just put two plates in space and they will attract. Do not need to add power for that. It is an artifact of the structure of the vacuum. This might be another similar thing. It's just in a different light.

In the towns and browned experiments involving electric evidics, they were capacitor experiments. So you had a negative electrode, you had a positive electrode, you had a high k-dialectric in between them. The high k-factor, which is the ability to store, it discharge easily a lot of high electric fields.

“Was this really important factor for determining the thrust in the experiment?”

Does that make sense in the context of your experiment? Sure. Okay. So usually if you have a high capacitance, you can store more charge, right? Some more charge of my energy. But we have to look at all the capacitance, it's not just the capacitance between the two plates.

We look at the fields and how you can strengthen the fields. Sometimes high capacitance or high k values, high-dialectric constants can lower the fields. So you want a high field depending on where you want the thrust to be. So you can tailor some of that with capacitance, just like towns and browned it. But it is a field effect.

So those are some of the knobs you have. You have a lot of knobs, you have geometry knobs, capacitance knobs, voltage knobs, you have a lot of things that we can do. But how you could explain this force classically, I don't really know, at least with the conservation of energy stuff. Is the brown would use DC pulsing and like kind of high climber rates of the voltage, so that the voltage would there be a steep climb rate where it would increase very sharply,

is that also consistent with your theory or I don't really know. I mean, we try to stay away from the AC stuff or the very high slew rate stuff if we can. Yeah, damages to the plastics or damages to the metals, damages to the materials too much, too much current.

We're still exploring the DC versions. We haven't explored all the different ways you can apply different voltages and different currents to it. Which is something that we have a lot of room in the future to improve upon. But we're doing so many variations with all the other parameters. We don't really need to change the slew rates too much yet.

“Do you take issue with the term anti-gravity or, I don't like anti-gravity?”

Okay, because that is that would be like an opposite of gravity force. Yeah, or the electro-grivitics pretentious to say that we're messing with gravity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even Drew calls us warp drive. I'm not there yet. I'm not there yet with the bending of space time. Yeah, there are experiments to check that. You can use interferometry or something like that. I believe the apex folks are looking into that, so we'll see what they find.

But I don't know if we need to, I don't think I'm bending space time with my, my 2,000 volts and plates and wires and needles. I don't think I am. Yeah, I am, but I don't think I am. But you do think you've discovered an in-road towards a propulsion mechanism that you get us into kind of interstellar travel and actually deep space travel.

Which that's amazing. Yes, but I don't know if I'm bending gravity for that or not.

Sure. I don't want to go there yet. Yeah, yeah, I don't care not. You know, because if that's the case, then you'll go down other paths, other rabbit holes that I don't want to go down. Like, oh, well, then you can make a teleportation device or a wormhole or this or all that other stuff. Yeah, yeah, I don't, I'm not ready for going down those paths yet either.

“Have you looked into any of the other kind of exotic physics, world work, people like Ningley or other people who've claimed kind of weight reduction?”

You are doing that. There's a story about this Chinese scientist that was working on anti-gravity and then vanished. Yeah, I really excited about the spinning superconductor stuff. Yeah, because, you know, my PhD is in high temperature. I was going to sensitivity. Yeah. And I was like, oh, maybe that's a way to shield gravity, something like that.

Then someone else, I think NASA reproduced it and they couldn't, didn't see the effect.

Okay. So, I never did anything with it. It's a very expensive experiment to do.

Yeah. There's something very large, superconductor and spinning it. Superconductor is not cheap. Yeah. Yeah. It's a word on the 90s. But, I, I, I don't know. I haven't seen anything that's definitive. Yeah. This is got a lot of, at the University of Tampa here in Finland who claims weight reduction based on spinning superconductors.

“And I believe there might be a connection between him and Victor Schauberger.”

Like, World War II, Nazi, I guess he was in Austria. I don't want to call him in Nazi. He was just like a hapless scientist. But he had this whole model for spinning superconductivity. And I believe, uh, Pecletanoff's father was like, like Stasi guy who was doing tech retrieval for the Soviets. And so, you know, I think there's some sort of lineage there. Nick Cook describes this as an

amazing book hunt for zero point. And, um, and then you have Ning Lee popping up in the early 2000s. It's a great book. Yeah. It's awesome. And then Ning Lee has, yeah, he's amazing. By the way, everybody should read that book. Nick Cook is a hard-headed aviation journalist at James Defense Weekly in the UK. And he just stumbles on to all this gravity research in the 50s. And then realizes it just vanishes and goes nowhere. And he looks through the entire lineage.

And he comes to the very interesting conclusion that there's so much smoke.

There probably has to be some fire, but like never kind of finds a smoking gun.

Never knows exactly, you know, what the there there is. Uh, but it's, it's fascinating. He, he, he eventually is like somewhere in America. Yeah, something to do with zero point. That's right. That's right. And that's where he ended up. Do you think that in the black, we've discovered some of this stuff? Honestly, don't know. That's, I don't know. That's I just don't know.

Has the DOD ever reached out to you? I guess the Department of War now or the Pentagon or DARPA. Have any of these organizations reached out to you? No. It's so strange. It's very sad. I was hoping to be, you know, taking away work on some weird UFO products. Yeah, I know. Well, it hasn't happened. I mean, if anybody should, you know, deserves it. It's just, it's so weird.

It's like, it's like they already know and our miles ahead. And they're sort of gaslighting and waiting for us to catch up or their brain dead. And it's just bureaucracy. And I don't know if you lean on either side. I don't really know. Like your last interview pointed out how few physicists that were for the retrieval program. This can't add up. It's, it's a two line proof.

We haven't made progress. We have no physicists. You know, I thought that was very interesting because my wife and I were approached to help with the UAP and assets doing their own UAP and they finished one report.

And then there was a second one, a second follow-on.

Really. I forget the name of the gentleman reached out to us and we're doing this investigation again. Really like your help. That said, okay, just put me in with all the physicists. Oh, there are no physicists.

“But what do you mean is no physicist? Why am I the only physicist?”

You know, and it's an instrument's group. So they have advanced instruments. So try to capture these sensors. Sensors are something I'm not quite familiar with. So I don't really have time to join that group. But I was shocked by that too. Like why are there no physicists here? Maybe I'm missing something.

It's very bizarre. Yeah. You would think they would be the only physicists. That was one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever been a part of. I would just like, I would head to watch that twice. I was like, are you serious?

Yeah.

Why wouldn't it have any physicists? I don't know.

Either again, they figured it out and they've are sort of gaslighting us or they have this limited hangout strategy where some of the more popular physics frameworks like you hit certain areas of it and then you get sucked up or it's brain dead or the UFO stuff is so weird and consciousness-based that our physics is so clearly kind of not equipped to deal with it. That it's like futile to even deal with physicists. I don't know, but it was weird.

“Did you, you didn't see my Gary McKinnon interview, did you?”

I was just a guy normal guy interested in UFOs. Haven't to have some IT skills. Nothing genius level. You hacked into the army and they beat the air force the department of defense and NASA. Do you know who that is?

The name sounds familiar. So this is a guy who he lives in the UK. He was in 2001. He was like in his girlfriend's aunt's basement at 4am smoking weed. He had some IT skills because he worked with a bank and was a UFO nut.

Obsessed with UFOs. And so did some like basic blank password phishing techniques to essentially hack into NASA, navy, army, CIA, CIA, like every elite he took out is still trapped over there. He's still there. Yeah, because there's a live arrest warrant out for him now.

Okay.

Theresa May former Prime Minister of the UK has finally given him kind of, you know,

safe harbor or whatever. So he's there. But he's not allowed in the US. There's he's on the Interpol Redlist. And he specifically queried when he was when he got in.

He was like, oh my god, I'm in. And then he queried the Johnson Space Center. Because there was a UFO whistleblower named Donna here who worked there, who saw basically images of UFOs being airbrushed out in a specific building, building eight there.

And so he looked in and he saw a tick tack, object floating around the earth like in earth's orbit. The lab is fake comes into view. It's very blocky, but it's kind of blue white. Something he must be of.

And then suddenly there's a big strike kind of so heavy line. Let us coming down. Then that's a guess what they now call a tick tack. But what we used to call cigar shaped. Object.

And this was in the early 2000s before David Frievers sighting at Nimitz. Super wild. And interesting.

“And then what so for our purpose is why I think this was an interesting conversation.”

Is he then stumbles upon a list of non-terrestrial officers of which there are 40. And it was very strange, right? Because as of now if you look at any of the, you know, a tragedy betweenthropic, any of these things,

it'll tell you that we have like roughly 10 people in space, like globally. And so 40 people in space, that's strange, right? And it's the names of these 40 people, non-terrestrial officers, fleet to fleet transfers of these specific materials. And a lot of the materials are high K dialectrics.

And they seem like these thinly layered materials. And then there was like this one material. I think it's like a mole, mole, but denium. I'm a libdenum. Yeah.

Malebdenum. Yeah. Yeah. Malebdenum. And Malebdenum is good for like alloying.

And so we came to the crazy conclusion on the spot that maybe there is a microgravity supplied space supply chain for materials for these high K dialectrics, which ironically those high K dialectrics work well for these experiments, for these, you know,

again, the quacky word is anti-gravity experiments, for these experiments showing this other force.

where humans are manufacturing these exotic materials

“in space that you literally couldn't make physically impossible enough.”

It on earth. Yes. That's fascinating. I don't think has anybody ever explicitly tied together your thing like this, like we're doing now.

Oh, this is fresh and unique. I love this. And there are commercial companies trying this right now. So for anybody who thinks we're crazy, like that's a thing.

And then what would you do it with first

in kind of a more, you know, like covert setting. You would do it on things that are of extremely high value. And, you know, if you produce materials and microgravity, you know, the kind of signal to noise is much better. You know, there's less dust in interference issues.

And so you could do things like, you know, atomic layering, you know, way easier. And so I wonder if there's something like that that then works into some of these experiments being done. I don't know if you have a take on that.

That's a lot there. Yeah. I mean, we're working with high pay dialectrics and layering materials and different things. But I've not heard of anything going on

in space manufacturing for that. Okay. Not on my end. Okay. But it'd be very interesting.

Yeah. Space manufacturing is something NASA is trying to get more and more involved in. Yeah. Because of some of the reasons you mentioned. I'm not heard of any space-crafting manufacturers.

Yes. I have to ask you, well, I have you.

“What's your best argument for the moon landing hoax people?”

I would say that the lasers that are beaming back to earth, or you can beam a -- there's reflectors. We just put a new one on from Firefly. You can send a laser and it'll come back. So that's been there since the Apollo days.

But you could put a foot or a reflector up there. Good. So it's not super concrete ever. That's not super concrete. Yeah.

We do have a lot of Apollo samples. Yeah. I have a 200 grams or so in my lab. You have some moon rocks. Not the rocks that dust.

The rocks are getting out. They're not getting out. They're not getting out. They're not getting out. They're not getting out.

They're not getting out. It's vastly different than the simulated set we play with. Yeah. It's got a very high angle of a pose. Yeah.

So basically try to turn it.

Try to flip it over. It doesn't want to flip over. It's very jagged. It's very different. It's interesting stuff.

There's no doubt it's not weathered. It's not seen a lot of moisture. Those kinds of things. It's different stuff. Have there been any bad actors trying to kind of come in and debunk in like a bad

faith way or I don't think so. Okay. I haven't seen any. Okay. No.

Most of the people are, you know, like the epic folks are out there open. Everything. How do you answer the question? Why has nobody done this yet? I mean, the other answer to that question is they have.

And we just listed some of the people earlier who have actually pulled off the experiment. But do you have a good answer to why it takes a bunch of things to line up? Okay. Do you have to have high voltage experience? Because these tests can be lethal.

Right. They have to be packaged up properly. You're going to put into a fair decayage or you're going to get fake positives, false positives. It'd be attracted to walls or floors or ceilings. You have to make sure you're not doing that.

You have to prevent the eye on wind, which is very well known. Fun thing to make does give you some forces, but they're not what we're interested in. So there's a lot of fastest there. Then you have to have the technical savvy to, you know, show it in many different ways. Pendulum, spinners, rotators, force measurements, scales, all of those things.

And each one of those can be fooled. So you have to make sure that you do your due diligence and do not, you know, get any false positives. Especially on the scales. Everything has to be shielded pretty darn well.

“Can I bring up another thing that I think limits our ability to do this?”

I think it's the amount of people who think it's possible that there is another force outside of the conventional forces. And so you need a hypothesis to get, you know, a positive result in certain cases. And I think if you are so dogmaticly, you know, confined to, you know, very conventional physics,

you would never even try this experiment, maybe.

And so you have to have the imagination to, you know, realize that there might be a there there to even try it in the first place. That's right. That's right. You have to try to do something, if you believe in it, try to do it. Like I did with the field momentum, the linear momentum, I try that for 15, 20 years. I failed. But that doesn't mean I had to give up. I was still seeing a force, even in that, even if it had nothing to do with that theory.

Here, that's the case, I think. And you think that this vindicates the work of Thomas Townsend Brown to, maybe he didn't understand what he was dealing with in the way that you do. But if he says he understood the iron wind like he said, like he said he did, and he did things in oil. Where you can't have iron wind, and he's possibly came across it. He might not be the only one. Yeah, people that play with high voltage, asymmetrical capacity has been around a long time. So it's entirely possible, maybe Tesla.

Maybe, I don't know if you did much or ace, if you did a lot of energy stuff. Yeah, I don't know either, but there's actually, you mentioned transmission oil. There's a team in Japan.

“I believe they came out of Honda, and I think Muxia is the scientist's name.”

And he claims, they've submerged the capacitor in the transmission oil, which apparently doesn't ionize, or at least ionize very well. And they claim some results, and they kind of have gone silent.

But like, they never retracted those results. That paper still out there.

So there's so much of this. There's another group of working with in Germany, because we're producing this. So really, yeah, so it's coming. It's amazing. Well, I'm really excited to get into you of a whole theory about how the thrust works in your Exodus experiments, and it involves quantum lecture dynamics. So I asked you if I could bring a friend of mine, David Chester, who is quantum lecture dynamic specialist at the end of your radical physicist.

And so, are you down to have a group conversation? We can change sets and sweet. All right. So we have David Chester here, who is a friend of mine. He got his undergrad at MIT, PhD from UCLA, both in physics, and is kind of specializes in general relativity, as well as quantum field theory. But to me, you are the guy who is the kind of intersection, if you have kind of two circles in a venn diagram of kind of smartest and best credentialed, who will entertain all of the quacky stuff.

And so we've had long conversations about a lot of this extended lecture dynamics, and some of these weird topological or experimental physics effects.

“And you really, I think, understand kind of the way of the land, as well as anybody, and I was speaking with you, Charles, about doing this interview,”

and you were like, I'm developing this quantum lecture, dynamical theory of how this actually works. And I was like, I probably won't be able to say anything about that, but David will. So I'm really excited to have both of you, and maybe we start with you, Charles, if you could just kind of present what the theory is. And then you guys can kind of go back and forth. Sure, no, but this is a good opportunity to talk to real physicists about my, you know, my proposed explanation for the force that I'm seeing.

So, I don't like to create stuff up. That's kind of one of my mantras, I don't want to do that. I want to use what's known in the physics community to see if it can explain what I'm seeing. I don't want to be one of those guys, I have to come out of the whole new theory, I don't think that's necessary. So my approach was to see, what are the tools we have now to try to explain this?

Can it be done within conventional physics that we know, just maybe one other step further or something, you know, within the realm of what we already know? And we have a lot of tools in quantum lecture dynamics, we have a lot of tools. So I started from what I have in my experiments, basically two charges. So I have a plus and a minus charge. That's my starting point, I don't have anything else.

Not as far as I know. Now if I'm bending space time or doing something silly, that's beyond my knowledge.

“But are there the tools available to understand the forces in just knowing what we know with QED with two charges?”

QED is very, very powerful.

I found an example of how QED can solve a very simple problem, which can be easily solved with the lecture dynamics. So let's make it infinitely more complicated with QED. And that's what physicists do. It's because it's a more fundamental theory. So I started with QED to explain coolums law, force of attraction, reports of machine two particles.

So that's very well explained with coolums law. But in the context of QED, I found a book that actually did this. In my grad school, we were not trained how to do that. It's not uncommon. There's a lot of very remedial physics problems that take two or three hours to solve.

They're not going to cover in a class. But I saw the QED version of it. This is very, very helpful. I know where it comes from. I know where the momentum's come from.

And then you do the math appropriately. You'll get coolums law coming out of it. And coolums law for people not familiar.

Can you describe it very basically?

their force is related by one of the square of the distance away. Relation to the charge charges that you have. Very simple rudimentary physics. And it explains things like electron repulsion to like forces, repelling.

It basically explains everything that we know about two particles, two charges.

Just about everything QED. Because only how atoms are bound together. Sure. Yeah. So I did not think we needed QC, QCD, quantum chromodynamics. W particles, Z particles. I didn't think we needed that.

We were not looking at the interactions between protons and neutrons. So we're not looking at the high energy. Well, we're just looking at low energy, coolomic charges. Thanks. And when you say you're explaining the coolum charge with quantum lecture dynamics,

how is it normally explained? Usually you'll do, you know, Maxwell's equations or something simple. Okay. To derive coolum's law, it's not very complicated. If he goes QE.

So we know the electric field is point part, point charge times QE. And Maxwell's equations govern electromagnetism. All of that. In 19th century. That's right.

“But what they don't tell you is how do these particles interact?”

What is causing them to repel or attract? Yeah, what is the physical mechanism? QED provides us a nice little solution. QED says, well, thanks to quantum or a Feynman and Schwinger. They are exchanging virtual particles.

So they're not real particles. So you can't see them. You can't observe them. But they're virtual.

So basically, you can picture.

This is the cartoon that people use. You have two ice gators. One of them is holding a bowling ball. They, the first one throws a bowling ball. So they recoil.

The second person catches the bowling ball. So they fall back. Except there's no bowling ball. So not real one that you can see. But you can see the interaction between the two particles.

And that's the Feynman diagram. And what you do is each time you write a Feynman diagram. Each one of those lines in the Feynman diagram represent a different term. And you multiply them all up. And you get what's called the scattering matrix element.

“And you can try to find how these things interact.”

If you were to take this particle A and shoot it at particle B, you could see where it deflects on a board somewhere. If you actually measure that. That interaction is all described in that. QED using QED to survive.

Coulomb's law is very complicated. But I found a book that did it. So I copied that, looked at what they did. It's okay. This is a good model.

Let me just do one thing different. I don't have just Coulomb's law. I have something else. So what I think it is. And what I proposed now is what would happen if I just went to the next order.

So quantum electrodynamics QED doing Coulomb's law is a second order equation.

On using time independent perturbation theory. Pertibation theory is the best tool that we have in physics. I think bar none. Pertibation theory. It's awesome.

Doubt standing. It's very powerful. What is perturbation theory? High level. So high level.

You can get the energy states or the states themselves using perturbations. Things will change. You change an energy state. You add that back in. You do another perturbation.

You see how it changes. With a small perturbation of the energy in this case. Or the states. And involves. So.

And there are many perturbations. So I'm using second order perturbation theory for. That's the lowest perturbation.

“And I think the highest perturbation for two charges.”

Coulomb's law. And after that, I don't think anyone's done anything after that. Because you not only get a close answer, you get the exact answer. So as I say, why go further? You have two particles.

They either attract or it fell. What's cool is all. Do you need to go further? Not. So I'm like, well, this force would.

I've seen with Exodus. Selective static pressure force. Is much, much weaker than Coulomb's law. There's no doubt. Much weaker.

But I decided, well, let's try the third order. What does that give me? And when I tried it with my math. Which may not be perfect. I'm sure.

I was seeing three charges now. So basically, one of the charges was weed twice. Multiply by itself. And then the third order is being multiplied by the first charge. So this already needs to be sort of in the charges.

Even with two charges. Which I thought was useful. Because I wanted to try to get that with classical dynamics. You can't derive that from classical energy. Three charges.

But the QED was kind of nice to show that. So I looked at that and said, okay, there's, there's not, there's no longer four terms. Like they are in the, you know, the second, what would classical lecture dynamics give you if not. So basically, when you try to do conservation of energy, you start with a kinetic energy and a potential energy. And so for adding more charges to a system, you just keep adding more and more charges to a system.

The superposition principle adds them all up.

It adds them all up. But I need to the addition. I need to the pressure that I'm creating, working on the charges that I'm creating. So I have a pressure on one side and charge from the other. So I have a, the multiplication effect, experimentally.

So I did not have to drive that other than quantum what to dynamics. But classically doesn't, doesn't show that. But I thought maybe QED might. It shows up there.

But that was the first thing.

And the other thing, there were 12 terms now instead of four. Because I'm, I'm scattering. So what happens in QED or time independent perturbation theory. You start from the zero, the state, the vacuum state. You scatter to the first state. Then the gamma first state is scattered to the second state.

And goes to the second state, scattered to the zero state. This is just how it works.

“There's a lot of scattering states and matrices that you have to solve for.”

Then you multiply them together. So I have 12 terms now. Some of the terms are kind of interesting. It looks like that when you draw the diagrams from those states that you look like, you get the same things you had in second water perturbation theory.

You have a, they'll exchange a photon. The other one is a little absorbent vice versa. But there are some states that are a little weird. You'll have states where they'll just absorb or just emit. Kind of like the first order, which I didn't talk about.

But the first order is basically just a charge with field line.

We're not field line. But with basically the charge with the, the scalar photon. So you have, there's four kinds of photons in QED. One of them is real. One of them is observable.

The other three are not. But I'm real. Two of them are real. I thought it'd be better to only one of them was real. Well, you have a, you have plus and minus H bar for two different spin states.

Okay. Well, that's cool. Two of them are real. If it was massive, it would be three.

“But since the photons massless, you get to stay.”

I mean, light is polarized. You can polarize it. Yeah. It's okay. I didn't know that.

That's quite a fun thing. Because I just remember the text. I was saying one of them was real. Okay. But anyway, so these are not real things.

But in QED, you look at the vertices and every time you draw a vertices, you conserve momentum at that point. So if a particle comes in, it's, you know, we use these silly fibranger arguments. They're not Cartesian coordinates at all.

But they're basically a momentum vector and then the momentum changes.

And when the momentum changes, another momentum is created or absorbed. And that's all it is. You can't think of it anymore. Literal than that. So that's what I see in third order.

Third order are these vertices that are either giving out these scalar photons or absorbing them. Whatever these things are in reality. Is how these things seem to be conserving momentum. If this model is correct. So that's the difference between the third order and the second order.

At least when I found mathematically is it. You don't absorb this. You don't emit this scalar photon and absorb it in the same pairing with the two charges. There are cases where the two charges emit and doing absorb more absorb and don't emit. And what is a scalar photon?

It's supposed to a photon. It's a mathematical photon. You can describe it better than I can. But it has many names, dark photons and deals with it. Is it different?

I think it is.

“Anyway, I think it's just it's a mathematical term.”

Okay. It doesn't have the polarization that a real photon has. Right. Yeah. It's just a mathematical term that you put inside the matrices and you get the,

I don't know how it works. So what are the, what are the scalar? It's a scalar. It's a scalar. There's no vector.

So the idea of just emitting. Or absorbing these scalar photons in this third order perturbation. How does that allow for this effect that looks like this new force and Electrostatics or it looks like anti-gravity or, you know, what you're kind of experiencing? Well, what it shows is you have an imbalance.

And the system can be made to be embalanced, which is weird. So because you're not closing. I don't know what happens to these scale photons where they go or I don't even know if they go anywhere. They might terminate somewhere else in the universe. I don't know.

He feels don't do that. They do terminate somewhere. But it does, you know, show this weird kind of, you know, imparting it to momentum into something that is already asymmetric. So it's very odd.

So where do you ever have these? Yeah. Wherever you have these. I think that's where the field is. Non-zero where these things exist.

Where these things don't exist is where the field is zero. So that's the difference. And basically an electric field. And super high level you end up with this kind of virtual particle transfer and due to conservation of momentum you end up with thrust.

Okay. And what do you think, David Chester? Well, first of all, I want to commend you on your experimental efforts.

“I think you're really brave with what you're doing.”

And it's quite amazing how much data you guys have been collecting.

However, I would just advise you to be a little careful with some of the theoretical claims you're making. First of all, it sounds like you're saying you can get a momentum. You're getting a kick and a momentum in the center of mass frame. However, typically in QED. Well, momentum is conserved and you still have translational symmetry.

So you're typically not able to get virtual photons to give radiation. That's the first thing. So it sounded like you were saying you believe that there's this scalar virtual photon that is getting radiated out.

I see two issues with that, the first being.

First of all, I mean, the scalar mode in QED is not physical. Second of all, so you could say maybe there's some virtual stuff going on on that, but the virtual particles typically refer to internal lines, whereas in the Feynman diagrams, whereas the radiation are the external lines. So you can't have a virtual radiation mode in QED.

So that seems to be. So what is it? What is the equivalent, I guess? I mean, I'm not exactly sure. I don't know what's going on.

“I don't know the best way to describe your experiment if that's what you're getting at.”

No, I'm just trying to figure out, like, how would you draw the Feynman diagram for just a point charge and it's field? Not the self energy, but just the regular. Yeah, so if you think about what the electric field is, it's the force that you would get if you had a test charge located there. So you could imagine exactly as you're saying, you know, it's a four point tree level scattering diagram where you have two electrons going in, two electrons going out, and you could have.

It's a little subtle here because it's a classical phenomenon, but there is that internal line.

And at first, it becomes virtual, meaning it can have complex momentum that's off shell, but there's also momentum conservation as you're saying.

So that when you do that Feynman diagram and you're integrating over the momentum, you get this delta function from momentum conservation and that. Basically, concerns momentum such that, you know, you get classical momentum that can be transferred from one electron to another and then they can get forced apart. And you know, it was worth mentioning, you can also find the electric field in classical electronic dynamics for as many charges as you want. It sounded, maybe I missed her to you, but it sounded like you were saying, you can't study things classically for three charges or something.

Well, that multiplied together.

“I think the sewer position is an addition of all the charges.”

I also noticed, so you mentioned that you're doing time independent perturbation theory, which I didn't pick that up. So perturbation theory, yeah, mathematically it's kind of like a Taylor expansion, so the basic idea is you can have polynomial, so you can have, you know, a constant term, then a linear term and then a quadratic term and the idea is, if you're doing an approximation, let's, hopefully the thing is small, so the higher order terms can be neglected. And then so perturbation theory is this approximation scheme that you can use to find solutions to things, and there's different ways you can apply perturbation theory and physics.

Typically, when you refer to perturbation theory and quantum electronics, it's not about time independence, it's more about when you write down the Feynman diagrams, you can have what they call tree level diagrams and then loop level diagrams. Typically, the tree level, the tree level diagrams correspond to the classical interactions, and the number of loops in the diagram is the level of perturbation theory, you're at, so the language that I'm familiar with is, you'd at the classical theories, essentially the zero third or order terms, and you can think of it as a perturbation in h bar, because h bar is small, that's a kind of way to colloquially, I think colloquially think of it.

And so you could have a one loop diagram, that would be a first order correction, a two loop diagram, second order, so on and so forth. However, I mean, in quantum mechanics, before getting into quantum field theory, I'm pretty sure that you could do time independent perturbation theory, I mean, for what you're working with, you have a lot of DC, it's DC, so there's no time dependence, right? And so you could look at the frequency, and you could say, well, it's a really long wavelength excitation, so I'm actually, you know, I'll have to think more about what exactly you are doing, because I just assumed that you were doing the typical perturbation theory of quantum field theory, but now you're saying, you're mentioning time independent perturbation theory, so I've seen some of your, you know, it's obviously you haven't published something yet.

It's not saying you're having necessarily having error there, but I'm just realizing that now.

No, I mean, you know, this is, I have done QD in 26 years, so could use a refresher, but I was just intrigued by just doing the time independent perturbation theory and getting something. Love your health translating some of that, the vertices that don't, and I understand these particles don't, do not veal, right? You can't capture them, but I pictured the more like electric fields. Where you, you can't pull the field from the charred, right? Hmm, have your now field line.

“It doesn't work that way, and that's what these things I think represent, so that's why we have things like renormalization, these really complicated tools to try and dress these infinities, a lot of infinities here.”

And that, that is nasty integral that I have not been able to solve. Yeah, yeah, I'm only looking at the cartoon picture trying to interpret it, but if you want to help me with that, it'd be awesome. You know, with the real math, I have five, six kids started to work on that, and again, the functions, their functions, these are not fun things. Yeah, the integrals are definitely hard. They are not hard.

I guess it's not a beautiful solution like whooms up.

It's different. Just the fact that Charles is talking about a time independent perturbation, which you kind of hadn't anticipated before the conversation, does that change anything as far as the viability in your mind with QED, or is that something you have to kind of, think about offline. You can do, you could, you could do perturbations with frequency at the classical level. So if you're claiming it's a quantum effect at some point, I think I believe, I mean, with the five diagrams that you have, would there be any loops in the diagrams that you've been studying?

Well, the zero soldiers are there, right? The non, when they start in the end. Yeah. Also the self-energy you're talking about? Yeah. Self-energy terms, there's 12 terms, and I think half of them are not very useful.

“But maybe the other half are. That's the, that's what I'm proposing.”

Maybe they're interesting, because they don't, they don't close in like you would want them to. They can't make the picture nice and even your head. And so it's, this is a game, and I love this game, because it's like trying to, try to use your mind, and our brains are not good at this. If I take two charges, we know they can attract, and we know they can repel. But if you didn't see this one, and you see this one go there, go there.

Your brain would say, "I can't do that." Or if I take two charges, and I stick them on a box, don't let them touch. Take the electrons away. Are they still attracting? Damn, right? They are. For how long? For ever.

So, that is a fundamental property of charge fields, which Judy, I think, explains quite well. So, but is it conserving energy?

“You know, that's what you have to think about.”

Is it conserving energy? Still it. You've, removed all your energy to get that there. Why is it still there? So there's, there's little mind games with this, I think. It kind of helps. I think this, exit, this is kind of a, there's another mind game for you. I mean, it is hard to imagine what is going on there.

I have to experimentally, I don't know what's going on. But it's curious, because we have no other theorem, which describes energy, and momentum conservation from space-time translation symmetry. No, there was actually studying quantum field theory and discovered something profound about classical mechanics about the conservation laws.

But even still, things are conserved off shell. So it's hard to, right, as you're saying, I mean, maybe there's some charges that we're overlooking, right? But they're, they're, honestly, it's at the point where if it appeared as if momentum conservation was violated, then you would claim that there's something else there that we don't understand, right? There must be something carrying that momentum.

I mean, that's how the neutrino was discovered. Initially, they had these decay channels, and they were counting the energy. They were counting for the energies.

It was like, wait a second, this, the bookkeeping isn't adding up.

And then, isn't that how science kind of moves forward in some ways? I guess if you were to take your physics hat off, and just as a human being, look at all of the kind of overwhelming anecdotal evidence. I know you've kind of systematically surveyed a lot of these weird, fringe experiments in exotic propulsion for energy, all sorts of things like that.

And to me, you know, without any sort of physics background,

They're specifically around the lineage of the type of stuff that Charles is discussing.

I don't know what you would say there. Yeah, what do you think? Because clearly, that is a way off, and that science moves forward. You know, if you look at Thomas Cune in the structure of scientific revolution, it's this like a anomaly buildup, and then that sort of breaks the dam, and then the theory off in this playing catch-up on the anomaly.

Yeah, definitely. It can go both ways as well. But I mean, certainly out of all of these weird phenomena that seemed to not fit into conventional theory, I mean, I would say your experimental results are, you know, God be in the top ten in terms of most convincing things I've seen. I mean, there's other groups where they do one experiment, and they're measuring pico Newton forces,

right? We've all heard these stories, and then people get into baits. Oh, is it some experimental error? Obviously, as you point out, you're not 100% sure there could be some prosake explanation, but the fact that you've done so many different things, and you're seeing the self-consistency. I mean, even as a scientist, I have to say that is encouraging and we should explore this further.

It's not something we should just sweep under the rug and forget about. What would be your best way, you know, obviously you haven't rigorously kind of studied the experiment itself.

“You haven't been on site with them, but would you have any way of explaining it away?”

Like, if he is controlling for an eliminating this ion, wind effect, it actually showing that in a vacuum chamber you get more thrust, you know, that to me, that feels like pretty, pretty convincing, and then obviously this is being done in a fairytate cage. You know, so there's no electric field interference. Is there any way that you could kind of poke at it or kind of straw man it from afar? Honestly, no, and I've interacted with the drew multiple times on APEC, with Tim Ventura.

I've had private communications with him. I've interacted with him publicly. I've seen his iteration rate, first of all, is phenomenal, right?

He's just always testing new things, trying different stacks with different materials and different geometries,

and he's really dialing an end. It's really impressive that the innovation rate that he's going at and your whole team.

“And so, I mean, if you've checked all these things that you say, you've checked, right?”

Obviously, I haven't been in the lab with you, but it is, I can't think of anything to be honest. I can't think of any prosaic explanation. I mean, if you're right, there's not much magnetic stuff going on. There's a lot of electrostatics, right? Not much charge moving. It's just so mind blowing note. I mean, the idea that the claim is you power it up and then you unplug it from the wall and then the thrust continues in,

in definitely, well, you know, obviously, you haven't tested it for an infinite amount of time. Drew, with sometimes act as if I would last forever. I mean, my skeptical brain is saying, well, eventually, wouldn't that capacitor discharge? But still, even if it lasts a day, you know, it seems like it lasts longer than a day from what you guys have done as far as I can tell. In terms of the claims, it's hard to imagine how, how could that be continued, like the fact that it's not getting drained.

“You would think, okay, well, wouldn't it require energy to get that thrust, wouldn't that quickly drain the capacitor?”

It doesn't seem to be what you're claiming. You've tested it in so many different ways that it's, it's a tough challenge for anyone to try to describe what's going on there. It's very mysterious. You're also friends with and looked at the experiments done by Falcon Space in this sort of area, in this sort of electrographic or maybe, you know, new electrostatic force area.

They basically tried to pull off the bi-field brown effect. What was your take on that experiment?

Yeah, so it was actually interesting, it was curious. So, it's not scientifically conclusive, not all the experiments that I was ruled out. But there was something interesting that was seen where they did the tests at not too low pressure, and they noticed it's spinning in one direction. And then eventually they kept pumping down further and further, and eventually it started spinning in the other direction, which it's, you know, qualitative. We don't know how strong the forces, I don't know what the friction was. They had a nice mechanism to hold it up, so it minimized the friction using magnets, which introduces additional potential errors, but I'm not too worried about the magnets.

But if you're going to do a demonstration for others that are skeptical, you should probably maybe think to another way. So it was, I think it was interesting, and it was worth further study. It's suggestive, but not conclusive, I would say.

I mean, that's something you could point that and say, ah, let's just say it's that honestly, I doubt it would be causing what was seen, but you know, it's something to consider.

“Really, to get a confirmed thing, it's best to do multiple tests, right, not just one and do it in different ways, but really another issue potentially was the fact that there were these discharges that were observed.”

And Tim Ventero was actually one of the first to kind of get a little skeptical of son degree because he had worked with those ion lifters back in the day with the triangular ones in the tinfo, and so he had worked with high voltage, and he was, because it took me time to realize this, you would think, naively, well, okay, there's this all this ion wind stuff, and that's because you're ionizing the air, so you just remove the air and do it in vacuum, and I'm good, right? No, I'm going to worry about.

What if there's ions or electrons literally flying off the thruster itself, or what if the wires connecting them, we could see different discharges that were occurring, so what if you're you're spraying out these ions, what if that's causing the force. So it's something that it's it's also amazing to look into it, it's first of all, it's a challenging enough just to work with high vacuum systems, then it's another challenge, I mean, you're well aware of this stuff to work with high voltage, sure, but then to combine the two, it's it's remarkable.

You definitely want to enclose everything with the can I saw Mark's video, I was worried about the coil, because that would be, you know, dubious, why do you have a ground there, but it's not a ground, I guess, is the high voltage wire.

But it's interesting that it went one way, like you would expect, if it was a corona wind, and then your pump it down goes the other way, that would be, that's cool to see.

But you don't, like you say, you don't want the discharges, you don't want the current coming off, even on our high vacuum, you'll get field emission, it's called. Yeah, from material, so you want to kind of make sure you encapsulate everything.

“So that would be the only thing that might be a hiccup is the possibility of field emission, but I've not seen the experiment, so.”

But that's easy to prevent, you can corona dope it, you can do all kinds of things to kind of prevent that, get encapsulated.

But yeah, yeah, so I found it encouraging, but you gotta keep starting, you know, to really get to the bottom of it. Well, on that note, I know when deep into all sorts of, you know, out there, out there theories, but this was super, super helpful. And if you were to give Charles any advice as far as kind of flashing out his theory or, you know, places to look, what, what would it be? Well, I would say, yeah, so if you, if you're doing it, you could consider two different types of perturbation theory at the same time.

So you can do the time independent one and you can do the H bar, you know, the quantum corrections as well. So you could keep track of both of those, it's a little more complicated. You might not even need the time independent assumption, but since you're working with electric sacks, I also see why you're doing that. So it could make sense to do that approximation because it would simplify things, but then you just gotta be, yeah, I mean, if it's truly DC, yeah, it probably would be a good approximation to do.

“Yeah, so I think that would be one thing to do, just, yeah, look into renormalization of the self energy, those perturbative corrections can affect the electron self energy.”

Also, this is a puzzling thing. If you look at the direct spinner, which is used for electron in quantum electrodynamics, the spinner field, those equations, you can still have classical equations of motion for a quantum field. And those equations might have E or H bar C, so you can get alpha in thing in classical equations, but it's subtle because it's a quantum field theory, but, you know, there's a classical limit there. So yeah, I would say I honestly just try to learn as much as you can, keep trying to, you know, we can correspond via email and try to talk more about quantum electrodynamics and we'll see, you know, maybe something more is needed, but I think it's a good effort to at least see where this quantum electrodynamics take you, but also just recognize it is a possibility that the results you're finding can't be described by quantum electrodynamics just keep that in mind.

Yeah, you know, the reason why we like to use the QED, we haven't mentioned it much, but because of the alpha that shows up experimentally, you know, that's, that's really cool. Some of the fine structures, you know, showing up in terms of the forces and fine structure constant squared, so it's always some kind of function of alpha, keep showing up experimentally is not too many experiments you could do in your garage.

It's there. Why does the fact that a fine structure constant is showing up point towards quantum mechanical effect?

“That's a good question. So it's the coupling between fields and charges, what alpha, okay.”

So it's not too simple. So it's like a, it's like a primitive in quantum mechanics and that keeps showing up in physics in general, it shows up in general. Yeah, there's also another way to look at it where you can kind of look at it from a natural unit perspective and just kind of set H bars C to one. I know a lot of people might not like that, but sorry. I don't like that. Yeah, I can understand why I get what you're saying, but I mean, at the end of the day, alpha is proportional to was E squared and the interaction term.

The interaction term between the electron and the photon introduces a factor of alpha. So once you, you have that Feynman vertex where you have an electron positron or photon, there's like a factor of alpha there. Yeah. And so if you're going to build these loop order corrections, you're going to need more vertices. So you will require more factors of alpha as you go out in the, you know, the quantum perturbation theory. Just remember that even for the cool on force, where it's a tree diagram, no loops, they're still, you could do unitary cut on that photon internal line and they're still to interaction vertices alpha and alpha that get multiplied together, even for a classical process.

So certainly tracking powers of alpha is helpful in perturbation theory, but just keep in mind that it comes in at the classical level as well. It's exciting. Is that been doing the driving the orders of magnitude, which in third order, I think, yeah, I don't go to fourth order, but yeah, I actually fourth order, third order, second order, first order, and you can see the perturbations and alpha. Alpha is nice to use because this, you know, dimensionless, yeah, the ratio of the energy of two charges divided by a photon of that same wavelength of where those two, how far apart those two charges are.

“So that's what alpha is, it's a ratio of two energies. That's the best way to describe the summer field constant.”

So, oh, there was something else I want to mention, you two, you'd mentioned the term hidden momentum. So, I believe there is work, certainly by the 1980s, where if, because in classical electronics, the pointing vectors, what carries the momentum density and that is proportional to E cross B. And so there were experiments where people, part of the reason why hidden momentum is found was in statics as well, where they had an electric field that was static and a magnetic field that was static and their perpendicular, so you get this E cross B.

And it was puzzling because you would have a pointing vector implying their momentum, but I mean, I'm pretty sure if you just take a symmetric capacitor with an electric field going through. And then you put it inside a solenoid with a magnetic field perpendicular, nothing's going to thrust, right? And the hidden momentum is what describes what cancels out so that you don't get thrust in those experiments, so that's just another thing you're looking to. That's where I started, right? So I started looking at fuel momentum being converted into linear angular linear momentum.

And the crux was this 1970s hidden momentum, which is a relative physics effect. So even if you have a magnetic field a current, you can always draw that as a kind of a square.

And whenever there's the ferritate field, it will accelerate charges in one loop and decelerate them in the other loop. So it's basically a kind of a change momentum physically of the loop of the electrons hitting the walls as how they describe the hidden momentum. So whenever time you have a static e-cross beat, nothing moves, like you can't, you have a highly charged electric, you know, electric charge to a bar magnet doesn't fly across the room, because of the hidden momentum. So that can be scaled down microscopically, so even the magnetic moments can be pictured as little currents, and they have hidden momentum to the relativistic.

So I first started out for the last, I started out in 2000s to look at maybe the conversion from fuel momentum to mechanical momentum could happen, like it does in the angular case.

“But for linear momentum, if there's no hidden momentum. So what's the opposite of relativistic charges moving electric statics?”

Keep the charges static. To static charges possess hidden momentum. And that's my theory was it didn't. So that let me down to that path where 2010 I saw the forces initially could have been something else. But that's where I started. And it wasn't until after two years working with Drew, I said, oh Drew's got the, he's got the conversion down from fuel momentum to mechanical momentum without static charges.

So I'm not even setting up the e-crossbee fields anymore.

So there's two electric fields, one magnetic field for that all to work. You have the e-crossbee and then you kill the bee to make a second e-field called the fairies law field to convert it into mechanical momentum. But if you don't have hidden momentum, you should see thrust.

“So that's what we thought we were seeing until I realized just before going on a trip that I didn't even need a bee field or a current. Some, oh man, I'm in pure electric statics mode.”

So I don't have any fuel momentum, which was good in bed. Let us down this path. Okay, so now we'll have to study that first before going back to that, just form or complicated.

Super fast name. Well, this has been a really fun discussion. David, thank you so much for lending your expertise here and for, you know, talking to Charles.

“In a way that's clearly like not dogmatic about the experimental results and then kind of helping sharpen his his blade on the quantum electric dynamics. So really appreciate you both.”

Thank you. Thanks for having us and his pleasure meeting his pleasure meeting you too. Thank you.

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music]