A voter-friendly research page that lets a fifth grader and an adult learn side by side—without confusing a bold hypothesis, a campaign opinion, and verified scientific evidence.
Robert Motta’s campaign opinion: Ashton Forbes’s research is mind-blowing. I believe some of the underlying phenomena and physics may be real enough to deserve rigorous, open testing. That is my opinion—not proof that the disputed MH370 videos are authentic, that an aircraft teleported, or that a black-hole counterjet enters another dimension.
Imagine two flashlights moving almost as fast as light: one points more toward you and one points away. The one aimed toward you can look much brighter. A picture may show only one bright beam even when two beams exist.
Standard jet models generally produce bipolar outflows along the rotation axis of a magnetized accretion system. A counterjet can be difficult to see because of relativistic Doppler de-boosting, absorption, limited resolution, orientation, or asymmetric interaction with surrounding material. An apparently one-sided image is therefore not evidence by itself that the other jet travels into another dimension.
The video notices images in which one jet is obvious and asks whether rotation, charge accumulation, a monopole-like configuration, or an unseen dimensional pathway could explain it. This is a research question, not a demonstrated conclusion.
Jets are produced in the environment outside the event horizon through rotating plasma, magnetic fields, and energy extraction. Many systems are modeled with two oppositely directed jets, while viewing effects can hide or greatly dim one side.
Important distinction: The Helmholtz equation is a differential equation for fixed-frequency spatial patterns. A Helmholtz coil is a pair of circular coils used to make a nearly uniform magnetic field. Reaching a Helmholtz equation in algebra does not automatically imply a coil arrangement, a wormhole, or teleportation.
The COFE12 program lists his presentation as “Gravitation as a Rotational Field,” matching the material Ashton is reacting to.
Authoritative NASA materials describe opposite jets and explain how the approaching side can appear far brighter.
Detailed analyses attribute the small acceleration mainly to uneven thermal radiation from the spacecraft.
The transcript explores a proposed current and rotational formulation. A physical current needs a defined quantity, units, measurements, and predictions.
A real mechanism would need a complete energy budget, field measurements, material constraints, and repeatable laboratory results.
The disputed videos and their provenance remain contested. This page does not represent the claimed event as established fact.
Names are matched using the uploaded transcript, the recent Ashton video, and the COFE12 program. Auto-generated transcripts can garble names, so uncertain identifications are marked.
Host and commentator
An independent researcher and online creator who argues that disputed MH370 videos may show advanced propulsion or teleportation physics. His work is provocative and influential online, but his central claims are not established scientific consensus.
Conference speaker shown in the source presentation
A former aerospace/defense engineer whose COFE12 talk was titled “Gravitation as a Rotational Field.” The uploaded transcript appears to be Ashton reacting to Murad’s presentation.
Physicist referenced in the talk
Known for speculative and theoretical work in advanced propulsion and high-energy physics. Similarity to an earlier idea does not verify a new mechanism.
Physicist referenced in the talk
A physicist and longtime commentator on unconventional propulsion and quantum-gravity ideas. The transcript references a Pioneer-anomaly graph attributed to him.
Likely the pulsar researcher named imperfectly by auto-transcription
The transcript’s wording “Paul of Violet” appears to refer to Paul LaViolette. This identification should be checked against the original conference video and slides.
Conference organizer / researcher mentioned by Ashton
President of Integrity Research Institute and organizer/editor associated with the Conference on Future Energy.
Scientist referenced by Ashton
Mentioned during a broader comment about skepticism toward established physics. The transcript alone does not provide enough context to evaluate that anecdote.
NASA physicist and Uon Theory proponent
A NASA physicist and spacecraft-subsystems manager who proposes Uon Theory, an unconventional single-particle framework emphasizing magnetism. His NASA employment is verifiable; Uon Theory remains a proposed model, not accepted consensus.
UAP-disclosure advocate
A retired emergency physician who founded CSETI and the Disclosure Project. He has promoted witness testimony and alleged classified-program disclosure for decades; many of his conclusions are controversial.
Proposed role: Independent Research and Open-Source Analysis adviser. As President, Robert Motta would invite Ashton Forbes to present his evidence, methods, source trail, and testable predictions to a balanced public-interest panel.
This is a campaign appointment proposal—not a statement that Ashton has accepted, not an endorsement by Ashton, and not a promise to bypass lawful vetting, conflicts review, ethics rules, or any confirmation requirement that might apply to a formal federal position.
The point: Government should be willing to hear unconventional researchers without declaring their conclusions true. The standard should be open data, reproducibility, chain of custody, falsifiable predictions, and respectful adversarial review.
The source slides are not fully visible in the supplied transcript. These are reconstructed teaching equations for the concepts discussed, not a claim that every expression appeared verbatim on Paul Murad’s slides.
Imagine marbles in a box. The number changes only if marbles flow in or out.
A continuity equation says a source density ρ and its current J must balance. The transcript asks what a “gravitational current” would physically mean; that requires a defined theory and measurements.
Matter makes a gravity “hill” or “dip” around it.
Poisson’s equation relates mass density ρ to the gravitational potential Φ in Newtonian gravity.
A ball rolls downhill. Gravity points toward the steepest downhill direction.
The gravitational field g is the negative spatial gradient of the potential.
More mass inside an invisible balloon means more gravity points inward through its surface.
The divergence of the Newtonian gravitational field is proportional to mass density, with the minus sign representing attraction.
A twist of a twist can be rewritten as a squeeze part minus a spreading part.
This vector-calculus identity is often used when deriving wave-like field equations. It is mathematics, not by itself evidence that gravity is an electromagnetic vortex.
A ripple moves while something pushes or starts it.
A field ψ can propagate as a wave at speed c with source S. General relativity has tensor equations; this scalar form is only a teaching analogue.
Like a guitar string holding a steady note-shape in space.
The Helmholtz equation describes spatial patterns at a fixed frequency after separating space and time. It appears across acoustics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.
Solve the “where” part and the “when” part separately, then multiply them.
A common mathematical assumption separates a field into spatial and temporal factors. It is useful only when the boundary conditions allow it.
A heavier or faster-spinning merry-go-round stores more motion energy.
Rotational energy grows with moment of inertia I and the square of angular speed ω. This supports “spin stores energy,” but does not establish teleportation.
A bigger electrical bucket, or a stronger push, stores more charge.
Charge Q equals capacitance C times voltage V. The transcript uses a capacitor as an analogy for a system building energy before discharge.
Charging the bucket more stores energy that can later be released.
The stored electrical energy rises with voltage squared. An analogy is not a mechanism; a proposed aircraft-scale system would need measurable fields, energy accounting, materials, and repeatable tests.
Move twice as far away and the pull becomes four times weaker.
Outside a spherical mass in Newtonian gravity, field strength decreases as 1/r². The Pioneer anomaly is now well explained by anisotropic thermal recoil rather than gravity becoming constant beyond Uranus.
A flashlight rushing toward you can look much brighter than the same flashlight rushing away.
Relativistic motion beams radiation. β is speed as a fraction of light speed, γ is the Lorentz factor, and θ is the viewing angle.
Two jets can exist, but the one aimed more toward us may look far brighter.
This simplified ratio shows how an approaching jet can overwhelm a receding counterjet. The exponent p depends on the emission model and spectral index.
Stronger magnetic fields and faster spin can help make a stronger cosmic jet.
A simplified Blandford–Znajek-style scaling relates jet power to magnetic field B, black-hole mass M, and dimensionless spin a. It is schematic, not a full derivation.
Videos load only after a tap, reducing mobile data use and third-party tracking. All creators and channels retain ownership of their content; embedding does not imply endorsement of Vote Motta 2028.
The newly supplied episode discussed on this page. The exact YouTube watch ID was too new to verify when this page was assembled, so the button opens a precise YouTube search rather than embedding the wrong video.
Watch on YouTube ↗Ashton reacts to Paul Murad’s conference presentation on treating gravitation as a rotational or vorticity field.
Watch on YouTube ↗A recent Redacted interview presenting Ashton’s MH370 interpretation. The claims remain disputed and should be independently tested.
Watch on YouTube ↗Discussion of time, propulsion, and unconventional physics. Treat as a claim set for review—not as settled scientific fact.
Watch on YouTube ↗Greer and Forbes discuss MH370 research, scalar-wave concepts, disclosure, and proposed advanced physics.
Watch on YouTube ↗A discussion connecting Dr. Yu’s Uon Theory concepts with entanglement and an electromagnetic medium.
Watch on YouTube ↗A conversation about the photoelectric effect and a proposed experimental interpretation.
Watch on YouTube ↗Dr. Yu and Ashton discuss light and Uon Theory. The title is provocative; the page distinguishes a proposed model from accepted experimental physics.
Watch on YouTube ↗An accessible introduction to Dr. Yu’s proposed single-particle framework and its emphasis on magnetism.
Watch on YouTube ↗A creator discussion spanning UAP evidence, technology claims, and research priorities.
Watch on YouTube ↗A long-form presentation of Ashton’s MH370 case. Competing explanations and provenance questions remain important.
Watch on YouTube ↗The transcript below is embedded in full as supplied to the campaign. It may contain auto-caption errors, incomplete equations, censored profanity, and misheard names. The campaign has added no silent corrections inside the transcript.
Transcript Search transcript Search transcript 0:00All right, let's look at this conservation law. We're looking at the change of the source term and a gradient on the current. Again, what does a gravitational current mean? Hard to say. 0:1010 secondsLet's integrate that equation as a function of time. We end up with a constant, not a constant. We end up with a steady state term. 0:1515 secondsSo, we're teach we're treating gravity as an electrical current that has a duality just like electromagnetism here. 0:2121 secondsLet's keep that in there. And when you put that in the original expression for Newtonian with gamma accounted for relativity, you end up with what's going 0:2828 secondson. And finally, you back out G, and you end up with the term that includes an integral for the current as a function 0:3434 secondsof time, a steady state value, a constant CG. Well, maybe that's this constant value we're talking about, and something we don't know anything about. 0:4343 secondsIt's f of g of t, just a function of time, nothing else. That could be a direct delta, a direct C, who knows? 0:5252 secondsNext, please. So, when you go through this, you try to fool around with these equations. 0:5757 secondsOkay, so he did some things. He found some math and he said, "Hey, we found the constant we were looking for. It's a function of time, but we don't really know in a real sense what that means." 1:061 minute, 6 secondsWe like, "Okay, we we get it, but we don't see this. So, what does this really mean?" So, now we're going to try to figure out what conservation would mean for gravity. So, what we're trying to figure out here now is if this is 1:141 minute, 14 secondstrue and we have to obey conservation laws, what's the math going to be? So, we're slowly digging through this. So, I'm going to let this keep going. 1:211 minute, 21 secondsYou could change that term into Garrett to be that steady state gravitational effect. And you have to take a curl term. Well, if you take a curl term, if 1:291 minute, 29 secondsit disappears, then we have a rotational field. There's no gra no gravity waves. 1:331 minute, 33 secondsSo, J ofS got to be there and G carrot's got to be there. So, sticking another curl term in there. Next few grab, please. And do some manipulations. 1:431 minute, 43 secondsAnd as you go through this, you find out that certain terms appear, but they disappear. And you finally end up on the 1:501 minute, 50 secondsbottom with minus del square g= 4 pi g so on. Uh you can argue you're going to get that directly by using the gradient 1:571 minute, 57 secondsand the terms but then you have an additional term in there del cross del cross g. Now if g carrot is a function 2:042 minutes, 4 secondsof r that should disappear but you never know. Next please. But what about the other side of the equation? Let's take 2:122 minutes, 12 secondstime derivatives. When we take the second derivative the gart term because it's steady state disappears. And when you combine them now you have a different gravitational wave equation. 2:232 minutes, 23 secondsWe've got the characteristics, a sauce term, the curl. 2:272 minutes, 27 secondsYeah, chat. And I'm, you know, I'm struggling to keep up with the math just as you. I'm never going to forgive the CIA for making me learn math. That's the one thing. I I hate them for that. Um, 2:362 minutes, 36 secondsit's literally like the worst thing you could possibly do. However, this has got to be the vortex math, right? Like, this is going to be exactly the same as the vortex math. What everybody has been 2:452 minutes, 45 secondsdoing is they've been taking electromagnetism, they take the Maxwell's electromagnetism equations, and they combine them with gravity. and they're always making an assumption, 2:532 minutes, 53 secondsright? They're saying, "Oh, there's an extra dimension. There's an extra degree of freedom. You know, spin is related." Whatever it is. They make their assumption and then they take the math 3:013 minutes, 1 secondand they try to make it work. That's what we're seeing here. That's why I find this so interesting is looking at from different perspectives. And this is the perspective where I think they literally figured it out. So, here we go. 3:103 minutes, 10 secondsSo, the curl and you have a function where current varies as a function of time and another factor that's a function of time yet to be determined. 3:203 minutes, 20 secondsWell, we've worked through this with Newtonian gravitation. So, it looks like neither Einstein nor Newton lied. 3:273 minutes, 27 secondsThey're both telling the truth. Next, [clears throat] please. 3:313 minutes, 31 secondsLet's carry this a step further. Let's assume the source term is equal to a separable time factor and a steady state value. And the same thing holds for the 3:393 minutes, 39 secondscurrent. When you put this into the conservation equation and you do your manipulations, you end up with the Helhold's equation. That gives you an idea of the steady state source term. 3:503 minutes, 50 secondsNext, please. What? You end up with a Helmholtz equation? 3:593 minutes, 59 secondsNo, chat. No [ __ ] way. Okay, if you don't understand why this is so big is because if you look up the magnetic 4:084 minutes, 8 secondswormhole paper, they use hemholtz configurations to teleport in in the real paper about magnetic wormholes. 4:164 minutes, 16 secondsThey literally use a hemholds configuration which is literally a tooid around your object and a second toid over here. A hemhold's configuration is 4:254 minutes, 25 secondstwo toids, two donuts, and they create a a connection between the two of them. 4:304 minutes, 30 secondsThat's a Hem Holtz configuration. So, when you're thinking about this and you're going, "Holy [ __ ] man." Like, they're literally spinning the orbs 4:384 minutes, 38 secondsaround this plane like a Hem Holtz coil and they've got another Hem Holtz receiver or something on this side and that's where they're teleporting it. And 4:464 minutes, 46 secondsthey're shooting it like directly. This isn't a situation where the plane's like going from here to like up over here. 4:524 minutes, 52 secondsThey're like shooting this like a rail gun and it's just teleporting through extradimensional space and then reappearing on the other side. It's no 5:025 minutes, 2 secondscoincidence that this goes back to the Hemholtz equations. No coincidence. Well, let's carry that a little further. 5:095 minutes, 9 secondsLet's allow the body to rotate. Let's all allow the current to rotate. When you put that into the conservation equation, you do all the allow the current to rotate, chat. 5:225 minutes, 22 secondsWhy? Why do you think the orbs are spinning around the plane, chat? We're rotating the current around the plane. 5:285 minutes, 28 secondsWe're rotating the electromagnetic fields around the plane. Manipulation, it turns out the effects of the current is insignificant. 5:355 minutes, 35 secondsBut for the Hellho's equation, you are driven by the rotation. Alpha is negative, so it's positive. 5:445 minutes, 44 secondsSo what's happening as spin goes, this charge density accumulates and increases over time. Next, please. Let's go. 5:515 minutes, 51 secondsAs spin goes, charge density accumulates over time. This is what I'm talking about. It's a [ __ ] rail gun, chat. 5:585 minutes, 58 secondsThey are winding this thing up and then blasting it off. And they blast it off. 6:036 minutes, 3 secondsNot blast it off at speed, but they blast off the spaceime allowing it just tunnel tunnel right through the barrier of spaceime. Wow. 6:146 minutes, 14 secondsStep further and change that value to beta omega squ. And lo and behold, this equation looks quite close to what Winterberg's suggesting. 6:216 minutes, 21 secondsAh, and you see, then they come back and they go, and it turns out this looks very similar to what Winterberg was suggesting. Now, keep in mind, 6:286 minutes, 28 secondsWinterberg, his math didn't go deep enough. But the idea was generally correct for Winterberg. That's why this is so important when it gets back and 6:366 minutes, 36 secondsyou go, "Oh, this is actually very similar to what Winterberg was approaching, what his his view was." That's interesting. Next, please. 6:446 minutes, 44 secondsAll right. All right. I mentioned this thing about Pioneer 10 and 11 that spacecraft that have been there. 6:486 minutes, 48 secondsBro, what? What? Yo, if he just if that's it, this is like the Sopranos. 6:526 minutes, 52 secondsThat better not be the end of the gravity thing. Are you kidding me? You can't just cut the black there for a long time. Long time. They keep going. Next, please. 7:037 minutes, 3 secondsOne went to the left, one went to the right, they went past the uh the uh system. They're in the orc cloud. They keep on going. Next, please. I'm pretty 7:127 minutes, 12 secondssure what he's about to show us here is that the satellites prove that this is real. Jack Sarati. No way. Why does it say Jack? Jack Sarat provided a nice 7:217 minutes, 21 secondsgraph showing the unmodled accelerations. 7:247 minutes, 24 secondsBut they have a problem with the trajectory. It turns out that gravity indeed becomes a constant value above Uranus. And it's like I said earlier 10^ 7:327 minutes, 32 secondstheus 8 next gra as I mentioned the same thing with Omau as it came into our solar system. it generated uh it had 7:407 minutes, 40 secondsundergone a gravitational attraction with like 10 the minus 4 a constant value so that between these two and moon 7:487 minutes, 48 secondsthere's a factor here where gravity does not vanish like 1 / r^ 2 at infinity next place 7:557 minutes, 55 secondswhen you look at the continuum the space-time continuum the deflection represents gravity well there's our sun as an example a white dwarf generates 8:028 minutes, 2 secondsmore gravity and neutron generates a heck of a lot but a black hole has a singularity I think he was just confirming what I said about Amuramua. 8:118 minutes, 11 secondsHe was saying that these things are producing their own gravity. When we measure the gravity based on their velocity, we are seeing that it creates a constant after a certain cutoff. 8:228 minutes, 22 secondsThere's a constant just like we expected from the Mond theory that he showed before. Now, this is just standard picture of gravity. When I say we're in 8:308 minutes, 30 secondsthis zero point energy, which is spacetime, you can see how this spaceime would be manipulated and that manipulation is gravity. Just like this 8:388 minutes, 38 secondsimage right here. So when I go, "Hey guys, we're in zero point energy. When I want to make a black hole or if I want to make a wormhole, I'm going to pull that 0 point energy away." This is 8:468 minutes, 46 secondsexactly what I'm talking about. This graph right here. Same idea. From a neutron star to the black hole. It's amazing. Next, please. 8:558 minutes, 55 secondsWell, Paul came out with a model on the pulsars. And the convention wism is the neutron star lighthouse model. And it 9:039 minutes, 3 secondscame about due to the to a burntout star after a supernova. And there's a bunch of neutrons together that are forming crystals that are increasing the density and going on from there and so on. And 9:129 minutes, 12 secondshe looked at some signals of pulses that come out from this. We're talking about signals that come out anywhere from six to 10 600 times a second. And it's repeatable and it's extremely accurate. 9:219 minutes, 21 secondsNext, please. But he comes up with some numbers. He says there's pulse drifts. There are amplitude modulation effects. 9:289 minutes, 28 secondsThere are mode switching. What's going on? Now, I don't think he says this about all neutron stars, but this is some of the data that was out there. 9:379 minutes, 37 secondsWhat does this mean? Next, please. 9:409 minutes, 40 secondsWell, like I said, pulses are very accurate, and we need to know this if we're going to go to CIS lunar and cis Martian flights, so we better get used 9:479 minutes, 47 secondsto it. Next, please. One of the assumptions is that neutron stars assumed to be a perfect sphere. What if the implosion is not even or uneven? So 9:579 minutes, 57 secondsPaul of Violet starts researching these neutron stars and he sees that they're switching modes. Switching modes would 10:0410 minutes, 4 secondsbe like suddenly changing the beat. Like your cell phone ring starts changes its tune. Like whoa, your cell phone ring just changed. That doesn't make a lot of 10:1210 minutes, 12 secondssense. Why is that happening? And they say, "Well, this has got to be because they're not perfectly spherical. There has to be some sort of instability or in 10:2010 minutes, 20 secondsuh asymmetry to it that causes it to have this weird shifting. Otherwise, it should just be consistent all the time. 10:2710 minutes, 27 secondsWe need to look at the exterior boundaries of the supernova to determine the size or the shape of the neutron star. And if it's irregular, there's got 10:3710 minutes, 37 secondsto be an electron gas over the surface of it. It's going to generate vortices at certain locations on the neutron star. And if this occurs, I will see 10:4410 minutes, 44 secondsthings happen to the waveform. They'll end up with drifts and so on. Next, please. Oh, so he's saying the reason why we were seeing those mode changes 10:5210 minutes, 52 secondsbecause there's these vortices that were forming on the the supernova and these were shifting the the signals that were coming out of it, warping the signals. 11:0411 minutes, 4 secondsWell, here's a lighthouse model. It rotates around an axis. It sends out a beam of electromagnetic energy and it sweeps over and we see it on the Earth. 11:1211 minutes, 12 secondsIf you look the graph on the lower right left side, there's the Earth going around the Sun. It takes about a year to do that in one orbit. But for the pulsar 11:2011 minutes, 20 secondsin the same that footprint shown there, it does that in a week. So that gives you a feeling for the difference in the gravit gravitational attraction. Next, please. 11:3111 minutes, 31 secondsHere's some supernovas. Look at it. The one on the right side, that looks like I'll get a spherical neutron star. But 11:3811 minutes, 38 secondson the left side, I don't [clears throat] know. On the lower F side, all bets are off. This might be God knows what it looks like. And that's the way to look at the neutron star. 11:5011 minutes, 50 secondsSo, it's pretty cool because we have real images. And yeah, this is my new goat, too. These are all my new goats. 11:5611 minutes, 56 secondsUm, Tom Balone, uh, Paul Morad, like, wow, I can't believe we didn't even see this before. Now, this is interesting because a lot of people look at these 12:0412 minutes, 4 secondsneutron stars and say, "This is proof that we're seeing electrostatic electromagnetic effects on the celestial level, on the astronomical level." And I 12:1312 minutes, 13 secondshappen to agree with them. The more I look into it, the more I look into it, I say the answers to the physics we're looking at have always been just right out there. We just have not been interpreting the answers correctly. 12:2712 minutes, 27 secondsNext, please. Here's some more to look at. Notice some are near spherical with hiccups. 12:3412 minutes, 34 secondsWhat we need to do is look at each neutron star and look at the differences in the waveform. Next, please. 12:4112 minutes, 41 secondsOkay, the other point is that this is being collapsed by a a red giant star, but red giant stars or any stars do not have a single model. 12:4912 minutes, 49 secondsThe equation becomes entirely difficult to deal with. It discharges and when it does that, it generates a jet. 12:5512 minutes, 55 secondsOkay, this is what I want to see. Let's go to this part here. I'm going to go back a minute about here. Okay, the axis of rotation. That doesn't sound 13:0413 minutes, 4 secondsgood to me. So, it's got to come out of the black hole itself and it violates the fact that we might be moving faster in this field. So the biggest problem 13:1013 minutes, 10 secondswith the black holes is that it can't just be a void. When it comes to physics, your black hole can't be a void 13:1913 minutes, 19 secondsbecause that would mean information is being destroyed. So we have to come up with some answer to that. Do you want to know what the answer is? There's no black holes. It's a white hole on the 13:2613 minutes, 26 secondsother side. Like there's no naked black holes. There must be. Am I saying that right? Probably not saying that right. 13:3413 minutes, 34 secondsThat naked black hole may refer to the event horizon. That could exist. 13:3813 minutes, 38 secondsIn this case, every black hole must have a white hole counterpart. If there is a a vortex, a drain that's sucking stuff 13:4613 minutes, 46 secondsaway, there must be something where it's pumping out on the other side. That's my perspective on how this works. The other perspective that we investigated is that 13:5313 minutes, 53 secondsa black hole is not actually a vortex at all. And that a black hole is simply or it's not a black hole is not a drain. A 14:0214 minutes, 2 secondsblack hole is not a drain. It's just a vortex. 14:0514 minutes, 5 secondsIt's just a vortex where there's a shifting uh permeability where we're seeing a refractive index change and that's why it's invisible to us. 14:1614 minutes, 16 seconds[snorts] 14:1814 minutes, 18 secondsPlease where does this jet come from? Well, if you look at a model, we talk about the neutron star model we talked about. Put it in the Faraday cage and here it's 14:2614 minutes, 26 secondsjust building up with this rotation over and over and over like a capacitor that you're charging it up and up and up and sooner or later it discharges and when it does that it generates a jet. Okay. 14:3714 minutes, 37 secondsHoly [ __ ] chat. 14:4114 minutes, 41 secondsI keep wondering about these orbs. Like, it's so clear that they're winding up in the video, right? It's that when they go 14:4914 minutes, 49 secondsvertical on the plane, plane's flying, they go vertical around the plane. Why doesn't it happen instantly? Why doesn't the teleportation happen right away? 14:5914 minutes, 59 secondsBecause they have to wind up, they have to charge up or something, some equivalent of that. and then they slow down and converge on the plane and then 15:0715 minutes, 7 secondsthe whole thing snaps back. And you read this and you go, "Wait a minute." So it says these fields are going to keep 15:1415 minutes, 14 secondsaccumulating in it in in uh consistent with the Hemholtz equation. It's like a capacitor that is continually it's increasing over 15:2315 minutes, 23 secondstime with electrons and voltage. When overcharged, the capacitor releases its current similar to the jet of relieving a black hole. 15:3315 minutes, 33 secondsI mean, I don't know if that's the exact mechanism by which the plane is teleporting, but it sounds like it's a feasible one to me. 15:4115 minutes, 41 secondsSomething else. The jet doesn't come out both ways. It comes out one way. Well, that must mean that this model we have 15:4815 minutes, 48 secondsmust also be a monopole, which adds another complication to this thing about a black hole. Next, please. 15:5415 minutes, 54 secondsWow, that's weird. The jet only comes out one way in the black hole. I didn't know that. If a jet's only coming out one way in a black hole, that would be 16:0216 minutes, 2 secondsvery odd, right? Wouldn't you expect there to be a dipole? Next. 16:0916 minutes, 9 secondsAll right. Here's a typical conventional wisdom viewpoint of a a black hole. The jets out there, decretion disc, and in this case, uh, somebody said, "Well, 16:1716 minutes, 17 secondsthere's a magnetic field around the black hole." No, that's not going to happen. Next, please. Here's a black hole that we have in the picture, and God knows what this means. Next, please. 16:2616 minutes, 26 secondsI love them. Like, these are like, we don't even know what this means. That was literally like the famous photo of the black hole that they made that he just showed there a second ago. Where is it? 16:3916 minutes, 39 secondsMust also be a monopole which adds another complication to this. Must also be a monopole, guys. Next. 16:4716 minutes, 47 secondsAll right. Here's a typical conventional rhythm viewpoint of a a black hole. The jets out there accretion disc. And in this case, uh somebody said, "Well, 16:5416 minutes, 54 secondsthere's a magnetic field around the black hole." No, that's not going to happen. Next, please. There it is. This is the famous photo of the black hole 17:0117 minutes, 1 secondright here. How funny is that? He's like doesn't even care. 17:0517 minutes, 5 secondsHere's a black hole that we have in the picture. God knows what this means. Next, please. God knows what. 17:1017 minutes, 10 secondsAgain, one thing about the jets are the appearance of shocks occur like aamic shocks is kind of strange. And uh next 17:1817 minutes, 18 secondsone, please. Again, we have on the left conventional wisdom side of what's going on with the jet both sides. But on the right in the upper left side, that's the black hole and there's the jet. One jet. 17:3117 minutes, 31 secondsNotice that it has shocks. There's no weather yet. Next one, please. 17:3417 minutes, 34 secondsWait, chat. What? This can't be real, right? 17:4217 minutes, 42 secondsI seriously started to wonder about reality now. Like I totally understand when if you guys don't know Ferris Williams after he corrected the 17:4917 minutes, 49 secondsthermonuclear weapons calculations he like decided that all physics was fraud and it was all [ __ ] Why am I 17:5717 minutes, 57 secondslearning right now for the first time in my whole life that black holes only have one jet coming out of them and that all 18:0618 minutes, 6 secondsthe depictions of them depict two jets coming out of them but there's literally only one. 18:1318 minutes, 13 secondsIs this is this true? I can't honestly don't know if this is true or not. I'm going have to Google this in a second. 18:2018 minutes, 20 secondsThere's another one. Where's the other jet? 18:2218 minutes, 22 secondsThere's another one. That's another black hole with only one jet. I mean, you can see there's not two jets. That's 18:2918 minutes, 29 secondsThat's like probably tens of thousands of light years. Is that probably how big that is? What? How did I only learn this? 18:3918 minutes, 39 secondsGoing in another dimension. Who knows? Wait, did he just say another dimension? 18:4418 minutes, 44 secondsDid he just say the black hole sending it to another dimension? I got to go back, chat. Holy [ __ ] chat. 18:5218 minutes, 52 secondsRhythm side of what's going on with the jet both sides. But on the right in the upper left side, that's the black hole. 18:5918 minutes, 59 secondsAnd there's the jet, wind jet. Notice that it has shocks. There's no other jet. Next one, please. Here's another 19:0719 minutes, 7 secondsone. Where's the other jet? Is it going in another dimension? Who who knows? 19:1119 minutes, 11 secondsYour guess is as good as mine. Next, please. Again, there's one jet coming out of one side of the black hole. Next, please. And then, unfortunately, you 19:2019 minutes, 20 secondsdon't get good resolution. Next one, please. But we need to look at this one jet coming Sync to video time
No exact birthday is requested. The optional age band helps the campaign compare how explanations work for different generations. Email signup is separate; children under 13 should use the update form only with a parent or guardian.
Choose topics rather than receiving every campaign email. Consent may be withdrawn at any time. This form is wired to the included PHP/MySQL endpoint.
Primary and authoritative sources are prioritized for factual claims. Creator videos are credited as the source of their own arguments, not as independent verification of those arguments.
This page uses four labels: Verified, Claim/Hypothesis, Campaign Opinion, and Needs Testing. A creator’s title or statement is quoted or paraphrased as that creator’s claim. Mainstream scientific explanations are linked to NASA, peer-reviewed literature, or technical sources. New evidence should be evaluated by provenance, reproducibility, uncertainty, and competing explanations.
Corrections may be sent through the official campaign contact channel. Substantive revisions should be dated in a public change log.