Dr. Wei-Ping Yu

0.01.

Thank you.

Oh, okay. So I would say I'm not talking about the credibility. I do not believe when the credibility based on the education and how many degrees or how many years, even years of working in the field. I believe this intelligence could come out instant, like a terrorist measure from the gift of divine, is that right? Something, and instantly.

Like me, working in physics field for decades, I just got to recognize there's something fundamental wrong, which something happened in Terence's interview. He mentioned about something fundamental wrong with current physics, which I actually agree with. What's that? Okay. Let me first talk about the first thing.

The first thing, talking about the fundamental wrong, this is a secret to current physical community, is something we gather wrong by we made electron model wrong. This electron is elementary particles. In physics, it's found that elementary particles cannot be subdivided, do not have a detailed structure or something. And if we get this wrong, what happens next?

So if we get the electron wrong, I will explain why we get it wrong. If you have the time. Yeah, I can help with that too. And then if we get the electron wrong, we get the planetary atomic model. You know the model, the similar model? The planetary with the orbiting free electrons, we get the model wrong. So what I find is there is no...

free orbiting electrons around the nucleus at the nearest speed of light forever, constantly. That's completely wrong. So what's the implication of this one? So first, we got the electron wrong. And then we got the model wrong. What happens if this atomic model have no orbiting electrons, no free, what's the principle of orbit?

Entire quantum mechanics built on this model were completely out of order.

I'm going to expand my statement and say why we get electron and why it's so significant.

So from, I believe, from 1785, The French physicist Coulomb proposed the Coulomb's law. It says there are two types of charges. One is negative, one is positive. And the like charge repel, unlike charge attract. This is a fundamental law. It's a great discovery. However... It's wrong. The mistake is he described the two charges carried by two separate particles.

Entire quantum mechanics built on this model. He's wrong. He's bringing another dimension. Okay.

Can let me strengthen your idea? Yes, I'm sorry. This is a brilliant discovery and the root cause of our physics. So now people want to say, how do you know electron? How can we get electron wrong? An entire modern technology is built on electrons, right? So that's why all the interpretations are needed to be rewritten. So let's assume electron is negative charged and proton is a positive charge.

Now, what happens if we split electron into two halves? hypothetically split, geometrically split. What do we get?

Can we put two negative charge particles together?

They violate Coulomb's Law. It cannot exist in this universe or if there's other universes.

So now... You are running at the speed of light. I'm going to just try to bring the audience on. So if we say it's wrong, very easy to say, what is right? What is really we talk about the electron? Really, what it is? He mentioned about it. So if we cannot have a single charged particle, what happens? The so-called electron, oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

are carried both positive and the negative charge as one particle. Now I wanted to question the audience, what kind of particle in this world, I know everybody since three years old, you know this term, what carry both of the charge? Do you have a guess? Oh, you are talking about, you know, in chemical terms. I'm talking about in terms of what type of particle, not atom. Magnets.

magnet is the one that carries both negative and positive charges. And I will explain the misconception about the charge and the magnetism. So the so-called electron is actually a bipolar magnet.

What does this reveal? Let me expand, let's say. Please. Because of, we assuming electron is a negative charge particle. So then, you know, there's a great news, Bohr, build his Bohr's model, right? Yeah. Build Bohr's model, say, hey, we have a positive charge, Nucleus and we have a negative charge of the electron How can we can we measure them because we assume it is neutral neutral eyes, right?

how can measure them with it was a negative particle and positive particle and The one assumption is that they are not can they cannot be in contact once they are in contact That's created matter and our matter Annihilation. So if they are not in contact how does atomic model has to work and to prevent negative charge and protons in the nucleus attract them to each other, it has to be rotated.

It has to rotate, create revolution or we can spin.

So rotation is required to create a centrifugal force to balance electromagnetic attraction. So that's where comes the Bohr's model. And this model is built based on negative charge particle and the positive charge nucleus. If both nucleus and the electron protons are magnetic particles, are they going to have this rotating? Do they need this rotating? No. They are naturally connected.

So atomic model, so what I find atomic model, has no rotation part whatsoever in atomic model. There's no rotation. Only what the parts may vibrate. It's all vibratory oscillations. That's how light created. Everything is resonant.

I believe some generally outside my circle, because I basically keep my discovery in-house, and everything, when I did a lot of lecturing or public speaking to universities and conferences, and they have a serious talk with a physicist, they would agree with me after normally half hour or one hour conversation, they would agree with me. Let me extend your questions. You ask great questions.

What's the significance? If electrons are not a single charged particle, it's actually a dipolar magnet. So it's impossible to have an atomic model with something orbiting around a positive charged particle if it was naturally connected in a real atom. Like all the images with technology, we all see text, just like a lattice shape of the sesame ball, you know, the lattice shape.

They have elasticity, that means they have a distance. But they cannot separate, you know, they have elasticity to recovery. So the significance is if there is no principle orbit, right? So there is no such concept of quantum jump, quantum leap, which is a very, very controversial art concept. At the time, during the year, you know, Niels Bohr proposed this one.

Because in reality, the solar, let's use the solar system.

Can I enforce this concept? This quantum jump is different than solar orbit, say, Mercury suddenly due to external force drift to different orbits. It's a totally different concept. In quantum mechanics, Everything's fixed, and this jump cannot be continuous through space and time. It's not space-time, okay? Through space and time.

It cannot say, somehow, from this one to other one, you cannot go through the space. You cannot have a time difference. It happens instantaneously. How that happens? You have to, the matter has to, like Earth, has to entirely disappear, become a virtual pair. and the incident appear on the other.

Yes, we have a different definition, understanding about the universe. In me, the universe considers space, a three-dimensional space and time. Of course, in Terence's explanation, you have a boundary. I believe he was talking about the boundary, so he mentioned about the ether. The so-called ether, I do believe light has nothing to do with a particle. Light is a wave.

In order for wave to propagate, wave need a carrier, which is, if we do not use the ether, so I would say it's a magnetic medium, electromagnetic medium. So now let's talk about, he said that the boundary. I said that the universe of three-dimensional space is infinite. And the time is infinite.

However, I did not manage to say, hey, the medium, the light carrying electromagnetic, the medium has to be infinite. So for, let's say, for each solar system, we may have a concentrated medium has a boundary. So either traveling to somewhere, coming back, you will see that one, right? Yes. Does not exclude. The entire universe does not have vacuum space without even medium.

So what happens to that location? You will never see light. However, whenever we can see light from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, since we can see the light, So we know there is a field with the medium of this visible universe.

I wouldn't put my face on the GPT-sensor.

We are not allowed.

I believe in reliability and integrity of them. Use this third, use this commercial software that's not really vested. You know, it's the accuracy. And so I believe we have to write exactly, use our own research.

uh let me rephrase this one not open ai they have their own yeah initially we are not even allowed to install chat gpt on our government really yes but however why though why what's the reasoning is it because they want you to do the work of what it's doing because the chat gpt is based on the majority It's not really giving you scientific results. It's only based on somebody's results cited.

It does not create, so far, it does not create anything new, you know, in terms of solving the mystery in physics. It cannot do that.

Just let me finish your thoughts. But after a year or two, and then we do have a new lead technologist to mention about it, give us a training on user AI. to improve their writing. So I believe now we do allow to use casually, but not in scientific writing or something. I believe it still has restrictions. Amen.

That's the common practice in establishing a physics community. But I believe this is a gatekeeper to silence, to squash, to suppress. Really? Different opinion, yes. And this is a very convenient tool. How many peer reviews you have? How many sightings you have? If you do not, they very hardly even get you to go through the publication. If you cannot be publicated,

So how can you get a site and get it peer-reviewed, right? The only peer review, you submit the paper, they send it to those, what is it, several review board members. You know what they have? If you're disgraced with their fundamental concept, you said entire quantum mechanics is not true, and even relativity is hypothetical, you know, of course you will not get daylight.

Perception is, but I have to give credit. There's many of non-conventional theory does have a lot of flaws, very obvious mistake or typos or flaws very easily to be picked up. So in that point, I believe we need to have some gatekeepers, some standards, right? But not constrict called new ideas, right? Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

and true to God. I believe that's the most important. For me, I believe I do discover the fundamental truth. And so we just shared electron, that's the root cause of all physics, classical and modern physics. If an electron is not a negative charged particle, we cannot have an atomic model with empty space and with... nearly speed of light orbiting electrons.

He mentioned about he rebuilt the universe without dark matter, dark energy. Without gravity.

And this is very important. I wanted to, before the ending, I wanted to make sure audience understand what that means. And also, I want to add another thing before we end this one, is without the quantum mechanical model, the fundamental force only one fundamental force, and I would try to explain why we do not need strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. Please. Okay.

So remember, I said that there is no solar planetary model. So there are no orbiting electrons. So all electrons and the neutrons and the protons, they're all made by magnetic particles. So they all have charge. Of course, a neutron would say, hey, cancellation, a positive and negative cancellation become a neutron. But that's not important. The most important thing is...

Since every particle is a magnetic particle, they are not going to happen. When magnets contact, you have what's called a like charge repel, because magnetic force is coupled north and south. It's a couple. Whenever two magnets are in contact, what happens? If you see now we have a like charge repel, it rotates. eventually always in contact. That's the most stable structure.

That's why we see all matters, all atoms are in the one piece. They are not separate. So what that means, we do not need a strong force. The strong force is mentioned based on single charge particle. single charge, say, nucleus made by protons and neutrons. They all like charged particles or, you know, even no charge. But how can they overcome magnetic, called electrical repulsion?

So that's why they create artificial force.

So everything naturally in contact, so then we do not need the strong force. And we also do not need weak neurons. Weak force explain the radioactivity, so the alpha, you know, decay. So particle, basically, the particle fly out from the nucleus. You know, in quantum, in current theory, nucleus does not have electron, right?

But in radiation, weak nucleus radiation, we have electron ejected from nucleus. Does that sound right?

So, basically, the nucleus, the so-called ejection of particles from the nucleus, the nucleus itself is a magnet of particles, and under external interaction, somehow, suddenly turn the particle, originally become the opposite pole attract, suddenly become a light pole repulsion, And there's something, of course, in the injector.

So weak nuclear forces explain that radiation can be easily interpreted by magnetic repulsion.

I want to go back to the most important concept, gravity. So what is gravity?

Easier for audience. I'm targeting college student or high school student. So I try to explain what gravity is now. remember one thing, gravity force is different than all other three fundamental forces based on the quantum theory, right, and the model of physics. Say gravity is a unilateral attraction-only force. It does not have a repulsion, right? So we say, oh, anti-gravity is not possible.

That's all wrong, okay? So what is gravity? Based on the current definition, gravity is a unilateral attraction force. You know one thing. So gravity is not fundamental. You agree? Grab your mic. Oh, so gravity is not a fundamental force, just based on that one. No.

I like the term. It's an emergent property of a mass system. So emerging from what? We are talking about force. You have to emerge from a force.

Resonance is still the vibration mode. It's still not force yet. I know you're almost there, okay? Sometimes people say electromagnetic force. I would say simplify to magnetic force.

Motion requires force. Because of existence, there's a natural bone of magnetism in every single matter particle. And that one causes interaction. It means whether to combine them or repel them, right? Interaction. So what I try to say is... Let's reframe this. Gravity is not a fundamental force. That's number one. Gravity is an emergent property of a particle system of magnetic force.

So we can say gravity is a second effect of electromagnetic body.

Another way to say it, I wanted to repeat a different way, called residual. force of a magnetic body.

Yes. Now I want to demonstrate one counter-argument to say, hey, you say that gravity is not a fundamental force, but gravity, the strength of gravity, is dramatically different than electromagnetic force or electromagnetic force or strong nuclear force. How are you square about that one? That's what I'm trying to demonstrate. So I have a line of square magnets, right?

So if I put this one here, you would expect it to attract them, right? Right? Okay. So this is a magnetic force. Nothing important until I'm folding them. Tell me how many of the balls. How many balls I can attract? Probably all of them. He think about it because of center of gravity is lower, right? Magnet is lower. So we should attract all of them instead of two of them.

Greater now.

Why? That gives the concept of gravity, the difference between gravity and the magnetic force. Magnetic force, when you fold it, what happens? Positive and negative, it's a vector, right? Positive and negative, cancel each other. So it becomes a neutral now. So that's why you cannot pick up with a magnet.

Gravity is a summation of the mass system. So if I force more, when you fold it even more, the force even.

So that's why... It's containing itself, but... You can make gravity, gravity, the magnitude... Disappear. It is basically disappear. It's a factor, gravity is smaller than electromagnetic force, by a factor of 10, no, 10 to the 36th power. So basically, if you have a wind charge, of electrical force, right? You know gravity is, when there's a zero point, you add 36 zeros, and then add one.

So that's the gravity. So basically gravity is a zero. That's why gravity never occurred in quantum mechanics. It cannot occur in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics dealing with electromagnetic interaction, gravity is zero, with 36 zeros behind it, so it's zero.

Oh, number one, I'm not necessarily agree all the details with him. But in principle, I would think he did got the fundamental concept correct. Say, electron is not true. You cannot have a mono-charged particle exist. That's the foundation of my U-Own theory of everything. And he did get it correct to say, hey, I can rebuild the universe without gravity, dark matter, dark energy.

So now we can explain what the dark matter is. So now we know gravity is just called a summation or called a residual effect or called emergence. I like that. I like the summation.

Summation of the electromagnetic force of the system, right? I like that. You like that one. So now we get that grounded. So that means gravity is a part of, is a manifestation of magnetic force. Okay, we knew that one. So now we wanted to solving dark matter, dark energy. That's lots of people try to put a bet on their Nobel Prize.

I want to share something with Patrick. I say, if you can understand that we are talking about a documentary, do we need a documentary, number one? No. Then how we come up with the concept of documentary? You know, Terence mentioned about it, because we're missing gravity force. From mass. Based on mass. Gravity force is purely mass-based, right? We do not have enough gravity to hold a galaxy.

Spiral galaxy. Spiral galaxy together. We're missing something. We have to make up something. So we make up and say, okay, some matter we cannot see. So dark matter, that means the matter existed, but we cannot see. We cannot feel. We cannot detect. We only know the effect, right? So what's wrong with them? They use the Newtonian gravitational equation. That's wrong.

I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anybody.

You agree with that one? Newton's gravity equation is actually, Newton defined as a universal, called a, yeah, universal, there's a universal gravitational constant. And it was wrong. There is no...

Oh, that relationship, empirical relationship, we can use. And I already have rewrited this equation. Get rid of this singularity point. So right now, Newton has divided by distance r. If r equals zero, so the gravity becomes infinite. So that's not...

uh not exist in the universe right so i get i i revised that one got rid of a single letter but that's not important the most important concept is the mass here the mass in this as in the gravity is not actually constant it is it is various it actually derived from electromagnetic interactions

I just want to say the universe is actually not that complicated. If you understand the fundamental principle, Starting from electron is a binary magnet. And you can solve, you can understand the entire universe, physical world.