Jason Hartman interviews scientist and inventor, Sir Charles Shults III, regarding the world’s energy technology and his research on Mars and why it is important. Sir Charles explains the problems with some energy technologies, including the environmental issues and financial costs. He points out that the companies producing these technologies are not scientists, only really understanding the price side of things. Jason and Sir Charles talk about solar, nuclear, wind energy and more. Nuclear energy is thought of as a dangerous alternative due to disasters around the world, but the designs and the answers exist to make this energy source safe. The problem is that the government has made recycling of nuclear waste illegal, except by the military, for fear of the creation of nuclear weapons by anyone in the private sector. Our biggest problem with solar and wind industry is a lack of storage. Sir Charles explains that we can harness more than enough power for the world, but we don’t have the storage capacity. He encourages more research in the energy field.
The second half of the interview moves from our planet to space. Sir Charles states that we have answers to every problem. People don’t understand the importance of learning to survive in space, which would bring us the means to survive far more efficiently on the ground. He and Jason also explore weather control and advanced weaponry and defense systems already invented and in use. For more about alternative power systems, personal automation and sustainability, please visit: www.HolisticSurvival.com. We could easily support 50 billion people on this planet through technical advances, many of which already exist, without threatening the environment or the biological diversity we are losing presently.
Sir Charles Shults III worked at Martin Marietta Aerospace for 10 years on weapons systems and computer based automated test equipment. He wrote the nuclear EMP test software for the Pershing II missile system, worked on Patriot, the Copperhead tank killer, and Advanced Attack Helicopter systems. Charles has performed research under grant on nuclear fusion, was knighted and received a long term grant for his present research in robotics and artificial intelligence. He has written many technical publications and magazine articles on space, astronomy, the atmosphere, and space resource development. In addition, Charles has also appeared on several TV and radio programs.
Narrator: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary for you to survive and prosper? The Holistic Survival Show is your family’s insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently, to understand threats and how to create the ultimate action plan. Sudden change or worst case scenario, you’ll be ready. Welcome to Holistic Survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host, Jason Hartman.
Jason Hartman: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show. This is your host Jason Hartman, where we talk about protecting the people places and profits you care about in these uncertain times. We have a great interview for you today. And we will be back with that in less than 60 seconds on the Holistic Survival Show. And by the way, be sure to visit our website at HolisticSurvival.com. You can subscribe to our blog which is totally free, has loads of great information, and there’s just a lot of good content for you on the site, so make sure you take advantage of that at HolisticSurvival.com. We’ll be right back.
Start of Interview with Sir Charles Schults
Jason Hartman: It’s my pleasure to welcome Sir Charles Schults from South Carolina today. He is a scientist, a researcher, and an author of 3 books. He mostly focuses on energy, space, robotics. He’s been integral in designing a lot of our modern weapons systems that our defense department uses. And it’s just going to be a real interesting talk with him today. Charles, welcome. How are you?
Sir Charles Shults: I’m doing very well. Thank you for being invited to the show.
Jason Hartman: Well, the pleasure is mine. So tell us a little bit about what you’re up to lately.
Sir Charles Shults: Well, I’ve always been interested in energy and I spent a number of years doing research in all turns of energy systems such as solar and wind. And I spent a few years in New Mexico working on various projects out there for solar generation. And while we have plenty of solar and wind energy available, the real cost is tied up in storage systems, how to get the energy back. So when it’s not sunny or the wind isn’t blowing, you get your power back. So I’m working on solving some of those issues right now.
Jason Hartman: And it just sort of begs the question if Obama’s initiatives on green energy on so forth, it seems that most of them have really been failure, at least from an economic standpoint. Look at just the pure science and I guess the physics of it. Does solar work yet? Or do you just not get enough energy from sunlight to make the economics and the manufacturing, the environmental damage done in manufacturing and so forth, make it feasible and plausible. And the reason I ask that is not just because of Solyndra and all these other companies, but it seems like the only place I really see solar being used is when it’s subsidized by the government. It’s either at a university, it’s on a government building or it’s subsidized on someone’s home through huge tax credits.
Sir Charles Shults: Well, that’s true. I think the big issue is many of the people who run businesses are not scientists. And many of the people who are very in depth at procuring loans and financing are not scientists. And so a lot of times what people want to accomplish is not quite square with what they’re going to be able to do. I see a lot of times that alternative energy and green energy has really become a catch phrase for a lot of scams. And it’s turned a lot of people very bitter about it.
In the industry, many companies produce solar and wind products, but they do so knowing that the cost is going to be subsidized by the government in some way. And so they know that the consumer isn’t going to have to pay the full load of the cost and they raised their cost proportionately and then it prices a lot of people out of the market unfortunately.
Jason Hartman: Yeah, well I kind of think I know where you’re coming from when you talk about that. And I certainly am not a fan of government intervention and markets. But if the government was out of it and if there were no subsidies could solar panels produce more inexpensively than they are? We’ve been talking about this stuff for decades and it seems like it’s just maybe that whole technology just doesn’t work or there’s some improvement that will come in the future that makes it viable. But it seems like we’re sort of trying to push a noodle uphill if you will.
Sir Charles Shults: Well, in many ways we are. The issues are very simple. There is a fixed amount of sunlight or a limited amount of sunlight available. And so you can only really harvest about a third of a day’s worth of sunlight even in the best of systems. And those are trackers that follow the sun. The cost of panels is really driven right now, primarily by the cost of silicon. Understand that solar cells are made in the same conditions and factories that manufacture semi-conductors. So you have to have exceptionally clean pure silicon and it has to undergo the same sort of clean room treatments and processes to produce solar cells that you would use for making wafers. And microchips that you buy are typically the size of a pin head, smaller than a thumbtack. And so you’re buying a very small amount of silicon real estate if you will.
When you’re buying a solar cell, you’re buying a huge amount of silicon real estate in comparison. And the issues are very simple. There are a lot of chemicals involved in producing solar cells that can be very toxic and difficult to dispose of the waste products. Another issue is when you manufacture a solar cell, there’s a fixed amount of return you’re going to get out of it. In many cases, you never quite break even with the money it takes to manufacture one versus the cost of the energy you get back in its lifetime. They decrease in effectiveness over time as you use them.
Now, there are changes in the technology coming along, and if the subsidies went away, I don’t really know what would happen next. Much of it is subsidized by the government. But in many cases, the subsidies are only 1/6th of the money it takes to get a project underway. I know that personally applying for government grants or money to support some of the things I was working on, we had to have $5 out of every $6 already in hand in order to get the government money and then they wanted a chunk of ownership. And in many cases, it really isn’t worthwhile. Only specialty deals you see like the Solydra deal really stand out as ones where they got a huge amount of money and of course, as you know, it failed.
Jason Hartman: And I live in Phoenix by the way, so I know it all too well. It’s the big story in town. But talk to us a little bit about the future of energy in general. We don’t have to focus on solar, but are there any really promising things that are coming? I have a neighbor who’s working on some little kind of black box that he’s tried to explain to me and I don’t understand it. This company he works for is getting money and I think they’re venture funded and they say they’re gonna solve the world’s energy problem. Is it true? Is it possible? What’s promising out there?
Sir Charles Shults: Well, it is possible. But understand there are two different ways of going about this. One of them is many people feel that if you cut your usage with greater efficiency, you can go a long way by cutting the amount of potential growth necessary in the power grid. And that’s true. If you could save 50% of your energy or even 30% of your energy, you would slow the growth effectively to the point where we wouldn’t need to construct as many power stations…Well, we wouldn’t run into the environmental issues that are tied to that as well. So, there are systems that are effective at saving energy and they can lower your cost in the long run.
The other issue is simply one of are there new ways of creating power, generating power? And understand that of every 1000 ideas people have, maybe 1 or 1 and a half out of the 1000 are worthwhile. So there’s a lot of research that goes on in the garage and the university, in the dark of night so to speak, for prospects of generating power from alternative means. And solar and wind are not tapped out yet but there are other things that we’re starting to do that could prove to be very useful as well. There’s new fuel cell technology, there are hints of other sorts of technology coming along.
And one thing that really gets me, I’ve heard a lot of people talk about magnetic generators or magnetic motors. Now, what’s really odd is that many of the people who speak about these don’t realize every electric motor is magnetic. Every generator is magnetic. But you have to supply some kinetic energy or heat energy somewhere to drive it. And that’s where our cost comes in. It’s not the hardware itself. It’s the movement you put into it or the heat you put into it. That has the cost. And only a fraction of that is converted into useful power.
And electricity, that’s the one thing that we use the most of. Understand that many of the alternatives aren’t going to deliver electricity. It’s best to tailor to exactly what you need whether it’s heat or light or electricity.
Jason Hartman: Let me take a brief pause. We’ll be back in just a minute.
Announcer: What’s great about the shows you’ll find on JaosnHartman.com is that if you want to learn about some cool new investor software, there’s a show for that. If you want to learn why Rome fell, Hitler Rose, and Enron failed, there’s a show for that. If you want to know about property evaluation technology on the iPhone, there’s a show for that. And if you’d like to know how to make millions with mobile homes, there’s even a show for that. Yep, there’s a show for just about anything, only from JasonHartman.com or type in “Jason Hartman” in the iTunes store.
Jason Hartman: What do you think about nuclear? I just think nuclear is the cleanest, safest, certainly most economical thing we’ve got now. And it’s sort of surprising to me that you’ve got such a movement against it because I just don’t hear much about the sins to the environment that are created through solar and through guillotines in the sky called windmills that birds have to hate those. I’ve seen lots of videos of birds getting just slaughtered on those wind mills. What’s the best thing we’ve got now?
Sir Charles Shults: Well, I would have to say this about nuclear. Many people give it a very bad rep because of the terrible disasters we’ve seen, particularly in recent times. And it’s absolutely true. The materials themselves are extremely hazardous to handle. But understand one thing. In this country, we have always known how to recycle nuclear waste, but it was made illegal by our congress. The only companies or outfits that are allowed to recycle nuclear waste are those involved in the military and in military research projects. Other major nations such as France, Germany, The UK, Russia, they all recycle nuclear waste. And waste is a misnomer. And the other issue is how reactors are designed. We’ve known for very long how to build meltdown proof reactors. And Canada uses them right now.
So, the designs that were used in, for instance, Japan, were old designs that never should have been built. The same thing could be said about many other reactors like everybody knows what happened in Chernobyl. That was a design that was never used in the United States and that sort of disaster can’t happen here because of that. Nuclear is very clean and it is very economical, but regulatory costs have driven it through the roof.
The last study I did, years ago, you only needed 8 licenses to build a traditional power plant, but you needed 64 to build a comparable capacity nuclear plant. And I did a lot of work with various nuclear outfits including the nuclear design and test lab back in my defense days, and these were very sensible who knew how these issues could be addressed, but in many cases their hands were tied by government regulations. We have the answers to these things, but we’re not allowed to do them.
Jason Hartman: Yeah, government is the ultimate arm chair quarterback. They sit there and they churn out regulations and they try to interfere with everything, and they just never know how to do it as well as the actual people playing the game. The armchair quarterback, that’s what the government is. And they’re always reactionary too in nature. The recycling of nuclear waste, why is that illegal? Is the government here afraid that it’ll be weaponized somehow?
Sir Charles Shults: That’s exactly it. You see, in the beginning, people were worried that individuals in the loop that were involved in the process of procuring, moving, and processing nuclear material would possibly get their hands on enough to build some infernal device such as a bomb or some other weapon. But the issues are such that if you were to build a dirty bomb, you can get enough nuclear waste of other types that it doesn’t matter. You don’t even have to be in the loop for let’s say they spent reactor rods. That’s not even the best material use if you were going to do something terrible.
I believe that it was, again, an issue where the people who were doing the legislation are not technically proficient enough to make wise enough decisions about how it should be regulated.
Jason Hartman: Yeah, which is pretty normal. I think it’s par for the course in most everything. So what is the best thing we’ve got now? I mean, that was a little bit convoluted, so would it be nuclear, would it be clean coal, would it be natural gas, or would it be to just keep expanding solar and wind?
Sir Charles Shults: I think basic research is the way to go and to find storage systems. And the reason I say storage systems is because we can produce far more energy from sun and wind than we would ever need and wave action as well. But we don’t have an effective means of storing and playing back that power. We need a crash research course on the best batteries and storage systems and get them into process immediately. Because that alone could turn the whole solar and wind industry issues around. Every one of us has a few square meters of land here and there like on our roof or whatever where we can gather enough energy to be sufficient.
I’ll give you an example. One square meter about the size of an umbrella absorbs enough sunlight to, if 100% converted, run everything in your home. So we’re not far from the sort of things we need in terms of collection area. A lot more effectiveness can be had with lenses than with solar panels. And density is the key. If we stuck with research on batteries and storage systems and on new methods of generation, we could slowly get off of some of the other systems. And I’m not anti-nuclear, but it’s got such a bad rep and so much uphill fight to do right now, it just might not be worthwhile for another 10 or 20 years.
Jason Hartman: Yeah, right. And I think that’s what a lot of companies have decided. It’s just too much of an uphill battle. So, very interesting. Tell us a little bit about your work in the space field and robotics and defense and what you’ve been involved in and pioneering there.
Sir Charles Shults: Well, I did a lot of work on weapons systems. And in the beginning, much of it was strictly quality control, but from there I ended up in the control systems in diagnostics and I put together a lot of computer test stations that would check the quality and do diagnostics on weapons and the components to go in them. And as anybody who works in defense eventually reaches a crisis of conscience you can call it when you have to decide if what you’re working on is really humanitarian, if it’s really in the best interest of the people. And I reached that point where I decided it was time to step away.
But one of the things that I really learned was that we have so much technology and so much ability, we can put people in a metal can for months on end and keep them alive in the vacuum of space. We can apply that same technology far more effectively on the ground and make systems that work very well on the earth. And so we can cut the need for our resources dramatically by employing some of the things we’ve learned in space and weapons research. That should be brought home to make life better rather than to use it to kill people.
I mean, we have answers, literally, to every question. And we can address every problem with what we have today. And many times it’s just not politic to use some of those solutions. This is a little humorous sort of a side note. Many people were talking about the issues of global warming, and a few years ago we made a suggestion. Well, we were so worried about global warming, we know that if you increase the amount of particles in the atmosphere, water, vapor, dust, you can reflect some sunlight and cool the globe slightly.
They talked about a possible nuclear war causing a global winter, a nuclear winter. And somebody said what if we had unlimited exchange? There’d be a global autumn. And so I thought well why don’t we take our largest hydrogen bomb and understand we’re conscientious bomb makers these days. We make them so the fallout burns out in a matter of days because you can’t effectively nuke somebody and then not occupy the territory. 12 to 14 days a lot of the fallout is completely burned out on our newest generation bomb.
Science marches on you know. And I thought, well, why don’t we take our biggest hydrogen bomb, go out in the middle of nowhere and blow it up. And then you’d take measurements over the next few days, few weeks, and you see how much cooling you get out of the effect and you repeat every 6 months to 3 years as needed. And you don’t have to have carbon credits which are what are these economic games they’re playing rather than a real solution. We don’t have to have all sorts of legislation and taxes and people wringing their hands over how they’re going to keep jobs because they can’t afford to pay for all of the carbon emission standers. And we are really in a ringer right now. We are held hostage by carbon. We’re exhaling carbon dioxide.
So it seemed to me that a very simple matter, blowing the nuclear warhead, once every 6 months or so, could easily control any global warming issue. And of course the firestorm begins, people get really upset about that.
Jason Hartman: I know. I don’t think you’re gonna get anywhere with that idea.
Sir Charles Shults: But it could be done and it could be done quite practically. I mean, we’ve already had something like 1200 or 1400 nuclear explosions on this planet and only 2 of them were used in warfare and that was in World War II.
Jason Hartman: With the nuclear winter, the nuclear winter is caused by the dust that is raised after the explosion, right?
Sir Charles Shults: Correct.
Jason Hartman: That’s what it is. And so that shields out sunlight and I mean if you did that in the ocean, though, you wouldn’t really have a nuclear winter because the water wouldn’t…There’s no dust, right?
Sir Charles Shults: Well, actually no. That’s incorrect. If you have a big shock wave, ocean water contains salt. And when you vaporize quantities of it, not only do you create temporary cloud cover from the water that’s vaporized, but you also have salt particles in the upper atmosphere and they nucleate the formation of rain drops. They create a haze, they create participation, and many people don’t understand the slapping of waves, the popping of the bubbles in the brine actually puts tiny salt particles in the air that create more rain clouds. We can modulate the weather using very simple approaches such as this.
Jason Hartman: You hear these stories about these exotic weapons systems that nobody knows about. We wonder what our government and other governments are keeping secret. Can you speak to any of that? Are there things out there that are just beyond our comprehension?
Sir Charles Shults: I can say a few things. Much of this is now emerged in the popular media. So over the years, much of it has been declassified. So I can speak a little bit about some of that. Some of the things we worked on, even back then, were some of the radar stealth materials for instance that you’re just hearing about now. We were working on that stuff over 20 years ago. Some of the things we have in terms of exotic weaponry, electromagnetic pulse or EMP weapons are the staple of science fiction but they actually do exist and they have a fairly limited range. So you can go into an area and set one off and blow out a lot of the electronics in the power system but you know that only really works well on high tech countries. If you’re trying to attack a 3rd world nation, they mostly don’t have the reliance on the sort of high technology that we do and it’s not going to do a lot of damage there. So that’s really a targeted weapon. It’s specific for high tech cultures.
But it’s a funny thing. We have a sort of chaff that’s dropped out of airplanes to confuse radar. In years past, we would drop tin foil chaff. In recent years, in the last 20 years or so, we used carbon fiber chaff because it has the same effect and it doesn’t have any metal in it. Well, what was discovered during the first Iraq war was this chaff that was dropped out of their planes would reach the ground in these big fuzzy clumps and it’s electrically conductive and it would blow up on the power lines and blow out the generators. And it kept blowing up on the power lines and taking down the power. And from that, they learned that this chaff actually is a weapon from knocking out power systems because they had breakers all up and down your power grid. And so they can go in, drop chaff, blow out the electricity, and then move in and clean everything up later and get it back online.
We’ve got some pretty exotic things. We have vortex guns. They produce basically a smoke ring that travels at high velocity. They can dose it with pepper spray or tear gas or whatever and selectively hit individuals in a crowd with it. There are sonic weapons that produce extremely low frequency or infrasonic sound that disable a crowd. There are pain field generators that create sort of a radar wave at 110 gigahertz and it makes a wall that you can’t walk through because it basically feels like your skin is on fire.
Jason Hartman: Well, yeah, that’s interesting. I want to hear about the pain field generator. The vortex thing, I guess that could even be done with like a spray nozzle. Well, maybe that’s really what it is.
Jason Hartman: You can do it with a 5 gallon paint bucket and a big rubber diaphragm if you know how. It’s a difficult concept.
Jason Hartman: Right, right. But how does a pain generator work? I mean, is it microwave heat?
Sir Charles Shults: It is a type of microwave, yes. But it’s an extremely high frequency microwave and it’s tuned to a frequency that specifically causes heating in your nerve endings. And so it’s an extremely high frequency not far below the visible or the infrared light frequency and they can shoot it basically in a wall so that let’s say you can deter people from entering an area if you have a compound with an entrance somewhere in a big field, you can put 3 or 4 of these walls around the entrance, and without the passcode to turn the thing off you can’t get in. It is an entry denial system is what they call it. So that is essentially just a microwave gun.
Jason Hartman: How expensive is that? And is it portable? Is that just so complicated and high tech or could a civilian make that type of thing? I’m just kind of curious as to who has access to it?
Sir Charles Shults: A civilian could on a limited scale at this time. You would have to know a lot about microwave, a very high band microwave. You would have to know quite a bit about electronics. And the funny thing about frequencies in radio such as microwave that far up is it acts more like optics than like radio waves. So you have to be a bit of a specialist to understand how it works. It is portable and they generally will put it in trucks or vans and move it around. In the past, they could only generate it by mixing lower frequency signals. Now, they have direct oscillators that will produce that. But even if you have the signal, you have to be able to make an amplifier that’ll work at that frequency, and that again, that’s pretty exotic circuitry for most people.
Jason Hartman: Right, very interesting. What else is out there? Anything else crazy? Especially anything in the air, are there military style UFOs?
Sir Charles Shults: There are always rumors about that. And I’ve worked in a lot of different things, but I never saw any evidence, any solid evidence of that sort of technology. I did see some interesting research in what was called a lift platform or an electrostatic lifter. It has a high voltage applied to a grid of points and creates what’s called an ionic wind and lifts an object. But it was very flimsy, very lightweight. I mean, it was eerie to watch the thing work. No moving parts and was pretty silent. Could it be put in a flight vehicle? Yes. But understand a lot of those things that you see that people report aren’t UFOs at all. They’re military vehicles such as heavy lift blimps.
Now, the military does produce an extremely large balloon type aircraft that’s meant to lift tons at a time silently. It is a type of blimp. And it’s used basically to move things when they don’t want you to know it’s being moved around. It is, again, very quiet and I suspect that some of the so-called black triangles are military heavy lift blimps.
Jason Hartman: Very interesting. Do we have Star Wars? Remember, the debate was we can’t take the war into space, we can’t take the cold war into space. What weapons are circling the earth, if any, in satellites and so forth?
Sir Charles Shults: Well, you know there are treaties against weaponizing space and it’s funny because the UN treaties actually provide a lot of guidelines for what you can and can’t do. The United States has observed those treaties, but we’re not signatories. We’ve just played along. And there were issues where some of the research we were doing may step on the toes of that treaty and we do know how to violate it. And, again, I’m not a space lawyer and I don’t know a great deal about it, but I do know that there are systems that very easily can be weaponized.
Star Wars, for a lot of people who don’t know, referred to a project for designing and developing exotic weapons systems. Many of them were hyper-velocity weapons where you boost something up to such an incredible speed, you don’t need an explosive. If it hits it, it’s going to destroy it. And the things such as the rail gun was one of the Star Wars weapons, that has been developed by the navy. They actually have a projectile firing device that can travel something like 9 or 10 kilometers per second.
The issue with something like that is if you shoot it in the atmosphere very far, it gets white hot before it gets to its target. Then we have energy beam weapons and there’s been a great deal of progress made in there. High velocity particles are one thing, lasers are another. We now have lasers, actually outfitted chemical powered lasers. It seems odd to hear that phrase. Chemical lasers actually fly and modify 747s right now. They call them Stratofortress and they have them patrolling certain borders and they can use them to shoot down missiles or other things that they see as a threat. I know of 6 such aircraft and service right now. I don’t know what might have been done since.
Jason Hartman: Unbelievable, that’s so interesting. You mention Star Trek I think…No, you mention Star Wars, and I did too, but as far as Star Trek goes, will we ever have a transporter room, beam me up, Scotty? I mean, I remember when I was a kid, and I sort of figured out how that worked. It was basically the same idea as a radio or a video camera broadcasting, a TV broadcast, where it would take data and convert it to radio waves and then decode it on the other end and reassemble it, which I don’t know if you like my very amateurish concept of it. But when I figured that out, it was an amazing moment for me as a child when I kind of figured out how that would work. But will we ever have that type of a thing?
Sir Charles Shults: Believe it or not, we’re a lot closer than people might think. Now, one of the things we’ve worked on recently and scientists have been working on quantum mechanics for a while, is called quantum teleportation. They’ve gotten to the point where they could interrogate something like a single photon of light and then transmit its information elsewhere and reconstruct it. That’s been done and they’ve moved up to more complex systems. I think that pretty soon we’re going to see demonstrations of transmitting whole atoms. And then from there it’s just a step up to larger particles. But we’re still a long way off from sending a live animal somewhere. And there are questions to be answered. For instance, do you need a transmitter and a receiver?
Jason Hartman: Right. It would seem like you need a receiver on the other end and how do you get it there? I mean, if you go to Mars and put the receiver there and install it on manned mission or with a probe, and then you transmit something, sure that’s fine. But you can’t just transmit it anywhere like they could on Star Trek.
Sir Charles Shults: And that’s a big issue. It may be possible to, but it would require very precise control. Consider we can take 3 or 4 beams of laser light. We can focus them at a single point in the air and produce a point of light glowing by literally burning the atmosphere. They made displays that do that. So we’re transmitting information from one point to another and making it appear in mid-air. You don’t need a receiver anywhere to do that. It’s an interaction with the air itself.
And I wouldn’t say that that would be the transmit things to a remote location, but it raises a lot of ethical questions. What if the device scans something, sends the information elsewhere, and reconstructs the thing but it doesn’t destroy the thing it scanned in the process? Then you end up with a duplicate at a remote location. And then what if it has to destroy the thing it scans in order to do it, it could be a pretty grisly way to die, stepping into a transporter and then having an exact duplicate of yourself created somewhere else and it wouldn’t really be you, it would just have all your memories. You know, there are many ways, many different takes on this technology and some of them are not very pleasant. I think the real answer would be being able to convert you into a massless particle like a photon of light and then having you reconstruct at a distant point so that you literally are carried from one point to another.
Jason Hartman: But the problem is we always have the limitation of light speed. I mean, a few months ago, or maybe it’s like a year now, did they actually break the speed of light or was that later determined that that didn’t happen with that particle accelerator?
Sir Charles Shults: Yeah, you’re referring to the experiments with neutrinos. They have a particle that’s often called a ghost particle because it can pass through an incredible amount of matter without stopping. It’s as close to nothing as you can imagine, called the neutrino. It has no charge, very little mass and it moves at the speed of light. And they thought for a while that there was evidence that they were moving faster than light. And this has been proposed at times in the past as well. Well, through the experiments, they discovered that there were errors in how they were measuring it based on GPS. And those errors gave them false data that appeared to say that it was moving faster than light. So, no, we haven’t broken the speed of light yet.
It would have been interesting because it would introduce questions about causality, cause and effect. Because anything that travels faster than light effectively side steps the normal flow of time. And it’s a little difficult to explain how that works, but basically it would raise some really big questions with physics if it had been true.
Jason Hartman: Sure, yeah. So, would it have appealed Einstein basically?
Sir Charles Shults: Oh no. Einstein and his mathematics is very solid. And, in fact, it’s one of the cornerstones of just about everything we do these days. I think that the easiest ways to explain it is years before Einstein people believed in Newton’s laws of physics because they held very, very well. It was when we reached the edges of high speeds, high velocities, huge masses, that problems started showing up. And Einstein’s theories explain why. So it’s a refinement of everything we know. Newton was a tiny subset and Einstein was the larger picture. We may find that there’s an even larger picture than that at some point that contains Einstein’s theory and even more. We don’t know yet. We’re still pretty early in the game. I mean, we’ve only really known about quantum mechanics for a little over a century now.
Jason Hartman: Pretty, pretty heady stuff for sure. One final question for you, and this is kind of a half full or half empty type of question. It seems that given the circumstances in the world nowadays with war and violence and economies collapsing and massive amounts of debt and all of this other crazy stuff, will technology and science save us? Is the future bright? Or will these technologies be used by governments to oppress people? I mean, what is your sort of general view on things in the future?
Sir Charles Shults: All of the above. Anytime you have a new technology, it will be used for good, it will be used for evil. It’s all a matter of what you want to apply it to. Things are gonna get better, things are gonna get worse. It isn’t technology and it isn’t science that solves our problems. That’s an issue of human behavior and of integrity. We have science enough to solve literally every problem we have. We simply haven’t grown up enough to get the wrong people out of the driver’s seat and take control of our destinies. When you give somebody else the reigns, you deserve where you end up.
Jason Hartman: Yeah, yeah. So, the answer is we’ve got to be in control of this stuff and not let it get into the hands of the wrong people for sure.
Sir Charles Shults: Absolutely.
Jason Hartman: Because it’s incredibly powerful. Well, hey, Sir Charles Shults, give out your website if you would. Now, two of your books, I know the names, The Living Galaxy and A Fossil Hunter’s Guide to Mars, but you have a third book, right?
Sir Charles Shults: Yes. The third one is a science fiction novel entitled Oneiros and it’s available both as a CD and PDF format on Amazon or from my website and it’s also available as a Kindle download. The Living Galaxy is available as a Kindle download on Amazon. And the Fossil Hunter’s Guide to Mars is available as a CD only because it is so huge it wouldn’t fit on a Kindle. It’s a couple hundred megabytes with all the images and data on it. Oh, it’s huge. You can find them on my website which is SchultsLaboratories.com.
Jason Hartman: I’m curious. Schults Laboratories, I mean you are a scientists. And it seems like there are so few scientists in America anymore. It seems like everybody’s going into service businesses and things like that. I don’t like that focus. I wish there was a lot more science because I think that’s really what the future is all about, of course. But at Schults Laboratories, I mean do you have employees that work there? Is it just you? Are you tinkering? What do you do? What is your day like? I’m so curious.
Sir Charles Shults: Well, I do have people who work with me and I farm some of the items I need out to other firms to have components made. A lot of the things that I do are extremely directed. We have specific goals and we have two different small research facilities here and we’re building a larger one in the near future. I think that the big issue is finding the right people to work directly with you. At this time, I find a very good association with local people who can produce machine work and electrical assemblies that I need and we would have a very good working relationship and we work out percentages or whatever agreements we need.
As far as direct employees, we’ve had direct employees. Right now there are only two of us because we find it so much easier to get things done. And the large things we need made out of house, we had those done and brought in and we often have collaborative efforts going on as well.
Jason Hartman: Sure, sure. And then you’re not in the management business where you’re receptive to that.
Sir Charles Shults: You know what, that’s exactly right. I’m not a politician, I’m not a businessman. I’m a scientist. And of course that’s led to some interesting mistakes. Hopefully I’ve learned from them.
Jason Hartman: Well, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, don’t we? Well, Sir Charles Shults, a fascinating discussion today and thank you so much for joining us.
Sir Charles Shults: It’s been a real pleasure, thank you.
Male: You know Penny? Sometimes I think of Jason Hartman as a walking encyclopedia on the subject of creating wealth.
Female: Well you’re probably not far off from the truth Rich. Jason actually has a 6 book set on creating wealth that comes with over 100 hours of the most comprehensive ideas on investing in business. They’re in high quality digital download audio format, ready for your car, iPod or wherever you want to learn.
Male: Yes and by the way, he’s recently added another book to the series that shows you investing the way it should be. This is a world where anything less than a 26% annual return is disappointing.
Female: Jason actually shows us how we can be excited about these scary times and exploit the incredible opportunities this present economy has afforded us.
Male: We can pick local markets that are untouched by the economic downturn, exploit packaged commodities investing, and achieve exceptional returns safely and securely.
Female: I like how he teaches us how to protect the equity in your home before it disappears and how to outsource your debt obligations to the government.
Male: He’s recorded interviews with Harry Dent, Peter Schiff, Robert Kiyosaki, Pat Buchanan, Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr. Denis Waitley, T Harv Eker, and so many others who are experts on the economy, on real estate, and on creating wealth.
Female: And the entire set of advanced strategies for wealth creation is being offered with a savings of $385.
Male: Now to get your Creating Wealth Encyclopedia Series, complete with over 100 hours of audio and 6 books, go to JasonHartman.com/store.
Female: If you want to be able to sit back and collect checks every month just like a banker, Jason’s Creating Wealth Encyclopedia Series is for you.
Narrator: Thank you for joining us today for the Holistic Survival Show, protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our Creating Wealth Show which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today’s economy. Learn more at www.JasonHartman.com or search “Jason Hartman” on iTunes. This show is produced by The Hartman Media Company, offering very general guidelines and information. Opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional. Information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed. (Image: Flickr | tobo)
Transcribed by Ralph