Debunking the Religion of Scientism

By Michael Ashley

Steven A. Young, author of A Fool's Wisdom: Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy (2024), is a musician and natural philosopher with a PhD in theoretical physics. Known for his music as Hedflux, he has produced over 100 tracks and toured globally. From 2015 to 2018, Steven immersed himself in shamanic traditions and alchemical studies, developing Audio Alchemy, a method blending Hermetic philosophy with music production. Now based in Scotland, he continues to explore the intersection of science, spirituality, and the transformative power of sound.

You can watch the full interview on YouTube.
Note: The below transcript has been edited slightly for clarity.

MA: I’m honored to have Steve Young here with us today to discuss his fascinating new book, A Fool’s Wisdom. Steve, before we dive into part one of your book, could you share a bit about your background and the journey that led you to write it?

SY: Sure. I grew up in Scotland and earned a Master of Science in theoretical physics at St Andrews, followed by a PhD in theoretical nuclear physics. After 10 years in academia, I struggled to find work, spending six months applying to jobs in various sectors with little success. Eventually, I joined the IT industry, working on early NFC payment technology like MasterCard PayPass. However, my passion for music led me to leave that job in 2010 to pursue a full-time career as a musician and DJ. Throughout this time, I kept researching deeper truths about science, reality, and ancient knowledge. In 2020, questioning the global COVID narrative connected me with other scientists scrutinizing mainstream science. Between 2021 and 2024, I wrote A Fool’s Wisdom to challenge theoretical science while highlighting alchemy—a universal ancient science that I believe offers a more coherent explanation of reality.

MA: Let’s dive right into the first of the five belief systems from your book, A Fool's Wisdom: atomism. Can you explain why you see it as the foundation of scientism, and how you challenge this idea?

SY: Atomism was a central part of my work as a nuclear physicist, which goes even deeper than atomic physics. My education and career involved extensive modeling of atoms, nuclear reactions, and quantum physics. We’d calculate complex models, but I began questioning whether these atoms we talk about really exist as described. I realized I had never actually seen or held an atom—they’re far removed from human senses and remain highly abstract.

It led me to ask, how do we evaluate whether the theory is valid? The answer lies in its results, or as the Bible says, "Look to the fruits." The first practical application of atomic theory was the atomic bomb. But when I scrutinized its history, I found evidence that casts doubt on the narrative. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt shortly after the bombings, with no signs of the long-term nuclear fallout expected from decaying atoms. The destruction resembled that of massive conventional explosions rather than something uniquely "nuclear." Additionally, many technologies attributed to quantum theory, such as cathode-ray TVs, weren’t actually created using quantum principles but through engineering ingenuity. Theoretical physics often retroactively explains these inventions rather than driving their creation. This gap between theory and practice made me question the true basis and utility of atomism.

MA: That’s fascinating and provocative. If I understand correctly, you’re saying that much of atomic theory remains theoretical, with practical advancements often occurring independently of it?

SY: Exactly. There’s a significant divide between theoretical and practical physics. Engineers achieve incredible advancements through experimentation, repetition, and ingenuity. However, theoretical physics often claims credit after the fact by explaining these developments within its framework.

For example, cathode-ray TVs were innovations of practical engineering, not quantum theory. This distinction is crucial because it highlights how practical applications often operate without relying on theoretical constructs like atoms, quantum mechanics, or nuclei. While atomism provides a framework for modeling, it doesn’t always translate into concrete, demonstrable results in the way its proponents claim. This disconnect fuels my skepticism and is why I’ve reexamined these foundational beliefs in my book.

MA: Let’s revisit the atomic bomb. You’re suggesting that the 1945 bomb wasn’t atomic, but rather just a massive bomb. If that’s the case, what would the rationale be for perpetuating the idea of nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project as we understand it?

SY: The term "atomic" carries a fear factor—it sounds far more terrifying than just a big bomb. For decades, we’ve been told the threat of nuclear annihilation looms, with stories like the Russians sending a nuke. If it were just "a big bomb," it wouldn’t evoke the same dread. Galen Windsor, a nuclear fuel expert, even challenged the danger narrative.

He claimed to eat uranium on stage and swam in reactor water, insisting nuclear materials weren’t hazardous. Mainstream physicists have since admitted errors about nuclear fallout, saying the radiation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki dissipated quickly. There’s also speculation, like Michael Palmer’s study, suggesting the bombs contained napalm and mustard gas instead. While I don’t deny the existence of massive bombs, the fear-laden concept of "nuclear" may have been overhyped, perhaps to control public perception or exaggerate power. The so-called Atomic Age, which supposedly transformed humanity’s ability to destroy the world, might not be as revolutionary as claimed.

MA: You’ve drawn some fascinating parallels here. If I understand correctly, the nuclear threat, much like COVID or 9/11, has been used as a powerful psychological tool—a fear mechanism embedded deeply into the collective psyche. Would you say this threat of nuclear war, particularly its ability to perpetuate the belief in our capacity to destroy all life, is more about control through fear than actual capability?

SY: Yes, that’s exactly right. The idea of a "big red button" that could end everything with one push creates an ultimate fear factor. While the bombs are indeed destructive, they are localized—they're not capable of wiping out the entire planet as we're led to believe.

This fear narrative has been deeply ingrained, from duck-and-cover drills during the Cold War to the airport security measures post-9/11, where everyone was treated as a potential terrorist. Similarly, during COVID, we saw children masked and separated, reinforcing a sense of danger and control. Nuclear fear, much like these other tools, has been wielded as a form of psychological warfare. It keeps people on edge, perpetuates a sense of vulnerability, and consolidates power for those pushing the narrative.

MA: You have a PhD in Nuclear Physics, right? I think that’s important to note because you’re not just anyone making these claims. For me, reading your work was shocking—it’s such a bombshell, no pun intended. But it’s coming from someone with your background, which adds weight to your perspective.

SY: Yes, I do have a PhD in Nuclear Physics, but it’s also worth noting that even with that, I never once touched an atomic bomb or could have built one based on my knowledge. I mention this in the book—it wasn’t some top-secret, highly classified information.

In fact, our physics department had students from all over the world—Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Arabs, everyone. It wasn’t like this knowledge was restricted due to national security concerns. Nuclear physics, as it’s taught, isn’t something you can take outside of academia and use to build a bomb. It’s more theoretical than practical.

MA: This has so many implications, but let me focus on one. With all the saber-rattling we’ve seen—around North Korea, Iran, or even Ukraine—it makes you ask: who benefits? I think of Oppenheimer and that famous quote about having the power to destroy worlds, tied to the fear that nuclear weapons propagate. But stepping back, if the atomic model itself is made up, as you suggest, who benefits from that narrative? I can understand fear around nuclear bombs, but help me understand who gains from promoting the atomic model itself.

SY: That’s a great question, and it does take us into conspiracy territory. There are organizations like the Royal Society, Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller foundations that fund science, and while I don’t claim to know all the details, atomism carries deeper implications than just a scientific theory. I discuss in the book how each of these foundational theories reflects particular religious or philosophical views.

Atomism, for instance, aligns with atheism. It’s not just a theory that everything consists of atoms—it’s the idea that everything is made by atoms, dismissing the Creator, the aether in alchemy, the soul, and the creative spirit. This reductionist, materialistic worldview effectively replaces spiritual traditions and the concept of a divine creator with atoms as the ultimate source of all things. So, who benefits from atheism being embedded into science? That’s an important question to consider.

MA: When you describe this, I can’t help but think of how evolution theory, as you explain in your book, seems designed to denigrate both mankind and God. The idea that we come from primordial sludge, with no Divine Spark, no Creator—just random mutations leading us from monkeys to humans—it feels like a way to remove God from the equation entirely. Would you say there’s a similar motive with atomism, where we’re reduced to physical matter, dethroning God in the process?

SY: Yes, 100%. Alchemy, as I see it, is real science, but it doesn’t dismiss God, the soul, or the spirit. Modern science, however, removes all of that. It’s purely materialistic, viewing us as just physical bodies without a soul or connection to the divine. Atomism is like an inversion of "Adam," the first man. In evolution, there’s no first man, which is a hard concept to grasp, but if we all come from Adam, then we’re Adams—not atoms.

This modern perspective replaces the idea of a divine origin with the notion of random particles bouncing in space. It’s not just an attack on God; it’s a deliberate removal of the soul from science. Science was set up to be secular, focused on numbers, measures, and quantities, leaving behind the human soul and anything spiritual. It’s not even a conspiracy—it was designed to separate itself from the church, and in doing so, it took the divine out of the picture entirely.

MA: It seems like we've replaced one form of high priests with another—scientists and experts who possess knowledge most of us can’t comprehend. Without advanced degrees or direct access to original works, like those of Darwin or Democritus, we rely on secondhand interpretations that shape our worldview. This affects how we live, think, and see the universe. You mentioned aether earlier—a term I’ve only recently heard more about. It feels like it’s been scrubbed from collective consciousness. For those unfamiliar, could you explain what the aether is and its relevance to this discussion?

SY: The concept of aether is ancient, tracing back to the Greeks. It’s proposed as a fluid medium—the substance of space itself, like a finer, high-grade air. Unlike the air we breathe, aether was thought to flow like water but be much subtler, often associated with the blue of the sky at high altitudes.

In the etheric model, the four elements—fire, earth, air, and water—derive from this universal medium, making aether the fundamental essence of everything. Atomism, however, abolished this idea, replacing aether with atoms. Where ancient thought would attribute the substance of something to aether, modern science claims it’s made of atoms. Through my study of alchemy, I’ve come to see atomism as directly opposed to the etheric view. Historical experiments, like the Michelson-Morley experiment, seem to have been deliberate attempts to discredit aether, effectively erasing it from scientific discourse and replacing it with the atomistic perspective.

MA: Could you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment? I’ve seen it mentioned in your book and heard about it a few times recently. What exactly is it?

SY: The idea was to prove the Earth’s motion through space by detecting “aether drag.” They used two light beams, one aligned with the Earth’s motion and the other perpendicular. They reasoned that the beam traveling against the aether’s flow should experience a measurable phase shift.

However, the experiment showed no such shift. Instead of questioning the Earth’s motion, they dismissed the existence of aether altogether, claiming it didn’t exist, even though an alternative conclusion could have been that the Earth isn’t moving around the sun. This was one of the pivotal moments used to discredit the concept of aether.

MA: Based on your background in nuclear physics, what does the reality of nuclear power really look like, and what implications does it have?

SY: Well, if you look at how a nuclear power station works, they’ll explain it to you in different ways, but if they’re honest, they’ll tell you it works like a giant kettle. Basically, you have a heating element in water that creates steam, which drives a turbine to produce electricity. It’s quite simple.

However, they take you into the quantum realm to explain it—describing uranium nuclei splitting, neutrons causing chain reactions, and so on—when, in reality, it’s just hot metal heating water. Uranium seems to have the ability to absorb energy and release it over a long time. In the book, I refer to these as “radiant materials,” similar to how a bell rings out sound after being struck. These heavy metals, like uranium, which is extremely dense, hold and release energy slowly, heating the water. There is some danger, of course, because we’re dealing with the fire element, but it’s not about neutrons and protons being emitted. That’s just a model—a theoretical explanation rather than the actual mechanism.

MA: Let’s talk about quantum physics for a moment. I remember hearing you on a podcast where you mentioned quantum computers are bogus. It struck me because I’d recently watched Ant-Man with my kids, and they explore the “quantum world,” shrinking down to unimaginable sizes. Quantum physics seems so abstract and counterintuitive—non-locality, photons behaving as both particles and waves. It feels disconnected from how life works and almost designed to disempower people by making it inaccessible. Could you explain quantum physics for the layperson and share your thoughts on whether quantum computers are even real?

SY: Quantum physics is a highly abstract field, and for the layperson, it essentially deals with phenomena on a very small scale, like atoms and subatomic particles, where the rules seem to differ from everyday life. For instance, the concept of non-locality suggests particles can affect each other instantaneously over vast distances, and photons can behave as both particles and waves depending on how they’re measured.

But much of this is theoretical and built on models rather than direct observation. Now, about quantum computers—they’re similar to the nuclear bomb in terms of being more about fear and mystique than reality. Technically, there’s no limit to how powerful a computer can be; with enough money, you can keep scaling up parallel computing.

Yet, public demonstrations of quantum computers have been underwhelming. Early models looked like refrigerators emitting steam, accompanied by presentations without any proof of their capabilities. The newer versions look ornate, like gold machinery, but still offer no tangible demonstration of power. I learned about quantum computing back in 1996, and real technology advances rapidly. Yet, decades later, quantum computing hasn’t shown significant progress. The fear narrative suggests quantum computers could crack every code, creating an ultimate power like the nuclear bomb. But has this power been demonstrated or proven? I don’t believe so. It remains more of a concept than a reality.

MA: I once interviewed a Google engineer about quantum computing, and he explained the concept of a superstate—how a computer could operate in both one and zero simultaneously. He seemed genuinely committed to the idea of quantum computing being real. This makes me wonder about the people working in fields like nuclear power, bombs, or quantum computing. Are they in on it? Or are they simply caught up in the system, unaware of what they’re truly working on?

SY: Well, I think many people are simply caught up in it. In academia, for example, there are countless researchers dedicating years to theoretical problems that don’t lead anywhere—nothing is built, nothing is fixed. It’s the same in big tech companies like Google or Facebook; there are likely entire teams working on projects that never produce anything tangible or are purely experimental.

Some genuinely believe in what they’re doing, but that doesn’t mean the concepts they’re working on are real or practical. As for whether there’s a mastermind orchestrating all this deception, I can’t say. From my perspective, I was indoctrinated, started questioning things, and watched the validity of these ideas crumble the more I examined them. Since publishing my book, I’ve had hundreds of people thank me for challenging these mainstream narratives, yet no one has come forward with a solid defense for ideas like atomism, the globe, or evolution. That silence, to me, speaks volumes.

MA: Could you briefly explain quantum physics, similar to how you described the aether, and share your thoughts on whether it qualifies as pseudoscience?

SY: Quantum physics is essentially modern atomism. The term came into use in the 20th century and focuses on the atomic realm—it’s a theory of atoms. Earlier models were simpler, like the hard ball model or the plum pudding model, which imagined atoms as balls with smaller particles like electrons embedded within them. Quantum physics introduced the idea that reality at the smallest scale is quantized—broken into discrete chunks or states, much like a digital system. Famous figures like Max Planck and Albert Einstein proposed this. It’s a sort of digitization of reality, replacing the older aether theory with particles that behave in specific ways.

MA: So, is the quantum model valid, or do you see it as fundamentally flawed?

SY: The most well-known concept in quantum physics is the double-slit experiment, which allegedly shows light’s dual nature as both particle and wave. I disagree with the standard interpretation. I don’t think there’s evidence for particles being fired through the slits. It’s always light waves, not individual particles. Even when they pulse light, it’s still a wave. Wave mechanics, which is grounded in real physics, explains these phenomena perfectly. Everything is vibration, and wave theory accounts for it all without the need for particles. When you accept that it’s just waves in the aether, quantum physics essentially dissolves. After a century, what practical advancements or solutions has it offered? From what I’ve seen, there’s very little.

MA: Let’s go back to quantum physics briefly. Could you explain it as you did with the aether, and whether it’s pseudoscience? Also, regarding Einstein and his profound influence, I’ve heard a lot about relativity, E=mc², and Brownian motion, which you mentioned. He’s revered as the cornerstone of modern physics. What’s your take on the cultural impact of figures like Einstein and others, given the role of “great men” like him in shaping what we accept as scientific truth?

SY: Quantum physics is modern atomism, emerging in the 20th century as a theory about atoms, and it doesn’t extend beyond that realm. Earlier models like the hard-ball concept or the plum-pudding model preceded it, but quantum physics introduced ideas like quantization—breaking reality into discrete steps. The double-slit experiment is often cited to show light’s dual nature as a particle and a wave, but I believe this interpretation is flawed.

Light behaves as waves, not particles, and the paradox stems from the insistence on particles’ existence without proving them. Regarding Einstein, he’s upheld as the ultimate genius, shaping relativity (modern gravity), E=mc² (nuclear theory), and Brownian motion (proof of atoms). His theories became the “one stone” or cornerstone of modern science, elevated by media and academia to support the current worldview. However, I question whether his contributions truly warrant the godlike status he’s given, as the cultural impact often overshadows critical evaluation of his work.

MA: Let’s touch on more cultural figures in science, particularly Stephen Hawking. His fame rivals Einstein's, with a widely celebrated story and even a movie showcasing his genius. But, as you detail in your book, there are striking anomalies in his life. Could you elaborate on your doubts about the authenticity of Hawking’s legacy and how he fits into this pattern of science "high priests"?

SY: Stephen Hawking is a fascinating case. As a student, I admired him, drawn in by documentaries and his book A Brief History of Time. But years later, I stumbled on questions about his story, even in mainstream outlets like The Daily Mail. The chapter in my book, "Hawking Isn’t Talking," reflects this realization: we’ve never truly seen him communicate.

He’s portrayed as voiceless, relying on a computerized system for decades. After losing his ability to vocalize in 1985 due to a tracheotomy, he reemerged in 1986 as the "robot-voiced" professor, paired with global fame and a bestseller. Yet, over the years, strange changes in his appearance—blonde hair, new teeth, weight changes—suggest he may not have been the same person throughout. Diagnosed with ALS in 1963, his survival for over five decades defies medical norms, as the disease typically claims lives within a few years.

MA: His longevity, celebrity status, and contributions to theoretical physics raise significant questions. What about his scientific work? Does it justify his near-mythical standing?

SY: That’s where it becomes even murkier. Hawking's physics doesn’t lead to practical applications—it’s an extension of gravity theory, grounded in Einstein and Newton’s work. These figures are gatekeepers of gravity, revered despite producing theories with little real-world use. Hawking, like Einstein, became a media darling, celebrated for ideas that sound profound but yield no tangible advancements. By the end of his life, he often appeared endorsing establishment narratives, almost as if he were a spokesperson rather than a scientist. His story exemplifies how certain figures are elevated into intellectual idols, shaping public belief without scrutiny. It’s not just about their theories—it’s about how they’re presented as untouchable authorities, reinforcing a worldview many dare not question.

MA: You’ve mentioned the mythology surrounding figures like Hawking, and I think it ties back to the idea of cultural elitism. Books like A Brief History of Time signal intellectualism, even if most people can’t explain the science within them. There’s a similarity to the story The Emperor’s New Clothes, where only the “wise” are presumed to understand. This mythology elevates figures like Hawking and Noam Chomsky as untouchable intellectuals. But I recall reading something about a possible Epstein connection with Hawking. Can you elaborate on that and its implications?

SY: Yes, that surfaced just as I was finishing my book. Photographs and transcripts emerged in January this year, showing Stephen Hawking with some very unsavory individuals at Epstein Island. Allegedly, Epstein even planned to modify his personal submarine to accommodate Hawking, taking him underwater for exploration. There were also bizarre claims—like Hawking supposedly enjoyed watching naked individuals solving equations on a blackboard.

While these could all be fabrications or gossip, they’re part of a broader narrative questioning his untouchable genius status. Additionally, Epstein held a gravity conference, inviting Hawking and 21 other physicists. These connections are well-documented in public records, and they add another layer to the increasingly questionable mythology surrounding Stephen Hawking. Whether these stories are true or not, they’ve certainly contributed to a dramatic fall from grace for someone once revered as one of the greatest minds of our time.

MA: I want to talk about CERN. There's so much oddness surrounding it—the staggering amount of money spent on this massive facility, the strange mythology about people from the future preventing its creation, and the bizarre occult imagery like the Shiva statue and ritualistic dances. Could you explain what CERN is, and share your thoughts on its purpose, especially regarding the occult elements?

SY: Sure, though I can only speculate. During my PhD, I visited particle accelerators like Jefferson Lab in Virginia and others in Germany—not on CERN’s scale, but similar in purpose. CERN claims to search for particles or, more recently, to open portals to other dimensions, but we’ve yet to see any tangible outcomes.

Despite their enormous power and the data they gather, there’s little of practical use to show for it. Their promises of groundbreaking physics discoveries seem hollow. Physically, CERN is a 26-kilometer particle accelerator where charged particles create an electrical current, which generates a toroidal magnetic field—a doughnut-shaped magnetic structure you might recognize from coiled wires.

Given its scale, CERN produces an enormous magnetic field, possibly affecting the area it surrounds, including Geneva. I suspect the stated goals—particle discovery or dimension portals—may be deflections. Instead, they might be using this technology for undisclosed purposes, perhaps to charge or protect the area in some way. The occult imagery and rituals suggest there’s more happening than science, adding to the intrigue and suspicion.

MA: You mention CERN being massive, miles long, and it's fascinating. I also recall a part in your book discussing the "tree of knowledge" concept, emphasizing how science should be evaluated by its fruits—what it actually produces. For example, books like A Brief History of Time don’t seem to have significantly impacted anyone’s life beyond intellectual appeal. With CERN, considering the enormous investment, what could they be doing with all this money and space, especially if it’s some kind of subterfuge?

SY: I’m cautious about speculating too much, but CERN raises many questions, as does Switzerland in general. Switzerland has always been neutral in wars, is home to major institutions like the UN, WHO, and Swiss banks, and there’s even talk about vast bases inside its mountains—essentially underground cities. So, the country already wields considerable power. As for CERN, its massive ring generates a significant magnetic field, and they could be conducting experiments or using that energy for undisclosed purposes. However, I haven’t been there myself, so much of this remains conjecture. What’s clear is the scale and secrecy make it a topic worthy of scrutiny.

MA: We've spent a lot of time on atomism, but let's shift to gravity, which feels like one of the most fundamental assumptions we have. I’m reminded of Edward Bernays' Propaganda, where he says the best propaganda is the kind you don’t even recognize as such—it’s woven into your framework, your assumptions about reality. Gravity feels like one of those. So, what are your thoughts on gravity? If it doesn’t exist as we understand it, then what is it?

SY: Gravity is a cornerstone of modern science, but it’s rooted in abstraction. In school, we’re taught Newton’s equation, which models gravitational force. This equation underpins the heliocentric model and calculations of distances between planets and stars. Yet, despite 350 years of this theory, we’ve produced no practical application—no anti-gravity machines, for instance. The problem lies in a logical fallacy called reification: treating an abstract concept as something concrete.

Gravity, as presented, is a calculated quantity derived from measurements—not a tangible force. For example, we can measure and manipulate properties like density, mass, and buoyancy. If you increase an object’s density in water, it sinks; decrease it, and it floats. These are observable, measurable effects. Gravity, however, isn’t measurable in the same way—it’s a number produced by an equation. The fallacy is believing this calculated number represents an independent force in the universe. Science has turned this abstraction into a fundamental law and built an entire cosmology around it. From astrophysics to the size and distances of the universe, everything hinges on gravity—a concept that may not exist as we’re told.

MA: But isn’t gravity considered one of the four fundamental forces? What about the gravitational force—why do objects fall down, or why do the oceans stay on the planet?

SY: Yes, gravity is one of the so-called four fundamental forces—gravity, the nuclear strong force, the nuclear weak force, and electromagnetism. But if you examine them closely, only electromagnetism is real in the sense that it’s observable, measurable, and used in practical applications.

The other three, including gravity, are theoretical constructs, defined by equations but not grounded in direct observation. Take gravity: in alchemy, the four elements—fire, earth, air, and water—help explain natural motion. Earth and water move downward, while fire and air move upward, as we see with heat rising or helium balloons floating. These phenomena seem to defy gravity. The equation for gravity is a reification fallacy—it calculates a force but doesn’t prove its independent existence. It’s a theoretical tool, not a tangible force. Similarly, the nuclear forces are contrived; they’re used for theoretical models but have no practical or observable applications.

MA: When it comes to launching rockets or satellites, are gravitational principles used in any meaningful way to aid these endeavors?

SY: While you can calculate the force needed to lift something off the ground—helping determine fuel requirements and similar engineering factors—these calculations rely on abstract math rather than proving gravity as an objectively existing force. Equations like F=MA are tools for deriving useful results in engineering, but the underlying concept of gravity remains an abstract quantity, not something we can directly control or observe like mass, length, or velocity. It’s important to distinguish between using math as a means to an end and mistaking it for a physical entity or force in the universe.

MA: It seems like with concepts like gravity and forces such as the weak and strong nuclear forces, only a small group of people truly understand the underlying science or math. Most of us take it on faith, similar to trusting a mechanic or IT professional who could say anything is wrong, and we wouldn't know if they’re right. Is this detachment from everyday experience how such beliefs are sustained?

SY: Absolutely, and your mention of a mechanic is fitting because, in contrast to the practicality of an actual mechanic who fixes cars, a quantum mechanic can’t fix or build anything tangible outside academia. Those in academia often believe their studies will eventually yield something valuable, but stepping outside that environment, as I did, reveals the disconnect. Quantum mechanics and similar fields rarely translate into anything practical or helpful to society. At best, you might teach others about quantum physics, but you can’t solve real-world problems or serve others in a meaningful way like a car mechanic can. Ironically, a skilled mechanic is far more useful to society and likely earns more than someone with a PhD in quantum mechanics.

MA: It's such an interesting world we live in—so much seems upside down. This leads me to airships, specifically the Hindenburg. If I understand correctly, you talk about density rather than gravity as the mechanism for their functionality, which speaks to how these massive airships could hover and move with ease. There also seems to be something more sinister behind the Hindenburg crash and the subsequent end of this mode of transport. Can you elaborate on your thoughts?

SY: Sure. The Hindenburg is fascinating. These massive hydrogen-filled airships were a majestic and efficient way to travel, hovering effortlessly in the sky without the need for runways. They’re a stark contrast to planes today, which require enormous infrastructure to operate. What’s interesting is how airships, like the Hindenburg, challenge the concept of gravity, as they rely on the principle of density—less dense materials float, as with helium or hydrogen.

The Hindenburg tragedy effectively ended airships as a global mode of transport. But think about it: canceling all airships because of one accident is like banning all boats after the Titanic sank. It seems extreme, especially given the potential of airships. The founder of the Flat Earth Society even proposed an idea—if the Earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour, theoretically, a stationary airship could let the Earth rotate beneath it to reach its destination. While his idea wasn’t taken seriously, it highlights how airships, and the narrative around them, bring deeper questions about science and our understanding of the world. As for the Hindenburg, its crash conveniently eliminated an entire transportation mode, raising questions about whether there was more at play than just safety concerns.

MA: So these airships used hydrogen, which is highly flammable. John Oliver once joked about how risky it was—just a match could blow them up. With that in mind, isn’t it reasonable they were ridiculed and abandoned?

SY: Yes, hydrogen is flammable and can ignite when exposed to fire, but I don’t think that justifies the complete cancellation of an entire mode of transport worldwide. It seems disproportionate, especially when you consider that every form of transport carries some risk. Airplanes are risky, as are boats—yet we still choose to use them despite potential dangers.

The same should apply to airships. People should have the choice to weigh the risks themselves. Besides, all machines rely on some form of explosive or volatile fuel. The flammability of hydrogen, while a factor, doesn’t inherently make airships unusable or unsafe. It feels more like an excuse rather than a practical or scientific reason to eliminate such a viable and innovative form of transport.

MA: If airships were so risky, couldn’t they have been made safer with engineering solutions, like creating barriers between the hydrogen and ignition sources? After all, planes carry flammable fuel, and we still trust them. Wouldn’t that have been a better approach than abandoning airships altogether?

SY: Absolutely, there are plenty of engineering techniques that could have made airships safe. To my knowledge, the Hindenburg is the only notable incident. I’m not aware of other airships blowing up, so it seems extreme to cancel the entire mode of transport over one event.

MA: In your book, you mention airships and how they could open up travel to remote areas like the North and South Poles, places we’re restricted from exploring freely. With no need for airstrips, wouldn’t airships give us access to these hidden regions and expand our understanding of the world?

SY: Absolutely. Airships would make it easy to access these remote areas. For example, if you head directly north from Scotland on a standard map, there’s allegedly nothing but open ocean—no land, no airports, just water. Older maps showed an ice cap at the North Pole, but now it seems like they’ve erased it. It feels like these northern and southern domains are deliberately hidden from us, and airships could democratize travel, letting people explore these restricted zones and discover what’s really there.

MA: When we think about travel limitations, it's fascinating how airships could allow us to explore more freely, avoiding the costs, restrictions, and controls of airplanes and roads. Do you think this push for safety and reliance on satellite data limits our ability to experience the world directly?

SY: Absolutely, it’s highly suspect. If airships were blowing up constantly, I could understand the ban, but there was only one incident—the Hindenburg—and that was enough to shut down the entire mode of transport. This happened just before World War II, a time when many changes were imposed. Similarly, materials like radium, once available in stores to heat homes, were pulled under the pretext of safety. It feels like we had more access to powerful tools and freedom back then, but much of it has been taken away. Perhaps it’s about keeping us dependent and limiting our ability to explore or harness power independently.

MA: I find it fascinating how knowledge and technology can fade over generations. For instance, airships or aether—concepts that were once common—are now nearly forgotten. If societal norms are shifted gradually, people lose awareness of what once was. By the time self-driving cars become the norm, future generations might not even remember owning or driving their own vehicles. It’s like this process erases parts of reality and limits our understanding. Do you think this ties into how certain theories or technologies, like radium or aether, are obscured over time?

SY: Absolutely, it’s about more than just losing knowledge—it’s about how certain ideas are hidden or replaced over time. With theories like relativity, it’s not just physics; it’s a belief system that shapes how we see the world. Relativity, for example, introduces the concept of moral relativism, suggesting there’s no absolute truth. In physics, they claim there’s no stationary frame of reference, that traveling at constant speed is indistinguishable from being at rest. But I disagree—there’s a real, felt difference between motion and rest. These shifts in understanding don’t just influence science; they redefine how we perceive truth itself. It’s as if they use these theories not only to indoctrinate but also to hide or obscure powerful knowledge and technologies.

MA: It seems like there are plans within plans, especially in science. Similar to how COVID benefited certain elites—normalizing remote education, introducing vaccine passports, and reinforcing germ theory—science seems to propagate ideas like moral relativism, where truth isn’t real, and anything goes. This ties into the occult phrase, "Do what thou wilt." Does that resonate with you?

SY: That concept aligns with the early 1900s when theories like relativity emerged alongside figures like Aleister Crowley. The idea of moral relativism—no absolute truth—has seeped into science and culture, shaping beliefs that distance us from grounded understanding. This ideology isn’t just about physics; it’s a framework for justifying chaos and detaching people from principles like integrity or accountability, mirroring the phrase "Do what thou wilt" in its occult roots. It’s deeply tied to the broader manipulation of perceptions and control.

MA: Most people have no idea about figures like Aleister Crowley or connections like Jack Parsons at JPL, Madame Blavatsky, or even the occult underpinnings tied to organizations like NASA through things like Operation Paperclip. They wouldn’t recognize Crowley on a Beatles album cover or understand his influence. At the same time, our culture and education system seem designed to dumb us down and turn us into obedient robots, limiting our understanding of real science, history, and human potential. Without this knowledge, we’re more easily controlled, much like how future generations could accept self-driving cars as the norm, forgetting that we once had freedom with airships or self-driven vehicles. It feels like this control operation began intensifying around World War II and the atomic age. Would you agree?

SY: Yeah, absolutely. It does seem like a massive control operation started around World War II, marking the beginning of the atomic age. That’s why I started with atoms—it ties into all of this. I’m completely with you on this.

MA: I know we’re nearing the hour, and there’s so much more to cover with the remaining topics, so I’d love to welcome you back for a follow-up conversation. In the meantime, where can people learn more about your work and follow your ideas?

SY: I’d love to come back—this has been a fantastic conversation, and there’s so much more to explore. People can check out my website, stevenyoung.uk, where all my links are available. I recently released an updated edition of my book with grammatical corrections, improvements, a written preface, and a new cover. It’s a much more polished version, so I’m giving it another push. I’ve also started a YouTube channel over the past couple of months, which is a great way to stay up-to-date on everything I’m working on.

MA: I’d love to have you back—there’s still so much more to discuss, especially the space program, which I’m eager to dive into. Thank you again, Steve; this has been absolutely fascinating.

SY: My pleasure, Michael. We delved deep into some topics today, but we didn’t even get to evolution, germ theory, or many others. I’d be happy to come back for another chat—it’s been great.

---