ezWater with Dr. Gerald Pollack Part II The Physics

This is Fred Williams of Real Science Radio, welcoming you back to the conclusion of our interview with Dr. Gerald Pollack.
It’s a pervasive theme that scientists with revolutionary findings, they’re either ignored or they’re shot down by people. And the established people, they’ve got the numbers. So if you find something really exotic, interesting, but it steps on the toes of some of those people, there’ll be hundreds of people who will say, oh, that guy is a crackpot.
Pay no attention because it doesn’t make any sense at all.
Dr. Pollack, the tendency to be repulsed by anyone challenging your orthodoxy. Are you saying that the ezWater and the energy potential or exchanges that are involved, are you saying that there is evidence, experimental evidence, that that’s an actual challenge to ATP? Or are you just saying that needs to be looked into?
Is there a relationship?
Well, no. There are actually published papers that did experiments that checked out the Lipman’s idea that the molecule of ATP has a particularly high-energy phosphate bond that’s used to power and they didn’t find it. You know, it’s difficult to say, well, they’re right and the original guy is wrong because it needs to be repeated.
It needs to be repeated objectively by a bunch of laboratories to find out, right, this is at the basis of biology. You know, where does your energy come from? Every time you speak, it requires energy and where does that come from?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, so just by happenstance, Dr. Pollack, and I never would have imagined this would have even come up, but just in my professional life, I work with red light therapy for health and wellness. Red light, 600 nanometer in there. And so it’s my understanding that it’s been demonstrated experimentally that exposure of living human tissue to red light produces a measurable upregulation of ATP production, that it’s been measured.
At least that’s what I’ve been told in the paper that I read. I thought prove that, but I’ve since realized that you can’t always say that about a paper. But I read another paper that said that they theorized that the reason exposure to red light produced an upregulation of ATP molecules was that it changed the viscosity of the water in the mitochondria so that the ATP synthase could spin faster.
And so they talked about the water. And I’m realizing now they didn’t know what the water was. I think.
Yeah, I think in the mitochondria the water is mostly ezWater. I’ll say why in a moment. And if you’re exposing it to red light, so red light does produce some expansion of ez, not as much as infrared light does, but red light does.
And the depth of penetration of red light is probably larger than infrared. So there may be some advantages to using red instead of infrared. I’m not sure about that, but it’s a possibility.
So in the mitochondria, if you think about the structure of the mitochondria, the mitochondria has membranes in it that are perpendicular, laid out perpendicular to the long axis of the mitochondria. So it’s just full of these membranes, and these membranes are ideal for building ezWater because you need some kind of surface. You don’t absolutely need it, but essentially you need it to grow the ezWater.
And if you stick an electrode in the mitochondria, and you find a large negative electrical potential. So I think that what’s happening in the mitochondria is it grows as a source of ezWater. And if you add red light, you get more ezWater inside the mitochondria.
What’s it for? Well, when the cell undergoes some kind of action. When the cell acts like a muscle contracts or a secretory cell secretes.
When the cell is acting, let’s take the muscle cell, because I have studied that for so many years. So the muscle will be in the relaxed state. And in the relaxed state, the water is ezWater filling the cell.
And then what happens is the muscle wants to contract. So a stimulus comes. And what happens is that there’s a so-called phase transition.
Everything in the cell changes. The water changes from ezWater to ordinary liquid water. And the proteins undergo folding.
And that folding of the proteins, together with the destructuring of the water, is responsible for the action of the cell. The muscle cell is responsible for the contraction. And when it’s all over, the cell needs to return to its initial condition, like the initially relaxed condition.
It needs to rebuild ez. Now, if a source of ez is right there, it can rebuild very quickly. And I think that’s what the mitochondria does.
It’s a source of ez which the cell can use. Or another way of looking at it, it delivers negative charge to the rest of the cell. And we know from experiments that if you add negative charge to water, it’ll turn it into ezWater.
So I think that’s what the mitochondria does.
So are you saying it’s a store of energy?
The ez is a store of energy, yes. Okay.
So a thought came to mind that the mitochondria we’re taught is like the energy source of the cell, like the power supply. So I mean, this makes a lot of sense that it would be the source of this power. So Dr. Pollack, I’m wondering, it sounds like there’s obviously health implications with this.
We know to be healthy, they always recommend you drink a lot of water. But it sounds like too, to stimulate this, maybe why it’s advantageous to be outside, get sunlight, because then you’re getting the infrared light. What are your thoughts on that?
Absolutely. Yeah. I think many health practitioners argue that we’ve been duped by the pharmaceutical companies.
They want to protect us from sunlight, cover our bodies with all kinds of lotions and sunblockers and whatever. But, in fact, you know, reasonable exposure to sunlight is advantageous. It supplies infrared energy, and we need that infrared energy.
And those who study that argue, and I’m not sure the basis of those arguments, that especially important morning light and also evening light before the sun sets, exposure 10, 15 minutes, at least, both morning and evening can be good for health. And I think the ancients knew that exposure to the sun was helpful, but we’ve learned stay out of the sun.
Yes, in fact, there’s relatively wide agreement now in the dermatology community that the recommendations for sunscreen have been overdone. And so they’re at least willing to admit that much. And then if I remember, being under the sun was widely advocated in the Book of Ecclesiastes, wasn’t it, Fred, if I remember correctly?
Almost everything was under the sun. So we should get some sun, I think. And by the way, Dr. Pollack, in the health and wellness realm, red light is often augmented with infrared light for pain, wound healing, a number of different things.
So a lot of what you say is telling me that, so what I’ve been taught and what we have thought are the mechanisms for the beneficial actions, we just don’t fully understand them. We’re seeing them and we can feel them and feel better, but there’s more going on than we thought it sounds like.
If you build on a foundation that’s erroneous, every structure will be held up by rubber bands and paper clips and whatever, you know, it doesn’t work. And therefore, for science, I’m always advocating you go drill down to the most fundamental level and make sure that foundation is really accurate. I’ve been trying to do that.
In fact, I have a book that I’ve written. It’s almost done. I was waiting for some illustrations.
It’s a book that’s about the structure of the atom. And I think that what we’ve been taught is completely wrong.
So Dr. Pollack, you’re in the right place to say something like that. And then instead of being squashed or told to leave the dais, we want to give you the microphone. And you don’t have to tell us the whole book.
I don’t want to let the cat out of the bag. But please, you’ve got to expand on that.
Okay. So what we’ve learned from the time of Niels Bohr, that’s more than a hundred years ago, it’s been five or six generations since, we’ve learned that the atom looks like a solar system. You’ve got a nucleus that contains protons and neutrons, and then you’ve got electrons in orbitals that circle around the nucleus.
The charge of a nucleus, it’s got protons and neutrons. Neutrons are neutral, protons are positive. So you’ve got a lot of positive protons compressed together.
And I learned in middle school, I learned that when you have a lot of positive charges together, they repel. And the closer they get to one another, the more they repel. So you try to squeeze those positive charges together.
You don’t want to come together. And so unless you invoke something, the nucleus will explode. Now the physicists have noted that, and they came up with something called the strong force.
And the strong force is a kind of glue that holds together the nucleus because otherwise it would explode. The problem is that there’s no independent evidence for the existence of this glue. It’s an ad hoc bandage basically to cover a gaping wound.
You know?
You’re blowing my mind. This is like, I was taught all this in 2nd grade through 7th grade, and you’re telling me this may not be…
Well, yeah, there’s more. You know, this is middle school stuff. So the nucleus is positive, right?
And you’ve got the electrons around it, and they’re negative. I also learned in middle school that plus and minus attract each other. And so if that’s true, it means those negative electrons should be pulled, drawn toward the positive nucleus, and the whole atom should collapse into one point.
But that can’t be. I mean, because if the model is right, it can’t collapse to one point because atoms take up space. You know, any material that you have consists of atoms that are lined up together, and they occupy, they must occupy some space, because the material occupies space.
So this is another problem. Next problem, if you want more problems. Yeah, please.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I’d like to hear what your idea is on it.
Well, okay, so, an electron comes from outside, and the first thing is, where is it going to land? Now we’re told that if one of those orbitals has less than the proper number of electrons, the new electron can actually land there. So we’re accustomed to thinking of eight electrons.
So if one of those orbitals has seven, the electron somehow knows it’s not full, and lodges there as the eighth one. Now, how does it know? You know, it wants to get away from all those other charges, so why would it want to be in the same orbital?
Why would it not like to lodge in between the two orbitals? But it’s not allowed to in the model, you see. Okay, next problem.
In the periodic table, most substances at room temperature are solids, about 90% of the atoms, you know, like aluminum or something like this. I see my laptop computer. It’s made of aluminum, room temperature, the atoms stick together.
So the question is, if you put two aluminum atoms, or any atoms, next to each other, explain how they stick together. So the problem is that each one of these contains shells of these electrons, and they’re all negatively charged. And the next atom has shells of electrons, and they’re also negatively charged.
So how do you take these two negatively charged shells and make them stick to each other? That’s the last thing they want to do. They want to stay away from each other.
Right, right.
Yeah, yeah, they’d want to repel.
Yeah, those are a few of the issues. And you have two choices. One is to say, well, let’s just sweep these arguments under the rug, and this model has been around for a century.
Therefore, it’s probably right. Or you can say, well, I’m not so sure it’s right. Let’s start all over again, because there are a number of issues that don’t sit right, and we’ve got to figure out what’s going on, what’s wrong, and such.
So that’s what I’ve done. I’ve come up with another model of the atom, which if I thought it was grossly wrong, I wouldn’t be writing a book. But I think that the shape of the atom is the platonic solid, and that includes a cube or tetrahedron, such.
And I think most of the atoms are cubes. The cubes fit together very nicely. The problem with the solar system model, one of the problems is that, you know, you can’t get them face to face.
There’s always extra space. When two spheres come together, there’s empty space. And nobody ever talks about what’s in that empty space.
It’s not true of cubes. You know, you can take one cube and put it next to another cube, and they stick. And it actually can be very easy for two cubes to stick to one another, because one face of one cube, say, is negatively charged, complementary face of another cube is positively charged, and they just stick.
And that could go on indefinitely. So that’s simple.
So would your model have the quantized shells, electrons?
No, not okay. No, in fact, the model is stable. That’s maybe the main criterion.
It has to be stable. It can’t explode and it can’t collapse. It has to be stable because atoms are stable.
And the model that I’ve come up with resembles what happens in a colloid crystal. Colloid crystals are well known in physical chemistry, and they consist of positive and negative charges that balance each other. It’s a distribution of positive and negative charges that are stable.
Because you can have colloid crystals that are stable for eons. Once they’re formed, they retain their form. And so, I adopted that same principle for application in the atom.
And it turns out that if you take the model and think about standard observations, a lot of the observations are very easy and directly explained, whereas the current theory, they’re really head-scratchers.
Okay, okay. So Dr. Pollack, I have one question about the atom. And then I know we have a number of questions from our listeners about water that we’ve been asked to put to you.
But regarding a different model for the atom, if things aren’t what we thought they are, how did we split the atom, produce nuclear energy, and detonate a nuclear device?
Well, I discussed that in the book Manuscript Force. And it’s actually simpler when you think of the standard model, the one that we all know about. So you split the nuclear splits into two parts.
And I mean, the whole thing is blasted. Two compounds are formed, two daughter atoms. And so the question is, once you smash the atom into smithereens, how do those new elements, those two elements, transform, because the number of electrons has to match the number of protons?
So how does those electrons know the proper number to come back after it splits, to come back and form those compounds? I think that that’s never been addressed, and there’s no logical sense, at least that I could think of that would explain that. In the model that I’m talking about, basically the atom, it’s not the nuclear, it’s the atom that splits, and it splits at its weakest point.
Would the energy release in your model, is that demonstrated to be similar to the energy release we saw with actual?
I don’t know that because I never performed the computations. Computations are not simple because every computation has assumptions and some hidden assumptions, and early in my career, I had some experience with the model and I realized you could pretty much get any answer you’d like by inputting the assumptions and trying to learn about that. So there we are.
Plus, you did want to do that experiment in your lab or else you wouldn’t be here telling us about it.
That is a point.
Well, so just as a layman, I think, well, how could we have done that if we were wrong about something so fundamental about what we were doing? And maybe you’re saying it didn’t matter that we didn’t know.
It’s a, I can’t answer that question, but it’s more technology than it is science. Building a bomb, it was a huge technological effort. It was not so much a scientific effort.
Scientists were assembled at Los Alamos, huge number of competent scientists, and they did what was necessary to make it work. Very little theory was involved.
They engineered it to make it happen.
Yeah, they engineered it to make it happen. That’s right. And it worked.
Yeah, it kind of reminds me of a quote from Nikola Tesla. It has to do with people are spending so much time doing mathematical equations and yet they’re not letting experiments and actual engineering rule the day. I’m paraphrasing, but I think that’s what happened a lot at Los Alamos.
A lot of engineering was going on.
Also in the area of quantum mechanics, it’s basically pure mathematics, it’s abstract mathematics. And in his book on quantum electrodynamics, Richard Feynman, the great Nobel scientist, he said in the preface, well, I start with the forward. The forward to his book is written by a colleague and it says, you won’t understand this, but you have to read it anyway because it’s important.
And I’m so much in my head, you know, I read it if I won’t understand it. I thought next comes the preface and in the preface Feynman would reassure me. He said, you won’t understand this.
He said, and I know you won’t understand it because my students don’t understand it. Even I don’t understand it and I invented it.
Yeah, he basically said something like, if you claim you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t know anything or you’re crazy.
You’re lying or you’re stupid or something like this. We’re dealing. I must admit I had some skepticism because, and I think of Mother Nature, not necessarily well-versed in abstract mathematics.
If Mother Nature, perhaps I shouldn’t be talking about Mother Nature given your biblical orientation, but anyway, please excuse me. Then I started reading a couple of books about quantum mechanics. I thought, well, everybody knows quantum mechanics must be right, even though there are a lot of issues with it.
Then I found this book, it’s called Make Physics Great Again, like make America great again. He rips the whole thing apart, talking about-
Oh boy.
Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. You start inventing a number of particles, and then you make a measurement, and you find that with the construct that you have built on all those particles, it still doesn’t work. In order to make it work, you invent another particle, and then you get a Nobel Prize.
I love it.
This book, it’s a must read. I think it’s fantastic. Make Physics Great Again.
Well, Dr. Pollack, I’m going to pick that one up. By the way, that reminds me of the funniest T-shirt of the year contest was won at a farmers market I was at earlier in the summer, and the guy had a T-shirt that said, make gas cans poor again. And so I don’t know if you guys have dealt with a…
I don’t know if you’ve had a modern gas can. What they’ve done to the gas can, Dr. Pollack? Anyway, they could have used some engineering advice.
Let me just leave it at that. So now we want to get to, because we are going to run out of time. We’ve only got maybe 10 more minutes, maybe a little more.
But questions about water, because you know things about water that nobody else knows. One of our audience members asked, how does water get up 300 feet up a redwood tree?
There’s a process that we discovered, which I think explains it. And it also explains what we never got to about a way in which the energy, electrical energy is used. So we found in the laboratory, actually a student, another student found that he would take a tube and a hydrophilic tube, immerse it horizontally in the water.
And he found that the water flowed through the tube, like through a straw. And usually you need a pressure gradient, a pressure difference to make it flow. In the case of the straw, you suck on it.
In the case of flow through your artery, the heart is driving it. There was no pressure difference here, because the tube was lying horizontally, and yet flow, and it persisted for a very long time. So we studied that, and we found the mechanism had to do with the following.
Just inside the tube, like a ring, an annular ring just inside the tube, ez formed, and in the corner of the tube were the positive charges that get formed. When the negative ez forms, positive charges form too, and they lodge in the core. And in the core, so the protons, the positive charges begin to build up.
They repel each other. They want to get out, and they’ll leave at one end or the other end, depending on, I think, ambient conditions. And once it starts to flow, it takes the water with it, and new water enters the other end of the tube, and it just keeps perpetuating.
And we’ve had it going for easily a day and a half without stopping. So when you talk about the redwood tree, to start with, this is the kind of mechanism that’s used. And it’s the infrared energy that builds ez, and the positive, complementary positive charges.
And so there’s actually a driver, and this driver is pushing up in the redwood tree. Okay, so now, and other trees, too. And this leads to what I wanted to talk about earlier, about the energy that’s used in our body coming from infrared energy, which builds ez.
So I went to Russia, more difficult to go these days, unless you want to get thrown in jail. You know, which I would like to avoid if possible. So this guy was telling me there’s a big problem in the cardiovascular system.
This Russian guy, introduced to me by my Russian friend after a few vodkas, and the guy says, there’s a problem. Big problem. And since I did my PhD research on pressures and flows, modeling them in the cardiovascular system, I was kind of skeptical of anything this guy would say.
He had me convinced in five minutes that he was right. But what’s the problem? The problem is, the red blood cells are bigger than the capillaries.
So typical red blood cell is six or seven micrometers in diameter. And the small capillaries, in which there are many, are three or four microns in diameter. So it’s a sort of plumbing problem, you know, that you squeeze through.
So he’s telling me, you need energy. So I’m reminded of the plunger in the toilet. You know, the toilet gets stopped up.
You take the plunger and you push, and it requires energy. So to squeeze those red blood cells, and they are squeezed, you can see videos of blood flow, and they do get squeezed. He said that requires a lot of energy, just like plunging the toilet.
And he calculated, he said, if the ventricle is fully responsible for providing this energy, the amount of pressure that it would need to develop would be something like one million times the pressure that it develops. That would be really high blood pressure.
So obviously, yeah.
So am I mistaken in that we’ve all assumed that it is the contraction that produces that? Haven’t we always assumed that that was the source of the energy?
Yeah, me too, for many years. And another reason why it can’t be, if you look carefully at the literature, which my student has done, you’ll find that there are like a half-dozen papers that report that if you stop the heart, the blood flow doesn’t stop, keeps going at a lower velocity, which means there’s got to be something else that is something else, part something else. Both of those arguments, the one from the the Russian guy who said it needs far more energy than could be mustered, and the other one showing that stop the heart and flow continues.
So I had the idea immediately when I heard he was giving me a half-dozen different hypotheses of what that extra mechanism, driving mechanism might be, and I’m thinking, hey, we just found in the laboratory that we take a tube and immerse it in the water, and the water flows through it. And all of this is actually driven by infrared energy. So we did tests, and we did tests on chick embryos, and the chick embryo, the cardiovascular system, is very well developed after three days of development, but not the regulatory system.
So it’s a pretty pure preparation. And my student, Zheng Li, studied, and he wanted to, he asked, is the signature feature of our mechanism, which means driven by infrared energy, which builds easy, is that true in the circulation? So first step, stop the heart.
And he confirmed also the flow continues, it’s lower velocity, but it continues. And then test the mechanism that we found in the laboratory, this flow mechanism. So he applied infrared energy, and the blood flow sped up by a factor of three or three-and-a-half.
And then he removed the infrared and it went back down to its baseline value. So we concluded that in your circulatory system, and maybe even mine, it’s not just the heart that’s pumping the blood, it’s the vessels themselves that are actually contributing.
That’s fascinating. So were you able to convince… So this Russian scientist, I guess, he convinced you in five minutes.
Were you able to convince him of your mechanism in five minutes?
It was just published in the past few months, and he doesn’t speak English. Every good translation. But the guy who was the translator knows, and I don’t know if he told him or didn’t tell him.
I’m not sure. Unfortunately, yeah, getting to Russian, that was more cumbersome than it used to be.
Yeah, yeah, that’s interesting. Okay. So Dr. Pollack, one of our listeners also asked that, is there potential in what you’ve discovered in purifying salt water?
Because you know, there’s so much salt water on the globe. So little water is drinkable.
Well, yeah, I mean, this is a big issue. Pure drinking water and irrigation water. I mean, this is the stuff that winds up provoking wars.
So we developed a filter. We call it a filterless filter because it doesn’t contain a physical filter. What happens is by the energy from the environment, infrared energy, because of the infrared energy, we can separate or divide the water into ezWater, that’s negatively charged, and positively charged ordinary, we say, bulk water.
And we built a device that does this. The reason it works is that when it separates into ez and ordinary liquid water, all the contaminants go into the liquid water, the exclusion zone excludes. So if you capture the exclusion zone water, you’re capturing contaminant-free water, in theory.
That’s how it works. And we did a few experiments about putting salt water in. And the idea was to think about salt as a contaminant.
And what we found in some very preliminary experiments, it seemed to work. It didn’t work all the time, but it worked some of the time. And so from that, we think it might be possible to use this device as a desalination device.
A lot of work needs to go into it. You know, like when the light bulb replaced the candle, it took quite a few years before Edison came out with a practical version of such. If this actually works, we think it might work.
We’re not sure. This could provide a method of desalination that doesn’t require huge amounts of energy, which right now desalination requires. And only countries or states or whatever, with ample money and ample oil and such, can afford it.
Otherwise, it’s prohibitively expensive. What we’re talking about, the energy comes from infrared energy, which is available throughout the environment. So if it works, and we’re not sure, if it works, it could be a real breakthrough.
Amazing, amazing potential and certainly more worthy of investigation than the next generation nuclear device. I’m just going to put that out there. And so Dr. Pollack, you said that you’re not necessarily a religious guy.
That might have been before we went on air. But I do want to let you know that I love your idea of dividing the waters from the waters. I love that.
And we’re never offended by references to Mother Earth here. Because we know that the God of Abraham, he has a husband-wife relationship with the city of Jerusalem. And from there, he intends to rule the world, the whole world at some point.
So no offense taken. And we really appreciate you taking the time to tell us some amazing things about the creation that we never knew. Wow.
Thank you.
Well, thank you. And may I end with, if you’re interested, anybody, take a look at the 4th phase of water, the book. It’s very popular.
And it’s got, my son’s responsible for the illustrations, professional artists, and so many people have commented on the artwork. So have a look.
Yeah, we have someone on our production team reading your book right now. You know, we had some listeners mention you, and then this guy started reading your book. So we will, we’re showing it right now on YouTube.
And the listeners on the radio, you can go to the website and we’ll provide information there, links to your book. You know, we just pray that your research moves forward. You know, there’s so many positive things that can come from this.
Do you have a decent research team or what’s the state before we close? I’m kind of curious.
Yeah, we have a team. The team now is a lot smaller than it was. And the limiting factor is getting funds for this.
Now, the government agencies, the National Institutes of Health, because we’re focusing on health applications, I think the word water is maybe a foreign language to them. They never heard of it. And getting funding for the work we’re doing for them is a real challenge.
So we have to depend on donations. And we were funded for four or five years by a wealthy businessman who, unfortunately, ran into some difficulty. And he just wrote an email to me.
He signs his emails, love, Peter. And he said, this was, how did he put it, the most valuable thing I ever did in my life was to fund us. So we’re looking for funding because, yeah, we can’t do anything without money and.
Yeah, exactly.
We have so much more to do and so much that’s so interesting. But you can’t do it without, you have to pay the people, you have to pay for the supplies and equipment. Otherwise, you can’t do it.
So it’s now fairly small. It used to be much larger. So thank you for asking.
Well, hopefully we’ll get the, we’ll help get the word out and continue this for research, that’s for sure. I know for me, I got to start drinking more water.
We all do.
At my age, sometimes there’s a trade-off of how much I drink at night, and I have to take that break in the middle of the night. But this was so enlightening. I guarantee you, very few people knew about this aspect of water.
Just the experiments that you’ve done, that’s really established that this ezWater does exist. I mean, it is there and there’s got to be, we’ve got to understand it better because there’s so many applications that can come out of it. A better understanding of the cell, possibly desalination of water, so many other uses.
So Dr. Pollack, what an honor it was for you to join us on Real Science Radio.
Well, thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it.
Yeah. So for my co-host Doug McBurney and Dr. Gerald Pollack, I’m Fred Williams of Real Science Radio. May God bless you.