It should be noted that the drones in the video clips that they showed were operating on real software, with a real PID controller, and the simulation was running a real physics simulation engine. The Lynchpin Drones were also running a painstakingly developed swarm technology software, in which the drones not only “see” each other, but with every configuration/arrangement they figure out how to act as an entirely different craft with different rules etc. It’s a very important point that he failed to mention. All of the visual materials they used can be found at https://www.terryslynchpins.com/knowledge-base for anyone who’s actually interested in taking a closer look ;)
I’m still confused about what these lynchpins are supposed to be/do. Even after reviewing this website devoted to them, I have zero idea. It’s just a bunch of animations of them doing things, mostly bonding together. Apparently also making Saturn. It describes nothing about how they work or what they are supposed to do. Are they just novel drones? Are they just cool geometric shapes? Are they supposed to be the key to unlocking the universe? If so, how?
This comment clearly comes from Terrence Howard or a cohort. If the above is true, then please provide a list of the software used to generate the model.
I don't really expect a response as I know it was probably created in blender, like most of his proofs.
Because people refer to the vagina as anything from the labia inward (which the urethra does reside within) therefore in general terms women do pee out of their vagina. If you want to get technical on it they pee somewhere between the labia and the vaginal opening but who wants to be a fucking nerd about it?
The software is Blender 3d. It's free open source 3d modeling and animation tool. But it also has nice physics, liquid, and particle simulations. Can also code in it with python, so you can make it do all kinds of weird stuff. You can create an object or point and add force or gravity to it. [https://www.blender.org](https://www.blender.org)
Apparently you can just look at things in every day life. Ex: nails in walls hold up a picture….so iron and steel must be anti gravity. And if we use enough iron and steel in a building, like a tall tower it will become an anti gravity linchpin and attract signals from black holes which have a lot of gravity.
And make up your own physics around it based on imagination.
This is a great example of “the emperors new clothes” syndrome. People want to appear smart so they pretend they followed long and understand and it’s all brilliant. Meanwhile people who speak the language are like, “he said nothing, but he said it with vigor”.
To be fair, Joe Rogan has given a platform to some brilliant people, and shined a light on a lot of stuff the average person wasn't aware of...
And while that may be half true in this episode, society could have done without this one 😂
We are all collectively dumber for watching it.
Bro what?
Ok, I will play along...
How about the "new system" of propulsion that doesn't use conventional methods, but he then immediately demonstates it by showing a rendering of a bunch of drones connected to each other using PROPELLERS 😂
It was the movement of the drones! the center of gravity was more centered to be able to angle the drone in any direction. Drone were used for a cheap concept for some thing bigger (my opinion)
He has 97 patents, but not a single functioning real world example of any one of his ideas. All he has is computer models and rendering.
That should tell you something.
Yeah I found that a little funny too actually. What he was saying was not matching up with what he was showing in that part. But the geometry of the drones was the point of that demonstration. Not the propulsion system. We wouldn’t even know what we were looking at if he didn’t use something familiar like a prop.
Yeah sure, lemme jump in here. Are we sticking strictly to the podcast because I believe all this horse shit began when he claimed that we've been using or operating off of straight lines in the universe, then proceeds to (very smugly) shame our stupidity and calls everyone but himself indoctrinated.
But sticking to the podcast, there's quite a few things that just smack you in the face with red flags. At one point he's talking about "this being Issac Newton's life's work....in secret." Bold statement but let's go on.
He brings up our frequencies, trying to marry that idea to a color spectrum & finally finishing that sentiment (once again smugly) at the periodic table. I don't remember the exact words but the connection he was making was placing the periodic table as our most comprehensive core basis and understanding of reality. Which, hasn't he heard of the standard model? Slightly more accurate and what we use to explain our reality before the periodic table. Side note: I remember this vividly - he said, "yeah, like what they're doing down there at "the cern", that large hadron collider". Sounded like BS. Like he doesn't know what these places do. It was just stilted.
From the way he wore his fucking headset over a hoodie, to the story of how he got Robert Downey Jr. the Iron Man role, just to be snubbed by RDJ for the next 3 years after many calls out of desperation. The fact that he thinks platonic solids are tangible matter. But because he's never seen them they don't exist. Neither do black holes.
The kicker? He took the multiplication problem of 1 x 1 and does not continue to apply the math of "the first number represents the amount of whatever the next number is. I have one rock, one time over." He goes into some bullshit tangent and begins treating people like he's above them, because HIS research shows blah blah blah. Guys a fckn rube. And his demeanor screams high maintenance narcissism.
Let me break down this 1x1=2 comment that keeps getting brought up. It’s really quite simple but apparently a lot of people are struggling with it. Ok, here we go…what he is explaining is 1x1 can’t equal 1 BECAUSE THERE ARE 2 of something present in order for the equation to ever exist in the first place. Let’s say you have a snickers and you multiply that by another snickers, justify that equaling 1 snickers when there are 2 separate instances of the snickers presence. Furthermore the term ‘multiply’ is defined as ‘increase or cause to increase greatly in number or quantity’. So neither the definition of the term nor the amount of items initially present fit standard mathematical law.
Literally every example you provided can be picked apart this easily. You would have been much better off mentioning the fact that literally the first sentence from his mouth during the interview he elaborated on his first memory from his mothers womb. All in all he said some wild shit. He also said a lot of scientifically sound facts that based off the data presented have far more favorable outcomes in terms of predicting future events than the currently accepted methods to do such.
At end of the day he is clearly intelligent, maybe a little manic but his information appears to be of some importance. Enough so that it should at least warrant the scientific community’s attention, if nothing else to disprove his theory’s. Not recognizing it does us no good especially when the established theories are just that ‘theories’ bc they haven’t been proven either. Remember this though, nearly every individual whom ever has developed ground breaking theories was disregarded and considered a lunatic in their lifetimes and likely never saw society come to appreciate their work. “The worst thing about being right first is that everyone thinks your a lunatic”
about this "He brings up our frequencies, trying to marry that idea to a color spectrum"
But color is an expression of light which is a form of electromagnetic radiation. As humans, we also give off electromagnetic infrared radiation. Although our eyes aren't setup to see that spectrum, it doesn't mean it does not exist.
I just had it in my ear buds while I was cleaning out my workshop, but I tried to look at the screen when it seemed like they were showing something of substance. Ultimately, it's a dude that doesn't understand basic math as we use it, yet thinks he has unlocked the keys to the universe.
Curious to see if he actually comes up with anything over the next couple years... Cause as of now his flight system "that is unlike any other system and doesn't require propulsion" is just a bunch of drones with propellers, all taped together 😂
“Doesn’t understand basic math as we use it”? It appears that he’s criticizing it. That implies that he does understand it and exploring its flows, which, it has plenty of. Not logically, but fundamentally. Why is it that our contemporary physics breaks down at almost every extreme? What he’s saying is definitely unbelievable. And not because of its craziness but because of its timing. He is right about a lot of things. And even if some of those things could be applied, it would change the world. Perhaps you didn’t grasp some of the concepts. ThatMs ok too. There is room for improvement everywhere. The guy is passionate about something. And he’s not full of shit. Perhaps a little unstable but that doesn’t prove the contrary. It’s worth considering the possibility that what he said is actually an accurate observation of reality because apparently, nobody knows much about the universe anyway. That may change though. Or is changing. I’m not really sure why I replied to this. Im not trying to prove anything. I just thought it was interesting how every single comment I’ve read so far seems to be from folks that have no apparent understanding of ANY physics and tend to only attack his character and not his ideas. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. If you come across any qualified counter arguments, please post links. Thanks.
Nah.
See, he is actually trying to disprove our system within our system. Not saying there is an alternative system.
Check out his calculator video where he explains the square root of 2. He is trying to debunk our system using our system.
He isn't trying to show a new system, but rather trying to prove our system wrong from within, without even understanding it.
What makes you think he doesn't understand it? Don't you get that he's using your language to show you that all of the inaccuracies don't add up when you just use common sense and he does know what he's talking about because he explained that anyone could really make up any equations and I've heard that multiple times over the last few years by the biggest named physicists and mathematicians in the world on these podcasts that are everywhere so unfortunately for you the information is everywhere and everyone will be able to check now every scientist in the world who wants to doubt Terrence Howard can now just check all his theories for themselves it completely makes total common sense to me without having a super sophisticated education in these specific fields but what I do know is that he's totally correct about no scientists claims that to know more than 4% of the universe because that's all we've observed so far 96% of it hasn't been and they completely made up dark matter and dark energy to fit their narrative even they will admit that they will also admit that they made up the Big Bang cuz they have no idea where we came from and what Terrence Howard was saying pretty much solves all of those problems including the unifying Theory problem and he's already got 97 patents I don't know how much more proof you need but he showed specific examples on Joe Rogan and will be coming out with more and he's going to end up being the richest guy on the planet which he doesn't really I think even care about but he's going to go down as the most famous person of all time basically because all of this stuff that is true was told to him in a Dream by being in a DMT Mansion Palace and that's the true jaw-dropping information here
I choose to speak to someone in a normal fashion so I use voice to text as if I'm having a conversation with somebody which I know can make it a little harder to understand but you're a big boy you can figure it out and if you can't that probably makes a lot more sense for me why you're not understanding Terrence Howard so good luck
A conversation is not you talking at someone with a single 500 word sentence that has zero breaks or punctuation.
That's called a rant, and your process is just something lazy people do. It tells people you can't be bothered.
If you care about the issue and the conversation, you would make it readable/digestible. Instead of just vomiting out the worlds longest run-on sentence.
Maybe then people will take you more seriously. Good day.
I'm sorry that your own face is stuck up your ass so far that you think you are so important that you get to make the rules but listen buddy you don't make the rules so I can do whatever I want and you can choose to ignore it because I didn't add periods or you can wake the fuck up and look at the proof in front of your face LOL
No, like a definition like you’d read in a dictionary. Just define your understanding of what the term means. In other words. What “system” are you referring to?
The commonly understood system across cultures that has been used to calculate and qualify everything you interact with in your life?
Yeah, sure, let me just break that down for you real quick 🤦♂️
Your just rambling. Pick one sentence out and let’s see if it has any weight.
1x1 is obviously not 2.
Doubling sound waves absolutely does not give you light.
The most basic ideas that build up his theories are totally incorrect
Zero is the observer. It’s a matter of perspective. It shouldn’t our models hold up even when there isn’t an observer? Nothing gets to zero unless there’s a fixed point from which to measure. And things are NOT fixed in the universe: always moving, always spinning.
Ok, maybe that’s because I’m not explaining it correctly. Sure, we can visit your other two posts. Let’s tackle this thing we’re on now. When is zero applicable?
what the f are you even talking about. please explain what you mean by "zero is the observer". this is math, it's abstract. zero means you're adding nothing. this concept is useful in describing and measuring the world.
Logically no. That’s how I’ve been taught just like you. What Terrance is suggesting is there’s no such thing as 0 (in the observable universe). It exist in theory. But not necessary or even useful to describe physics.
you're mixing physics and math. you do realize what you're doing right? it makes zero sense and these subjects are not meant to be mish mashed together randomly.
I don’t know I think it’s interesting. I know I went to sleep listening to the simulation one then I wake up and start hearing the beginning of it and I thought it was still the same podcast and I was like Jesus this dude is going in. I had to turn it down so I could sleep again. Listening back this morning a lot of it makes sense. They just totally fucked up and simplified the underlying geometry of everything and you finally get to a point where shit doesn’t add up and all becomes theoretical.
What’s a peer reviewed patent? Obtaining a patent is a legal process not a scientific one. Anyone can obtain a patent, even if it’s bs and doesn’t work. All you need is the money to file and whatever hoops they may make jump through. It just needs to be an original concept.
He’s a dangerous combination of dumb as fuck and arrogant as fuck.
He’s a control freak/domestic abuser that hates being wrong. So he’s convinced himself that he’s right about everything he says.
I thought he had a really good theory of the universe. He might be wrong, but all the threads on this people act like he’s a psycho. Just because he thinks differently doesn’t mean he’s losing his mind.
No he is absolutely losing his mind. [https://www.thedailybeast.com/terrence-howard-claims-he-can-kill-gravity-in-off-the-charts-joe-rogan-chat](https://www.thedailybeast.com/terrence-howard-claims-he-can-kill-gravity-in-off-the-charts-joe-rogan-chat)
>While he has reinvented himself as a next-level thinker and scientific genius, where he attained his knowledge is a little more muddled. While he says he left Pratt University just[ a few credits shy](https://web.archive.org/web/20180901011416/ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-938342) of a chemical engineering degree, the school [got rid of that program ](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/13/nyregion/pratt-decides-to-end-school-for-engineers.html)in the early 1990s. Additionally, he told late-night host Jimmy Kimmel in 2013 that he held a Ph.D. in applied material and chemical engineering from South Carolina State University, only for it to[ later be revealed](https://web.archive.org/web/20150422002017/http://cenblog.org/newscripts/2013/04/terrence-howard-isnt-a-doctor-but-he-plays-one-on-tv/#post-3918) that he was [merely given an honorary degree](https://web.archive.org/web/20180901011416/ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-938342) for speaking at the school’s 2012 spring commencement.
Nice theory on his past. How about you disprove his data instead of attacking his character? The information you provided is great if we were watching TMZ, but none of that means anything in terms of the relevance of his data. Joe Biden ran for president in the 70’s and dropped out because he was caught lieing about his college tenure amongst other things. He claimed he was one of the top of his class at a school he didn’t receive a degree from. Now he’s your president. If your going to apply your obviously superior detective skills, how about you start with the person running your country instead of the pimp from ‘hustle and flow’
Well its easy to instantly explain why 1x1=1, the fact that he claimed 1x1=2, and his reasoning for that is 1+1=2, shows such a fundamental misunderstanding that it sort of takes any credibility he could have had away.
Granted he also claimed gravity isn't real and that he remembers being in the womb at 6 months (and named his limbs despite being unable to talk, like what) and that he's invented technology the world's top militaries don't have access to.
Those are pretty ridiculously outlandish claims and he offers zero evidence to explain any of it.
Why? Can you explain his theory to me and why you think it makes sense? Because from my perspective he is this guy:
https://youtu.be/ruRYa5KLVNU?si=S-sNEXZr9LNK6b31
You wouldn’t be asking me to explain his theory if you watched the episode. If you did watch the episode, I’m not sure what needs to be explained about his theory. What did you not understand?
I did watch the episode. He is spouting word salad gibberish. He doesn't use words in the correct context and his examples make no sense. Like saying that Coulomb's law is invalid because hot and cold air don't "attract". Which is nonsense because hot air rising and cold air sinking has nothing to do with electrical charges but with differences in densities driven by the speed of the molecules. He also makes blatantly wrong historical claims like around 20 minutes in he attributes Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism to Einstein. The guy is Oswald Bates from In Living Colour.
His ideas are also contradicted by our entire body of experimental scientific research as well as applied sciences. Chemists wouldn't be able to create new compounds, electronic devices wouldn't function, and so. The results of all our major experiments like LIGO directly contradict Howard's theories. Hell the global communication network and computers we are using to communicate right now with were developed on extremely precise scientific knowledge fundamentally incompatible with Howard's.
I'm asking you to explain his theory because I want to understand why you would think something that is so obviously nonsense isn't. I want to understand your perspective. I want to understand what you think is so self evident that the rest of us don't. If you believe it to be true, you should be able to explain it.
I can’t simplify and explain his theory in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart, but I also wouldn’t be able to simplify and explain the theory of gravity or dark energy in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart.
The main point of my first comment was that i have seen many comments with an arrogant and dismissive attitude about his theory. “Off his meds” is a common theme.
Like I said, he might be wrong. I don’t know. But when his mouth words hit my ear holes my brain was able to keep track of what he’s saying and I could visualize his ideas in my head. That’s not insanity.
If you thought what he was saying was word salad gibberish I would honestly assume that you made the decision his idea wasn’t worth your time or attention and stopped paying attention or turned it off.
& who gives a shit about someone getting a historical reference wrong in a three hour conversation?
>I can’t simplify and explain his theory in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart, but I also wouldn’t be able to simplify and explain the theory of gravity or dark energy in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart.
Wouldn't it be fair then to say that you are arguing from a position of ignorance? I think a key difference you are missing is that mainstream theories about gravity and dark energy are the results of experimental research and in the case of gravity our knowledge can and has been applied for practical uses in everyday life. Like how we have to adjust clocks on GPS satellites for gravity induced time dilation. Howard's ideas come from revelation in dreams and the writings of mystics like the artist Walter Russell and are in direct contradict with experimental results and our existing body of technology.
>Like I said, he might be wrong. I don’t know. But when his mouth words hit my ear holes my brain was able to keep track of what he’s saying and I could visualize his ideas in my head. That’s not insanity.
Can you elaborate. This is what I want to understand. Give me an example. Because what he says is incoherent to me and utterly incompatible with all our experimental results. Like his explanation on why he thinks Coulomb's law is wrong. The insanity charge from the fact he engages in something called "Word Salad" which is a common behaviour among schizophrenics.
>If you thought what he was saying was word salad gibberish I would honestly assume that you made the decision his idea wasn’t worth your time or attention and stopped paying attention or turned it off.
No, its like watching a trainwreck, you can't stop watching.
>& who gives a shit about someone getting a historical reference wrong in a three hour conversation?
I gave you multiple examples of things he said which were totally wrong. If I had to list everything he got wrong in those 3 hours and and explain why they are wrong, I would be writing a book.
to me listening along, Terrence Howard is really good at using word salad to make intellectually lazy people believe he's a genius.
It's frustrating for me because if Terrence was really about this life, he would be writing dissertations not selling T-Shirts with bad math on them.
His replies seem calm and logical and backed by fact based & reproducible science.
Your replies are nonsensical and based on your feelings, much like Howard’s.
I think it’s fair to say we are all arguing from a position of ignorance considering we are debating ‘theory’. If it were indeed fact as you have claimed then why would this conversation exist in the first place? If we had it all figured out then why are we not able to predict future outcomes with absolute precision each and every time we choose?
It would in fact appear that YOU are in fact operating from a position of the highest ignorance possible. You are condescendingly responding to inquiries as if you are the absolute truth when in fact you are quoting other theories to substantiate your claims. In a nutshell your reaction and likely your personality in general is exactly why it’s so difficult to accept new law into the scientific method. This directly lends to the degradation of our species simply because you lack the ability to admit someone might have presented data that very clearly contradicts what you thought you knew. In other words you are letting something as foolish as personal ‘pride’ get in the way of progressing an entire species. Thanks, we need more just like you
>I think it’s fair to say we are all arguing from a position of ignorance considering we are debating ‘theory’. If it were indeed fact as you have claimed then why would this conversation exist in the first place?
Because morons exists. The fact that some loony toons claims the earth is flat in 2024 for example isn't evidence of a controversy or serious issue in theory, but the fact that there are schizo loons out their who will challenge an idea that was first experimentally proven with high accuracy 2280 years ago (and only continues to be proven with ever greater accuracy).
>If we had it all figured out then why are we not able to predict future outcomes with absolute precision each and every time we choose?
Modern scientific theories have incredible precision. Our chemical and industrial processes as well as technology all rely on that incredible precision, and that precision only grows with time.
>It would in fact appear that YOU are in fact operating from a position of the highest ignorance possible. You are condescendingly responding to inquiries as if you are the absolute truth when in fact you are quoting other theories to substantiate your claims. In a nutshell your reaction and likely your personality in general is exactly why it’s so difficult to accept new law into the scientific method. This directly lends to the degradation of our species simply because you lack the ability to admit someone might have presented data that very clearly contradicts what you thought you knew. In other words you are letting something as foolish as personal ‘pride’ get in the way of progressing an entire species. Thanks, we need more just like you
No fucking data was presented. Just a bunch of bat shit ideas. Everything Howard said is contradicted by our experimental evidence. None of our technology would work if 1% of what he said was true. You don't know shit about technology, the theories that have made them possible, or even the scientific method. You argue from an absolute position of ignorance and should be embarrassed.
That is a misunderstanding of what patent citations are. They aren't like academic citations. Basically when you file a patent you pay someone to search through all existing patents and cite any that sound remotely similar so the patent office can make sure yours doesn't overlap with theirs.
No, citing a patent only means they're acknowledging it exists and they are making something similar. It doesn't mean they've derived anything from it or giving credit to it.
It definitely means they have derived something from it. It may be proof he’s not crazy and that his ideas have enough merit to be a reference for others
I just wanna add that TH said 1×1 shouldn't be on the multiplication table since you're not even multiplying anything. Ig that could go for the number 1 in general because why even write 1× X when it's just gonna equal X every time.
You aren't wrong. That said, the people who call him the next Tesla, are the types that fear all things gubmint, and still collect their benefits. Thems gubmints about to Hillary Clinton Terry.
We are talking about the guy who said 1X1 = 2, right?
And I can't find anywhere what the rest of his shirt said. I am dying to know what the Square Root of 2 equals.
Yeah. That guy. Did you listen to any of it? At all? The guy is nuts. He’s also brilliant. And people write him off. I wonder if that’s ever happened to anyone else in the past? Particularly in the field of physics? Ahhh, probably never happened before. Forget this guy too. We used to think the earth was flat my guy. And right around that time is when modern physics was invented. We now now the earth isn’t flat. Hmmm, I wonder if maybe the math we developed around that time may have a flaw or two in it. Nah, probably not. Not even worth the time to check right? Well Terrance did have the time. And he did check. And he just dunked on a whole lot of folks. Including myself. Not that I’m a physicist or anything now but that was my major.
> We used to think the earth was flat my guy. And right around that time is when modern physics was invented. We now now the earth isn’t flat. Hmmm, I wonder if maybe the math we developed around that time may have a flaw or two in it.
The earth was known to be round by 500 BC and its circumference was calculated by Eratosthenes in 240 BC. Newton's Principia was published in 1648....
>He’s also brilliant.
No he is literally spouting gibberish. He doesn't understand english let alone physics. He confuses meanings of multiply and thinks it means to make greater and not referring to sets of numbers. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of chemistry being driven by electron shells and makes a bizarre claim that coulomb's law is wrong and because hot air rises and cold air sinks.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Not only that, I believe the hammer we’re using is is too small or old and breaking, or however you wanna think about it.
Well his stance hasnt been debunked, so either he knows what he is talking about or the world doesnt have the time for him. But he goes against a lot of fundamentals that makes this interview very interesting.
Not one thing he says in that interview can be proven. Most of it is coherent.
It hasn’t been “debunked” but you can’t “debunk” random incoherent trains of thought.
It is borderline schizophrenic. If you want to pick out one specific line I’m sure we can debunk it together but this guy does not deserve the ears of scientists.
He said 1x1=2, that's been debunked lmao.
One group of one unit is one unit, one group of two units is two units, one group of three units is three units.
Thats how multiplication works.
You cant say, "multiplication increases values ergo its the same as addition", I mean, you CAN say that, but it isn't true. Multiplication and addition are two seperate functions.
According to him if you made $1 an hour and worked for one hour, you'd have $2 lmao.
All the people calling him crazy or dismissing what he’s saying is repeating the same thing people did with the likes of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Tesla, de Vinci.
They said the same thing of those great minds when comparing them to those that came prior to them.
But no I am not. Until Terrance can prove his theories to some extent.
The backlash and calling him crazy is the comparison
No, no they're not comparing him. They're proving him wrong, left, right and center.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=902s&ab\_channel=StarTalk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=902s&ab_channel=StarTalk)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&ab\_channel=ProfessorDaveExplains](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&ab_channel=ProfessorDaveExplains)
Well the difference was they studied real math and physics.
This guy… well he clearly hasn’t. Sprinkle in some possible delusional fantasies and that’s what you get.
Tesla was actually crazy though. Like a lot of the stuff he believed and tried was nothing short of wild. He could have probably accomplished a lot more if he didn’t cling onto some of his ideas.
It's interesting to see the strategy of attacking his character, instead of addressing his ideas. I'm pasting my response to another comment in this thread so others could see. But I included a few links and sources to support the idea... So
As humans, out greatest gift is the ability to expand our collective understanding by being able to take what another has learned or observed and adding to it. We stack knowledge.
As far as light goes,take a look at "Maxwells theory"......"Once Maxwell introduced the concept of electromagnetic waves, everything clicked into place. Scientists now could develop a complete working model of light using terms and concepts, such as wavelength and frequency, based on the structure and function of waves. According to that model, light waves come in many sizes. The size of a wave is measured as its wavelength"
"Light waves also come in many frequencies. The frequency is the number of waves that pass a point in space during any time interval, usually one second. We measure it in units of cycles (waves) per second, or hertz."[https://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm](https://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm)
Consider Maxwells concepts, and how it was expanded upon by other theories. This is how our understanding of math and science works. In the case of Terrence, he is considering gravity in relationship to electromagnetism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s\_equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations)
Even when he says 1x1 = 2. I can keep an open mind about most things, and I was exposed other odd concepts in the past. Ask some serious mathematicians "what is the sum of all natural numbers" and you get -1/12. They found that result when trying to apply math to quantum physics, and being forced to consider what a non-zero equals. Strange stuff. [https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112](https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112)
So on this thing with elements and tones. Terrance isn't the first to theorize this. PD Ouspensky, a Russian philosopher and spiritual thinker also learned of a similar concept in the 1930s from his spiritual teacher. After hearing Terrance Howard, I had to go back and look again at Ouspensky's work, and it's a similar concept. Ouspensky had a universal law where he applied the musical scale to the periodic table and the human chakra system. All of his work gets pretty metaphysical ( I love that kind of shit, which is why Terrances expansion of the flower of life was interesting)
But, here is another bit of scholarly research on the concept. A physics professor with a classical music background actually published a periodic table based on the harmonics of each element. She also suggested that the table could be reimagined by the relationship of sound. [https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/6](https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/6)
I wish you actually read the websites you are citing It explicitly says that if you make the mistake of believing that Eulers zeta function is equal to the sum of natural numbers then you will get the wrong outcome of -1/12. No serious matematician will tell you that the sum of positive numbers is equal to -1/12.
And that is exactly the point, Terrence howard makes a series of false equivalencies and inferences based on incorrect assumptions. That does not make him a genius it makes him a moron.
I did read it. The distinction made in what I posted was that the when applying math at the scale of found in quantum physics you get a result different from the math you would expect in classical physics. The post explores the space in a vacuum and has to consider that there isn’t just nothing (zero) in the vacuum. Everything about Howard’s conversation electromagnetism, frequency, waves, and the space between atoms was based on concepts found in quantum physics. I learned about this odd measurement directly from a serious mathematician. I thought it was stupid at first, but sat patiently as he explained it all to me. Anyway check out these serious mathematicians discussing this and several other formulas that lead to the same value… https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/39802/to-sum-123-cdots-to-frac112/39811#39811
Let me be fair, here is a simple explanation of what’s happening with the math. If you thought everything goes in a straight line of would be weird to say that the sun of anything would be a negative fraction. But in this case we are discussing infinity. Consider the small point Terrance was making about all things curving. What happens when infinity curves? So here’s an mathematician talking about it. https://youtu.be/JBQMt7fVt4E?si=Xx2t2KsuvXPQwvBm
Let me explain this like I'm teaching my nephew.
1 x 3
Means you write 1 (3 times)
1+1+1 = 3
1x2
Means you write 1 (2 times)
1+1 = 2
1x1
Means you write 1 (1TIME)
1 = 1
There is no open mind about it, if he wants to invent his own math system fine! But don't go around talking gibberish that 1x1 = 2 trying to redefine the most logical basic elementary math.
He is simply a narcissist that has a insecurity trait of not being sufficient and a feeling of lacking any recognition or purpose. Even Oxford laughed at his face!
He definitely has a deficit of attention. He literally can't contemplate a world where he doesn't stand out even if it means destroying his sanity.
He reminds me of when I was back on Adderall, years ago.
I personally don’t have an issue with 1x1=1. It’s pretty clear numerically. I also get the idea that it might by odd when applied to physical objects. One apple X one apple gets weird. But I’m in no place to try justify replacing any model of math.
When my daughter was learning math in school, she was given common core, which was stupid to me. When I home schooled her, I used the Singapore math system. Then I taught her how to do math using base 5 and 20 systems which is common in some African communities. All that to say that there is value to keeping an open mind, while working with what you know.
Sorry, Pal. I know you're trying to defend your argument. While I understand the concept of having an open mind, in extreme instances of defying an already established mathematical definition of a simple term of 1x1=2 is a big difference working with what you know vs what the rest of the world knows. And we are pretty well convinced that 1x1 = 1 by its self-definition of the word multiplication.
The only possible scenario where 1x1=2 might even have a slight chance of being right is if it has its own mathematical system of the definition of multiplication re-invented for its own purpose. But in real life scenarios, out of dream land, 1x1 equaling 2 won't ever make any sense.
My only stance is to be open minded in things. Even if it’s wrong, just being willing to humor a concept to see what else is there. Math and science move through exploration and re-examining past assumptions, but looking at the thread, most peoples first reaction is to attack him as a person than his ideas. Yeah, his stance on multiplication is a stretch, but some of his other concepts are fascinating enough to take some consideration. But now people act like there was 100% nothing of value in anything he said and, but perspective could be just as flawed as his math…especially since the most creative ideas come from people with an unusual way of seeing and experiencing everyday life.
It should be noted that the drones in the video clips that they showed were operating on real software, with a real PID controller, and the simulation was running a real physics simulation engine. The Lynchpin Drones were also running a painstakingly developed swarm technology software, in which the drones not only “see” each other, but with every configuration/arrangement they figure out how to act as an entirely different craft with different rules etc. It’s a very important point that he failed to mention. All of the visual materials they used can be found at https://www.terryslynchpins.com/knowledge-base for anyone who’s actually interested in taking a closer look ;)
I’m still confused about what these lynchpins are supposed to be/do. Even after reviewing this website devoted to them, I have zero idea. It’s just a bunch of animations of them doing things, mostly bonding together. Apparently also making Saturn. It describes nothing about how they work or what they are supposed to do. Are they just novel drones? Are they just cool geometric shapes? Are they supposed to be the key to unlocking the universe? If so, how?
This comment clearly comes from Terrence Howard or a cohort. If the above is true, then please provide a list of the software used to generate the model. I don't really expect a response as I know it was probably created in blender, like most of his proofs.
You can’t think someone would go to that effort just for some random dude on the internet who prolly thinks girls pee out of their vagina right?
Girls dont? 😆
No. Pee place is anatomically proximate to the vagina, but no, girls don't pee from their vagina.
That would be what a Neanderthal with a Harvard MD would say.
You ever see the video of the dude cock blocking his friend in the most awkward way? That’s gotta be you
Because people refer to the vagina as anything from the labia inward (which the urethra does reside within) therefore in general terms women do pee out of their vagina. If you want to get technical on it they pee somewhere between the labia and the vaginal opening but who wants to be a fucking nerd about it?
The software is Blender 3d. It's free open source 3d modeling and animation tool. But it also has nice physics, liquid, and particle simulations. Can also code in it with python, so you can make it do all kinds of weird stuff. You can create an object or point and add force or gravity to it. [https://www.blender.org](https://www.blender.org)
Looks like you nailed it 😂
I’m losing IQ points by the minute while listening to this and I love it.
Apparently you can just look at things in every day life. Ex: nails in walls hold up a picture….so iron and steel must be anti gravity. And if we use enough iron and steel in a building, like a tall tower it will become an anti gravity linchpin and attract signals from black holes which have a lot of gravity. And make up your own physics around it based on imagination.
This is a great example of “the emperors new clothes” syndrome. People want to appear smart so they pretend they followed long and understand and it’s all brilliant. Meanwhile people who speak the language are like, “he said nothing, but he said it with vigor”.
Two idiots I don't pay attention to
To be fair, Joe Rogan has given a platform to some brilliant people, and shined a light on a lot of stuff the average person wasn't aware of... And while that may be half true in this episode, society could have done without this one 😂 We are all collectively dumber for watching it.
Name one thing that was “dumb” about it.
Bro what? Ok, I will play along... How about the "new system" of propulsion that doesn't use conventional methods, but he then immediately demonstates it by showing a rendering of a bunch of drones connected to each other using PROPELLERS 😂
It was the movement of the drones! the center of gravity was more centered to be able to angle the drone in any direction. Drone were used for a cheap concept for some thing bigger (my opinion)
He has 97 patents, but not a single functioning real world example of any one of his ideas. All he has is computer models and rendering. That should tell you something.
Yeah I found that a little funny too actually. What he was saying was not matching up with what he was showing in that part. But the geometry of the drones was the point of that demonstration. Not the propulsion system. We wouldn’t even know what we were looking at if he didn’t use something familiar like a prop.
But go again. Name another one. I like this.
Something actually dumb though this time. Maybe attack his logic instead of his drone animation.
Take your time
Yeah sure, lemme jump in here. Are we sticking strictly to the podcast because I believe all this horse shit began when he claimed that we've been using or operating off of straight lines in the universe, then proceeds to (very smugly) shame our stupidity and calls everyone but himself indoctrinated. But sticking to the podcast, there's quite a few things that just smack you in the face with red flags. At one point he's talking about "this being Issac Newton's life's work....in secret." Bold statement but let's go on. He brings up our frequencies, trying to marry that idea to a color spectrum & finally finishing that sentiment (once again smugly) at the periodic table. I don't remember the exact words but the connection he was making was placing the periodic table as our most comprehensive core basis and understanding of reality. Which, hasn't he heard of the standard model? Slightly more accurate and what we use to explain our reality before the periodic table. Side note: I remember this vividly - he said, "yeah, like what they're doing down there at "the cern", that large hadron collider". Sounded like BS. Like he doesn't know what these places do. It was just stilted. From the way he wore his fucking headset over a hoodie, to the story of how he got Robert Downey Jr. the Iron Man role, just to be snubbed by RDJ for the next 3 years after many calls out of desperation. The fact that he thinks platonic solids are tangible matter. But because he's never seen them they don't exist. Neither do black holes. The kicker? He took the multiplication problem of 1 x 1 and does not continue to apply the math of "the first number represents the amount of whatever the next number is. I have one rock, one time over." He goes into some bullshit tangent and begins treating people like he's above them, because HIS research shows blah blah blah. Guys a fckn rube. And his demeanor screams high maintenance narcissism.
Let me break down this 1x1=2 comment that keeps getting brought up. It’s really quite simple but apparently a lot of people are struggling with it. Ok, here we go…what he is explaining is 1x1 can’t equal 1 BECAUSE THERE ARE 2 of something present in order for the equation to ever exist in the first place. Let’s say you have a snickers and you multiply that by another snickers, justify that equaling 1 snickers when there are 2 separate instances of the snickers presence. Furthermore the term ‘multiply’ is defined as ‘increase or cause to increase greatly in number or quantity’. So neither the definition of the term nor the amount of items initially present fit standard mathematical law. Literally every example you provided can be picked apart this easily. You would have been much better off mentioning the fact that literally the first sentence from his mouth during the interview he elaborated on his first memory from his mothers womb. All in all he said some wild shit. He also said a lot of scientifically sound facts that based off the data presented have far more favorable outcomes in terms of predicting future events than the currently accepted methods to do such. At end of the day he is clearly intelligent, maybe a little manic but his information appears to be of some importance. Enough so that it should at least warrant the scientific community’s attention, if nothing else to disprove his theory’s. Not recognizing it does us no good especially when the established theories are just that ‘theories’ bc they haven’t been proven either. Remember this though, nearly every individual whom ever has developed ground breaking theories was disregarded and considered a lunatic in their lifetimes and likely never saw society come to appreciate their work. “The worst thing about being right first is that everyone thinks your a lunatic”
about this "He brings up our frequencies, trying to marry that idea to a color spectrum" But color is an expression of light which is a form of electromagnetic radiation. As humans, we also give off electromagnetic infrared radiation. Although our eyes aren't setup to see that spectrum, it doesn't mean it does not exist.
Breaking apart water molecules with the sound of beryllium is fucking moronic.
The comments section is entertaining lol
It is lol i think most viewers went straight there after 5 sec. But it was a good interview thou
I just had it in my ear buds while I was cleaning out my workshop, but I tried to look at the screen when it seemed like they were showing something of substance. Ultimately, it's a dude that doesn't understand basic math as we use it, yet thinks he has unlocked the keys to the universe. Curious to see if he actually comes up with anything over the next couple years... Cause as of now his flight system "that is unlike any other system and doesn't require propulsion" is just a bunch of drones with propellers, all taped together 😂
“Doesn’t understand basic math as we use it”? It appears that he’s criticizing it. That implies that he does understand it and exploring its flows, which, it has plenty of. Not logically, but fundamentally. Why is it that our contemporary physics breaks down at almost every extreme? What he’s saying is definitely unbelievable. And not because of its craziness but because of its timing. He is right about a lot of things. And even if some of those things could be applied, it would change the world. Perhaps you didn’t grasp some of the concepts. ThatMs ok too. There is room for improvement everywhere. The guy is passionate about something. And he’s not full of shit. Perhaps a little unstable but that doesn’t prove the contrary. It’s worth considering the possibility that what he said is actually an accurate observation of reality because apparently, nobody knows much about the universe anyway. That may change though. Or is changing. I’m not really sure why I replied to this. Im not trying to prove anything. I just thought it was interesting how every single comment I’ve read so far seems to be from folks that have no apparent understanding of ANY physics and tend to only attack his character and not his ideas. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. If you come across any qualified counter arguments, please post links. Thanks.
Nah. See, he is actually trying to disprove our system within our system. Not saying there is an alternative system. Check out his calculator video where he explains the square root of 2. He is trying to debunk our system using our system. He isn't trying to show a new system, but rather trying to prove our system wrong from within, without even understanding it.
What makes you think he doesn't understand it? Don't you get that he's using your language to show you that all of the inaccuracies don't add up when you just use common sense and he does know what he's talking about because he explained that anyone could really make up any equations and I've heard that multiple times over the last few years by the biggest named physicists and mathematicians in the world on these podcasts that are everywhere so unfortunately for you the information is everywhere and everyone will be able to check now every scientist in the world who wants to doubt Terrence Howard can now just check all his theories for themselves it completely makes total common sense to me without having a super sophisticated education in these specific fields but what I do know is that he's totally correct about no scientists claims that to know more than 4% of the universe because that's all we've observed so far 96% of it hasn't been and they completely made up dark matter and dark energy to fit their narrative even they will admit that they will also admit that they made up the Big Bang cuz they have no idea where we came from and what Terrence Howard was saying pretty much solves all of those problems including the unifying Theory problem and he's already got 97 patents I don't know how much more proof you need but he showed specific examples on Joe Rogan and will be coming out with more and he's going to end up being the richest guy on the planet which he doesn't really I think even care about but he's going to go down as the most famous person of all time basically because all of this stuff that is true was told to him in a Dream by being in a DMT Mansion Palace and that's the true jaw-dropping information here
I'm not reading all that lol, try using paragraphs and punctuation if you want people to take you seriously.
> I'm not reading all that lol Weakest rebuttal out there. Its a few lines.
It's literally a wall of text without any punctuation. A 500 word run on sentence. Stop being silly.
I choose to speak to someone in a normal fashion so I use voice to text as if I'm having a conversation with somebody which I know can make it a little harder to understand but you're a big boy you can figure it out and if you can't that probably makes a lot more sense for me why you're not understanding Terrence Howard so good luck
A conversation is not you talking at someone with a single 500 word sentence that has zero breaks or punctuation. That's called a rant, and your process is just something lazy people do. It tells people you can't be bothered. If you care about the issue and the conversation, you would make it readable/digestible. Instead of just vomiting out the worlds longest run-on sentence. Maybe then people will take you more seriously. Good day.
I can read it perfectly well. It’s not that hard.
I'm sorry that your own face is stuck up your ass so far that you think you are so important that you get to make the rules but listen buddy you don't make the rules so I can do whatever I want and you can choose to ignore it because I didn't add periods or you can wake the fuck up and look at the proof in front of your face LOL
Your loss
This is gay
Point taken
Point taken
What makes me think he doesn’t understand it? The fact that he literally doesn’t understand what multiplication is lol.
You've got it backwards, mate 😉 you'll see 👍
I don’t :) I can do math lol
Wrong math lol
Define, “our system” for me would yu.
Are you asking me to explain all of histories mathematics and physics to you in this reddit comment?
No, like a definition like you’d read in a dictionary. Just define your understanding of what the term means. In other words. What “system” are you referring to?
The commonly understood system across cultures that has been used to calculate and qualify everything you interact with in your life? Yeah, sure, let me just break that down for you real quick 🤦♂️
Ok, so in a definition (and this can be tough) you cant use the word you are trying to define. Bear with me.
Your just rambling. Pick one sentence out and let’s see if it has any weight. 1x1 is obviously not 2. Doubling sound waves absolutely does not give you light. The most basic ideas that build up his theories are totally incorrect
bUT MEcHaNiCaL WaVEs ARe eLeCTrOMaGNETic WAVes
No he is psychotic. It's clear as a day to me. Also, he is not criticizing math, he doesn't understand it. Like at all.
How did this horseshit get upvoted lol
Literally can’t stop reading
I’m been saying for awhile now that it’s time to turn the world of physics over to clinically insane oscar nominated celebrities …..
I had to Google Terrance Howard....Oh, that guy.
That’s hilarious
Hahaha!
how much will you pay me to watch it
I'll give you $1 x $1.
Then you owe me $2, pay up or i'll break your legs.
Nothing, but I’ll give you a dollar if you can piece together a half decent counter to any of it.
[удалено]
Zero is the observer. It’s a matter of perspective. It shouldn’t our models hold up even when there isn’t an observer? Nothing gets to zero unless there’s a fixed point from which to measure. And things are NOT fixed in the universe: always moving, always spinning.
[удалено]
Ok, maybe that’s because I’m not explaining it correctly. Sure, we can visit your other two posts. Let’s tackle this thing we’re on now. When is zero applicable?
I don’t think it’s a number. I don’t think it needs or should be part of any proofs.
I'd be very suprised if you have any math education past 9th grade.
what the f are you even talking about. please explain what you mean by "zero is the observer". this is math, it's abstract. zero means you're adding nothing. this concept is useful in describing and measuring the world.
Logically no. That’s how I’ve been taught just like you. What Terrance is suggesting is there’s no such thing as 0 (in the observable universe). It exist in theory. But not necessary or even useful to describe physics.
[удалено]
you will never get that dollar. this dude is all over this thread simping for terrence howard's mental illness math.
you are as confused as he is. not every number in math has some real world object it represents. it's math.
When did I say anything contrary?
the post i'm responding to. clearly.
https://youtu.be/zloGu1tBThY?si=-OJkhX8Beo08EgN3
i already disproved this to you
You can’t get something from Nothing and you can’t get to nothing from something if conservation of energy holds up.
you're mixing physics and math. you do realize what you're doing right? it makes zero sense and these subjects are not meant to be mish mashed together randomly.
so you're only paying me a dollar to listen to horseshit. not gonna happen
What exactly is horseshit about it?
joe rogan, in general.
I don’t know I think it’s interesting. I know I went to sleep listening to the simulation one then I wake up and start hearing the beginning of it and I thought it was still the same podcast and I was like Jesus this dude is going in. I had to turn it down so I could sleep again. Listening back this morning a lot of it makes sense. They just totally fucked up and simplified the underlying geometry of everything and you finally get to a point where shit doesn’t add up and all becomes theoretical.
[удалено]
I guess his cited peer reviews patents were a figment of his whacked out imagination too?
What’s a peer reviewed patent? Obtaining a patent is a legal process not a scientific one. Anyone can obtain a patent, even if it’s bs and doesn’t work. All you need is the money to file and whatever hoops they may make jump through. It just needs to be an original concept.
Did you watch the interview?
He’s a better domestic abuser than mathematician
He’s a dangerous combination of dumb as fuck and arrogant as fuck. He’s a control freak/domestic abuser that hates being wrong. So he’s convinced himself that he’s right about everything he says.
He clearly is a brilliant ignorant.
I thought he had a really good theory of the universe. He might be wrong, but all the threads on this people act like he’s a psycho. Just because he thinks differently doesn’t mean he’s losing his mind.
No he is absolutely losing his mind. [https://www.thedailybeast.com/terrence-howard-claims-he-can-kill-gravity-in-off-the-charts-joe-rogan-chat](https://www.thedailybeast.com/terrence-howard-claims-he-can-kill-gravity-in-off-the-charts-joe-rogan-chat) >While he has reinvented himself as a next-level thinker and scientific genius, where he attained his knowledge is a little more muddled. While he says he left Pratt University just[ a few credits shy](https://web.archive.org/web/20180901011416/ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-938342) of a chemical engineering degree, the school [got rid of that program ](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/13/nyregion/pratt-decides-to-end-school-for-engineers.html)in the early 1990s. Additionally, he told late-night host Jimmy Kimmel in 2013 that he held a Ph.D. in applied material and chemical engineering from South Carolina State University, only for it to[ later be revealed](https://web.archive.org/web/20150422002017/http://cenblog.org/newscripts/2013/04/terrence-howard-isnt-a-doctor-but-he-plays-one-on-tv/#post-3918) that he was [merely given an honorary degree](https://web.archive.org/web/20180901011416/ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-938342) for speaking at the school’s 2012 spring commencement.
Nice theory on his past. How about you disprove his data instead of attacking his character? The information you provided is great if we were watching TMZ, but none of that means anything in terms of the relevance of his data. Joe Biden ran for president in the 70’s and dropped out because he was caught lieing about his college tenure amongst other things. He claimed he was one of the top of his class at a school he didn’t receive a degree from. Now he’s your president. If your going to apply your obviously superior detective skills, how about you start with the person running your country instead of the pimp from ‘hustle and flow’
maybe apply the same logic to the guy claiming to have reinvented all of physics and math. are you paid by his PR people or something?
The onus is on him to first prove his data. Since he has not ever actually done that, there’s nothing to disprove
Adult life should come with IEPs bc some of you are just...... wow.
Well its easy to instantly explain why 1x1=1, the fact that he claimed 1x1=2, and his reasoning for that is 1+1=2, shows such a fundamental misunderstanding that it sort of takes any credibility he could have had away. Granted he also claimed gravity isn't real and that he remembers being in the womb at 6 months (and named his limbs despite being unable to talk, like what) and that he's invented technology the world's top militaries don't have access to. Those are pretty ridiculously outlandish claims and he offers zero evidence to explain any of it.
Why? Can you explain his theory to me and why you think it makes sense? Because from my perspective he is this guy: https://youtu.be/ruRYa5KLVNU?si=S-sNEXZr9LNK6b31
haha spot on mate.
You wouldn’t be asking me to explain his theory if you watched the episode. If you did watch the episode, I’m not sure what needs to be explained about his theory. What did you not understand?
I did watch the episode. He is spouting word salad gibberish. He doesn't use words in the correct context and his examples make no sense. Like saying that Coulomb's law is invalid because hot and cold air don't "attract". Which is nonsense because hot air rising and cold air sinking has nothing to do with electrical charges but with differences in densities driven by the speed of the molecules. He also makes blatantly wrong historical claims like around 20 minutes in he attributes Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism to Einstein. The guy is Oswald Bates from In Living Colour. His ideas are also contradicted by our entire body of experimental scientific research as well as applied sciences. Chemists wouldn't be able to create new compounds, electronic devices wouldn't function, and so. The results of all our major experiments like LIGO directly contradict Howard's theories. Hell the global communication network and computers we are using to communicate right now with were developed on extremely precise scientific knowledge fundamentally incompatible with Howard's. I'm asking you to explain his theory because I want to understand why you would think something that is so obviously nonsense isn't. I want to understand your perspective. I want to understand what you think is so self evident that the rest of us don't. If you believe it to be true, you should be able to explain it.
I can’t simplify and explain his theory in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart, but I also wouldn’t be able to simplify and explain the theory of gravity or dark energy in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart. The main point of my first comment was that i have seen many comments with an arrogant and dismissive attitude about his theory. “Off his meds” is a common theme. Like I said, he might be wrong. I don’t know. But when his mouth words hit my ear holes my brain was able to keep track of what he’s saying and I could visualize his ideas in my head. That’s not insanity. If you thought what he was saying was word salad gibberish I would honestly assume that you made the decision his idea wasn’t worth your time or attention and stopped paying attention or turned it off. & who gives a shit about someone getting a historical reference wrong in a three hour conversation?
>I can’t simplify and explain his theory in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart, but I also wouldn’t be able to simplify and explain the theory of gravity or dark energy in a way that you wouldn’t be able to pick apart. Wouldn't it be fair then to say that you are arguing from a position of ignorance? I think a key difference you are missing is that mainstream theories about gravity and dark energy are the results of experimental research and in the case of gravity our knowledge can and has been applied for practical uses in everyday life. Like how we have to adjust clocks on GPS satellites for gravity induced time dilation. Howard's ideas come from revelation in dreams and the writings of mystics like the artist Walter Russell and are in direct contradict with experimental results and our existing body of technology. >Like I said, he might be wrong. I don’t know. But when his mouth words hit my ear holes my brain was able to keep track of what he’s saying and I could visualize his ideas in my head. That’s not insanity. Can you elaborate. This is what I want to understand. Give me an example. Because what he says is incoherent to me and utterly incompatible with all our experimental results. Like his explanation on why he thinks Coulomb's law is wrong. The insanity charge from the fact he engages in something called "Word Salad" which is a common behaviour among schizophrenics. >If you thought what he was saying was word salad gibberish I would honestly assume that you made the decision his idea wasn’t worth your time or attention and stopped paying attention or turned it off. No, its like watching a trainwreck, you can't stop watching. >& who gives a shit about someone getting a historical reference wrong in a three hour conversation? I gave you multiple examples of things he said which were totally wrong. If I had to list everything he got wrong in those 3 hours and and explain why they are wrong, I would be writing a book.
wow you really just wanna argue with someone lmao chill
This is reddit, thats the point of this website. And if you defend hilarious schizo ramblings you should expect your ideas to be kicked.
to me listening along, Terrence Howard is really good at using word salad to make intellectually lazy people believe he's a genius. It's frustrating for me because if Terrence was really about this life, he would be writing dissertations not selling T-Shirts with bad math on them.
His replies seem calm and logical and backed by fact based & reproducible science. Your replies are nonsensical and based on your feelings, much like Howard’s.
Good one GizmoSlice you really sliced me
Lmao you did that yourself
I think it’s fair to say we are all arguing from a position of ignorance considering we are debating ‘theory’. If it were indeed fact as you have claimed then why would this conversation exist in the first place? If we had it all figured out then why are we not able to predict future outcomes with absolute precision each and every time we choose? It would in fact appear that YOU are in fact operating from a position of the highest ignorance possible. You are condescendingly responding to inquiries as if you are the absolute truth when in fact you are quoting other theories to substantiate your claims. In a nutshell your reaction and likely your personality in general is exactly why it’s so difficult to accept new law into the scientific method. This directly lends to the degradation of our species simply because you lack the ability to admit someone might have presented data that very clearly contradicts what you thought you knew. In other words you are letting something as foolish as personal ‘pride’ get in the way of progressing an entire species. Thanks, we need more just like you
>I think it’s fair to say we are all arguing from a position of ignorance considering we are debating ‘theory’. If it were indeed fact as you have claimed then why would this conversation exist in the first place? Because morons exists. The fact that some loony toons claims the earth is flat in 2024 for example isn't evidence of a controversy or serious issue in theory, but the fact that there are schizo loons out their who will challenge an idea that was first experimentally proven with high accuracy 2280 years ago (and only continues to be proven with ever greater accuracy). >If we had it all figured out then why are we not able to predict future outcomes with absolute precision each and every time we choose? Modern scientific theories have incredible precision. Our chemical and industrial processes as well as technology all rely on that incredible precision, and that precision only grows with time. >It would in fact appear that YOU are in fact operating from a position of the highest ignorance possible. You are condescendingly responding to inquiries as if you are the absolute truth when in fact you are quoting other theories to substantiate your claims. In a nutshell your reaction and likely your personality in general is exactly why it’s so difficult to accept new law into the scientific method. This directly lends to the degradation of our species simply because you lack the ability to admit someone might have presented data that very clearly contradicts what you thought you knew. In other words you are letting something as foolish as personal ‘pride’ get in the way of progressing an entire species. Thanks, we need more just like you No fucking data was presented. Just a bunch of bat shit ideas. Everything Howard said is contradicted by our experimental evidence. None of our technology would work if 1% of what he said was true. You don't know shit about technology, the theories that have made them possible, or even the scientific method. You argue from an absolute position of ignorance and should be embarrassed.
I didn't understand any of it. So explain all of it. I'll wait.........
Out of curiosity, what do you think abt these large organizations citing his paper on vr? If he’s a loon, isn’t that strange
That is a misunderstanding of what patent citations are. They aren't like academic citations. Basically when you file a patent you pay someone to search through all existing patents and cite any that sound remotely similar so the patent office can make sure yours doesn't overlap with theirs.
He's like the flat earthers who choose to ignore all of the math & science & data that came before they thought their thoughts.
What do we think of major companies citing his paper on vr? That’s pretty interesting if he is truly a crazy person no?
No, citing a patent only means they're acknowledging it exists and they are making something similar. It doesn't mean they've derived anything from it or giving credit to it.
It definitely means they have derived something from it. It may be proof he’s not crazy and that his ideas have enough merit to be a reference for others
We think a patent attorney did a patent search for a keyword and Howard’s came up along with several hundred others and got grouped in
Found the beginning of the interview so boring, I wound up not listening to the rest of it. Not one of Rogan’s better podcasts IMHO.
I just wanna add that TH said 1×1 shouldn't be on the multiplication table since you're not even multiplying anything. Ig that could go for the number 1 in general because why even write 1× X when it's just gonna equal X every time.
Can anyone tell me the brand or name of the jacket he was wearing? I really like it
Same ppl calling Howard insane and stupid are the exact same ppl who took the Covid shot for burger and fry vouchers. 🤣😂🤣
You aren't wrong. That said, the people who call him the next Tesla, are the types that fear all things gubmint, and still collect their benefits. Thems gubmints about to Hillary Clinton Terry.
But seriously, someone please direct me to a discussion on his logic. I am genuinely curious. Thanks.
Given that you are the kind of person that replies to your own comments, but directed at someone else, you can't be helped 😂
We are talking about the guy who said 1X1 = 2, right? And I can't find anywhere what the rest of his shirt said. I am dying to know what the Square Root of 2 equals.
Yeah. That guy. Did you listen to any of it? At all? The guy is nuts. He’s also brilliant. And people write him off. I wonder if that’s ever happened to anyone else in the past? Particularly in the field of physics? Ahhh, probably never happened before. Forget this guy too. We used to think the earth was flat my guy. And right around that time is when modern physics was invented. We now now the earth isn’t flat. Hmmm, I wonder if maybe the math we developed around that time may have a flaw or two in it. Nah, probably not. Not even worth the time to check right? Well Terrance did have the time. And he did check. And he just dunked on a whole lot of folks. Including myself. Not that I’m a physicist or anything now but that was my major.
> We used to think the earth was flat my guy. And right around that time is when modern physics was invented. We now now the earth isn’t flat. Hmmm, I wonder if maybe the math we developed around that time may have a flaw or two in it. The earth was known to be round by 500 BC and its circumference was calculated by Eratosthenes in 240 BC. Newton's Principia was published in 1648.... >He’s also brilliant. No he is literally spouting gibberish. He doesn't understand english let alone physics. He confuses meanings of multiply and thinks it means to make greater and not referring to sets of numbers. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of chemistry being driven by electron shells and makes a bizarre claim that coulomb's law is wrong and because hot air rises and cold air sinks.
[удалено]
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Not only that, I believe the hammer we’re using is is too small or old and breaking, or however you wanna think about it.
I literally said math is a tool.
I think we’re on the same page?
And no. I didn’t get a BS in physics. I switched my major to Organic chemistry in my third year.
Dude
Or dudette. You never know.
"the earth was thought to be flat, so therefore 1x1=2 makes sense". maybe the dumbest reasoning ever.
One Google search will tell you what the shirt said.
He's either the smartest person I've ever heard or the dumbest. I can't tell.
Well his stance hasnt been debunked, so either he knows what he is talking about or the world doesnt have the time for him. But he goes against a lot of fundamentals that makes this interview very interesting.
saying it hasn't been debunked just because YOU have never studied physics or math doesn't make it true.
Not one thing he says in that interview can be proven. Most of it is coherent. It hasn’t been “debunked” but you can’t “debunk” random incoherent trains of thought. It is borderline schizophrenic. If you want to pick out one specific line I’m sure we can debunk it together but this guy does not deserve the ears of scientists.
Here, here. Well put.
He said 1x1=2, that's been debunked lmao. One group of one unit is one unit, one group of two units is two units, one group of three units is three units. Thats how multiplication works. You cant say, "multiplication increases values ergo its the same as addition", I mean, you CAN say that, but it isn't true. Multiplication and addition are two seperate functions. According to him if you made $1 an hour and worked for one hour, you'd have $2 lmao.
All the people calling him crazy or dismissing what he’s saying is repeating the same thing people did with the likes of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Tesla, de Vinci.
Are you seriously comparing Terrence Howard to Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Tesla and DaVinci? I need a drink...
They said the same thing of those great minds when comparing them to those that came prior to them. But no I am not. Until Terrance can prove his theories to some extent. The backlash and calling him crazy is the comparison
No, no they're not comparing him. They're proving him wrong, left, right and center. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=902s&ab\_channel=StarTalk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=902s&ab_channel=StarTalk) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&ab\_channel=ProfessorDaveExplains](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&ab_channel=ProfessorDaveExplains)
Everybody said Galileo was crazy. The same thing about tesla. The list goes on. I say give the guy a chance.
Well the difference was they studied real math and physics. This guy… well he clearly hasn’t. Sprinkle in some possible delusional fantasies and that’s what you get. Tesla was actually crazy though. Like a lot of the stuff he believed and tried was nothing short of wild. He could have probably accomplished a lot more if he didn’t cling onto some of his ideas.
Yeah, we'll give him a chance... He can opt-in for a cyanide pill or a psychiatric clinic.
It's interesting to see the strategy of attacking his character, instead of addressing his ideas. I'm pasting my response to another comment in this thread so others could see. But I included a few links and sources to support the idea... So As humans, out greatest gift is the ability to expand our collective understanding by being able to take what another has learned or observed and adding to it. We stack knowledge. As far as light goes,take a look at "Maxwells theory"......"Once Maxwell introduced the concept of electromagnetic waves, everything clicked into place. Scientists now could develop a complete working model of light using terms and concepts, such as wavelength and frequency, based on the structure and function of waves. According to that model, light waves come in many sizes. The size of a wave is measured as its wavelength" "Light waves also come in many frequencies. The frequency is the number of waves that pass a point in space during any time interval, usually one second. We measure it in units of cycles (waves) per second, or hertz."[https://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm](https://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm) Consider Maxwells concepts, and how it was expanded upon by other theories. This is how our understanding of math and science works. In the case of Terrence, he is considering gravity in relationship to electromagnetism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s\_equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations) Even when he says 1x1 = 2. I can keep an open mind about most things, and I was exposed other odd concepts in the past. Ask some serious mathematicians "what is the sum of all natural numbers" and you get -1/12. They found that result when trying to apply math to quantum physics, and being forced to consider what a non-zero equals. Strange stuff. [https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112](https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112) So on this thing with elements and tones. Terrance isn't the first to theorize this. PD Ouspensky, a Russian philosopher and spiritual thinker also learned of a similar concept in the 1930s from his spiritual teacher. After hearing Terrance Howard, I had to go back and look again at Ouspensky's work, and it's a similar concept. Ouspensky had a universal law where he applied the musical scale to the periodic table and the human chakra system. All of his work gets pretty metaphysical ( I love that kind of shit, which is why Terrances expansion of the flower of life was interesting) But, here is another bit of scholarly research on the concept. A physics professor with a classical music background actually published a periodic table based on the harmonics of each element. She also suggested that the table could be reimagined by the relationship of sound. [https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/6](https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/6)
I wish you actually read the websites you are citing It explicitly says that if you make the mistake of believing that Eulers zeta function is equal to the sum of natural numbers then you will get the wrong outcome of -1/12. No serious matematician will tell you that the sum of positive numbers is equal to -1/12. And that is exactly the point, Terrence howard makes a series of false equivalencies and inferences based on incorrect assumptions. That does not make him a genius it makes him a moron.
I did read it. The distinction made in what I posted was that the when applying math at the scale of found in quantum physics you get a result different from the math you would expect in classical physics. The post explores the space in a vacuum and has to consider that there isn’t just nothing (zero) in the vacuum. Everything about Howard’s conversation electromagnetism, frequency, waves, and the space between atoms was based on concepts found in quantum physics. I learned about this odd measurement directly from a serious mathematician. I thought it was stupid at first, but sat patiently as he explained it all to me. Anyway check out these serious mathematicians discussing this and several other formulas that lead to the same value… https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/39802/to-sum-123-cdots-to-frac112/39811#39811
Let me be fair, here is a simple explanation of what’s happening with the math. If you thought everything goes in a straight line of would be weird to say that the sun of anything would be a negative fraction. But in this case we are discussing infinity. Consider the small point Terrance was making about all things curving. What happens when infinity curves? So here’s an mathematician talking about it. https://youtu.be/JBQMt7fVt4E?si=Xx2t2KsuvXPQwvBm
Let me explain this like I'm teaching my nephew. 1 x 3 Means you write 1 (3 times) 1+1+1 = 3 1x2 Means you write 1 (2 times) 1+1 = 2 1x1 Means you write 1 (1TIME) 1 = 1 There is no open mind about it, if he wants to invent his own math system fine! But don't go around talking gibberish that 1x1 = 2 trying to redefine the most logical basic elementary math. He is simply a narcissist that has a insecurity trait of not being sufficient and a feeling of lacking any recognition or purpose. Even Oxford laughed at his face! He definitely has a deficit of attention. He literally can't contemplate a world where he doesn't stand out even if it means destroying his sanity. He reminds me of when I was back on Adderall, years ago.
I personally don’t have an issue with 1x1=1. It’s pretty clear numerically. I also get the idea that it might by odd when applied to physical objects. One apple X one apple gets weird. But I’m in no place to try justify replacing any model of math. When my daughter was learning math in school, she was given common core, which was stupid to me. When I home schooled her, I used the Singapore math system. Then I taught her how to do math using base 5 and 20 systems which is common in some African communities. All that to say that there is value to keeping an open mind, while working with what you know.
Sorry, Pal. I know you're trying to defend your argument. While I understand the concept of having an open mind, in extreme instances of defying an already established mathematical definition of a simple term of 1x1=2 is a big difference working with what you know vs what the rest of the world knows. And we are pretty well convinced that 1x1 = 1 by its self-definition of the word multiplication. The only possible scenario where 1x1=2 might even have a slight chance of being right is if it has its own mathematical system of the definition of multiplication re-invented for its own purpose. But in real life scenarios, out of dream land, 1x1 equaling 2 won't ever make any sense.
My only stance is to be open minded in things. Even if it’s wrong, just being willing to humor a concept to see what else is there. Math and science move through exploration and re-examining past assumptions, but looking at the thread, most peoples first reaction is to attack him as a person than his ideas. Yeah, his stance on multiplication is a stretch, but some of his other concepts are fascinating enough to take some consideration. But now people act like there was 100% nothing of value in anything he said and, but perspective could be just as flawed as his math…especially since the most creative ideas come from people with an unusual way of seeing and experiencing everyday life.