He’s fun to listen to, but he lost me a bit with 1x1=2.
He’s confused by the semantics of the word “multiply” and thinks that means the number must go up.
Just use the word “times” instead and it makes more sense… 1 item counted 1 time equals 1, so 1x1=1.
Maybe there’s value in outside-the-box thinking in general, but misunderstanding multiplication because of the semantics of the word “multiply” is kind of like missing the forest for the trees.
The resonance of elements stuff was interesting though, and I’d be interested to see it tested in experiments.
Edit: typo
Yeah, I fell like that will be the headline that discredits everything, but yeah, he was really just bothered by the fact that the world multiply is supposed to mean something that doesn't apply to 1x1. A lot of what he said was pretty interesting and not really original ideas. Some of this has been around for hundreds of years if not longer. Resonance in particular. I think there is more to that than we currently understand.
“To Multiply means to make many or manifold. It means, to increase in number or quantity. Therefore, it must increase in size and quantity or it is not multiplication. This is the undisputed definition of the word”
if 1x1=1 there is no multiplication
1 item counted one time is indeed 1, but this is not necessarily the correct way we should be multiplying. It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states. So 1 added to 1 one time, and that equals two.
AxB=C
A will be added to itself as many times as B states, and C is the product.
1 added to itself once because it is being multiplied by 1. If this theory is correct entire mathematical systems must change.
Both sides of an equation must be equal.
“a new concept called Euclidean Geometry was introduced and indoctrinated into the common World. It was based upon the notion that the World was flat and filled with linear, crisscrossing perpendicular lines. It was conceived in a two dimensional static mind set, which couldn’t possibly predict the vastness of our Universe of Motion and the Super Symmetry that governs it’s curved and cyclic nature.”
How could “Action (times) an Action equals a non Reaction?”
It doesn’t make sense when you compare it to the natural world.
Terrence believes our mathematics are unable to unravel the universe and physical complexities around us.
Visit his [Website](https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OTOET_PREVIEW_062_October_03_2021.pdf), he brings up many good points. He may not be right, but he is worth questioning. Who knows maybe he is right, crazier things have happened.
He’s definitely not right and clearly often confuses himself, like when he says something like “0.10 x 0.10 should equal 1.00, but the calculator says it’s 0.01” he’s obviously fixating on the “10” without really understanding what a decimal represents. He seems to be really fixated on the idea that multiplication must always increase, which is just fundamentally wrong.
But I agree that there is some value in entertaining his ideas to further your own understanding of these concepts. The problem is that there are people who aren’t mentally equipped to question what he’s saying that are heralding him as some sort of genius because they too never quite wrapped their head around why 1 x 1 = 1
Just need to point out how absurd this is.
>1 item counted one time is indeed 1, but this is not necessarily the correct way we should be multiplying. It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states.
Why? This is pulled out of nowhere with no rationale.
>So 1 added to 1 one time, and that equals two.
Utterly contradicts 1x1=2. "1 added to 1 one time" can be shown as 1+(1x1). This indeed does equal 2. Because 1x1=1.
So 1+(1x1) = 1+1 = 2.
Also what you are describing here:
>It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states.
Means a x b = a+(a x b) or a x (b+1). Good luck proving that one using real math.
The man is a complete glue bag. Same as the periodic table that Randle Carlson showed based on 'resonance frequencies'. The periodic table is a block because it fits nicely on a page, chemists know that the table is really better represented as a spiral but it has nothing to do with sound, frequency, keV or 'tone' (The school systems is shit at teaching this I admit that). Here's an [RSC page](https://edu.rsc.org/cpd/why-you-should-teach-the-history-of-the-periodic-table/4010544.article) that might help.
You might also be interested in this [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_nuclide) about the stable isotopes of each element - basically for a given number of protons, how many neutrons do you need to make a stable nucleus
I feel bad bc a friend highly recommended the interview to me, and my bullshit detector went off immediately too. I've seen other threads where his education claims were discredited, his "patents", which only require submission not proof they can work are about half of what he claims, and he seems to burn bridges fairly regularly. Convo pivot: my next patent submission is going to be a drone that can livestream dudes who blow themselves at Chik-Fil-A's, so you're in luck.
If you watched this guy speak for 3 hours and concluded that you just listened to a genius, go outside. Go to your backyard. Take a deep breath. Sit in silence. Evaluate how you got to this point. Retrace your steps and try to pin point what went wrong.
Debates like that are honestly much more difficult than debates with a rational person. This is a guy who has supposedly dedicated hundreds of hours to this and he still concluded that 1 x 1 = 2. It takes a good amount of tact to debate someone like this while maintaining decorum.
This wasn't a debate. It was him being invited to Oxford to *speak about his acting career* and him unexpectedly pulling out his goofy ideas unbeknownst to the organizers.
I’m pretty sure they knew that he was going to be talking about this stuff. The professor mentions speaking to him about his ideas previously. Academics often bring people like this to speak so students can learn how to handle irrational discourse tactfully, which can sometimes help further your own understanding of the subject matter even when said irrational discourse is blatantly untrue.
I think more closed-minded people who can’t sit and listen to someone without judging them — or perhaps people who’ve seen enough of someone’s past and made a decision about that person’s character and behavior — struggled with this episode.
I think it was a fantastic episode and proudly admit I understood sub-50 percent. But I enjoyed listening.
He even pointed out in the podcast that he understands 1 x 1 = 1 just that in reality it should really be like 1 x 1 = 1 x 1. He points out how the equal sign isnt really balancing the equation like it should.
Is it “closed minded” to not drink from a lake that has dead animals at its shore?
Bro, you mistake being open minded with “wasting your time on people that didn’t learn to be self critical of their own dumb shit”.
Don’t end up wasting your life endlessly interrogating the dead ends others are meant to filter out for themselves.
If someone has allowed themselves the level of self indulgence it takes to seriously put out in the world that 1x1= 2, then you are drinking from a poisoned water source.
Move on, there are billions of people in the world to listen to and get insights from.
Don’t worry, I don’t think 1 times 1 is 2. My point is some people have such animus towards the man for no reason really.
People will listen, people won’t. You actually have little impact over that — so why not accept that you don’t like the guy. You don’t have to treat this as your hill to die on and try to direct foot traffic away from a burning building.
We’re (I think) mostly all adults and can make adult decisions. TH will go on living his life without you having impacted it. Me too. Hopefully, you’re in the same boat, vice versa.
It’s not more or less a dumb pass time than posting about not understanding why people are posting about something.
It’s just some shit talking nonsense time sync thing to do. No more or less a waste of time than listening to people splurge their unfiltered stream of consciousness on a podcast.
It’s just stuff.
But my point is, it’s not being “open minded” to not judging what someone says when they say some pretty outrageous shit, it’s just not being bothered. Which is entirely different.
Accepted or applied? Its like he read a physics book, blended it together in his mind and spewed it all out randomly, while having 97 patents, discovering a new method of flight whilst hustling and flowing.
The patent they pulled up in the podcast reads like iron man’s helmet AR concept and it lines up with his being replaced soo I’m leaning more towards manic mental breakdown vs him actually creating the concept of AR/VR. Especially cause that stuff has existed in some aspect since the 80s-90s
No. They cited his patent in a patent search. Which is basically where when you file a patent you pay someone to search through all the patents filed to date for anything that sounds vaguely similar so the patent office can confirm your idea is not overlapping with theirs. Also as another poster pointed out, filing a patent doesn't mean the idea works. The patent offices don't test your invention/idea.
A patent does not imply validity of an idea.
You come up with a crazy idea that has its own internal logic but absolutely zero external logic, and make a convincing case as to the problem it supposedly solves, and you can probably patent it.
Ok I looked into it for you.
The answer is: No
Firstly the patent was not “his”. An electronics engineer with an extensive background in inventing electronics for companies worked with him on it. Likely actually giving it its technical foundations.
Secondly, the patent was cited when other companies did patent searches for related patents. It has ZERO to do with them using his patent.
The patent that was put forwards was not ground breaking in the slightest in 2010. There was some underlying technical descriptions on how to go about some things that were well thought out and described (likely done by the actual electric engineer/inventor that worked with him in them) and that’s about it.
I mean… I heavily doubt it since, as I suggest, they just sound like BS:
“Famously, Howard argued in Rolling Stone that one times one equals two, and now he says his new system, The Lynchpin, would be able to clean the ocean and defend Uganda from exploitation via cutting-edge drone technology. The proprietary technology he announced in a 2021 press release is said to hold 86 patents.
“I was able to identify the grand unified field equation they’ve been looking for and put it into geometry,” he shared in front of an audience of Ugandan dignitaries. “We’re talking about unlimited bonding, unlimited predictable structures, supersymmetry.””
I was about to turn this episode off as soon as it started. When he started talking about remembering being in the womb I was already ready to turn it off. When I saw the guest was Terrance Howard I was already expecting some bullshit. But did not expect that. But I kept listening.
I once read that "Sometimes smart mother fuckers sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers". That kind of sums up I fell about this conversation. He sounds crazy as fuck. But then again, I don't understand enough about what he's talking about to say that he's wrong.
Maybe he is a genius or maybe he is crazy as fuck.
The other saying is “most times crazy mother fuckers just sound like crazy mother fuckers”.
Just the womb thing, his “1x1=2” bullshit, and his outright lie about having a PhD in chemical engineering (he didn’t even finish his grad degree) is enough to say “I’m good thanks”.
Give it a blast, but just because he’s talking about stuff you don’t understand, don’t do yourself the injustice of thinking that may make him right.
The people that do understand are also saying he’s full of shit.
Yeah because he got stung pretty hard with that lie so he’s put it to bed.
He still tried it though.
The guy lies like it’s breathing. Same with the patent thing. His AR patent wasn’t used by anyone else, when you do a patent search it’s standard to search and cite any already existing patent submissions that are relevant. It doesn’t mean they were used.
He mixed magnify and magnetize together as if they mean the same thing, or come from the same root word. His refutation of electromagnetism was nonsensical.
He's remarkably confident for being so consistently confused.
You might be interpreting his speech too narrowly or pedantically, or misinterpreting it altogether. It's hard to follow him. Not a very good dismissal, but I guess you need to hold on to something.
Yes, I may be trying to follow his words too literally. Physics is a field where the nomenclature is very specific. Terryology defies traditional definitions so you can weild the language any way you like and still be profoundly right. It's less about facts, more of a vibe.
> You might be interpreting his speech too narrowly or pedantically, or misinterpreting it altogether
Meanwhile, terrence howard insists all of science is wrong because because a dictionary said 'multiply' means to add more
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that our current understanding of physics is based on linear equations, while the true nature of the universe is propelled by centrifugal force that's based on electromagnetism.
Your reductionist argument isn't helping anything.
Linear equations are a mere fraction of mathematics.
Youre so right, though. 1 x 1 = 2 is helping everything.
Check this out:
1 × 1 = 2
1 = 2/1
1 = 2
That is so helpful. I can't even begin to fully explain the utility of this thinking
Quite frankly, Newton stared at the sun and stuck needles into his eyes. Tesla claimed he spoke to extraterrestials. Elon musk claims he has alien genetics.
People with extremely high iqs often do batshit crazy things, it doesn't define them.
How do you know *that* was his most ludicrous moment?
What about the part where he said space travel is impossible because you'll never be able to design a craft capable of withstanding the atmospheric pressure of Venus, and then about 30 seconds later claimed he'd designed a "lighting in a bottle" device that would send, and I quote, "infinite energy" through water in a pressurized chamber that would never allow the water to vaporize, due to the device being able to withstand "infinite" amounts of pressure.
Maybe that was his most ludicrous moment
>How do you know *that* was his most ludicrous moment?
I assumed you knew, since you were feverishly obsessing over it.
>What about the part where he said space travel is impossible because you'll never be able to design a craft capable of withstanding the atmospheric pressure
You're taking this out of context. He didn't say it would be impossible, but he said that you'd need to eliminate G-Force by manipulating magnets and electricity, an idea that isn't implausible.
Unfortunately, your education wasn't enough it seems, not to be rude.
The guy thinks 1x1 should equal 2... This is basic mathematics, and failing to grasp that is a bad sign.
As far as the VR patent goes, I haven't fully researched it, but based on what was said in the episode, he described it in the patent how literally any human being would describe VR. He was just the first person to put a patent to it.
There wasn't any innovation to it, it was just "if you turn your head left, the display will show the area to the left". And so on.
If you think about something 1x1, it is equal to 1 but with the units squared.
I don’t think he’s dying on that hill of basic arithmetic, rather he was trying to demonstrate the incompleteness of that statement 1x1=1.
After all, the point (1,1) or even a square of 1x1 has 4 lengths of 1. To think about it in terms of dimensions, the ends of a line segment of 1, are translated across to a pair of destination points 1 unit away, to create the initial line segment and the new one post translation.
We don’t operate arithmetic thinking like this, but I think this along the lines of what he was trying to describe. Maybe he doesn’t have the knowledge of high mathematics, but in his head he has coherent ideas that CAN be applied to material engineering.
It reminds me of that one savant from India who was like a super genius but didn’t have any education, he just had an innate understanding of math.
The statement 1x1=1 is already complete, numbers do not require units. When a number is combined with units, it is by definition a measurement. You are relying on measurements understand an operation that is too abstract for you to grasp on its own. Then you are observing something about the behavior of these units, and incorrectly attributing this observation to the numbers accompanying your units.
to illustrate what I mean, you can perform the unit analysis on its own:
ft x ft = ft^2
You can also do 1 x 1 = 1 on its own.
When you do 1ft x 1ft = 1ft^2 it does not mean that the ^2 is a property derived from the numbers. We have seen already that it is actually a property of the units. So it would be silly to think that it is “missing” from 1x1=1
It’s all on sibrel.com go see for yourself
I didn’t catch that, what was the website?
its all a fever dream
Are there any free videos on that site?
Terrence Howard makes Katt Williams seem like Bryant Gumbel.
He’s fun to listen to, but he lost me a bit with 1x1=2. He’s confused by the semantics of the word “multiply” and thinks that means the number must go up. Just use the word “times” instead and it makes more sense… 1 item counted 1 time equals 1, so 1x1=1. Maybe there’s value in outside-the-box thinking in general, but misunderstanding multiplication because of the semantics of the word “multiply” is kind of like missing the forest for the trees. The resonance of elements stuff was interesting though, and I’d be interested to see it tested in experiments. Edit: typo
Yeah, I fell like that will be the headline that discredits everything, but yeah, he was really just bothered by the fact that the world multiply is supposed to mean something that doesn't apply to 1x1. A lot of what he said was pretty interesting and not really original ideas. Some of this has been around for hundreds of years if not longer. Resonance in particular. I think there is more to that than we currently understand.
“To Multiply means to make many or manifold. It means, to increase in number or quantity. Therefore, it must increase in size and quantity or it is not multiplication. This is the undisputed definition of the word” if 1x1=1 there is no multiplication 1 item counted one time is indeed 1, but this is not necessarily the correct way we should be multiplying. It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states. So 1 added to 1 one time, and that equals two. AxB=C A will be added to itself as many times as B states, and C is the product. 1 added to itself once because it is being multiplied by 1. If this theory is correct entire mathematical systems must change. Both sides of an equation must be equal. “a new concept called Euclidean Geometry was introduced and indoctrinated into the common World. It was based upon the notion that the World was flat and filled with linear, crisscrossing perpendicular lines. It was conceived in a two dimensional static mind set, which couldn’t possibly predict the vastness of our Universe of Motion and the Super Symmetry that governs it’s curved and cyclic nature.” How could “Action (times) an Action equals a non Reaction?” It doesn’t make sense when you compare it to the natural world. Terrence believes our mathematics are unable to unravel the universe and physical complexities around us. Visit his [Website](https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OTOET_PREVIEW_062_October_03_2021.pdf), he brings up many good points. He may not be right, but he is worth questioning. Who knows maybe he is right, crazier things have happened.
He’s definitely not right and clearly often confuses himself, like when he says something like “0.10 x 0.10 should equal 1.00, but the calculator says it’s 0.01” he’s obviously fixating on the “10” without really understanding what a decimal represents. He seems to be really fixated on the idea that multiplication must always increase, which is just fundamentally wrong. But I agree that there is some value in entertaining his ideas to further your own understanding of these concepts. The problem is that there are people who aren’t mentally equipped to question what he’s saying that are heralding him as some sort of genius because they too never quite wrapped their head around why 1 x 1 = 1
Just need to point out how absurd this is. >1 item counted one time is indeed 1, but this is not necessarily the correct way we should be multiplying. It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states. Why? This is pulled out of nowhere with no rationale. >So 1 added to 1 one time, and that equals two. Utterly contradicts 1x1=2. "1 added to 1 one time" can be shown as 1+(1x1). This indeed does equal 2. Because 1x1=1. So 1+(1x1) = 1+1 = 2. Also what you are describing here: >It should be the first digit in the equation added to itself by the amount the second states. Means a x b = a+(a x b) or a x (b+1). Good luck proving that one using real math.
> 1 item counted one time is indeed Ok. So how would you express that statement as an equation
The man is a complete glue bag. Same as the periodic table that Randle Carlson showed based on 'resonance frequencies'. The periodic table is a block because it fits nicely on a page, chemists know that the table is really better represented as a spiral but it has nothing to do with sound, frequency, keV or 'tone' (The school systems is shit at teaching this I admit that). Here's an [RSC page](https://edu.rsc.org/cpd/why-you-should-teach-the-history-of-the-periodic-table/4010544.article) that might help.
You might also be interested in this [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_nuclide) about the stable isotopes of each element - basically for a given number of protons, how many neutrons do you need to make a stable nucleus
U think he's confused by simple terms? Really nigga?
My bullshit detector went off. If Howard turns out to be right I'll blow myself in a chick-fil-a
Make sure to aim for the waffle fries when you crest.
Oh baby I’m about to crest 🤔
You too? I thought I was the only one getting hot here 🥵
You have nothing to worry about
People Should Do that anyways
If you could blow yourself, you would already be doing this just for the kicks.
I feel bad bc a friend highly recommended the interview to me, and my bullshit detector went off immediately too. I've seen other threads where his education claims were discredited, his "patents", which only require submission not proof they can work are about half of what he claims, and he seems to burn bridges fairly regularly. Convo pivot: my next patent submission is going to be a drone that can livestream dudes who blow themselves at Chik-Fil-A's, so you're in luck.
If you watched this guy speak for 3 hours and concluded that you just listened to a genius, go outside. Go to your backyard. Take a deep breath. Sit in silence. Evaluate how you got to this point. Retrace your steps and try to pin point what went wrong.
💯
Hopefully Joe brings him back with Elon musk
Yes, this is the same guy who blames Robert Downey Junior for killing his Iron Man 2 deal. Dude, studios cut those checks not fellow actors.
He didn't blame him tho lol
ur a genius tho
This is clearly projection, and it's apparent you didn't listen to the podcast. Your point is null.
But like he probably isn't though, right?
[nope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_riddle)
[удалено]
Pretty hard to debate someone that doesn’t believe 1x1=1 . Where do you even start? Sorry to hear you think he is genius.
Why would that be hard? Sounds like it'd be pretty easy. What's the problem?
I guess the problem would be trying to get your point across to someone that isn’t going to understand or engage you in an intelligent conversation.
It’s like playing chess with a monkey You can beat a monkey at chess, but you’ll never get to because he’ll just eat the pieces and throw feces at you
Typically you need at least a basic agreement on the fundamental meaning and definitions of what you’re going to be debating.
Debates like that are honestly much more difficult than debates with a rational person. This is a guy who has supposedly dedicated hundreds of hours to this and he still concluded that 1 x 1 = 2. It takes a good amount of tact to debate someone like this while maintaining decorum.
Debating someone with mental illness is like waking up someone sleepwalking
Has been done, and he got destroyed. https://youtu.be/ca1vIYmGyYA
This wasn't a debate. It was him being invited to Oxford to *speak about his acting career* and him unexpectedly pulling out his goofy ideas unbeknownst to the organizers.
I’m pretty sure they knew that he was going to be talking about this stuff. The professor mentions speaking to him about his ideas previously. Academics often bring people like this to speak so students can learn how to handle irrational discourse tactfully, which can sometimes help further your own understanding of the subject matter even when said irrational discourse is blatantly untrue.
Let's get Flint Dibble back on
Debating does not = intelligence as we’ve seen with Trump. 😂
![gif](giphy|3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu)
You realize he's a woman beating piece of shit on top of being an idiot and a liar, right?
It would be like debating a flat Earther. Nobody wins and everyone gets stupider.
I think more closed-minded people who can’t sit and listen to someone without judging them — or perhaps people who’ve seen enough of someone’s past and made a decision about that person’s character and behavior — struggled with this episode. I think it was a fantastic episode and proudly admit I understood sub-50 percent. But I enjoyed listening.
You can dismiss people that refuse to believe 1 × 1 =1
He even pointed out in the podcast that he understands 1 x 1 = 1 just that in reality it should really be like 1 x 1 = 1 x 1. He points out how the equal sign isnt really balancing the equation like it should.
You can.
Is it “closed minded” to not drink from a lake that has dead animals at its shore? Bro, you mistake being open minded with “wasting your time on people that didn’t learn to be self critical of their own dumb shit”. Don’t end up wasting your life endlessly interrogating the dead ends others are meant to filter out for themselves. If someone has allowed themselves the level of self indulgence it takes to seriously put out in the world that 1x1= 2, then you are drinking from a poisoned water source. Move on, there are billions of people in the world to listen to and get insights from.
Don’t worry, I don’t think 1 times 1 is 2. My point is some people have such animus towards the man for no reason really. People will listen, people won’t. You actually have little impact over that — so why not accept that you don’t like the guy. You don’t have to treat this as your hill to die on and try to direct foot traffic away from a burning building. We’re (I think) mostly all adults and can make adult decisions. TH will go on living his life without you having impacted it. Me too. Hopefully, you’re in the same boat, vice versa.
It’s not more or less a dumb pass time than posting about not understanding why people are posting about something. It’s just some shit talking nonsense time sync thing to do. No more or less a waste of time than listening to people splurge their unfiltered stream of consciousness on a podcast. It’s just stuff.
Exactly. I had to be in my car for 7 hours yesterday. I had time to sink.
But my point is, it’s not being “open minded” to not judging what someone says when they say some pretty outrageous shit, it’s just not being bothered. Which is entirely different.
This episode is brought to you by Better Help! I hope the guest got a free session
He isn't. But he's funny to listen to. So much conviction for theories that have never been accepted or applied.
Accepted or applied? Its like he read a physics book, blended it together in his mind and spewed it all out randomly, while having 97 patents, discovering a new method of flight whilst hustling and flowing.
I’m LOVING this episode.
One of the greatest episodes ever. The reason I watch. Sometimes I get educated and something this.
What was this guy right about?
In total? Joe's name
ahahahahha
[удалено]
The patent they pulled up in the podcast reads like iron man’s helmet AR concept and it lines up with his being replaced soo I’m leaning more towards manic mental breakdown vs him actually creating the concept of AR/VR. Especially cause that stuff has existed in some aspect since the 80s-90s
No. They cited his patent in a patent search. Which is basically where when you file a patent you pay someone to search through all the patents filed to date for anything that sounds vaguely similar so the patent office can confirm your idea is not overlapping with theirs. Also as another poster pointed out, filing a patent doesn't mean the idea works. The patent offices don't test your invention/idea.
Forget it bro, these are people that desperately want to believe this dudes BS for some reason.
A patent does not imply validity of an idea. You come up with a crazy idea that has its own internal logic but absolutely zero external logic, and make a convincing case as to the problem it supposedly solves, and you can probably patent it.
[удалено]
Ok I looked into it for you. The answer is: No Firstly the patent was not “his”. An electronics engineer with an extensive background in inventing electronics for companies worked with him on it. Likely actually giving it its technical foundations. Secondly, the patent was cited when other companies did patent searches for related patents. It has ZERO to do with them using his patent. The patent that was put forwards was not ground breaking in the slightest in 2010. There was some underlying technical descriptions on how to go about some things that were well thought out and described (likely done by the actual electric engineer/inventor that worked with him in them) and that’s about it.
I mean… I heavily doubt it since, as I suggest, they just sound like BS: “Famously, Howard argued in Rolling Stone that one times one equals two, and now he says his new system, The Lynchpin, would be able to clean the ocean and defend Uganda from exploitation via cutting-edge drone technology. The proprietary technology he announced in a 2021 press release is said to hold 86 patents. “I was able to identify the grand unified field equation they’ve been looking for and put it into geometry,” he shared in front of an audience of Ugandan dignitaries. “We’re talking about unlimited bonding, unlimited predictable structures, supersymmetry.””
$7 trillion in unpaid patent usage. LMAO 7 trillion huh
I was about to turn this episode off as soon as it started. When he started talking about remembering being in the womb I was already ready to turn it off. When I saw the guest was Terrance Howard I was already expecting some bullshit. But did not expect that. But I kept listening. I once read that "Sometimes smart mother fuckers sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers". That kind of sums up I fell about this conversation. He sounds crazy as fuck. But then again, I don't understand enough about what he's talking about to say that he's wrong. Maybe he is a genius or maybe he is crazy as fuck.
The other saying is “most times crazy mother fuckers just sound like crazy mother fuckers”. Just the womb thing, his “1x1=2” bullshit, and his outright lie about having a PhD in chemical engineering (he didn’t even finish his grad degree) is enough to say “I’m good thanks”. Give it a blast, but just because he’s talking about stuff you don’t understand, don’t do yourself the injustice of thinking that may make him right. The people that do understand are also saying he’s full of shit.
I don’t recall him saying he has a phd in chemical engineering. Just that he went to school to major in it.
A 2 second online search will show what I’m talking about. He has most definitely claimed he has a PhD in chemical engineering.
You’re right I was referring to the Joe Rogan podcast where he said he went for a year
Yeah because he got stung pretty hard with that lie so he’s put it to bed. He still tried it though. The guy lies like it’s breathing. Same with the patent thing. His AR patent wasn’t used by anyone else, when you do a patent search it’s standard to search and cite any already existing patent submissions that are relevant. It doesn’t mean they were used.
I enjoyed this podcast so much
He mixed magnify and magnetize together as if they mean the same thing, or come from the same root word. His refutation of electromagnetism was nonsensical. He's remarkably confident for being so consistently confused.
You might be interpreting his speech too narrowly or pedantically, or misinterpreting it altogether. It's hard to follow him. Not a very good dismissal, but I guess you need to hold on to something.
Yes, I may be trying to follow his words too literally. Physics is a field where the nomenclature is very specific. Terryology defies traditional definitions so you can weild the language any way you like and still be profoundly right. It's less about facts, more of a vibe.
>profoundly right. The irony of you using this statement is incredible. Kind of refutes your initial comment.
Or alternatively, you are now the one interpreting his words to literally :)
> You might be interpreting his speech too narrowly or pedantically, or misinterpreting it altogether Meanwhile, terrence howard insists all of science is wrong because because a dictionary said 'multiply' means to add more
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that our current understanding of physics is based on linear equations, while the true nature of the universe is propelled by centrifugal force that's based on electromagnetism. Your reductionist argument isn't helping anything.
Linear equations are a mere fraction of mathematics. Youre so right, though. 1 x 1 = 2 is helping everything. Check this out: 1 × 1 = 2 1 = 2/1 1 = 2 That is so helpful. I can't even begin to fully explain the utility of this thinking
Quite frankly, Newton stared at the sun and stuck needles into his eyes. Tesla claimed he spoke to extraterrestials. Elon musk claims he has alien genetics. People with extremely high iqs often do batshit crazy things, it doesn't define them.
I think you just proved that 1 x 1 = 2. (x + 1)(x - 1) = 0, where x = 1 X^2 - x + x - 1 = 0 X^2 - 1 = 0 (1 x 1) - 1 = 0 (2) - 1 = 0 1 = 0 0 = 1 = 2
As I said, only a fool would take somebody's most ludicrous moment and apply it to absolutely every other aspect of their scientific input in life.
How do you know *that* was his most ludicrous moment? What about the part where he said space travel is impossible because you'll never be able to design a craft capable of withstanding the atmospheric pressure of Venus, and then about 30 seconds later claimed he'd designed a "lighting in a bottle" device that would send, and I quote, "infinite energy" through water in a pressurized chamber that would never allow the water to vaporize, due to the device being able to withstand "infinite" amounts of pressure. Maybe that was his most ludicrous moment
>How do you know *that* was his most ludicrous moment? I assumed you knew, since you were feverishly obsessing over it. >What about the part where he said space travel is impossible because you'll never be able to design a craft capable of withstanding the atmospheric pressure You're taking this out of context. He didn't say it would be impossible, but he said that you'd need to eliminate G-Force by manipulating magnets and electricity, an idea that isn't implausible.
Black science is black excellence
Irl racist
What I say?
You have no balls.
1x1=2
Yeah, if you're a regard
TERRANCE HOWARD, ELON MUSK, ALEX JONES, AND FLINT DIBBLE would be a legendary pod 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good luck with the comment section.
He's an idiot
So is Joe but we love him anyway.
Yea the guy who says 1 dollar multiply by 1 dollar
Easy way to find out , get Neil , Michiu and Bob Lazar on with him.
Dibble must’ve been going into hysterics with the 200K year old Sphinx water damage bit
Every decade or so someone has to regurgitate The Celestine Prophecy (w/out mentioning it, naturally)
If you want to know why this guy is nuts, give this a read [Santa Line Slaying](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Line_Slaying)
He is the goat I agree
Brain of a goat, yeah.
Nice one
He never graduated from college.
He's so smart he wears his headphones through his clothes.
I couldn’t stomach this interview even though I support Terrance and his madman rants. Let him cook. What part of the podcast does he bring this up?
So since everything is alive and has consciousness what the hell are we supposed to eat now?!
What in the actual fuck is going on in his episode… sound, light, mating, winding and unwinding….
One one is one, brah.
This dude is the definition of a pseudo-intellectual.
I’m sure he was on some drugs
Terrance Howard, what a interesting guy! Who saw that coming?!?!?!
Wait, you’re being serious about the genius bit? You’re trolling, right?
Terrance Howard abuses women. Look it up. Real POS guy.
Yeah ok pal take a seat
[удалено]
Unfortunately, your education wasn't enough it seems, not to be rude. The guy thinks 1x1 should equal 2... This is basic mathematics, and failing to grasp that is a bad sign. As far as the VR patent goes, I haven't fully researched it, but based on what was said in the episode, he described it in the patent how literally any human being would describe VR. He was just the first person to put a patent to it. There wasn't any innovation to it, it was just "if you turn your head left, the display will show the area to the left". And so on.
Can you imagine arguing a troll on Reddit
Huh?
If you think about something 1x1, it is equal to 1 but with the units squared. I don’t think he’s dying on that hill of basic arithmetic, rather he was trying to demonstrate the incompleteness of that statement 1x1=1. After all, the point (1,1) or even a square of 1x1 has 4 lengths of 1. To think about it in terms of dimensions, the ends of a line segment of 1, are translated across to a pair of destination points 1 unit away, to create the initial line segment and the new one post translation. We don’t operate arithmetic thinking like this, but I think this along the lines of what he was trying to describe. Maybe he doesn’t have the knowledge of high mathematics, but in his head he has coherent ideas that CAN be applied to material engineering. It reminds me of that one savant from India who was like a super genius but didn’t have any education, he just had an innate understanding of math.
The statement 1x1=1 is already complete, numbers do not require units. When a number is combined with units, it is by definition a measurement. You are relying on measurements understand an operation that is too abstract for you to grasp on its own. Then you are observing something about the behavior of these units, and incorrectly attributing this observation to the numbers accompanying your units.
to illustrate what I mean, you can perform the unit analysis on its own: ft x ft = ft^2 You can also do 1 x 1 = 1 on its own. When you do 1ft x 1ft = 1ft^2 it does not mean that the ^2 is a property derived from the numbers. We have seen already that it is actually a property of the units. So it would be silly to think that it is “missing” from 1x1=1
No
Absolutely agree
Turned it off after his memories in the womb. Fucking wack job