I think it is possible that the reason theories like Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Relativity are getting stuck is that they have made an incorrect assumption regarding the composition and subsequent nature of space. When you closely examine these theories, you find that they all view space as a geometric entity that, while on the one hand, exists as a medium akin to a fabric that can curve and spin, is nevertheless seen, on the other hand, as a vacuum. If space is something that exists, it must be composed of something that exists. If one says that space exists but is composed of nothing, one has created a paradox. Therefore, to avoid this paradox, I shall create a new theory based on this premise: Space is something that exists because it is composed of something that exists, and nothingness, which is nowhere to be found, plays no part in the equation. From this premise, I shall postulate that space, being the most subtle thing that exists in our finite reality, must be composed of the most subtle substance possible. I shall postulate that space is composed of Planck-sized spheres or tetrahedrons or something similar. I shall call these new Planck Spheres “Spaceballs” because it is funny. So I have written, and so shall it be.
That is cute and all. But is your hypothesis falsifiable? Can it be used to make more precise measurements? Does it predict anything that can be tested in a lab? if not, then everything you wrote is both useless and meaningless.
My Spaceballs are so tiny that if you compared one to a proton, it would be like comparing a grain of sand to something bigger than the solar system. Photons move through a sea of my Spaceballs, which is why photons have a finite speed, but my Spaceballs are way too small to ever be seen. Nobody is allowed to look at my Spaceballs. My Spaceballs are private, and everybody needs to respect that. My Spaceballs have resting mass (Dark Matter). My Spaceballs can expand and contract (Dark energy). My Spaceballs can flow in a current like water (Gravity/curved space). My Spaceballs can rotate like a hurricane (Frame dragging/dark matter/dark gravity). When too much stuff tries to make my Spaceballs go faster than light, they flip the script and make a black hole. My Spaceballs do this because they don’t like being bullied. But the biggest reason you should believe in my Spaceballs is a more philosophical one: If space exists, then it must be composed of something that exists. Period. If one says, “Space exists, but it is a geometric entity that is vacuum composed of nothing.” At that moment, you have created a paradoxical impossibility. Now, which is the more extravagant claim? That space exists and is therefore composed of something that exists, which is quite logical? Or That space exists as a vacuum composed of nonexistent nothingness, which is a paradoxical impossibility? You say to me, “Prove space is composed of something!” I say to you, “Prove it is composed of nothing.” Of those two, which do you think is more likely to be proven correct someday? That which is possible, or that which is impossible? If you, my dear reader, wish to abstain from making a choice and say, ‘“I don’t know,” I will understand and respect that. To make no assumptions is better than making terribly impossible assumptions. One wonders what you would choose though: Is space something that is composed of something, or is space something that is composed of nothing? And if it is a vacuum composed of nothing, how does that which does not exist nevertheless exist enough to be a building block for something that obviously does exist? One wonders… one wonders…
The best thing about Terrence Howard's chatter was waking everyone up by learning all science. He should really learn as well, since he spewed lots of lies and I admit I watched the entire 3 hours.
when a channel claiming to talk about science...is not capable of differentiating between a hypothesis an a theory, this is already a warning sign. And there are "scientists" in every physics conference who claim to be capable of proving existing theories (not hypthesises) wrong. 6 minutes of waisted time...if you'd only announced at the beginning that this video is a bad joke
Hey everyone! I'm on a journey to reach 1,000 subscribers, and I need your help to get there! If you enjoy my content, please hit that Subscribe button and give this video a thumbs up. Your support means the world to me. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts-drop a comment below and let's chat! Thank you so much for being part of this community.
We need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670. A single geometrical process squares ψ², t², e², c², v² everything.
I say...take the maths out of it!...and add the human experience. Gravity to our own understanding is purely mass and matter interacting on a basic level....and science tries to apply that to the rest of the universe. Not a good idea.
@@Justinegallows WDYM? We detected gravitational waves already 15 years ago. Do you mean the hypothetical graviton particle? it could be tested to see if it exists in principal, but would need a particle collider that orbits around the entire earth.
1 of 1 is 1. Two 1's alongside each other can be mispercieved as being 11 when they could espouse 2 (of 1's). Space might be misrepresented to the observations by this train of visual deception logic and fundamental to mainstream, gravitating to infantile, predisposition and the innate inadequacy of developmental thought is to quantify everything on the most simplistic level. Complexity seems to be inherent as is as yet hidden aspects denied observation and measurement and correct conceptualization. Gravity is non material-specific magnetism and logically there could exist material-specific anti-gravity. Observation by equipment and consciousness, that travels through the invariable conduit of water, often influences and undermines the integrity of results. The most simple explanation of everything is that we all exist within a computer simulation but being the simplest explanation logic suggests most likely incorrect; maybe its analysis is corrupted by the flawed and specificity of the observation and measurement and we cannot see it (holistically?) correctly and remain effectively still blindly profoundly ignorant.
According to him the way you do multiplication is to add (a) to itself as many times as indicated by (b). So, according to him, 1x2=3 and 2x1=4 This is, of course, incorrect… and maybe a little cuckoo… OK maybe a lot cuckoo!🤪 The correct way to do multiplication is to replicate (a) as many times as indicated by (b) and the sum of those replications will equal your product. 1x3=(1+1+1)=3 3x1=(3)=3 You are 100% correct that the products of 1x1 and 1x2 are not the same. 👍
According to him the way you do multiplication is to add (a) to itself as many times as indicated by (b). So, according to him: 1x1=2 1x2=3 and 2x1=4 This is, of course, incorrect… The correct way to do multiplication is to replicate (a) as many times as indicated by (b) and the sum of those replications will equal your product. 1x3=(1+1+1)=3 3x1=(3)=3
@@fabiobrauer8767 someone did it :) why not him ?do you think his mother lied to him during pregnancy? :)))) i watch all show for fun from min 1 laughing ! JRE was so fascinated by his aberrations
I think it is possible that the reason theories like Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Relativity are getting stuck is that they have made an incorrect assumption regarding the composition and subsequent nature of space. When you closely examine these theories, you find that they all view space as a geometric entity that, while on the one hand, exists as a medium akin to a fabric that can curve and spin, is nevertheless seen, on the other hand, as a vacuum.
If space is something that exists, it must be composed of something that exists. If one says that space exists but is composed of nothing, one has created a paradox. Therefore, to avoid this paradox, I shall create a new theory based on this premise:
Space is something that exists because it is composed of something that exists, and nothingness, which is nowhere to be found, plays no part in the equation.
From this premise, I shall postulate that space, being the most subtle thing that exists in our finite reality, must be composed of the most subtle substance possible. I shall postulate that space is composed of Planck-sized spheres or tetrahedrons or something similar.
I shall call these new Planck Spheres “Spaceballs” because it is funny.
So I have written, and so shall it be.
That is cute and all. But is your hypothesis falsifiable? Can it be used to make more precise measurements? Does it predict anything that can be tested in a lab? if not, then everything you wrote is both useless and meaningless.
My Spaceballs are so tiny that if you compared one to a proton, it would be like comparing a grain of sand to something bigger than the solar system.
Photons move through a sea of my Spaceballs, which is why photons have a finite speed, but my Spaceballs are way too small to ever be seen. Nobody is allowed to look at my Spaceballs. My Spaceballs are private, and everybody needs to respect that.
My Spaceballs have resting mass (Dark Matter).
My Spaceballs can expand and contract (Dark energy).
My Spaceballs can flow in a current like water (Gravity/curved space).
My Spaceballs can rotate like a hurricane (Frame dragging/dark matter/dark gravity).
When too much stuff tries to make my Spaceballs go faster than light, they flip the script and make a black hole. My Spaceballs do this because they don’t like being bullied.
But the biggest reason you should believe in my Spaceballs is a more philosophical one:
If space exists, then it must be composed of something that exists. Period.
If one says, “Space exists, but it is a geometric entity that is vacuum composed of nothing.” At that moment, you have created a paradoxical impossibility.
Now, which is the more extravagant claim?
That space exists and is therefore composed of something that exists, which is quite logical?
Or
That space exists as a vacuum composed of nonexistent nothingness, which is a paradoxical impossibility?
You say to me, “Prove space is composed of something!” I say to you, “Prove it is composed of nothing.”
Of those two, which do you think is more likely to be proven correct someday? That which is possible, or that which is impossible?
If you, my dear reader, wish to abstain from making a choice and say, ‘“I don’t know,” I will understand and respect that. To make no assumptions is better than making terribly impossible assumptions.
One wonders what you would choose though:
Is space something that is composed of something, or is space something that is composed of nothing? And if it is a vacuum composed of nothing, how does that which does not exist nevertheless exist enough to be a building block for something that obviously does exist?
One wonders… one wonders…
Only thing that is challenged is him...mentally...
you explained nothing
Terrance is still struggling with 1 x's 1
He is miles ahead of you if you think that
@@SPotter1973
Your stupidity is showing
@@SPotter1973 agreed
The best thing about Terrence Howard's chatter was waking everyone up by learning all science. He should really learn as well, since he spewed lots of lies and I admit I watched the entire 3 hours.
when a channel claiming to talk about science...is not capable of differentiating between a hypothesis an a theory, this is already a warning sign. And there are "scientists" in every physics conference who claim to be capable of proving existing theories (not hypthesises) wrong. 6 minutes of waisted time...if you'd only announced at the beginning that this video is a bad joke
Hey everyone! I'm on a journey to reach 1,000 subscribers, and I need your help to get there! If you enjoy my content, please hit that Subscribe button and give this video a thumbs up. Your support means the world to me. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts-drop a comment below and let's chat! Thank you so much for being part of this community.
We need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670. A single geometrical process squares ψ², t², e², c², v² everything.
I say...take the maths out of it!...and add the human experience.
Gravity to our own understanding is purely mass and matter interacting on a basic level....and science tries to apply that to the rest of the universe.
Not a good idea.
@@StevenLewis-y3q
Gravity might as well be God.
Neither can be seen. Only the effects observed
@@StevenLewis-y3q Take math out of it? You cant be serious. Good luck getting your GPS to work correctly, or anything in the modern world.
@@Justinegallows WDYM? We detected gravitational waves already 15 years ago. Do you mean the hypothetical graviton particle? it could be tested to see if it exists in principal, but would need a particle collider that orbits around the entire earth.
Hahah
did someone say cult?
The idiots are winning
1 of 1 is 1. Two 1's alongside each other can be mispercieved as being 11 when they could espouse 2 (of 1's). Space might be misrepresented to the observations by this train of visual deception logic and fundamental to mainstream, gravitating to infantile, predisposition and the innate inadequacy of developmental thought is to quantify everything on the most simplistic level. Complexity seems to be inherent as is as yet hidden aspects denied observation and measurement and correct conceptualization. Gravity is non material-specific magnetism and logically there could exist material-specific anti-gravity. Observation by equipment and consciousness, that travels through the invariable conduit of water, often influences and undermines the integrity of results. The most simple explanation of everything is that we all exist within a computer simulation but being the simplest explanation logic suggests most likely incorrect; maybe its analysis is corrupted by the flawed and specificity of the observation and measurement and we cannot see it (holistically?) correctly and remain effectively still blindly profoundly ignorant.
4x1=4
3×1=3
2×1=2
1×1=?????.
1×1 and 1x2 cannot be the same answer.
According to him the way you do multiplication is to add (a) to itself as many times as indicated by (b).
So, according to him, 1x2=3 and 2x1=4
This is, of course, incorrect… and maybe a little cuckoo… OK maybe a lot cuckoo!🤪
The correct way to do multiplication is to replicate (a) as many times as indicated by (b) and the sum of those replications will equal your product.
1x3=(1+1+1)=3 3x1=(3)=3
You are 100% correct that the products of 1x1 and 1x2 are not the same. 👍
If 1 x 1 = 2, what does 2 x 1 equal?
According to him the way you do multiplication is to add (a) to itself as many times as indicated by (b).
So, according to him:
1x1=2 1x2=3 and 2x1=4
This is, of course, incorrect…
The correct way to do multiplication is to replicate (a) as many times as indicated by (b) and the sum of those replications will equal your product.
1x3=(1+1+1)=3 3x1=(3)=3
We are trying to reach a thousand subscribers, please show your support by clicking the subscribe button
His theories left scientific community and public intrigued??
More like It left them worried for his mental state.
Intrigued case study for mental doctors
🤷
Please don't forget to subscribe
@@Insight121 dude your videos are about "science for people who cannot graduate hi school.. no offense
4 hours of bullshts
Yeaht true. I dont think he invented that stuff
@@fabiobrauer8767 someone did it :) why not him ?do you think his mother lied to him during pregnancy? :)))) i watch all show for fun from min 1 laughing ! JRE was so fascinated by his aberrations
@@dadighidut because he doesnt understand the math that opposes he says sqrt(2) cubed divided by 2 would break our math. But it doesnt at all
He is an embarrassment 😊😊😊
HELLO AI!