Terrence Howard Explains "1 x 1 = 2"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- Speaker: Terrence Howard
00:00 - Terrence Howard calls out Neil deGrass Tyson
01:22 - 1 x 1 = 2 (Explained) + Neil deGrass Tyson feud continued.
04:15 - Terrence Howard claims particle physics is incorrect by default (founded on probabilities) Howard sheds light onto 1 x 1 = 2 as being far deeper than a simple mathematical ratio, but rather a universal ratio defining the ethers role within the universe. Terrence provides insights into the "void" of the cosmos, the unseen "carrying medium" of the electric field that's in us and all around us.
06:30 - Terrence Howard explains how we have been fooled by our senses by believing in Newtonian physics (straight lines in quantum nature) and subsequently missed the harmonic balance of all things in nature. The natural breathing in and breathing out of all things pertaining to electro-magnetism.
10:10 - Terrence Howard breaks down what exactly he "found in the void" and how he is using these discoveries to transform current industries of flight, lighting, super symmetrical systems plus much more.
13:23 - Terrence Howard explains the laws of the universe, contraction and expansion, suggesting we've been misled all along by focusing purely on the expansive, radiative side of things.
15:12 - Everything in the universe is just electricity, magnetism is simply devitalised electricity.
Watch The Full Terrence Howard Interview On The Joe Rogan Podcast
Music:
Alex Grohl
ARCT Sound
Lexin Music
Serge Parkin Music
The initial 1 is the only number of value in the equation. The second 1 is how many times it occurs. That’s why the answer to 1, one time, is one. This isn’t difficult.
He thinks talking to a non scientist would make it right 😂
it's the square root of 2 part that is kind of interesting. not that it negates 1x1=2 but still interesting
You don’t get it. He’s saying that how come something that is not multiplied being said it’s multiplied.
1 multiplied by 1 is not multiplication it’s just “once”
Multiplication= made more of
Huh?
but one thing in two piles is not two things...it is one half of one thing, twice. the logic becomes. it follows two piles of 2 things is four things in total. there is a logical gap.
the scary part is not terrence howard saying this. The scary part is hiw many people agree.
I agree with him, I thought it when I was in school
come on - everyone had that sort of thoughts at some point. Most of us don't understand contemporary physical theories, we operate on "authority" basis. If someone is said to be smart, then so he is. Don't pretend you have working understanding of Quantum Field Theory, than theory of this guy.
The real thing to be scared of is to be so emotionally vested in the theories that were etched into all of our brains systematically through institutions, Then to just be proven incorrect scientifically and mathematically, our minds would be subject to destruction knowing everything we were taught or knew was proven not to be true.
@@jasonryan9659Do you actually agree with everything Terrence Howard said?
Wow, chill, i understand quantum field theory, and terrance is smoking his socks.
Terrence Howard wrote his entire paper based on a misunderstanding of what the word "multiplication" means. It doesn't mean "always makes more of something." This is what an insane person does. They start with a misunderstanding, then they construct their entire reality on top of it.
Not necessarily. Gottlob Frege wrote a whole book based on a false premise on sets. Russell debunked his entire book with a paradox.
@@MrBeen992 The only paradox here is Howard.
@@jesse_cole I just offered a counterexample to your premise that Terrence " based his "entire paper on a misunderstanding" . That has occurred many times in intellectual history and is not "insane"
@MrBeen992 lol, no. You didn't offer a single counterpoint to the fact that TERRENCE based his book on a misunderstanding. The fact that mainstream ideas have been debunked in the past doesn't make 1x1 equal 2, dude. The burden of proof here is on Terrence to prove he's not wrong (and you, if you want to convince anyone that he's right). Do better.
@@jesse_cole LOL ytou still dont understand. I was trying to offer an argument that you dont have to be insane, as you suggest, to base your theory :"on a misunderstanding". Do you understand now, or are you as dense as Howard ?
I like how he said I studied chemical engineering at SCSU but they don’t have a chemical engineering program at the university
It's a freaking prank. It's a new age scam he and some ghost writers came up with and in a couple of weeks they´ll come clean and say it was a social experiment. And they're trying to figure out who picks up on what. The chemical engineering program is one thing, and other people will pickp up other stuff.
in is mind he did everything
Lol fr??? hahaaaaa sounds about right!😂😂😂
He's an actor 😆
What he means is he studied a book while drinking coffwe in SCSU
terrence howard's multiplication sign accidentally rotated 45 degrees
Ya but Terrance knows that 45 degrees plus 45 degrees equals 180 degrees, which brings the sign right back to where it started as a multiplication sign. This means he was right all along to multiply instead of add…. This man is an absolute genius!
@@Sinnbad2145+45=90 bruh!
Not if you look past the problem, like patch Adam's... when he saw 8 fingers instead of 4.
I’m pretty sure it’s the wave conjugations are equal and opposite of the magnetism, which makes the void in the ether a no go, because quite simply there are no straight lines
@@cdubs5738 No. It's because you are not multiplying volumetrically and using the correct angles of incidence, then you generate the right frequencies corresponding to the appropriate element in the periodic table.
This is common sense man 🤦🏾♂️
There's no way Joe smoked enough weed for that episode
LMAF!!!!😂
Is he wrong?
Which part? Sound on point. Most of it.
No he didn't, but Terrence smoked too much....
@@germtimeyea, thats how we do science. "It sounds good". Brilliant!!
"How many times did he score a goal in the soccer game today?"
"He scored once. One time."
1 goal, 1 time.
Terrence: "That makes two."
Golly, guess we need to call FIFA and change the records.
😂 fucking hilarious 😂
Time vs times makes the difference
How many ones did you use for your answer? 😂😂😂 so using the number of 1 twice equaling one is beyond God like brain work sir.
1 x 1 = 1 is equal to 1 = 1. In your chit example you are simply stating that one event (soccer game) had one player who scored a goal one time. The formulas for each are 1=1, 1=1, 1=1. Were two identical goals scored by two identical soccer players? If so, then, 1 x 1 = 1. Good luck finding a space and time bending machine to find two identical things of anything in existence. Peace
Identical twins?
Howard just gave a speech via video at Emory Law School for the US Patent and Trademark Office. I’m just now seeing all this about his research online. I am just in awe. I had no idea what he was talking about and now I see why. I’m no scientist but before law school I got a science degree. Now I understand why I didn’t understand him. It didn’t make any sense.
😂😂
Generally, we tend to say that something doesn't make sense when we don't understand. I personally disagree with 1×1=2 but I'm still amazed by his bubble representation.
I’m waiting for the South Park episode 😂😂😂
Bro😂
When I first saw this video, that's exactly the first thought I had... "Matt and Trey are going to have a field day"😂
@@beastmaster415 Exactly!
That’ll be fun 😂🤣😂
It'll be epic
It's so hard out there for a pimp, that they are turning to physics to make a living
Made up physics
oh no you didn't. LOL.
MANE!!!!
And they SUCK at it too 🤣
I'm starting to think the pimping ain't easy for a different reason... The math sucks!
When your uncle comes over after downing a bottle of wine and 2 Benadryls...
A bottle of whiskey more likely...
He’s obviously not drunk. Are you?
😂😂
@@user-kj6ne1dx3pagreed he's not drunk. But he is incredibly stupid.
😂😂😂😂😂
I sell apples for $1 each, the buyer takes 1 apple, I'm like: you owe me $2 🧐
😂 exactly!
He's not making it make sense.
What does 1 apple x 1 apple =
Hajajaha
gotta pay the tax lmfao XDDDD. its like when restaurant be showing the option of tipping on the credit card purchase.
@@kieror583 apple². Thing is you can add apples, so 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple, but you cant multiply them because multiply an apple by apple makes no sense.
the dramatic mood music and motion graphics make this even funnier 😂
Let a x b = c;
Square both sides gives (a x b)^2 = c^2;
Expand left side (a x b) (a x b) = c^2; (a) (a x b^2) = a^2 x b^2 = c ^2;
Divide both sides by b^2 gives a^2 = c^2 / b^2;
Now let c = 2 and b =1 and take the Sqrt of both sides to solve for a
That is Sqrt (a^2) = a = Sqrt (c^2 / b^2) = Sqrt (2^2 / 1^2) = Sqrt (4 / 1) = Sqrt (4) = 2, thus a = 2;
Therefore when b = 1 and c = 2 then a = 2;
Now substitute those values for a, b, and c into the original algebraic equation:
a x b = c or in this case 2 x 1 = 2.
Therefore, if 2 x 1 is 2 then 1 x 1 can not be 2.
Conclusion Terrence Howard is WRONG and should find something else to do with his life! Fly fishing perhaps?
Can you write a mathematical equation to explain how magic works or give us a formula that we can work with to explain levitation. Your 1 dumb smart guy times yourself😂😂😂😂
Ok lets do this: if a camera captured a side angle of you looking into a mirror how many images of 'One' (as in person) would you see? Does it change the fact that is still just one person? So your sense of perception is off even by using all of that extra unnecessary stuff. 😂😂😂 goofy
@@Mathematica702this foolishness has nothing to do with a country.. this is an Actor.. we just had 2 high school girls in Louisiana find new theories independently and with 2 different processes!!! It was peer reviewed by Adult experts and it was real and accurate.. they are stars..
@@freindlyghost4829 You’re the goofball! 🤣 Try fly fishing next as you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Silly boy!
@@freindlyghost4829 what’s your level of maths? First grade? 🤣🧮🤣
He says, "if you have a 1 and then "add" a 1 with a multiplication sign, what happened to the one you added"???🤣🤣
multiplication sign is a mathematical expression. what if he used a different word instead of "add a 1".. semantics. guy needs to learn discrete mathematics, number theory, and such. but i doubt he will
@@blackspirit1129explain 3x1?
Think about multiplication as a process... Takes the contents of a container and evaluate them using counting...So imagine you have a jar that has a number in it... something x something...( Some number of jars ) & ( some number of objects inside the jar)...So 1 x 1...( One jar ) & ( Some number of objects inside )...1 jar--1object_in_each_jar= 1 object....2jars--2objects_in_each_jar = 4 objects...3jars--1object_ib_each_jar = 3 objects...
@@alexnowicki286 just write it as a sum, that can be done with multiplication. so 3*1=(0+1+1+1). or rather the sum of 1, with the limits being 0 and 3. 3*1=(0+1+1+1)=3. its even still true if you multiply with other numbers. for example 3*3=9, or 3*(0+1+1+1)=(0+3+3+3)=9. the same can be done with 1*1=(0+1)=1. 3*1=3*(0+1)=3. it even works if you break it down further. 3*3=(0+1+1+1)*(0+1+1+1)=(0+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)=9. just write multiplication as a sum so you cant be confused by the term "multiplication".
He basically explained adding 😅
Terrence Howard and the ongoing debate: 1 X 1 = 2
Addition symbol sitting quietly in the corner: Oh so they've forgotten me already
"Breathing in and breathing out. The universe expands, but what about it breathing in?" -- This is the PERFECT example of Reasoning by Analogy instead of Reasoning by First Principles.
Thats… thats actually insane LMFAOOO reasoning with analogy can be useful in philosophy to elucidate moral truths and such… they are NOT useful in physics for determining how the universe works. Youre conflating analogy with thought experiment and even then, thought experiments are meaningless without data and research. You cabt just say “well people breath in and out, therefore the universe has to also expand and contract” -thats incredibly silly
@@Runthemjewels exactly brother - dude is loco
@@xalian17smh you buffons listened and believed in a man that sat in a wheelchair for 55 years, teaching you about physics, the cosmos and math...
Couldnt talk , relied on a machine to do the talking for him and you fools believed everything that was coming out of that machine( no questions asked)....
I realizer a long time ago that it doesnt matter what information is being put out there. If a Yt man isnt the voice of it, then there will be push back...even if hes crippled ,voiceless without any motor skill and plug up to AI machine. As long as he's Yt , you'd bite
He’s saying that not because it’s an analogy, he’s referring to how the universe mirrors the same structure in different scales, i.e. fractals, etc.
@@PrimalAscensionplease watch professor dave video on howard and stfu. Or go study
What is 1x0.1 terrence? What about 1x0.5, or even pretty wild 1x0.9? The answers are (0.1, 0.5, 0.9) how does 1x1 magically change the trend? Even use 2x1, it equals 2, how the fuck does 1x1 equal the same as 2x1?
He got you talking about it! (and me, talking about you talking about it) pretty clever I would say.
And mr too!😂
@@charleshorseman55 How is that clever? Or is this sarcasm
@@asdfg19923 There are people waiting for celebrities to lead their studies.
2x1 should =4
Terrance’s book is actually fascinating! Most people hating on him can’t even understand the basis of their conversation
People are hung up on the 1x1 thing, but the rest of what he’s saying regarding geometry and it’s ability to harness energy is spot on. In 500 years we will look back on todays math/physics and laugh at how wrong we were. There is much beyond our senses, harnessing the metaphysical is the real next break through. Funny how everyone attacks these ideas now, but no one pauses to think about how Galileo, though correct, was sentenced to death because people simply couldn’t see beyond the current paradigm. History repeats itself.
The improvements in the world of Science you see are done by the people who have balls of steel to test their theory and make numerous attempts to disprove it before saying "I have done it". Einstein who accidentally predicted Dark matter before it was discovered, named it as a blunder.. and here you see a guy who is conveniently making blunders and seeking shelter under the names of great people of Science. This is arrogance and irresponsibility.. this is not how Science progresses.
He said...
"1x1 can be one if u only see it one time but as soon as u ADD the second one"
He just said add another 1....
Your not adding another 1. The second one is describing how many times ur seeing the first one that exists.
ITS A DESCRPTIVE NUMERAL SAYING HOW MANY TIMES UR SEEING THE NUMBER THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.
exactly… your taking the number 1 , one time. you get 1.
Take the 1 away from the equation and replace it with a cigarette. If you have 1 cigarette and MULTIPLY it by itself, what would you have? 2 cigarettes right? 🤔
Then it shouldn't be 1x1...It should be 1x0 if we are only looking at the 1 exclusively 😂. Believe it or not T.Howard is correct...the minute you add a multiplying factor of another 1(1×1),it can't stand still because it's defeating it's own purpose of multiplying...
@@GWAREBEL That is not how cigarettes work sir
If you are not joking do you understand what a logical fallacy is?
The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1.
So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
So why do you think this man is trying so fervently to convince us we’ve been wrong all these years?! RUclips has helped me realize I haven’t been walking right, sitting correctly, and , of course, my misconception of basic mathematical principles!😂😂 God bless us all!😊
@Horgan5905r Explain how 1x1 would give you 2? If you have a dog showing up one time, where tf do your get two dogs from? Is this an infinite dog glitch?
@@Horgan5905r I didn’t think I would hear anyone support this…wrong again!🤣
You very word
Now try and type that after smoking some crazy amounts of crack or whatever this guy is on.
In mathematics, the number 1 acts as a multiplicative identity. This means that multiplying any number by 1 results in the original number itself. So, 1 * 1 = 1 because 1 is being multiplied by itself, essentially resulting in itself.
So then according to your logic of 1 being a multiplicative indicator 1x1=1 would have to be removed from multiplication, or stated as 1x1=x.
Terrence is saying that the word multiplication automatically means “more” than itself
@@kingdavid5525agreed the definition of multiply is to increase. What he's saying makes sense.
@@yeshuaistheway how the fuck does a colloquial definition of "multiply" override mathematical axioms.
Hahaha so 2+0 doesnt equal 2 because the + symbol means you have to add something? Whats the definition of addition? You cant add zero? Also the definition of multiple is not increase more than itself. 4 X 0.5 = 2 which is a decrease genuis 😂😂😂
It’s funny that in this clip Terrence Howard says we never breathe in twice before breathing out. But we do, and we do it very often. It has a calming effect, taking us out of the sympathetic nervous system’s fight or flight mode and into the parasympathetic nervous system.
According to Dr. Andrew Huberman it’s what’s called, “the physiological sigh”.
Sounds like Neil went into full Professor mode when reading TH's paper. Red pen??🤣🤣
Lol
He should've shredded it and sent back a bag of confetti... 🤨
was super generous and caring of him honestly. too bad old terry of the famous terryology is such a blind narcissist
@@mr.knowitall6440why tho? Isn’t science discussion?
Sometimes the professor runs into a student that knows something that he/she doesn’t know, and finds it hard to accept. This has happened all down through history. Does anyone remember Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and how he was trashed for years. I believe that instead of castigating the person we should research what he/she is proposing.
I will admit he had me going for awhile but then I slapped myself
Same here lol
😂😂😂😂😂
You went back to sleep!
he'd get on really well with Deepak Chopra
I feel like some of what he says has merit but i cant tell i feel like im either too dumb to understand what hes saying or it makes absolutely no sense in general lol
I've attempted to read the draft of your book. The first page says, "If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2x2=4, then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse of 1×1=2".
Some literature for you:
If four items are split into two sets, then two sets remain that have two items. An independent number of items are subsequently subtracted from my field of vision, memory, relevance, etc according to the number of instances I have observed the number of items. So yes, if I see two items and at one point decide to categorize them, then notice another instance where i have categorized what happen to be another two items, I would reflect that the number of times I have categorized items in a set, there happened to be four total items between the two times I have applied them to some category.
Two items "split" into one group still provides the observation of two items. One item observed as one set in one instance does not yield two items. It yields one item in one set, once only (or perhaps since I just said "one" three times, then that means 1x1x1=3).
You have grossly misconstrued the context of value. Value is not doubled in the same way between an item added to an item and a set being added to an item. This is why multiplication does contain the process of addition, but repeatedly. If it only happens to be repeated one time, then the expression of this observation ensures accuracy of both the quantity of the item and the quantity of repetition that the item is observed.
Moral of the story: I have waisted a few precious minutes of my life to learn by the first page that yes, you are actually serious.
You "attempted to read" it?
Oh, I see, he is reasoning by some weird anal/ogy!
"Since 4/2=2*2=sqr(2)=4, then 2/1=1*1=sqr(1)=2"!?
But then he turns around and says (that) sqrt(2) is not 1 butt 2!?
Oh, now he really is just taking the piss.
@@ainnochaim9450 Bravery
* wasted
I couldn't believe that what you quoted was actually what he wrote because it's so mind-numbingly ignorant, so I looked at his book's first page... and there it is 😳.
I'll offer an even simpler explanation than you did. His whole premise is wrong. The inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2.
I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. Incredible that anyone would take this guy seriously.
In the equation 1X1, there is only one number there, which is '1'. The other is not a number, but rather an object in which the number of 1 is acting upon.
Perfectly said
The way I explain it to my kids: the number of things times the number of groups is the product, so one group of one thing is one.
just replace the "times" with "sets of" (or boxes of, or bags of etc,) and it always works.
If you have 2 sets (cartons) of 12 eggs. 24 eggs.
if you have 1 bag with 1 shirt in it. you have one shirt.
5 boxes of 3 plates. 15 plates.
@@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive Well said. Set theory is one of the most interesting things known to creation. Thanks
1x2=3?
Hahaahaha, this was my first thought.....
1*1=3
NONSENSE.
Its more. Cause the energy of 2, is more than 1, so its actually 4. 1 is 1, and 2 is the doble, and 3 is tripple. Maybe its 5? Idk, i didnt learn howwiemath. I think the consept is that you can make it whatever you want. Just like a guy with a dick and boobs is a girl
1x1=2
There is a confusion of the semantic English meaning of „multiply“ with the mathematical definition of multiplication. „To multiply“ in English means „to make more, to increase in quantity“. But that is not the definition of mathematical multiplication, which is simply a short form of addition to zero. The definition of mathematical multiplication of whole numbers A and B is: A indicates the number of times of B added to 0. If you apply this definition you arrive at 1 x 2 = „the number 2 added one time to 0“, 2 x 2 = „the number 2 added two times to 0“.
You can of course just say, I am going to define multiplication the same way for all other cases but the number 1. But this is because you confuse semantics and mathematical operations. And you cannot have a unified definition of your ‚new‘ notation.
Well said.
EXACTLY, so you CAN'T by DEFINITION 'multiply' by ONE--- THAT is NOT 'multiplying'
@@technoweasel8937 you confuse the English meaning with the mathematical definition. The latter does not have to match you understanding of the English word ‚multiply‘. By the way, this confusion you have arises in English but not in other languages.
Energy times Energy,????
@@saschas2531 lol
If you start the equation wrong "1x1 = 2" it's all downhill "Wrong" after that. If I needed to drive South to Benson St. but I went north, there is no way to get there unless I turned some corners (back tracked) or drove around the World to get back to that point. which would be unnecessary.
The 1 * 1 = 2 business is the very first thing in Howard's book, and he's demonstrably wrong from the get-go. He says:
_If 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2 x 2 = 4_
_Then it would naturally follow that 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1 x 1 = 2_
But the inverse of 2 * 2 = 4 is not simply 4/2, it is 4/2 _= 2_ . *He left out the quotient,* and what that means is that the inverse of 2/1 = 2 is 1 * _2_ = 2, not 1 * 1 = 2. Squaring the denominator of a fraction is NOT how you derive its inverse. E.g., the inverse of 10/2 = 5 is 5 * 2 = 10, not 2 * 2 = 10.
I.e., a/b = c is the inverse of c * b = a. His premise is false.
Amazing that some people are buying what he's selling.
2 groups of 2 apples is 4 apples. 4 groups of 4 apples is 16. 1 group of 1 apple is 1 apple. how hard is that? Draw circles for groups if you can't visualize it.
If I deliver 5 pizzas to you 3 times today then you get 15 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas two times today then you get 10 pizzas. If I deliver you 5 pizzas one time then you get 5 pizzas. If I try to deliver you 5 pizzas zero times today (my car breaks down) then you get zero pizzas, not 5. Multiplication is how many times the event occurs, hence the x symbol.
Group by definition is “more than 1”.. you can’t group 1, it’s just 1..
From what I'm reading online in comments, apparently there are a scary number of people too stupid to grasp something so simple lol
@@MarcGyverItno you are too close minded and didn’t listen to the video lol
LOL yep. He doesnt understand simple multiplication. He is thinking too deep instead of just looking at the basic fundamentals of math. He's just dropping names. Nothing more.
@@TheBoogieman32 1x1 = 1²
Put aside personal opinions about what Terrence said, this is an incredible work of editing and narration. Amazing video!
The patient died, but the operation was a brilliant success!
His content ist still delusional and wrong😂
@@herrh.5384 do cells multiply or add?
@@riely there is no difference, multiplication means to add the numbers as often as the nominant tells you. 3x1= 1+1+1=3. 1x1 is the same as 1=1. you seem not to understand it either?
@@herrh.5384 those are set values by a human NOT the universe
The red lining reminds me of when I was preparing my capstone for my undergrad. It’s just a person who’s helping you clarify your ideas and create more accuracy in your discovery and entire point to follow. Little things become big things. I wouldn’t take that for granted.
He’s clearly speaking in terms of analogy and it’s actually a decent thought if you evaluate it. People are quick to jump on something if it makes them feel smart debunking it.
Every single adult that can drive understands why 1x1=1
But if you interpret the question differently in speech or writing then it is interesting to WHY it is
Nobody is able to quickly quote great scientists and explain their work that effortlessly without being extremely intelligent.
yes, an actor who has made a career at memorizing lines and spewing dialogue he may not even understand, would be very efficient at exactly that.
@@lucasdio7412Says an hater. There’s little any human could cram in their tiny heads. This ain’t no script. This is pure knowledge. Your resistance to accepting new philosophy of life would limit all possibilities of you getting more knowledge. Be open, research these things, & be an individual.
@@TheBee444i support new knowledge but actors can be devious conmen as well
@@antonjoubert6980that’s not true 😭 he is literally quoting text that you and your big brain would probably read in school
@@lucasdio7412 debate me and ill embarrass you then use the screens for a vid
The visual light spectrum only makes up 0.0035% out of the whole Electromagnetic Spectrum...we are still literally blind.
its less btw
Ooooook that means we believe everything a dude dreamed and said on a comedians podcast?? I feel like everyone's forgotten Joe Rogan is a stand up comedian not the basis for science and fact. He just let's people run wild for the entertainment factor. Even he was questioning Terrence. He remembers being in the womb. That's INSANE talk. Also basically said he was Einstein in a prior life like dude is coked outta his gourd.
He's Iron man
@@adriansanchez5657No he is Tony Stark...No More Brilliant
Light and optics engineer. We have sensors for the rest of the spectrum. and we understand how light works pretty fucking well across the spectrum.
It was Einstein who said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Seems the haters and naysayers are unconsciously stuck in the same thinking that created this issue. Open mind, is a positive, progressive and necessary for advancement. Without Terrences 'attitude' and willingness to think for himself, outside the box and every inventor in history before him, we'd still be hunter gatherers. Consider that for a moment.
Thinking outside the box isn't hard. Thinking well, thinking correctly outside the box is hard.
Its amazing to me that people can hear how eloquently this man speaks and how he quotes his knowledge but still want call him crazy. Just goes to show most people have never had an original thought in their lives everything has been told to them
@amirparsi4165 If all you got from Terrance was his controversial statement of 1x1 not being 1 just shows how little intelligence you have yourself. If you listen and do research into what he is talking about you would be amazed. But you probably haven't learned anything outside of mainstream academia
You get it too.
What's so eloquent about what he says? I with my master's degree on engineering only keep hearing links between concepts that have nothing to do with eachother and drawings of geometrical shapes without any meaning, let alone any real world application. You are such a troll
Your right
I agree. Terrence should be president, he is the leader that America doesn't know it needs to bring it back to its former glory.
1 x 1 = 1 regardless of how much Ayahuasca you're drinking
Yea says the one who's speaking outside their azz
But, there is no spoon... 1 is merely a construct of consciousness. Everything is a wave, separated by awareness. We're splitting hairs and calling it science, politics, religion, etc.
Read the proof. And think. How does a single cell instantaneously multiply into 2? Like an embryo growing to 2x then 4x etc cells into a baby? There is a higher dimension an octave above that brings physical things into existence. This channel has other videos breaking this down. (I think there was an experiment with cancer cells and how they manifested in a group of women.
Anyway, the higher dimension manifests the “gravity”. Gravity is not a result of physical mass, like previously believed. We now know it can be revered at local points. It’s connected to the electrical field that joins the dimensions. Go read the proof and see how it leads to explanations of many phenomena unexplained or poorly explained because the Aether was removed from equation. The math and science we’re using is based on a 2D flat Cartesian model BECAUSE the early philoso-scientists believed the earth/universe was FLAT. Lookup flower of life, also read the proof for 1x1. Good stuff
The X in the equation means to multiply the said object. You can't have it both ways. You could say 1 always equals 1 and can't be divided.
However in science we know that's also false. Hence the term Division Wave Multiplexing. This type of technique enables bidirectional communications over a single strand of fiber and it's commonly known that anything can be divided.
@@richhyltona single cell doesn’t instantaneously multiply into two it undergoes mitosis, which occurs after a series of cellular functions that prepares the cell for mitosis. DNA is replicated in S phase and other important cell growth occurs during the G1 and G2 phases. Then chromosomes compact, the nuclear lamina breaks down, the mitotic spindle forms, and microtubules pull the chromosomes apart as an actin contractile ring separate the two cells in cytokinesis. No need for higher dimensions here, just explainable physical phenomena.
I kind of feel like Neil deGrasse was pretty graceful. someone starts out a 30-page letter misunderstanding multiplication.... Its nice he took the time to respond.
do you even understand multiplication lol? terrace howard is correct... However he is also wrong in some areas. 1*1= 2 BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE LOL, MATHS IS SET ON PRINCIPLES, THAT'S ALL.
@@KAIZORIANEMPIRE 1 x 1. If you counted 1 apple 1 time. How many apples did you count?
2 x 2. If you counted 2 apples 2 times, how many apples did you count?
It's all about rate of occurrence. You would need to multiply 1 by itself if it occurred 1 time.
@@GreatestOneEver It's scary to me that I've seen so many people who are too stupid to understand this. lol
@@GreatestOneEver THAT WOULD explain it but what about 0? 1*0 = 0 , sure but what happens to that 1 apple?
@@KAIZORIANEMPIRE 1 apple counted 0 times = 0. There was never an apple because it was never counted.
I just imagine that after Terry gave his treatise to Tyson, he followed Tyson into the restroom only to find his treatise floating in the toilet before proceeding to beat up Neil.
Holy smokes, we got actors trying to tell us our Bachelor degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on lol!! Any number multiplied by 1 equals itself..that means there’s only one number in the equation. If there’s a number multiplied by zero, then there is no number in the equation. Pretty simple stuff bro
BA's and BS's don't prove intelligence. They only recognize the fact that you invested time and money toward education. You graduate by passing the prescribed curriculum.There are masses of people that have been miseducated 🥸 and lied 🤥 to their entire lives by flawed systems designed by a select few. Some people like Terrence Howard are genuinely intelligent. They can analyze, research and test theories because of their interest in subjects. Just think 🤔of the 🧐 geniuses🤓 that decided to build some of our nuclear power plants near and on known earthquake fault lines.
What irritates me is that astrophysicists who have studied the physical properties and behavior of celestial objects using advanced mathematical and scientific techniques to better understand the formation, evolution, and behavior of galaxies, stars, planets, and other celestial bodies have said Howard is mistaken in his black hole models. Yet laymen with the barest understanding of black holes are saying that Terrance Howard has advanced concepts that need to be considered. Why? because he talks a good line, like a good actor would.
Breterson a lot of ur bsc is strit bull it not worth the paper its written on
U are tought that current in a battery flow from positive to negative in Battery n that a total lie the hot leg of the battrey is negative nut an establush Right habd rules say uppersit that why all high diller car have Positive ground n some airplanes so with all the bs of ut bsc what is it worth look at medicine how much truth is tough to the young interns about diets and sude effect of pharmaceutical which meant poison why is it you need a licensed of drugs n poison to operate a pharmacy n a Barr or a spirit licenson
@@donmiller2908Laymen are persuaded by charisma, scientists are persuaded by evidence.
Yes, but if you had imaginary, honorary Doctorate Degrees in Afrophysics and Quantum Equity, you'd understand it all very clearly... 🧐🤔🤯
If 2 x 2 = 4, meaning two, two times is 4, then 1 x 1 = 1 is because one, one time equals, one. Theres only one, it doesnt get multiplied. One, one time is one.
Two, two times, is four.
Yes. I agree but that doesn't fit within the laws of mathematics.
You are not wrong here.
However, what TH is trying to explain is that our current definition of multiplication is incorrect, or incomplete. Don't think of the x, shown in 1 x 1, as TIMES as in, 1 set of 1. TIMES should only be used when observing physical objects, as a way to describe how many of something there are. It's a statistical function.
Multiplication is a short-hand way of showing addition. Therefore, you should be able to get the same answer from both multiplication and the relative sum, or addition.
The original Latin definition of 'multiply' is 'to increase'. So, if we were to say "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 1", this would equal 2 because it is inherently the same as 1 + 1, (1 x 1 = 1 + 1). With this definition everything else in the multiplication table gives the same answers we already know, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. An example would be, "1 'increased by the magnitude' of 0", which would give the answer of 1 because it is not being increased and is fundamentally the same as 1+0 (1 x 0 = 1 + 0).
Currently, you can take any other number in the multiplication table, convert it to a sum of addition and it works, apart from anything multiplied by 1 or 0. For example, 3 x 3 = 9. As an addition sum this would be written as, 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (3 x 3 = 3 + 3 + 3).
We know that 1 + 1 = 2, so why does 1 x 1, not equal 2? It's because our current definition is incorrect/incomplete.
@@EIRW1Z The multiplication operation of 1 multiplied by 1 resulting in 1 is a fundamental property of multiplication known as the multiplicative identity property. In mathematics, the multiplicative identity property states that any number multiplied by 1 will equal the original number. This property applies to all numbers, not just 1.
So, when we say 1 multiplied by 1 is equal to 1, we are essentially stating that when you multiply any number by 1, the result will be the original number itself. This property helps maintain consistency in mathematical operations and is a fundamental concept in arithmetic.
Thinking math has to follow grammar is a linguistic fallacy. Linguistics and mathematics are two different domains.
@@LlonirTS I fully understand the concept of the multiplicative identity property. I'm also not disagreeing with it. It works for certain applications, such as statistics, as I already mentioned. What I do have a problem with, something you have also clearly failed to recognise, is that, at some point, someone had a thought, then spoke the multiplicative identity property into existence. So, in reality, linguistics has everything to do with mathematics, as does thought.
Also, the multiplicative identity property does not apply to other numbers, it only applies when multiplying by the number 1 and also 0. So it does not provide consistency at all. If it were consistent, it would apply to all numbers, would it not? Seems strange to me to have a universal rule for 1 thing and not the others. Unless, it is so that observable objects can be grouped together to be counted, which makes it a statistical principle and also the reason the concept was created in the first place.
Perhaps, then, it should be separated from all other mathematics and only apply when observing for statistical analysis.
(1 x 1 =1) = (1 = 1)
It's strange to look at. Kind of like the whole dividing by zero conundrum. Every other multiplication of itself is a growth except this one.
He ended up back-pedaling and said that 1x1=2 is a "metaphor."
Reality hit him like a truck in the latest podcast episode. The Dunning Kruger effect is so fascinating.
This is the first time I’ve used the word flabbergasted and actually meant it outside of a joke.
T Howard is getting the concept of addition and multiplication confused. 1x1=1, 1X2=2 , 1X3=3, 1X20=20, 1X50=50, 1X100=100, 1X1000=1000. In this world when the system of multiplication was setup the 1st rule was that anything times it self (which is 1) will be itself. So technically multiplication doesn't begin its usefulness until a number is being multiplied by 2 or greater. Even 0 X 1 = 0, In short anything times 1 is a mirror of itself. So maybe taking 1 out of the multiplication system will help Mr. Howard.
Thats more like i understand it. 1x1=1 isn´t wrong, its just pointless. Multiply anything with 1 is simply pointless, so when he says it shouldn´t be part of the multiplication table, he isn´t wrong. It shouldn´t be because its a waste and serves no purpose. Doesn´t really harm someone either i would like to say, but i am not so sure anymore considering Mr.Howard. 1x1=1 has seriously confused him it seems.
The conclusion that 1x1=2 though, that makes no sense to me at all.
@@hansoerteras3983 I agree. Have you ever heard a music band singer say "Hit me 1 time"? They are asking basically to have 1 of something done 1 time. So lets say the drummer will hit the drums 1 time, not twice. So, 1X1 =1 not 2 Mr. Howard...lol
By that explanation I understand how 0x1 = 0 but wouldn’t 1x0=1 ?
@@10thlaw In basic multiplication it doesn't matter if the positions are switched. The results will be the same.
@@10thlaw i give you 1 bag of 0 lolly= You have 0 Lolly.
I give you 0 bag of 1 lolly= You still have 0 Lolly
I give you 1 bag of 1 lolly= You have 1 Lolly
I give you 2 bags of 1 Lolly= You have 2 lollies
I give you 1 bag of 2 lollies = You have 2 lollies
I give you 2 bags of 2 lollies= you have 4 lollies
3 bags of 3 lollies=9 lollies
4 of 4 lollies=16 lollies
4x5=20
1x0=0, 0x1=0, 1x1=1, 1x2=2,2x1=2, 2x2=4 etc......
hmmm... Multiply is just adding sets of numbers instead of adding individual numbers.... If he wants to define the relationship of numbers in some new way, that's fine, call it "Terrenceification "or something. But, it's not multiplication.
This is only for real values between 1 and 2. DOES IT MAKE SENSE that multiplying them can NEVER even get to 2?
I AM WAITING. Also, since these are REAL VALUES b/w 1 and 2, it's odd that they CAN never be more than their totaled sum right? GENIUS?
I mean now, since the math on them works; still can't get them always over the totaled sums, but there are several to try - YOU CANNOT get less than them added, not all of them are them same as when added YOU TRY IT - GENIUS take your armchair - GENIUS!
and YOU CANNOT get them to 4.
WHAT IS 2 x 2? And 1. anything but 0'z to infinity, ANYTHING is more than 1 -THNKING? SO IT NEVER MAKES SENSE that multiplying VALUES -get what math represents, GENIUS - that are over 1 and less than 2 cannot reach even 2! GET THAT?,
@@joshuabloecker4364 WTF are you talking about, You can't even form a comprehensible paragraph how do you think you understand math. 2x1=2 you can test multiplication. Take 10 blocks put them in a row then take blocks and 9 more down from each row now you have 10 blocks across and 10 blocks down. 10x10 is 100 you have 100 blocks, count them its 100. now take 2 blocks and and go 2 blocks down 2x2 is 4 count them its 4 blocks. Now take 1 block 1x1 is 1 count the blocks, its 1 block. This how multiplication works and how we know 1x1 is 1 not 2.
1.81 x 1.54 Next step: .181 + .154 = 3.35
But the calculator, right? & this is only for values b/w 1 and 2 - it will always work better than saying multiplying in this case means never even get to two. WHEN ADDING gets you past 2. GET IT. NO. IT IS NOT "multiplying is adding"; it's a more logical answer.
Neil said Terrence needs a prescription for lithium.
Definitely not cool. Ad hominem attacks are low class.
This is the problem with Neil, he is too arrogant, he could have talked to Terrence and spent time with someone who had a genuine interest and actually educate him, instead he just wanted to say he was wrong and stupid and don't waste my time... Damn shame
@@_authorwilliamlee Just like your Mom!
@@benjimc1 It's our job to put stupid people who never actually did the work in their place. If not this country fails to dumb like so many in history have already. Do you go and see your mechanic every time you get sick too?
If you actually study mathematics you'd know Terrence likely suffers from mental illness cuz he sure aint talking any sense with 1 x 1 = 2. Even my friend with down syndrome thinks Terrence is mentally challenged. Definitely intelligent enough to regurgitate some lines, but has zero idea how insane he sounds or wtf he's talking about. Has he submitted his findings for peer-reviewed science? yes and no. 100% of them said its nonsense and gave evidence of how and why. Its available for study. He's just taking advantage of the new-age people who are staring at a glass of water thinking they can change it to wine because theyre looking at it with pure abundant belief. "What the bleep?" was like 20 years ago and still MFers trying to profit from it instead of getting a job. If Terrence just took a college Geometry I course he'd learn why those shapes and the mathematics that first defined them have existed since the Greeks. They werent trying to unlock some alchemical magic from these shapes, its the mathematic principles and equations that gave life to them. They were defined from the nature the math was made to represent. No magic necessary. He could have just read up on Pathagorys and he could have learned this himself if he had any ability to question and call out his bullshit like scientists excel at for a reason. That is why Im leaning toward mental illness because he's been coddled by Hollywood so long he can fathom that he could just be full of shit.
@@dirtabd She might make ad hominem idk I’ll have to ask her if she cussed out anyone lately. Most likely so.
We have people in the comment section questioning an "actor" because of his view on science.
That's like saying you can't question the covid pandemic because you're not a doctor/virologist (or have a degree in a medical background).
Granted, people are very sceptical, and they are attacking the very thing most people are bad at (math), so why doesn't the scientific community get together and give Terence Howard his 5 minutes? As far as I'm concerned he deserves to be heard.
Now I am utterly horrible at math so I blank out any mention of it, however I do enjoy science, while I realise I have a simplified popscience view I have some basic understanding of when it's explained to me. Now all of his claims relating to science have been discussed and debunked, please search up the arguments against his scientific arguments and you will understand why people really don't take him seriously. He has a basic misunderstanding of what he is talking about so while in his view his claims are logical his logic does not match up with our scientific understanding. It would be fine if he had any proof but he doesn't even follow scientific logic, he makes up his own, he isn't worth proper attention since he has proved he dosent say anything of substance
He has been heard, and we are LAUGHING 😂
The way they’re so programmed. They can’t think big enough😏😏
His theory hasn't made any testable predictions that contradict our current understanding of physics. If his theories make testable predictions which invalidate current theories scientists will give him however many minutes.
Don't throw pearls before swine.
It reminds me of that moment in the movie “Contact” when they finally figured out how to read the alien instructions by curving the flat images, closing the gap and connecting the information seamlessly. The answer was there all along it only needed someone with a different perspective to solve it. Still one of my favorite movies. I wish Mr. Howard all the best, he’s up against a lot of resistance.
Good observation
Tons of resistance but that’s the life of all geniuses. One day people will eat their words in regards to ridiculing Terrance and other outside the box thinking people. They always do
lol this is exactly what i thought. it's so silly too. complete nonsense. its entertaining asf tho
Pretty sure in that movie the powers that be took credit for the discovery once it was proven beyond doubt
Have no trouble imagining it will be the same here
A movie? Really? And so Terence must be right cause of the movie that someone created out of their imagination? Oooookay
I dunno... is it really necessary to have so many rotors on a drone when 3 or 4 is enough?
0:53 as soon as I saw "remember the basic laws of common sense", I knew it was over
Meaning what???
He’s an actor, not a scientist. Please keep that in mind when taking unsubstantiated claims at face value because he just sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.
But he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He sounds like a bipolar egomaniac with a god complex.
@@TheBeanGreen yes, but to people with below average or possibly even average IQ he sounds smart. these kind of people will just recoil and double down in their beliefs if you tell them they're wrong. I mean that's why their so dumb in the first place. It's better to try to lead them into finding the answer on their own, and if that doesn't work, just try to say it very nicely.
Why can’t he be both an actor and scientist 😒 stupid goofy
An actor with patents and a you who has none of that is the smart one. Are from Col0rad0? We hear the “grass” is great over there 😂
@@RochusMr "with patents' lol....
The straight line is time. An upper or lower wave pulse replicates in "how much time."
Multiplying with 0 is basically like asking a hypothetical question.. how many dollars? A million, how many time did i had a million dollars? 0? So i have 0 dollars.
We complicate everything. We changed the 13 month / 28 day lunar calendar to the 12 month/ each month has a different number of days Gregoroan calendar. For what? Just so that someone can attach thier name to it and get credit for it. I'm going to find and read his treatise this week. Very interesting stuff!
I have been into this 13 months calendar investigation for a long time. Gathering information. And I believe this is something that needs to be rectify too to get us into the normal cycles of nature. Any important source of info in this matter that you can share with me?
They got rid of it to remove your consciousness away from the cycles or patterns of life.
Look up the 432 vs 440 tuning issue and decide for yourself 👍
you people are proof how uneducated the average person is. Everything is not a conspiracy
Facts
1 x 1 = 1
First one is a quantity number
Second is the quantity of quantities.
If you have 1 group of 1, you have 1.
does the atom abide by 1. No it's a different number quit being slow. What's the equation to the toroid? simply 1 doesn't exist in naturally occurring phenomena
One is not a number it's Singular, numbers are plural
@@SevenCirclesnumbers is plural. A number is singular. 😆
“Group” by definition means more than “1”.. you can’t group “1” it’s just “1”
@@SevenCircles Numbers are more than one number. You don't walk in McDonald's and go, "...I'd like a Numbers 3...and a Numbers 8." They would look at you sideways. Number 3 is A number by itself, but 2, 3, 4 are numbers because we have THREE numbers we're talking about.
1 * 1 = 1 if you move the * 1 to the other side of the equation you get:
1 = 1/1 this is basically 1 is equal to the amount of 1s that fit into the number 1
1 = 1 the answer is 1=1 so 1*1 = 1
1:22 If I understood his wording of the question, then I think the answer is "any positive, real number less than approximately 1.75488" or in interval notation it's x = (0, 1.75488). I get this answer by setting up the inequality: x^(1/2)+x>x^2. I graph these two curves on wolfram alpha, and I see that the y values of x^(1/2)+x are greater than x^2 for a short interval after 0. I don't know how Wolfram Alpha gets the exact solution for where these curves intersect. Wolfram gives me a big, messy, exact number: x = 1/3 * (2 + (25/2 - (3 sqrt(69))/2)^(1/3) + (1/2 (25 + 3 sqrt(69)))^(1/3)), which is aproximately x ≈ 1.75488.
The fact is that he's wrong. Only a small interval of real, positive numbers from 0 to about 1.75488 fit the description he states. It's not most numbers. It does work with sqrt(2), but past 1.75488, it fails to be true. He's making a false claim.
You can check this without using a claculator: input 4 for x. On the left, we have "sqrt(4) + 4" and that's an expression that equals 6. On the right, we have 4^2, and that's 16. It's obvious 6 isn't more than 16. Therefore, his claim is wrong about x = 4. You can continue to check many more examples on your own.
=====
He goes on to make a lot of werid claims with little or zero evidence. I don't have the time to coherently describe everything wrong with them. It would take me all day to fix his mess. He's a great example of Brandolini's Law.
=====
He also goes on to make a bunch of sacred geometry claims without any evidence.
=====
"Show me a straight line in nature." He says this as if it's impossible. This is quite easy. Drop anything out of your hand right now. It traveled a nearly straight line towards the Earth's center of gravity. Let a pendulum sit at relative rest, and it will point straight down towards Earth's center of gravity. I'm sure there are other examples. Let's use a nonphysical example: the shortest distance between two points on a flat plane is a line. That's always, definitionally true.
=====
14:10 No, Electrical forces/fields/energy are not an equal and opposite thing to the Magnetic forces/fields/energy. They're one thing. They work perpendicular to each other. He would know this and learn how to observe it, measure it, predict it, apply it, and so on if he studied EM physics 101.
So this is how wizards speaks. Impressive.
No disrespect to anyone in this thread .. but its funny how 3 hours of genius conversations has been broken down to the simplest thing he said to discredit all the things he said that was right... my answer is its a lot of simple-minded ppl attacking the 1 thing they understand ..
Yea they haven’t disproven anything lol just told me 1x1 is 1 cuz that’s the only thing they know how to disprove allegedly
97 patents mean nothing
His new flight drone sucks
If he cannot do basic math , it calls into question everything else.
He's just super full of himself.
He's not innovated anything.
He's a serial liar.
All of these things have been debunked thoroughly on other videos.
What really caught my attention was his explanations of the periodic table. And how variations of elements have different frequencies, and such. Here's where it gets interesting, because I genuinely believe TH is onto something, along with Dr. Garry Nolan.
Now, some months ago, Dr. Nolan did the symposium for the Sol Project, along with other notable and prominent figures in science, astrophysics, etc. He claimed to have alleged evidence from UAP, or Nonhuman Craft, or I should say, the remains of what said craft left behind. The metals were nothing extraordinary, same as what we find on Earth.
However, one of the samples that was analyzed, a sample from 50 or so years ago, had an abnormal atomic structure. The isotopic ratios were completely off. Something that was extremely expensive to do back then, and wasn't something to be found just randomly in a desert with no activity of any sort - other than the report of a UAP leaving this molten metal behind. Nolan stated that it was a clear sign of an industrial process, yet not something that humans had the capability to do back in the 50s, declaring the sample as having novel properties.
He also asked in response to his own question: Is there many different ways to achieve a similar goal? Back to TH and his periodic table. Is it possible to use differing elements or even elements of the same group but with different atomic values, and rearrange the isotopic ratios, to achieve a more efficient result? Just how life seems unique to this planet, with complex chemical processes that enable life to thrive everywhere, is it possible for life to thrive under a completely different set of chemical processes on other planets? Which is what JWST is appearing to find, out there in the cosmos. Just some food for thought.
@@thomaswoitekaitis8977He's taken the age-old tactic of "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit", to a whole new level... 🙄
There’s a hundred things he said to discredit himself. 1x1=2 is just one of the most glaring. The part about how he remembers his own birth is another
"He has talent for gibberish" - that sums it up.
1*1=3
He has accomplished more than u can imagine
I am the 3,6, and 9. In which they are all fascinated with.
👹👹👹👹
Says “He who knows nothing” 🤦🏽♂️
DEBATE HIM🤷🏽♂️
Terrence Howard totally lost it when Tony Stark let Don Cheadle test drive War Machine
I love how he discovered what visible light is, acts like we are blind and yet forgets all about JWST using non-visible light to take the most distant images of galaxies ever that are from 13+ billion years ago, literally looking back in time.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Not in this case
you're welcome to use fake math, you just won't get very far in life. we dont care.
FACTS
@@ryankowalski3670 I dared but it's not a very daring dare, I just found out I'm a dollar short for every hour of work I've worked in my life. Where's my damn hour shaped penny dollar misnomer thing I should have been getting. Do they tax this shit now. Do they tax, lmao, bad math?
Basic fundamentals of math are not ever going to change, no matter how hard you fight to make 1x1=2.
Using this allegedly flawed science were able to push a 141 metric ton object into space. Can't wait to see what we achieve with "Terryology".
we've never been into space. the official narrative of space being a vacuum is already a ridiculous and impossible concept
Maybe the methods we are using are obsolete in comparison to the possibilities of Terrences discoveries.
@@Liquidcadmus No, it's not, it makes perfect sense.
@@Liquidcadmus it's ironic you say that when there's a very high chance you utilized a satellite to post that comment... a satellite you can actually go out and observe right now if you have the equipment and use a little bit of that "misguided math" that has increased your lifespan and is allowing you those first world comforts with that smartphone lol.. you people are something else. can't believe humans can be this dented.
basic entropy technology PRODUCING MORE HEAT THAN PRODUCTIVE ACTION, that's a result of Euclidean Thinking !
This might be the best representation to use an academic approach of science to explian metaphysical phenomenon
Great content. For real, this bro is walking with the ancestors. This is from that same article on the "flower of life" he showed: "The Temple of Osiris at Abydos, Egypt contains the oldest known examples of the Flower of Life. They are at least over 6,000 years old and may date back to as long ago as 10,500 B.C. or earlier. It appears that it had not been carved into the granite and instead may have been burned into the granite or somehow drawn on it with incredible precision."
Terrence Howard did indeed apply for three patents in the United States. However, none of these applications resulted in granted patents. It’s worth noting that the patent filing process doesn’t verify whether the invention works or makes sense; it simply ensures that no one else has claimed the same patent before. So, filing a patent doesn’t necessarily mean the invention is valid or functional. Some of Howard’s patent applications may have been filed under the name “T. Dashon Howard,” and a few of those applications were granted.
I had some dude literally tell me that the patent office tests out these patents and they must work in a lab before the patent is granted hahahahahaha
Its rigged.
@@spikenomoon Howard describes patenting like he was scammed by an invention promotion or patent company for over a quarter million $.
@@soulcapitalist6204 No doubt. If this was true he would own Fox.
All he did was patent the shapes. If you look at patent law or guidelines. You don’t need testing or even a prototype. You just have to have an idea that’s new, useful, or statutory. All he did was not prove a theory correct, he just patient those shapes and models.
Scientists and researchers have to have their stuff criticized when it’s peer reviewed, by Terrance Howard calls it “attacking”.
Peer reviews usually have logical rebuttals that confront the idea head on and not attack the studies it may have been inspired from or whom
💤💤💤💤 you're so braindead you got me falling asleep
Scientist don’t waste their time peer reviewing the incoherent ramblings of narcissists. Dudes gonna break an arm jerking himself off.
Howard is what an inspired person with just above average intelligence looks like, it's enough to fool and connect well with average people, but makes actually intelligent people roll their eyes
He has over 90 patents, I think he knows what he's talking about
For those of you that are a bit confused about multiplication with 0's and 1's, here it's explained in easy to understand terms.
How can 1 x 0 = 0? If you have 1 apple and give it 0 times to your grandma, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 0 apples.
How can 0 x 1 = 0? If you have 0 apples, and give it to your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? One again, she received 0 apples.
How can 1 x 1 = 1? If you have 1 apple, and give it your grandma 1 time, how many apples did your grandma receive from you? She received 1 apple.
If you want to get a quick, simple idea of what Terrence is talking about, look up a couple of short RUclips videos: 1. Any video of Oswald Bates, or 2. Any video about the retro encabulator.
this video is so well put, thank you so much for your hard work !
From a mathematician's perspective it is because 1 is the multiplactive identity of the real numbers. This os basic abstract algebra...Let "e" denote the identity of a group with operation "°". Let "a" be an element within this group. Then we have a°e=a, e°a=a, e°e=e. There are many more properties, but these are the relevant ones. So take the real numbers (the group) under multiplication (the operation). Let "a" be an element of the real numbers. Then a×1=a, 1×a=a and 1×1=1. I mean, sure, you could rewrite your definition of multiplication if it doesn't make sense to you.....but then youd have to rewrite group theory and abstract algebra...not so easy to do especially since it explains why all of these operations work the way they do!
KNOWLEDGE!🙏😁
Thank you for this CORRECT answer.
😂😎🙏😉👌
What.
1 x a =1a?
@@johnathanmandrake7240 1 times anything (in this case "a") is just that something (again, "a"). 1 x a = a.
that is so enlightening, I feel like I have unlocked a new dimension of knowledge.
thanks mister Howard for Enlightening our souls with your Deep mind and flawless Logic.
Neil's initial peer review and his response to Terrence's emotional reaction were perfect. Terrence has a curious mind, but, he only has a few of the puzzle pieces. He took a small amount of knowledge and extrapolated his own idea of what's happening in the universe. Ya gotta know enough to know when you're wrong or you're just gonna get lost in the rabbit hole. Also helps to know that 1×1=1, not 2 😂
This is almost laughable
Any number multiplied by 1 will give you that number right??
2 * 1 = 2
4 * 1 = 4
And so on
So why does that have to change just because the number being multiplied is 1
Also, multiplication basically just shows you how many time a number appears in the answer like
4 * 2 = 8
Because 4 appears in 8 two times
2 * 1 = 2
Because 2 appears in 2 one time
So by that logic,
1 * 1 = 1
Because 1 appears in 1 one time.
As simple as that
People are getting stuck on that, but what you really need to understand is what he was getting at.
NO ACTION OCCURS IN ETHER. There's ALWAYS a REACTION.
So with one action, there's actually TWO.
With electricity, there's magnetism. When you breathe in, you have to. breath it. When you stretch a rubber band, there's forces trying to draw you back in. When you throw a ball, gravity pulls it down.
@@defrank1870Those are explained by different equations 🤡
00:35 His grammar is a generated construct. Linked in incomplete sentences. Caught in the tragedy of the American education system.
true datt
You can't blame any education system for this level of drug induced mental illness fueled by utter stupidity. This is mental masturbation fueld by cocaine, adderol and an internet connection.
and the chasm created between that and superstardom.
Okay scholar 😂
The geometry aspect of his work and mathematics is on point. Bringing forth the flower of life in that manner will shatter all conventional physics. Down to the quantum level. Since they have already exposed how particles behave at that level with the “double slit” experiment. The field the either is what links everything even us to Akasha. The all. I love this. Timing is perfect too.
I'm hearing things like "attack" and seeing things like "feud". Dr Tyson has nothing to gain by attacking or having a feud with you. Terrence, please don't take it personal. It's called "peer" review. Do you know how lucky you are? To have this great mind in our era take his time to peer review your journal? It's a great honour and you should thank him for his honest & professional review. 😄
If any of you Terrence followers can answer this numerically, I will be amazed. If the square root of 2 is 1, what is the square root of 1?
Vertices, times, multipy
@@NickCharming that’s just a bunch of math vocabulary, not an answer
Its an abstraction not empirical reality, your point is beyond moot
every comment is something like: if you have a dog, and you multiply with your mom
Obviously it's 42.
“Multiplication means to make more and increase in number”
Umm, no? Multiplication is counting groups of numbers. 1x2 is saying 1 group of 2. 2x2 is 2 groups of 2, and so on.
This man doesn’t even understand basic algebra and people saying he’s right are also idiots.
Ngl ur comment reminded me how dumb i am
You don't call someone an idiot because he has an opposing view. It's his view. Respect it. That's what scholarship is all about. Every scholar has had a thesis thrown out, not because they are idiots but they couldn't convince others. Some thrown out views came back to be the accepted view.
@@meztv8602I would bet my life that this is a view that will never be accepted. What he is encouraging is dangerous behaviour; don’t be angry when people aren’t happy with his bullshit.
@@HiddenBush64DING DING DING RIGHT ANSWER!!! 💯💯 TOXIC POSITIVITY is fking up the world
@@HiddenBush64na metztv is right dude this has happened throughout history time and time and again. I wouldn’t bet your life on it. They would’ve bet their life that the earth was flat not too long ago, or the possibility of talking to someone miles away through electromagnetic waves in the air
If you ever wanted to know what it feels like to be a specialist in a field watching a hollywood movie that glosses over your fields specialty... this is what it feels like. Painful.
There's a thin line between being mad and being a genius. I think Terrence just crossed that
Which way
Terrence Howard Trolling NEilTyson is funny as hell
This is excellent video editing!
My thing is, if he's so easy to refute, then do it. He issued an open challenge to any form of physicist. If he's BS, you should be able to rip him to shreds and run circles around him. I've been doing photography for 20 years and no newbie is going to get away with saying stupid or false stuff trying to sound intelligent. Now imagine theoretical physics. There are so many terms and concepts to remember, if his perspective is BS it'll show immediately. You won't need more than 10 minutes to squash him on a zoom debate. The fact that no one will entertain it even though Terrence has a huge platform and this is getting crazy viral, you would think someone would step up. Someone's got the time
With you on this
Go back to kindergarten class and the teacher will show you why 1x1=1. After that, then you can come discuss with us about Fourier transforms, solutions to nonlinear PDEs, and Hamiltonian mechanics.
@@phytology this is exactly right, and everyone knows that arguing with a fool just makes two fools. You could never win an argument with him because no matter how many ways you prove him wrong he would just claim you aren't smart enough to understand his new genius thinking and it transcends all the common knowledge therefore he is right and you are wrong.
We’re brainwashed to believe science is real
1 only once, is 1 because it has been done ONCE.
Think of the first 1 as a group. If you go solo to a restaurant for dinner, you are a party of 1. If there is 1 party of 1, how many people are there? What if there are 2 parties of 5? How many people. According to Terrence a party of 1 is two people.
Noob question: How high am I supposed to be before I start watching this?
Let’s go back to 2nd grade. If solving for 2 x 3, it simply means there are 3 sets of 2 added together so 2+2+2=6. Solving 3*5 means 5 sets of 3: 3+3+3+3+3=15. 1x1 means 1 set of 1 or just 1. 1x0 means zero sets of 1…which is 0. That’s how addition works in a multiplication equation. Terrance uses large words, adds some shock value, attaches a few real pieces of truth and then blends it all together to create brand new nonsense. He knows just a bit more than non-experts but much less than experts which makes him a pretty powerful voice to average educated audience. Interestingly, most cult leaders get their start in similar ways….
wanna debate and get wrecked in one sentence?
@scaledsilver you want to debate against 1x1=1? Im all ears.
He does seem to have a very good memory... a trait shared by the most successful psychopaths... just a coincidence I'm sure. 🙄
One problem is that the people that would buy into this gobbledygook are dumb enough to think they're brilliant.. just because their friends are even dumber.
@@scaledsilveron multiple comments challenging, hasn't responded once. 🤦♂️
The presentation of this video is awesome
As a chemist I gotta say the term “it’s a lie” is so important. Science isn’t the key to everything…it’s us just trying to understand the world around us. Someone who read a 101 level book who thinks that they know everything is literally the opposite of what we call the principle of science.
I love "that we BASICALLY see in nature".
The flower was a representation. It's not a code or something to be unlocked. Someone was high and thought a bunch of circles drawn together looked cool. And since they believed life was circular or infinite, the flower became a symbol.
Nothing more.
He didn't create a new form of flight. He put propellers on his patented shape. Same form of flight as before.
Having 97 patents doesn't make you better than known physics authorities. It means you have more time on your hands.
if I have 3 5 dollar bills I have 15=,3*5... if I give u 1, you have 5 dollars 1*5 =5.. not even up for debate I have 1 dollar bill I have 1 dollar 1*1=1
Typing this after I just said the same.thing to play devil's advocate. Why would you say you are multiplying 1 and not getting more of it?
Yes that’s an axiom to work from. Another is 1x1=2.
Your logic is flawed. If you gave me 1 5 dollar bill, I got 5 dollar. There’s therefore no need to introduce 1 in the sequence anymore. That’s the whole point of the debate. If 1x1=1, why have it in the table since the table is all about multiplication? If I also got $1 & multiply it by 0, I still got my $1, since 0 ain’t providing any multiplication. This goes beyond science, it requires human intelligence & balance of objectivity.
He mentioned that listen to him.
where in nature is it just 1. Tell me the equation to the atom, its surely not just "1" or is it a different number? notice how you used a currency explanation. You're so brainwashed by materialism 😈
Everyone in this comment section has never done Highschool math from the sounds of it, people are so easy to be manipulated by some actor who thinks he’s Socrates.
debate? wanna get washed?
Could you explain a bit more please? Not being sarcastic or anything honestly, one teacher I had told one thing to his class which changed all of our perspectives... Practice does not make perfect, practice makes permanent.
You could be learning the wrong things perfectly. and only time will tell...
And then he gave us all D's on a mock science exam that he taught us for four months.
He left out a single equation on purpose.
Yes we were his lab rats the old coot just to prove his point.
This was science class first year of high school.
Kinda changed the way the class approached learning
@scaledsilver yes please. I'm a math major. Shoot
@@tericepomare6768that's a good teacher
And you’re not helping much because you’re not explaining as thoroughly as he’s delivering WHY he’s “wrong.” Anyone can talk some shit and say someone is wrong but without providing a convincing argument with some of your own evidence, then what’s the point? It’s just shit talking then. At least this ACTOR wrote a book on it. You clearly don’t major in science or any of that shit but you seem more incompetent in this area than the ACTOR who actually DID some thorough research, investigation AND provided proof on it where nobody has proven him wrong yet! And just because someone is an actor doesn’t mean he can’t be more than just an actor. It’s very naive to think that just because someone is an actor, there’s NO WAY he can be extremely competent in an area totally different than his normal expertise.
Ill start with I do think our current mathematics work for our everyday life. However, I remember being a kid pondering the same thing..Why does a positive number multiplied by an equal positive number not become a greater number ( 1x1 ).
If a cancer cell multiplies itself is it still one cancer cell? If one egg splits, multiplies itself, and creates two eggs/babies with the same genetic information is it technically only one baby? Some would say those things divide not multiply. But can you divide a number by itself and achieve a greater number? I understand the number divided by a decimal would achieve a greater value, in this case we are referring to 1=1. Fun food for thought, open to suggestions.
I still remember how a teacher in kindergarten taught us how to multiply
1 x 1 = one 1 , like how will that be ever be 2?
a clearer example of it was 2 x 3 = two 3s = or three 2s
We're all wrong.
The real answer
As a grade 12 student, literally all of these “scientific ideas” are completely unrelated and it’s hilarious 😂. He is trying to justify his ego and cult with science but the science is made up, his ego and cult are real.
As a 12 grade student, you know shit lol. Stfu and go study some gender studies in college... I'm sure they will gladly steal your money
Exactly it's like a regurgitation of "sciency things', complete gibberish.
Terrence Howard is right!
@@drelurebanks6042 Nice one troll.
@@drelurebanks6042 bait