The Joe Rogan Experience - Joe Rogan Experience #2171 - Eric Weinstein & Terrence Howard

00:00:12.000 Gentlemen, here we go.

00:00:15.000 Terrence, thank you for coming back.

00:00:17.000 It was a lot of fun having you on the first time.

00:00:19.000 Obviously, a lot of people wanted to talk to you after they heard all these ideas of yours.

00:00:24.000 And then my friend Eric reached out and he said he would love to do it.

00:00:28.000 Eric, one of my most brilliant friends.

00:00:31.000 Tell everybody your background, like your academic background so people understand what you...

00:00:35.000 Sure.

00:00:36.000 So I'm a PhD in mathematics, specifically in mathematical physics.

00:00:42.000 I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, Oxford.

00:00:57.000 And I'm a Very good podcaster.

00:01:02.000 Bring it back to Portal?

00:01:04.000 You have a lot to do with all of these things, Joe.

00:01:07.000 One of my favorite episodes of any podcast was your interview with Werner Herzog.

00:01:10.000 Oh, man.

00:01:11.000 That was a great episode.

00:01:12.000 Have you had him in here?

00:01:13.000 I have not, but I would love to.

00:01:14.000 Because it seems to me like that's the conversation I want to listen to.

00:01:17.000 I would like to corner him, because I believe that Grizzly Man was a secret comedy.

00:01:21.000 I really do.

00:01:22.000 There's something about the way he edited Grizzly Man. 0.99

00:01:25.000 I'm like, this motherfucker is being funny on purpose. 0.99

00:01:27.000 I know he is. 0.99

00:01:28.000 I know he's editing these short clips. 0.99

00:01:32.000 The guy's so ridiculous that you start laughing. 0.96

00:01:35.000 I didn't see it. 0.99

00:01:37.000 You haven't seen Grizzly Man?

00:01:38.000 We have different tastes.

00:01:39.000 How dare you?

00:01:40.000 It's a work of art.

00:01:41.000 I need to also just say that I was not...

00:01:43.000 Terrence, I think, I heard him on TMZ. I was not looking for a debate.

00:01:49.000 I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel-manned so that anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit gave a chance to put his best foot forward before he got, like, reviewed.

00:02:04.000 And I didn't ask to come on.

00:02:06.000 You asked to have me on.

00:02:07.000 I'm happy to do it because I'm a friend of the show.

00:02:09.000 Well, you reached out about the episode specifically, and I felt like if anybody could talk to Terrence and actually understand what they're talking about...

00:02:15.000 Yeah, and after I watched the interview with you and Brian Keating, I realized that you weren't trying to eviscerate me or anything like that.

00:02:25.000 You actually wanted to hear a well-put-together argument concerning these things.

00:02:32.000 So I appreciated you taking the time to come and examine these things and love to hear your stuff.

00:02:37.000 But I wanted to say thank you to you, Joe, and for putting me on the show initially and for your audience.

00:03:01.000 I'm hoping that today we can move people over to one side or the other.

00:03:07.000 Well, at least we can better inform people.

00:03:10.000 And Terrence, it's been really cool to meet you, because I've heard about you, and you're an exceptional human being.

00:03:16.000 You really are.

00:03:16.000 You're very, very unusual.

00:03:18.000 For a guy to be that good of an actor, I almost always dismiss them as being a moron. 1.00

00:03:23.000 Or at least crazy. 1.00

00:03:26.000 But in a different kind of crazy. 0.91

00:03:29.000 You're super friendly and your recall is insane.

00:03:34.000 But I wanted you to talk to someone who's had a deep education in it.

00:03:38.000 And let's see what he believes about these ideas and maybe you guys can collaborate.

00:03:45.000 Let's start from Eric.

00:03:46.000 What out of the podcast that I did with Terrence really stood out with you or something that you wanted to...

00:03:52.000 Well, what I thought is, I have to be honest, I've been listening, I was not so happy with certain things that happened in the podcast, and then I started hearing the response to it.

00:04:02.000 And I was much more infuriated by the response than anything I heard in the podcast because I thought that a lot of people just used their position of greater formal education in some of these areas to be jerks and to be really dismissive and pretend that they couldn't understand things that you were saying. 0.88

00:04:20.000 No, I'm not kidding. 0.98

00:04:21.000 I heard it.

00:04:21.000 Because I think this thing goes out to millions of people.

00:04:24.000 Let me just say something else positive about Terrence.

00:04:28.000 What he just did was very big.

00:04:30.000 He said, thank you to the haters.

00:04:31.000 I haven't gotten to that plane of existence yet.

00:04:33.000 You've got to stay offline, like I'm telling you.

00:04:35.000 Some people just shouldn't be reading the comments.

00:04:38.000 It's not the online stuff.

00:04:39.000 It's the academic stuff.

00:04:41.000 The academic stuff is really vicious stuff.

00:04:44.000 And it's always with a pretend smile on the face, so it's the worst.

00:04:48.000 And what I thought...

00:04:51.000 I would do is I can't critique a man if I haven't built a model of what he's actually saying in my own mind that he agrees with.

00:04:59.000 In other words, if I start coming after Terence and saying, I think this stuff here is bullshit, and he's like, I didn't say that, that's what you inferred from what I wrote, then I've just basically insulted a person incorrectly.

00:05:12.000 And if I praise something, I don't know whether I built that in my mind or he built it.

00:05:16.000 The first thing I thought we would do Is I would try to recapitulate what I understand of Terence's sort of grand arc and see whether or not I can steel man it and then Terence can say yes and then I can evaluate it but until we do that I don't know whether I'm actually reacting to the real man.

00:05:33.000 I think that's really important and what you said about the viciousness of academics.

00:05:39.000 I think that's just a human thing that exists at the highest levels where people are doing something very difficult and there's a lot of stress and anxiety involved.

00:05:48.000 And you attack even your peers because your biggest fear is your peers attacking you.

00:05:53.000 And usually, generally, it happens with people that are getting more recognition than someone who thinks they should be getting more.

00:06:17.000 Sure.

00:06:17.000 If you think about the number of people in podcasting who sort of have tried to lift each other up, It's pretty good, right?

00:06:24.000 Like you, Lex, Sam Harris, all sorts of people have been good to each other.

00:06:29.000 And one of the reasons that is is that there's enough money in it.

00:06:32.000 What happened in academics is that it went into a contractive state in which you killed or you died, right?

00:06:39.000 And so basically the ethics of academics plummeted after the early 70s.

00:06:44.000 It was always very competitive.

00:06:47.000 But really what it is is it's the Hunger Games.

00:06:51.000 And in acting, for example, if there's money among the elite set, people have trouble with each other.

00:06:58.000 Same thing in tech.

00:06:59.000 They kind of fight each other, but they all get rich together, and then they bury hatchets and things like that.

00:07:03.000 You don't see that as much in academics because it's kill or be killed.

00:07:08.000 And so we've had an implosion ethically.

00:07:11.000 And so one of the things that I wanted to do...

00:07:13.000 Was to try to just begin by steel manning because I've been really disappointed in a lot of the critique that Terence has experienced.

00:07:21.000 The funny thing is the scientists that attacked, most of them was upset that I got into their lane and climbed into their lane talking about science, but here they're not inside a lab somewhere.

00:07:36.000 They're not in Cambridge or Oxford somewhere.

00:07:39.000 They're on Social media.

00:07:41.000 They're on the entertainment world, and I've never sat up and said, oh, you're full of this because you have no business doing this.

00:07:49.000 But they got upset that I'm talking about the foundational problems associated with mathematics that's held us back.

00:07:57.000 But I think if people really care about these ideas though, what they should do is talk about the ideas.

00:08:03.000 It's the personal attacks that are attached to the ideas by people that want to be taken seriously.

00:08:08.000 It fucks the whole thing up.

00:08:09.000 Because like either you're correct or you're incorrect.

00:08:12.000 Tell me what you think is right and then you tell me what you think is right.

00:08:16.000 Let's work this out. 0.99

00:08:17.000 But this personal attack shit If you're talking about something as complex as the things that you discussed on this podcast, there's no room for bullshit. 1.00

00:08:25.000 There's no room for bullshit. 0.99

00:08:26.000 You're dealing with such highly complex ideas. 0.98

00:08:28.000 Well, Turner says that, and to his credit, you know, I found that interview you were doing with that woman where you see me wearing a wig.

00:08:34.000 Yeah, I was doing the movie.

00:08:35.000 I was in the middle of doing fight night.

00:08:38.000 And they had a shooting.

00:08:39.000 I had to do the interview in between shots.

00:08:42.000 It's amazing.

00:08:43.000 It's an amazing interview with the wig on.

00:08:45.000 It's amazing.

00:08:46.000 Well, I remember that line from High Heels.

00:08:48.000 Put that wig head on your head. 0.81

00:08:49.000 But bro, you can pull that wig off.

00:08:50.000 You can just start to speak it in Oxford with that wig on. 1.00

00:08:53.000 Fuck it. 1.00

00:08:54.000 But anyway, so Terrence was there, wigged out, and he was saying this thing. 1.00

00:08:58.000 Wigged out, literally?

00:08:59.000 Literally wigged out.

00:09:00.000 And he was saying this thing.

00:09:01.000 He said, look, all I care about is the truth.

00:09:03.000 And that freed me up to come on.

00:09:04.000 Right?

00:09:04.000 Because I... The spectrum of Terrence, from the best to the worst, is a broad spectrum.

00:09:12.000 And he seriously wants to improve what he's doing.

00:09:15.000 He cares about it.

00:09:15.000 And if I can play a part in that...

00:09:21.000 I want to offer to you, I want to be able to show you the things that I tried to show Neil deGrasse Tyson that he would not even really take a look at.

00:09:30.000 But no, he did take a look at it, right?

00:09:32.000 He responded in a long video recently.

00:09:34.000 Yeah, but his response was disingenuous.

00:09:37.000 Guys, may I make a recommendation?

00:09:39.000 Let's start with the ideas, because I think we all care about those.

00:09:42.000 Yes, for sure.

00:09:43.000 But hold, please, because this is an important thing that just came out.

00:09:45.000 He was so disingenuous, because I sent him a long email after he sent me back the red line thing, thanking him for reviewing it.

00:09:54.000 And saying, look forward to when we can discuss these things, because I sent the treaties to him so we could discuss that on the show.

00:10:01.000 His whole point was, I'm going to bring you on my show and we're going to talk.

00:10:04.000 So here's the stuff that we're going to talk about that I would like to talk about.

00:10:08.000 He never followed up from that point forward, just sent one line emails.

00:10:12.000 Any other thing you got, you got to go to somebody else.

00:10:15.000 So he's pretended like, oh, I was trying to be, you know, very helpful.

00:10:20.000 But that's not what the email trails show.

00:10:24.000 So, he did make this one very large response, though.

00:10:27.000 Right?

00:10:28.000 He did.

00:10:29.000 He did go over the treatise.

00:10:31.000 Yes, very thoroughly.

00:10:33.000 He only has so much time.

00:10:35.000 He might be in a position to defend him, but he might be in a position where he's like, look, I just said what I said about all this stuff.

00:10:42.000 Good luck.

00:10:42.000 I don't have the time to sit here and discuss these things in depth.

00:10:47.000 Maybe that's possible.

00:10:48.000 That's great, but it's like you invited me to come and do your show.

00:10:52.000 I put this stuff together to come and talk to you on your show, and then there's no follow-up with the show.

00:10:57.000 Got it.

00:10:58.000 So where's the beer?

00:10:59.000 I understand it.

00:11:00.000 I mean, I understand your perspective for sure.

00:11:02.000 It's like, come on, man.

00:11:03.000 If you're going to do it, do it.

00:11:04.000 He might have got to the point where it's like a thing where he thinks it's ridiculous, and he doesn't want to engage it on the show. 0.96

00:11:10.000 And ridiculous. 0.92

00:11:10.000 Amen. 0.92

00:11:11.000 And I believe that, but if you've got 97, 98 patents and four supersymmetrical systems that you're claiming you have, and all you need is someone to review them.

00:11:21.000 I'm going to have to jump in.

00:11:21.000 I don't want to do it this way.

00:11:22.000 That'd be great.

00:11:23.000 Listen, we're just having a conversation.

00:11:25.000 This isn't about Tyson.

00:11:26.000 What's the problem?

00:11:26.000 This is a colleague of mine.

00:11:27.000 Yeah, this isn't about Tyson, and I love him.

00:11:30.000 I love him.

00:11:30.000 I grew up watching him, and I appreciated him.

00:11:32.000 But what is the problem?

00:11:33.000 We're defending him.

00:11:34.000 I certainly am.

00:11:36.000 Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is that there's a problem in general, which we scientists do not behave honestly with respect to certain things.

00:11:49.000 We'll make these claims, but...

00:11:51.000 Science is about communication and challenging ideas and all these things, and everybody can be a scientist, and all these sorts of things that we say.

00:11:59.000 Science is interesting.

00:12:00.000 Science is fun.

00:12:00.000 Well, very often it's not interesting.

00:12:02.000 Very often it's not fun.

00:12:04.000 Very often you can't really say that everybody can do science because it's super demanding.

00:12:09.000 We don't welcome people.

00:12:11.000 You know, you're a mathematician, too.

00:12:12.000 We'll say that to kids, and then the kid will say something, and then we'll say, be quiet.

00:12:17.000 And so what...

00:12:19.000 This is not peculiar to Neil.

00:12:22.000 It's like science in general has portrayed itself as a place where everyone's welcome.

00:12:28.000 We debate out the ideas.

00:12:30.000 We have the scientific method to tell us what's true and what isn't.

00:12:34.000 And that's disingenuous.

00:12:35.000 It's not really how the game works.

00:12:37.000 And this is going to involve peer review.

00:12:40.000 It's going to involve people who are It's a dual in terms of both doing research and being public figures.

00:12:46.000 People who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really doing much research.

00:12:51.000 People who are pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition that their colleagues don't think much of what they're doing.

00:12:59.000 I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terence has walked into.

00:13:04.000 And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they hear things, what they will say.

00:13:10.000 And so I am in part speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking to a thousand people who are seeing this at a different level.

00:13:18.000 But just for the record, like I said, I grew up watching Neil and having someone that was light-skinned, that looked like me, up there making these grand steps towards helping people to understand.

00:13:33.000 I admire him.

00:13:35.000 And I still would like the opportunity to sit down and show him these things and have that beer because I think that he will be pleased once he sees the supersymmetry associated with it and understand where all of the passion came from.

00:13:52.000 And I hope that other scientists will take a look at it, but that's the whole point of us doing this.

00:13:56.000 I don't know how serious he is about that beer.

00:13:59.000 No.

00:14:00.000 Because I saw him say that, right?

00:14:02.000 And, you know, that was a very complicated thing that he did.

00:14:06.000 And it had many layers as to whether or not you took it on the surface, you took the hidden meaning, and you took the meaning below that.

00:14:13.000 And so plunging right into that from the beginning, in my opinion, is not served very well by having the three of us here.

00:14:21.000 Because the first thing is, what is the nature of Terence's idea?

00:14:25.000 I don't think Neil actually understood some of your ideas, to be entirely honest.

00:14:28.000 No, and what he forgot is when I say 1 times 1 equals 2, that's a metaphor for challenging the status quo.

00:14:37.000 Despite the fact that the square root of 2 has all of its issues, when you cube it or you multiply it by 2, which creates a contradiction, despite the fact that the square root of 2 has a problem with the prime numbers,

00:14:53.000 the fact that they call number 2 a prime number, When it's clearly a composite number, any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number, you always get a composite number, except with the situation of the number two.

00:15:10.000 And there's so many people that, and that's why the prime numbers are unpredictable, because of that problem associated.

00:15:17.000 So there's been a problem with two for so long.

00:15:20.000 Two is different.

00:15:21.000 I mean, you will find that mathematicians will often talk about Proving something for characteristic not equal to two.

00:15:30.000 So they'll single out two as being just very, very different.

00:15:33.000 So look that up when we're done.

00:15:36.000 Yeah, but why?

00:15:36.000 But why would they do that?

00:15:37.000 Because in part of what you're saying, the prime two, it does belong as a prime, but it is also special.

00:15:44.000 And in other words, I have the opportunity to strawman you if I want to, because what you just said sounded crazy.

00:15:51.000 And I also have the problem...

00:15:52.000 Possibility to steal Man U. So all the algebraic topologists who just heard, you know, for characteristic not equals to two, they're like saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fair.

00:16:01.000 And so in part, by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the benefit of putting your best foot forward because, you know, if you say one times one equals two, everybody knows that that's crazy.

00:16:14.000 But what you actually may mean and the fact that you don't use certain terms or the fact that you use certain pronunciations that communicate to me something very positive, which is that you taught yourself.

00:16:25.000 You learn the stuff from reading about it because nobody taught you or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them.

00:16:31.000 True.

00:16:31.000 So, you know, in part, you always have the ability to make fun of somebody who pronounces a word the way it's read on the page.

00:16:38.000 And then you also have the opportunity to say, holy cow, that guy actually taught himself.

00:16:42.000 That's more impressive.

00:16:44.000 So, in part, what I want to do is I want to start by giving you your best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into this whole Flower of Life riff that becomes your larger theory.

00:16:58.000 And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped it.

00:17:05.000 Because, you know, I also had to spend some time.

00:17:07.000 I didn't spend a ton of time.

00:17:09.000 But, you know, my time is valuable.

00:17:11.000 Your time is valuable.

00:17:12.000 So let's do this thing.

00:17:13.000 Yeah, so I'll follow your lead.

00:17:16.000 What's going on with the number two?

00:17:19.000 The CIA is in charge of the number two.

00:17:21.000 What's up with two?

00:17:23.000 Two's different.

00:17:24.000 Because of what he said, you know, the fact that the even-odd distinction.

00:17:27.000 Isn't that odd, though, that two's different?

00:17:29.000 What a strange thing.

00:17:30.000 The problem that's associated with the number two is because of the identity principle, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics. 0.98

00:17:45.000 You're going right into his neighborhood. 0.80

00:17:47.000 You're in the mathematical hood right now, trying to keep a black man down. 1.00

00:17:52.000 You have Marie von Franz, who argued about the problems associated with the identity principle.

00:18:02.000 You got Kurt Godel who talked about it.

00:18:05.000 You got Wells.

00:18:06.000 All of them said it made everything incommensurable just because they gave that identity principle to the number one.

00:18:14.000 And that has been the stumbling block for mathematicians because it...

00:18:20.000 It's what's held everybody behind, because they keep trying to make that work.

00:18:24.000 Am I wrong?

00:18:25.000 Yeah, you're wrong if we do it that way.

00:18:26.000 I mean, in other words, I can take...

00:18:28.000 Is anything that he's saying correct?

00:18:34.000 Terrence has several influences, which, again, I don't think it's clear to me.

00:18:40.000 I have to ask him questions to find out whether I'm even right.

00:18:43.000 Look, one of the problems is, is I may be wrong about my model of Terrence.

00:18:46.000 This is the first time I'm meeting him.

00:18:47.000 I didn't know who he was before the podcast.

00:18:49.000 And...

00:18:52.000 I need to know whether or not I'm even building the right model of Terence, because otherwise it's just silly to have me here, and I'm going to critique what I built in my own mind from Terence's words.

00:19:01.000 Right.

00:19:02.000 What I was hoping is that you would be able to explain your geometric unity model.

00:19:09.000 That's a different day.

00:19:10.000 This is about you.

00:19:12.000 Okay, then you can follow how you like.

00:19:15.000 That could be a whole other podcast.

00:19:16.000 But what about what he was saying is incorrect just now?

00:19:22.000 He's saying things that are often at a level that are allegorical, and you could make them – so Terence sometimes mentions something called category theory, right?

00:19:32.000 And there's a weird way in which category theory can take something that seems to be an analogy.

00:19:39.000 And make it precise and powerful, right?

00:19:43.000 So you can have two systems that don't look the same and you spot an analogy between them and then you say, holy cow, there's an exact mapping of one system onto another in which it was unexpected that those are the same structure.

00:20:04.000 So for example, We're going to get into something about multiplication, where Terence has an issue with multiplication.

00:20:10.000 But to the best of my knowledge, you don't have an issue with addition.

00:20:13.000 I don't have an issue.

00:20:14.000 I don't have an issue with multiplication either.

00:20:17.000 Well then, one times one is what?

00:20:18.000 One times one should equal two.

00:20:21.000 And action times an action...

00:20:22.000 If you can show me one place in the universe...

00:20:24.000 You just shifted frames.

00:20:26.000 No, no, no.

00:20:27.000 Show me one place in the universe.

00:20:29.000 One natural, observable phenomenon where one times one equals one, where an action times an action doesn't have a reaction.

00:20:37.000 So then you just went into some...

00:20:40.000 There's a concept called logomachy, which is arguing over words.

00:20:43.000 And what you want is not to be caught.

00:20:47.000 If I can beat you in a word game, or you can beat me in a word game.

00:20:49.000 You can beat me in a word game.

00:20:51.000 I didn't go to MIT or anything like that.

00:20:53.000 By the way, I heard you with B.B. King, where he was having trouble improv-ing on the spot.

00:20:59.000 And your mind just rescued him with a partial rhyme.

00:21:02.000 I really appreciate that, because he's one of my favorites.

00:21:04.000 Yeah, he invited me to do a show.

00:21:06.000 That was a big deal.

00:21:06.000 I got to play with him.

00:21:07.000 I was scared to play guitar, though, with him.

00:21:09.000 I should have put off the guitar.

00:21:10.000 But I was scared.

00:21:12.000 I was scared to get on the stage and play with him.

00:21:14.000 It's B.B. King, man.

00:21:15.000 Yeah, but I sang with him.

00:21:16.000 Yeah, it's B.B. King.

00:21:17.000 Thank you for appreciating that.

00:21:19.000 So...

00:21:21.000 Let's get to this flower of life because that's sort of the beginning of this exploration.

00:21:26.000 Can you correct what he said about one time?

00:21:30.000 What about an action and a reaction?

00:21:33.000 So I was trying to get to something.

00:21:35.000 Do you have a problem with the way we do addition?

00:21:37.000 The addition, the subtraction, and division is all right.

00:21:41.000 The only problems I have is you can't divide by zero.

00:21:46.000 But you can multiply by zero.

00:21:47.000 And if division is the inverse operation of multiplication, then you should be able to divide by it.

00:21:54.000 But if you divide by zero, you end up with an infinity.

00:21:57.000 And there was a great system put together by Marco Rodin, the vortexural-based math system, where they removed the zero.

00:22:06.000 But it's able to predict...

00:22:08.000 All the things necessary.

00:22:10.000 It was 100% precise as a model, but it's been abandoned or it's been relegated to the outskirts.

00:22:18.000 Don't know that.

00:22:18.000 We do do things where sometimes we can divide by zero.

00:22:21.000 We have concepts like the pointed infinity where you can complete a structure.

00:22:27.000 The original structure can't accommodate an operation, but you can complete it to a larger system in which that thing does become sensible.

00:22:38.000 As an example of the 1 times 1, assume that Terence doesn't have a big problem with addition because addition doesn't have the division by zero problem.

00:22:48.000 It is the case that if you take any two numbers, A and B, two real numbers, right?

00:22:59.000 Make them positive.

00:23:00.000 And take the natural logs of those two numbers and add those together.

00:23:06.000 Then you take the exponent of that.

00:23:08.000 So we haven't done a times operation at all.

00:23:11.000 Right.

00:23:11.000 The exponential of the ln of A plus ln of B. That is equal to A times B. In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic, or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing.

00:23:30.000 So in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you allow me, because you like waves, so with waves you need exponentials and you need natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and accepting the law of addition because they're the same system.

00:23:49.000 The multiplication should initially start as exaggerated addition.

00:23:54.000 That was the whole point of it.

00:23:56.000 Well, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under multiplication, with the identity element being the multiplicative identity, being one, are isomorphic to the total real numbers Under addition,

00:24:12.000 with the additive identity being zero.

00:24:15.000 And the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect the two with one being the other's inverse.

00:24:23.000 So by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part going to freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability.

00:24:30.000 And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak one contradiction through TSA, The entire airport collapses.

00:24:42.000 Everything that we do just is destroyed.

00:24:45.000 And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and physical sciences is extraordinary.

00:24:52.000 For outside ideas, because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it.

00:24:59.000 If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses, where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing with with the principle of explosion.

00:25:10.000 And that's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years.

00:25:17.000 For years.

00:25:19.000 Norman J. Wildberger talks about it.

00:25:22.000 It is what's...

00:25:24.000 Because you have to cancel conservation of energy, and you have to cancel the action and reactionary laws in order for one times one.

00:25:35.000 Now, I understand.

00:25:36.000 You're seeing one, one time.

00:25:38.000 But because of the associative law, the associative law that says if A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself in multiplication.

00:25:48.000 A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B. Well, hang on there.

00:25:54.000 If I change the word itself to the word zero, which you're going to say there is no zero.

00:26:01.000 Why do I say there's no zero?

00:26:04.000 I keep trying to get back to what I understand of Terence's underlying metaphysics.

00:26:09.000 To say zero, zero is supposed to represent no thing, nothing whatsoever.

00:26:16.000 But they have zero as a number, set up as a number.

00:26:20.000 But to say no thing...

00:26:22.000 Your brain creates a chemical structure even in saying nothing.

00:26:27.000 So there is what I'm saying philosophically.

00:26:30.000 There's a difference between the empty set and zero, right?

00:26:34.000 So if I say to you, Terrence...

00:26:37.000 What is the collection of kittens that you have sold to North Korea to be used for spare parts?

00:26:43.000 You would say, it's the empty set.

00:26:46.000 I've never sold a kitten.

00:26:47.000 I say, hey, Terrence, what is the number of kittens that you've sold for the internal organs to North Korea?

00:26:54.000 You would say zero.

00:26:56.000 So zero is the...

00:26:58.000 I would say none.

00:26:58.000 That's right.

00:26:59.000 So there is a zero.

00:27:01.000 But to multiply something by the nothing, to multiply something by nothing, don't they have to be dimensionally equal to in order to multiply?

00:27:12.000 Like you can't multiply a human by an ant because they're not dimensionally equal.

00:27:17.000 Well, if there was a thing called a human ant...

00:27:20.000 No, that was your point about dollars, right?

00:27:23.000 A dollar times a dollar.

00:27:25.000 That's the Dewey Decimal System.

00:27:27.000 No, the problem comes up with the Dewey Decimal System, why a dollar times a dollar can be different values based on different currencies.

00:27:36.000 That was the point of that.

00:27:38.000 I was pointing out, hey, the Dewey Decimal System is whack.

00:27:41.000 Terrence makes a correct point, that we say one times one equals one.

00:27:46.000 But if you say a dollar times a dollar is not a sensible thing unless a dollar squared is a unit that you can interpret.

00:27:53.000 Right?

00:27:54.000 That was your point about dimensionality.

00:27:55.000 Right.

00:27:56.000 Now in the moment, what is a dollar squared?

00:27:58.000 What does a dollar squared become?

00:28:00.000 I don't know what that means.

00:28:00.000 But since the dollar is no longer based on a hard asset, it's no longer gold, it's just an integer.

00:28:07.000 Right?

00:28:08.000 It's just an integer in a computer being multiplied.

00:28:10.000 It's a unit of account.

00:28:11.000 It's a unit of account, but it's an integer that still, now you're able to multiply it under different currencies.

00:28:18.000 States are not allowed to print dollars, but states are allowed to print as much change.

00:28:22.000 So who's to say that the state isn't saying, okay, we're going to make, we're going to print.

00:28:27.000 We can get into seniorage, which is the concept of theft that occurs when either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing Increasing the unit, the number of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit.

00:28:45.000 But my claim is, you're going to do a series of things.

00:28:48.000 Like, I've watched how you deal with people in interaction.

00:28:52.000 You've created an incredible effect.

00:28:55.000 Rick Rubin, the hip-hop producer.

00:28:58.000 Yeah, he did my album.

00:29:00.000 Okay, well that makes some sense.

00:29:02.000 Because the first thing that happens is I'm awakened by a message from Rick Rubin.

00:29:05.000 He's like, how come you can't explain physics the way Terrence Howard explains it?

00:29:09.000 That's not a way to get on my good side at 8 o'clock in the morning.

00:29:11.000 Yeah, but he's probably baiting you.

00:29:12.000 What?

00:29:13.000 He's always baiting you.

00:29:15.000 He's the best.

00:29:16.000 I'm trying to explain physics the way you explain it.

00:29:20.000 I'm looking for a partnership at the end of this.

00:29:22.000 That's what I'm hoping to win you over as a proselyte.

00:29:27.000 I'm hoping that the information does that.

00:29:29.000 There's at least one area that you have won me over in which I'm very excited about.

00:29:34.000 But I'd like to get back.

00:29:35.000 What is that area?

00:29:36.000 Don't leave us hanging.

00:29:38.000 The linchpin.

00:29:39.000 We'll get to it.

00:29:39.000 Yeah, but you can't leave us hanging.

00:29:41.000 Well, I'm trying to get back.

00:29:42.000 Look, I'm trying to do a service to this.

00:29:44.000 Listen, let me let you talk.

00:29:46.000 You're just going to talk. 0.95

00:29:47.000 Stop trying to control everything, you freak.

00:29:51.000 He's got a plan.

00:29:52.000 I know.

00:29:52.000 He's got a very rigid plan.

00:29:54.000 Can I have a good time?

00:29:56.000 Can I get an ayahuasca, Chino?

00:30:01.000 Actually, is there a way to bring the temperature?

00:30:04.000 Yeah, we can lower the temperature in here.

00:30:05.000 Yeah, because I'm schvitzing.

00:30:07.000 But you are wearing a jacket, sir.

00:30:08.000 Well, because I'm trying to be professional.

00:30:10.000 That's hilarious.

00:30:11.000 Isn't that adorable?

00:30:12.000 I like how you dress, Matt.

00:30:14.000 Beautiful geometric pattern on your hoodie.

00:30:17.000 Looks much more comfortable.

00:30:18.000 This thing you're doing, everybody does that. 1.00

00:30:21.000 Smart as you are, you can wear a fucking dirty Nirvana t-shirt. 1.00

00:30:25.000 You come in. 1.00

00:30:26.000 You don't need this nonsense suit.

00:30:27.000 Although I do enjoy a good suit.

00:30:29.000 But most of the stuff that I've been pointing out...

00:30:32.000 Don't try to control everything.

00:30:34.000 The stuff I've been pointing out has been the blaring inconsistencies that they shove down until you just accept.

00:30:42.000 And if I didn't come up with a separate cosmology, I didn't come up with it.

00:30:48.000 If a separate cosmogony hadn't been handed to me, given to me, that's why I explained that.

00:30:55.000 Okay, I'm going to be quiet.

00:30:56.000 Let's start with the flower of life.

00:30:58.000 You're wearing it on your shirt.

00:30:59.000 I'm wearing some avarition of the flower.

00:31:02.000 That's right.

00:31:03.000 So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing, because it's confusing.

00:31:07.000 Right?

00:31:07.000 And the one thing I can't go with you on is I can't go on the Nantucket sleigh ride where we're talking about the Bose-Einstein condensate and then we're talking about the period.

00:31:15.000 Oh, I'm going to show you that.

00:31:16.000 We can do that.

00:31:17.000 But he wants to stick to specific topics one at a time.

00:31:21.000 Because otherwise it's just, I'll be chasing after you and you'll get nothing.

00:31:25.000 Yeah, that was part of the plan today.

00:31:26.000 I just wanted to kind of let some of it play out.

00:31:28.000 So you want to start with the flower of life.

00:31:30.000 Jamie, can you pull that up, please, from my book?

00:31:35.000 It's on page 134, tcotlc.com, or it should be in the regular thing.

00:31:42.000 And also that blender thing is very cool.

00:31:44.000 Yeah, which for rebuilding of Saturn?

00:31:47.000 No, the one that you were talking to this other guy where he's asking you questions about the five forms.

00:31:53.000 Yeah, Jeff Menzi.

00:31:54.000 I found that through sleuthery on the internet where it was doable.

00:31:59.000 And because, you know, in particular, when you do them opaque, it's very hard to see.

00:32:03.000 Sometimes when you let it become translucent, it's easier to see.

00:32:06.000 Well, that's why, while he's getting that, I'm going to...

00:32:09.000 Got it.

00:32:10.000 No, no, no, I don't.

00:32:11.000 On your website, I don't know exactly where the book would be.

00:32:15.000 Is it one of these links?

00:32:16.000 Just go down.

00:32:20.000 I think it'll be a little more, square root of two.

00:32:25.000 No, no, no, no, no, no.

00:32:28.000 Yeah, if you'll just type into my book, TCO. That's from, where's the book?

00:32:34.000 It's...

00:32:35.000 Or you could also Google O-T-O-E-T. O-T-O-E-T will take you to that?

00:32:41.000 Yeah, one times one equals two is the acronym.

00:32:45.000 Just go to T-C-O-T-L-C dot com and that'll be a pull up.

00:32:50.000 T-C-O-T-L-C dot com. 0.99

00:32:54.000 Yep, right below there.

00:32:55.000 Terrence Howard.

00:32:57.000 Yep.

00:32:58.000 Flower of Life.

00:33:01.000 Let's see if you just open up the book.

00:33:03.000 You gotta open it though.

00:33:05.000 Download, yeah.

00:33:07.000 Right there?

00:33:08.000 I don't know if that's what downloads the book.

00:33:12.000 Yeah, I don't know.

00:33:12.000 Let's see.

00:33:13.000 Open.

00:33:15.000 I'm clicking that, and that just takes me to this, and then it's not doing anything.

00:33:19.000 It's not doing it.

00:33:20.000 Let's try searching Google O-T-O-E-T. And then several...

00:33:27.000 All right, so if you go...

00:33:29.000 And then put in Howard.

00:33:38.000 No.

00:33:39.000 Or put in PDF. We should be able to pick...

00:33:43.000 Yeah, okay.

00:33:44.000 That's probably right.

00:33:46.000 Yeah, there you go.

00:33:47.000 Okay.

00:33:47.000 And then go to page 134 on the right-hand side.

00:33:51.000 You do have several editions.

00:33:54.000 Yeah, that other one somebody else set up there to probably distract and keep people from being able to find it.

00:34:01.000 It's probably the government.

00:34:02.000 Yeah, we're going to do that later.

00:34:04.000 You're going to love that.

00:34:06.000 They're coming.

00:34:07.000 Just tap on that jewel right there.

00:34:11.000 Okay.

00:34:12.000 Okay.

00:34:12.000 So this is...

00:34:13.000 And we can rotate that with the cursor and get a...

00:34:16.000 What's great about this, I'll be able to pull pieces out of it.

00:34:19.000 Yeah, so just tap onto that drill.

00:34:22.000 Brilliant.

00:34:22.000 So we can start with this.

00:34:24.000 So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything...

00:34:26.000 I've seen this pattern before, didn't know its history.

00:34:29.000 I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a mathematical thing about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments.

00:34:37.000 But what these overlapping circles are is a question.

00:34:40.000 And the way in which I got to understand how Terence sees the world is he says, look, there's this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world.

00:34:50.000 And there isn't a great explanation for why it's found in so many different places, at least as far as I'm aware and part of your point.

00:34:58.000 And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet that this thing is hiding a secret.

00:35:04.000 And that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic.

00:35:09.000 There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface.

00:35:13.000 And then you said something that's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is that maybe this is like a shadow on a flat wall and that those two things are exploitable.

00:35:26.000 And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface Is, first of all, suspicious to you because of that curved linear triangle that you see in black.

00:35:37.000 And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say, as above, so below, but what if you said, as below, so above, and you imagine that there was a three-dimensional structure floating above this that actually projects down to this and distorts down to this?

00:35:52.000 So that's the first idea.

00:35:53.000 The first idea is it's not this, it's the thing that projected to this.

00:35:58.000 And that's what you mean when you say opening the flower.

00:36:00.000 Because the flower, when I was researching where the platonic solids came from, this is the oldest version that I got from all of antiquity.

00:36:13.000 It came back to them.

00:36:15.000 Well, there are no platonic solids because you're in dimension two, except for what you built, which is the thing above in black.

00:36:23.000 But what they did years ago, 6,000 years ago, was draw straight lines where the circles overlapped.

00:36:29.000 And I thought, in what I was reasoning with regard to all energy being expressed in motion, all motion being expressed in waves, all waves being curved, and that there were no straight lines in the universe.

00:36:41.000 So there's several errors in what you just said.

00:36:44.000 If I stop there, we'll get off track again.

00:36:46.000 Yeah, but you should correct those errors while we're there.

00:36:49.000 Okay.

00:36:49.000 It is not true that all energy is expressed in motion.

00:36:52.000 What energy is not expressed in motion?

00:36:54.000 Potential energy is not expressed in motion.

00:36:57.000 If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't know this, but most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a spring.

00:37:07.000 So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of all physics, even the most theoretical physics.

00:37:13.000 It's a very strange thing, Hooke's Law.

00:37:16.000 When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, Energy is conserved.

00:37:22.000 Now, at the top and at the bottom, that weight is not moving because all of the energy is in the potential of the spring.

00:37:30.000 It's in the stress of the crystallization that has occurred within that system.

00:37:37.000 And then you will say something like...

00:37:40.000 But that energy is still being held together.

00:37:42.000 There is still energy there.

00:37:44.000 And it's still moving at a microscopic level.

00:37:48.000 It's still spinning centripetes.

00:37:49.000 So we have to get into what...

00:37:51.000 You will make a point, for example.

00:37:54.000 Is that true?

00:37:55.000 That it's still in motion?

00:37:56.000 It's just in motion in a lower frequency?

00:37:59.000 No.

00:37:59.000 There's nothing moving at the...

00:38:03.000 Let me show you what goes wrong in the interaction.

00:38:05.000 Terence says, show me in nature a single straight line.

00:38:08.000 And I liked your point about Euclidean women. 0.97

00:38:10.000 That was awesome.

00:38:12.000 That was from Alan Watts.

00:38:15.000 So, if I show this to Terence, because I just bought this from the end of the seventh ray, A lot of straight lines.

00:38:23.000 A lot of straight lines.

00:38:24.000 You would think it's a straight line, but when you look at it under an electron microscope, you're going to see the crystalline structure.

00:38:32.000 So again, this configuration is an illusion.

00:38:37.000 You're just saying it's not perfect.

00:38:38.000 It's an optical illusion because crystals form in symmetrical shapes.

00:38:43.000 Yeah, very often.

00:38:45.000 But a lot of straight lines.

00:38:46.000 A lot of straight lines.

00:38:48.000 Perceived straight lines, but...

00:38:50.000 Right, but every atom is filled with empty space.

00:38:53.000 I mean, we could take this down to, like, there is no matter.

00:38:55.000 That is...

00:38:56.000 We could get crazy.

00:38:57.000 You know what I'm saying?

00:38:59.000 We're about to.

00:38:59.000 Well, you've seen that Mexican cave.

00:39:01.000 It's the best example of it ever.

00:39:02.000 The Mexican cave's amazing.

00:39:04.000 It's insane.

00:39:05.000 Best example I've ever seen of crystals.

00:39:07.000 Yeah.

00:39:08.000 You've seen it?

00:39:08.000 No.

00:39:09.000 Oh my god, it's insane.

00:39:10.000 120 degrees in there.

00:39:12.000 Just for a little sidetrack, let's take a look at it.

00:39:14.000 Because this Mexican cave is probably one of the most spectacular things that exists on Earth.

00:39:21.000 By the way, the spaceship behind you is supposed to be a mushroom, Joe?

00:39:24.000 No, it's a spaceship.

00:39:25.000 That's the classic UFO ship.

00:39:27.000 And that's me with the headphones.

00:39:29.000 Look at that.

00:39:30.000 That's amazing.

00:39:31.000 How insane is that this was created on Earth?

00:39:35.000 By nature.

00:39:35.000 Just by nature.

00:39:36.000 It's so different than anything else we see that it makes our mind go, what the fuck? 0.99

00:39:41.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:39:42.000 Like, those are crystals?

00:39:43.000 How?

00:39:43.000 What happened?

00:39:44.000 Okay.

00:39:45.000 Wild.

00:39:45.000 A lot of straight lines.

00:39:48.000 I would say there are a lot of straight lines, but I've also studied Terence enough to know that he's going to say...

00:39:53.000 They're not perfectly straight.

00:39:55.000 They're not straight at all.

00:39:56.000 The moment you look at them through an electron microscope...

00:40:00.000 This is part of where we get into...

00:40:02.000 Right.

00:40:02.000 So they're not precisely straight, is your point.

00:40:05.000 And in fact, let's imagine that I... But the Earth isn't precisely circular, right?

00:40:10.000 No.

00:40:11.000 It's very far away.

00:40:13.000 We use this thing called the geoid, which is not circular either, but at least it's smooth.

00:40:18.000 We have many different geoids.

00:40:20.000 It does seem odd, though.

00:40:23.000 The Earth isn't round, totally.

00:40:25.000 No, well, the Earth is aging.

00:40:27.000 It's on its way out.

00:40:29.000 It's on its way out.

00:40:31.000 It used to be perfectly spherical.

00:40:33.000 We're falling apart.

00:40:34.000 We need some Botox.

00:40:35.000 No, we don't.

00:40:36.000 The Earth needs Botox.

00:40:37.000 You want a drink?

00:40:38.000 We can drink.

00:40:38.000 No, no, no.

00:40:39.000 Not this early.

00:40:40.000 Not this early.

00:40:40.000 This early?

00:40:41.000 What does that mean?

00:40:42.000 You're an American man. 1.00

00:40:44.000 You should be able to do whatever the fuck you want, goddammit. 1.00

00:40:47.000 I'm in Sweden right now. 1.00

00:40:47.000 And you're in Texas. 1.00

00:40:48.000 You're an American man in Texas.

00:40:50.000 This is a free state, sir.

00:40:53.000 What do you have?

00:40:54.000 We have whiskey.

00:40:55.000 Oh, I would love one.

00:40:56.000 That's what we need.

00:40:57.000 We need whiskey.

00:40:58.000 Let's get some whiskey and some ice.

00:40:59.000 Yes, and then we're going to get into the wave conjugations.

00:41:02.000 I want to show you something, and I wanted to ask your opinion before I forget.

00:41:06.000 There was a recently, well, I recently found it online, of these two photons that were entangled, and it looks like a yin and a yang.

00:41:14.000 Have you seen this?

00:41:15.000 No.

00:41:16.000 Yes, no, it's not true.

00:41:17.000 I have seen it out of the corner of my eye.

00:41:18.000 I did not study what caused this. 0.99

00:41:21.000 I had to run it by you, because you're probably the only one that I know, other than maybe Terrence, that could understand what the fuck they're saying. 0.98

00:41:26.000 I have a motto of it. 0.99

00:41:29.000 I do.

00:41:30.000 And I don't.

00:41:31.000 I believe you.

00:41:32.000 I believe you.

00:41:33.000 So what are they saying?

00:41:35.000 How did they see this?

00:41:36.000 Like, this bifoton digital holography?

00:41:39.000 Can someone explain that?

00:41:40.000 Maybe, but I don't know what those words mean yet.

00:41:42.000 Okay.

00:41:43.000 Do you know what it means, Terrence?

00:41:44.000 Like, how they could see this?

00:41:46.000 A bifoton...

00:41:48.000 By always meaning to, but...

00:41:51.000 Someone got Michio Kaku on the phone.

00:41:53.000 Did they smash them?

00:41:54.000 Are they smashing them together?

00:41:56.000 What's their process of looking at them?

00:41:58.000 That's a very good question.

00:42:00.000 And they're using the same interferometer that Michelson-Morley experiment, which turned out to be...

00:42:07.000 It turned out that it actually proved there was an ether.

00:42:10.000 There's a way in which you're right about the ether, to be blunt.

00:42:14.000 Listen to this statement in the beginning.

00:42:18.000 Put the bong down and listen to this.

00:42:20.000 High-dimensional bifoton states are promising resources for quantum applications ranging from high-dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging. 0.97

00:42:31.000 Just that phrase, what fucking percentage of human beings breathing on Earth right now have any idea what any of that means?

00:42:39.000 I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space, which is multi-particle. 0.96

00:42:48.000 So you've got something in the degree to...

00:42:58.000 I don't know.

00:43:11.000 Geographically distributed, but also linked at the point of creation.

00:43:17.000 Like if a photon decays into an electron-positron pair, those two are going to be entangled.

00:43:24.000 And if you make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of the entire system.

00:43:30.000 And so what they're trying to say is, if you want to get jiggy, people always want to talk about faster-than-light communications by taking an entangled...

00:43:38.000 Pair and saying that if I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light cone.

00:43:43.000 So we can give meaning to these things.

00:43:45.000 Then you have to say, well, it doesn't allow you to create information transfer faster than the speed of light.

00:43:50.000 You have to be very careful and precise about it.

00:43:52.000 But if you just start getting jiggy, then you start thinking...

00:43:55.000 Unless you introduce the ether.

00:43:57.000 Thank you, sir.

00:43:58.000 So the ether...

00:43:58.000 So, you know, in part, when I've been here on previous versions of JRE, I talked about vector bundles.

00:44:07.000 And in a certain sense, how do you have a wave without a medium?

00:44:10.000 The medium was supposed to be this ether, but the medium is actually something called a vector bundle.

00:44:16.000 It's a little bit weird that you're a wave.

00:44:17.000 No, it's perfect because the vector bundle, go ahead.

00:44:20.000 You're a wave in a medium, and you as a wave don't know that you're a wave and you don't know what medium you live in.

00:44:28.000 And it's funny that you go through life not understanding what you are.

00:44:32.000 No, but that medium, that luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of his equations off of, Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium.

00:44:44.000 The only reason that special relativity came along was because they couldn't...

00:44:50.000 We're good to go.

00:45:08.000 They had a bad idea of what the ether was going to be.

00:45:12.000 Because they thought it was still.

00:45:14.000 Yeah, in a certain sense.

00:45:16.000 And what you are trying to say, the way I interpret it, again, and I don't know if I'm right if we don't do the work, is, hey, the spiritual successor to the idea of the ether exists.

00:45:30.000 Right?

00:45:30.000 And that thing has properties and if you say, if I put a vector bundle on top of a Lorentzian manifold, Then you don't have a contradiction.

00:45:40.000 And if you call that the ether, that's more or less what we work with.

00:45:44.000 And then we do this weird thing where we say, well, they used to think the ether existed and it didn't.

00:45:48.000 Ha, ha, ha.

00:45:49.000 And that's not really...

00:45:50.000 No, because that's when they said that space was a vacuum.

00:45:53.000 And they realized that space is not a vacuum.

00:45:55.000 It's not a vacuum.

00:45:56.000 It's not a vacuum.

00:45:57.000 Do you know how much is going on in that vacuum?

00:45:59.000 It's all going on.

00:46:00.000 Yes, all of this stuff.

00:46:01.000 I understand.

00:46:02.000 So this is the thing, which is if you step on this thing the wrong way, everybody laughs and says, ha, ha, ha.

00:46:07.000 He doesn't understand the Michelson-Morley experiment.

00:46:10.000 He doesn't understand why there's no ether.

00:46:12.000 And then we secretly sneak it back in.

00:46:15.000 Thank you.

00:46:16.000 Thank you, Joe.

00:46:17.000 Cheers.

00:46:18.000 Cheers, Joe.

00:46:18.000 Cheers.

00:46:20.000 Look at these professional spherical cubes.

00:46:22.000 Yeah, they're cool, right?

00:46:24.000 Round ice cubes.

00:46:25.000 Ah, now I can have a conversation.

00:46:27.000 Oh yeah, now.

00:46:29.000 Freedom.

00:46:30.000 Mental freedom in a glass.

00:46:33.000 Or a prison.

00:46:34.000 If you're careful about it, It makes sense.

00:46:37.000 If you're not careful about it, the whole thing blows up in your face.

00:46:40.000 And the reason that I speak about the ether, all of the wave conjugations, all of my patents, have been defining different aspects of the ether.

00:46:50.000 I believe that I've defined the electric side, the plasmoid side, and I believe that I've defined the magnetic side.

00:46:58.000 And the constitution between them.

00:47:00.000 I mean, that's what I want to show.

00:47:02.000 I want to get to that.

00:47:03.000 Let's go back to the flower.

00:47:04.000 Oh, but before you go from that other spot, if you look at that picture again of those two photons interacting, it looks like it's at the center of what would typically be a whirlpool.

00:47:16.000 This is like the very center of a whirlpool.

00:47:18.000 So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vortices.

00:47:24.000 That natural vortices.

00:47:25.000 That's what they took the picture of.

00:47:27.000 They looked directly down at two lights moving a fluid.

00:47:33.000 And they described how they take the picture.

00:47:35.000 It's so complicated.

00:47:36.000 Jamie, go back to where it was, where they were explaining what they used.

00:47:41.000 Here it is.

00:47:42.000 Here we introduce bifoton digital holography.

00:47:46.000 In analogy to off-axis digital holography where we coincidence, imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography. 0.99

00:47:58.000 What the fuck? 0.91

00:47:59.000 See, but that's because of the uncertainty and Schrodinger, all of that. 0.99

00:48:04.000 But if you were able...

00:48:06.000 Because they started off trying to predict an electron cloud and find a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties and probabilities came out, but they were doing things on a two-dimensional basis.

00:48:20.000 That's what I believe that I've figured out with the wave conjugations, because they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through all these unnecessary steps to reach it.

00:48:33.000 I'm just so happy that someone's doing something like this.

00:48:36.000 I'm so happy that we can talk about it.

00:48:38.000 I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on at the highest levels of this kind of science, because it's so damn fascinating.

00:48:49.000 These people are finding the very building blocks of the universe and studying them.

00:48:55.000 It's fascinating.

00:48:57.000 But this is a bit up from that.

00:48:58.000 I mean, the tomography...

00:49:00.000 Is like how we assemble a picture of you when we do an NMR or a CAT scan.

00:49:08.000 We have this thing called the radon transform where we send waves through your body and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body, reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system responds.

00:49:27.000 We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly.

00:49:32.000 That would take me 15 minutes with looking things up.

00:49:35.000 See, and the things that I wanted...

00:49:37.000 I was just going to say, it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can actually look at these quantum entangled photons like that and just see it.

00:49:47.000 But we need to do a better job...

00:49:50.000 Look, right now we're in a crisis where no one knows what's true. 1.00

00:49:53.000 Nobody knows who's full of shit. 0.99

00:49:55.000 Nobody knows where they can trust, you know, what they can trust, who they can trust. 1.00

00:49:59.000 And one of the things that actually, you know, moved me to come and to reach out to Joe is that by default, I think, you know, I've addressed the National Academy of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them.

00:50:15.000 And so they wanted to know how much I knew about their lie.

00:50:20.000 I think?

00:50:39.000 It's one of the last things that is trusted by many people.

00:50:44.000 And that's one of the reasons I'm here, which is people have a chance to see people in conversation about things.

00:50:50.000 And, you know, you screw up, but the conversation's recorded and we all go on and people have a chance to see what's coming out.

00:50:57.000 If we can go back to the flower of life, I can try to...

00:50:59.000 Yeah, I would love that.

00:51:00.000 But, like, with the flower...

00:51:02.000 All of these things, I went up to Oxford eight years ago and tried to present them there to be examined.

00:51:11.000 They didn't want to take me seriously.

00:51:13.000 Because you keep coming at it in the way that you're doing.

00:51:14.000 Because the one times one, when I say the one times one, but like I said, that was a metaphor to say something's wrong, something's wrong, but they know something's wrong with the math.

00:51:25.000 It's not adding up.

00:51:27.000 So you bring up renormalization theory.

00:51:29.000 Right.

00:51:30.000 Renormalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math that's wrong and on the other hand we have a way of working with math that's wrong even though we know it's wrong.

00:51:39.000 If you have an error of a particular kind and you can find an expression with the same error That's different in the denominator.

00:51:48.000 Sometimes you can cancel the part that's wrong because you introduced it twice.

00:51:53.000 So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you have the opportunity to have one problem kill another.

00:52:00.000 Is there a potential future where human beings, through whatever means, develop a superior method of mathematics that doesn't have a problem with the number two?

00:52:11.000 That doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about.

00:52:14.000 Well, that's what I think I've done with my wave conjugations.

00:52:18.000 It solves all of those problems.

00:52:20.000 That's what I... I can't wait to talk about it.

00:52:22.000 Okay.

00:52:22.000 It solves all of those problems.

00:52:23.000 So this is, like we said, we start with the tetrian now.

00:52:27.000 I believe...

00:52:27.000 No, no, no.

00:52:27.000 We haven't gone to the tetrian.

00:52:29.000 Oh, you're just talking about the flower.

00:52:30.000 Okay.

00:52:31.000 You have a story.

00:52:32.000 Yes.

00:52:33.000 And by doing the Nantucket sleigh ride, you lose everybody like me because nobody thinks it's real.

00:52:38.000 And what parts of it are real and what parts of it are wrong and what parts can be improved and what parts should be improved and how important it is is never going to get adjudicated.

00:52:47.000 Beautiful.

00:52:48.000 So you start off with the flower of life.

00:52:50.000 It's a very coherent story that this thing is found all over the world.

00:52:53.000 I learned from this.

00:52:54.000 I didn't understand how widespread it was.

00:52:57.000 I didn't know that there was a mystery of it.

00:52:59.000 I know something about sacred geometry is a kind of spiritual geometric thing.

00:53:04.000 We can talk about it later.

00:53:06.000 Terence has a couple of ideas, maybe three, one of which is Maybe it's not about that flower of life because that's in a two-dimensional plane.

00:53:13.000 Maybe that is a shadow cast by something in higher dimensions.

00:53:18.000 And it's a cryptic message from an advanced consciousness that will open its secrets when we finally understand it.

00:53:29.000 Now, there was something, for example, called the Antikthera Mechanism, which is a bunch of gears found by this Greek island of Antikthera.

00:53:37.000 And famously, it was just in the Athens Museum.

00:53:40.000 It predicts the constellations.

00:53:42.000 We didn't know that.

00:53:43.000 There were two cats who really focused on it.

00:53:46.000 One was named Derek DeSola Price, and the other was Richard Feynman.

00:53:49.000 And they were obsessed with it.

00:53:50.000 And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how much ancient wisdom and knowledge there was, because this was a mechanical calculator for understanding Yeah, I'm helping.

00:54:21.000 A different version of this, the Kerala School of Astronomy, which was a religious school in the south of India, in the west coast of India, more or less worked out— Look at that beautiful thing.

00:54:35.000 Well, that's a reconstruction.

00:54:37.000 That thing.

00:54:38.000 Yeah, that's the real one.

00:54:39.000 But I mean, when you look at the actual reconstruction, what they think it actually looks like.

00:54:43.000 Fascinating.

00:54:44.000 Can we get the video for the reconstruction?

00:54:47.000 It's mind-blowing.

00:54:48.000 What year was this that they believe it was constructed?

00:54:51.000 2,000 years ago?

00:54:53.000 This is when they still believed in the Ptolemaic example of the world, but this doesn't seem to follow Ptolemaic equations, those 39 equations from now. 0.98

00:55:04.000 Well, it's, you know, because of so many different factors, war, natural disasters, there's been a lot of moments in history where shit got lost. 0.80

00:55:14.000 Just the pyramids are the best example of that, right? 0.99

00:55:17.000 Like, what the fuck did they do? 0.96

00:55:18.000 We don't really know. 0.99

00:55:19.000 We don't really know how they did it.

00:55:20.000 Well, we were just talking about Werner Herzog.

00:55:24.000 Werner Herzog created an entire film, Fitzgerald, just to test his theory about how to move heavy objects over a mountain.

00:55:33.000 So he wrote an entertainment to test an engineering theory.

00:55:38.000 And this idea about entertainers not being scientists or engineers is just total bunk.

00:55:45.000 Like, Werner Herzog is an engineer.

00:55:47.000 He's also an actor in a cheeseball movie.

00:55:49.000 He was in Reacher with Tom Cruise.

00:55:52.000 He was the bad guy.

00:55:55.000 It gives that guy an opportunity to cut off his finger or something.

00:55:58.000 Hilarious.

00:55:59.000 It was hilarious.

00:55:59.000 He's good, though.

00:56:01.000 Hedy Lamarr, famous for spread-spectrum technology.

00:56:04.000 She better Wi-Fi, essentially. 0.88

00:56:06.000 That's one of the reasons I believe that we listen to people who have things to say.

00:56:10.000 So if we go back to the flower of life.

00:56:17.000 So Terence has a couple of ideas, one of which is this is the shadow, another of which is that once you go into higher dimensions, you should be thinking of these curved linear structures,

00:56:33.000 and then instead of focusing on the spheres, You should focus on the areas in between, the voids.

00:56:41.000 And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids.

00:56:48.000 So there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are beautiful.

00:56:57.000 That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with.

00:57:01.000 So what Terence is doing here...

00:57:04.000 Is he saying, look, the circles are cross-sections of spheres, and the spheres have to be placed in very precise places to generate what Terence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations.

00:57:20.000 And he has different ways that spheres run into each other.

00:57:24.000 Then he says something very cryptic, where he says, if you drop a...

00:57:28.000 Pebble.

00:57:29.000 ...in the center of a spherical lake...

00:57:33.000 Circularly symmetric-like.

00:57:34.000 The wave will radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore, and then it will radiate back.

00:57:42.000 And so he's talking about this, and he says wave conjugations, and wave conjugation didn't call up anything directly when I heard him say it.

00:57:49.000 They would call it a phase conjugation.

00:57:51.000 Well, or they would talk about...

00:57:53.000 The conjugate wave coming back, if you do something like a garden hose that's affixed to the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something.

00:58:04.000 So what Terence is talking about...

00:58:07.000 Is the idea, and you could do this, where we could drop, like, let's say six stones in precise places in water, and then, you know, using super slow-mo, watch what happens as these waves in precisely placed places run into each other.

00:58:24.000 Because really what physics is is waves in collision.

00:58:27.000 And they're going to create a particular cymatics which is going to show the harmonic points where matter and all of those things occur.

00:58:35.000 I'm not going there yet.

00:58:36.000 Okay.

00:58:37.000 So then what Terence does is he has in Blender some means of bringing up Platonic solids that are not the usual.

00:58:51.000 So I bought some of these platonic solids from Amazon and you see that they're all extremely Cartesian.

00:59:01.000 They're made up of flat faces, our best attempt to do flat faces.

00:59:05.000 Terence says, I don't think that that has to be the case.

00:59:08.000 If you generate these things from this pattern, and he focuses on the tetrahedron and an octahedral structure.

00:59:17.000 Can you go up, Jamie, please, so we can see it from that side perspective of it?

00:59:23.000 Yeah, go around.

00:59:24.000 Okay, so what that is is a curve linear.

00:59:28.000 Tetrahedron with spherical, and it's not actually hyperbolic.

00:59:31.000 Those are going to be positive curvature, not negative curvature.

00:59:35.000 This is negative curvature.

00:59:35.000 No, that's going to be positive curvature.

00:59:38.000 Compressing it.

00:59:39.000 Yeah.

00:59:39.000 I think it's positive curvature because those are going to be parts of spheres.

00:59:44.000 The spheres are interacting, pushing inside of this.

00:59:48.000 Yes, but negative curvature would be more like a Pringles chip, where the principal axis of curvature went in different directions.

00:59:54.000 So I think it's not negative curvature.

00:59:57.000 So this isn't the negative space between four bubbles?

01:00:00.000 No, what you mean by negative space, negative curvature and negative space are different concepts.

01:00:04.000 So the word negative is appearing twice and that's why we're confused.

01:00:07.000 Again, you know, there are a million of these gotchas where you're- Can you describe the difference between the two?

01:00:12.000 Sure.

01:00:13.000 If I take the tip of my nose, That's going to be positive curvature because I've got one curve going one direction.

01:00:22.000 They're curved in the same direction.

01:00:25.000 On the other hand, if you look at the crease of my nose, that's going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and another that's going like that.

01:00:34.000 Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?

01:00:44.000 So that would be negatively curved, right?

01:00:46.000 Because you'd have things going in opposite directions.

01:00:50.000 That looks like a cool seat.

01:00:52.000 Yeah.

01:00:53.000 That looked a little comfortable.

01:00:55.000 Okay, so negative curvature is what...

01:00:57.000 I actually have a motto of that.

01:00:57.000 Yeah, so negative curvature would be what we would be talking about with, like, hyperbolic space.

01:01:04.000 And spherical curvature would be what we were talking about with the inside of those curved linear triangles on his...

01:01:11.000 So he's making, again...

01:01:14.000 I don't see this as – this isn't where I think it's worth saying he's wrong.

01:01:18.000 He just doesn't know the language and doesn't know that there's a formalization of it.

01:01:23.000 Now, if you take – so the other structure that he keeps running across is an octahedral curve linear structure.

01:01:33.000 It's not really a platonic solid because it's not flat.

01:01:36.000 You have to push on the jewel on the side, Jamie.

01:01:40.000 If you go to the side of the thing, press on that jewel.

01:01:45.000 And then go to that blue on that right.

01:01:49.000 That blue, yep.

01:01:51.000 And then you get where eight bubbles work.

01:01:53.000 So now what he's doing is he's saying, if I have eight bubbles, And these bubbles, each face of this object, this octahedral object, he's taking a sort of curved linear triangle on a sphere,

01:02:11.000 and he's imagining that these things are all sort of Racing towards each other.

01:02:21.000 And how would you generate...

01:02:23.000 No, no, no.

01:02:24.000 If you put those two in, he's going to go into a different world.

01:02:27.000 No, no.

01:02:28.000 You can just tap on each one of those tetrians. 1.00

01:02:31.000 Just tap it, it'll go away.

01:02:32.000 Tap it, it'll go away.

01:02:33.000 Now, how would you generate...

01:02:35.000 So Neil doesn't know where this comes from, right?

01:02:38.000 Now, the way in which you would do this, I believe, is that you would take a...

01:02:48.000 Let me think about how you do this.

01:02:53.000 You take the eight vertices of a cube and you put a sphere at each one, a small sphere.

01:03:08.000 So imagine that you had a vertex at 1, 1, 1 in three-dimensional space, and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to have either 1s or negative 1s.

01:03:20.000 So you have eight possibilities.

01:03:21.000 So you could have negative 1, 1, 1, or negative 1, negative 1, etc.

01:03:27.000 You allow those spheres to increase to a size of square root of 2 radius.

01:03:34.000 And that will close off all of the means of escape, leaving a cavity in the center of your cube.

01:03:42.000 And that cube will have an octahedral cavity that looks like this. 0.89

01:03:46.000 That's how I think you generated the sucker.

01:03:49.000 I actually generated this by putting eight of the pieces together. 0.70

01:03:54.000 I took eight of those triangular pieces together and I put them together.

01:03:58.000 They basically became the basis of two tetrians. 0.99

01:04:02.000 Yeah.

01:04:03.000 You know, which this would be seen as a neutron.

01:04:05.000 And the interesting thing about this piece right here is nature always makes things in pairs and they're always balanced.

01:04:15.000 This doesn't exist.

01:04:16.000 This exists only as a result of a pressure condition, a higher pressure condition.

01:04:23.000 Jamie, if you go to that last blue, tap that last blue on, yeah, past, not the last blue, go around one more time, that one right there.

01:04:37.000 That huntian only exists as a result of the eight pressure conditions created... 0.83

01:04:43.000 Hold on, you'll appreciate this.

01:04:44.000 Now tap on that huntian in the middle. 1.00

01:04:47.000 No, no, not that one. 0.99

01:04:48.000 Damn, I got to start it again. 0.98

01:04:50.000 You can hit that one again and then tap on to... 0.98

01:04:55.000 Yeah, tap that.

01:04:56.000 Make that go away.

01:04:59.000 That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians interacting, and they create that other greater pressure condition. 1.00

01:05:10.000 That's the negative space that they generate, but it's a massless area because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away and the energy generated disappears. 1.00

01:05:22.000 But it's a part of everything in my motto.

01:05:27.000 So you're putting a lot of words.

01:05:29.000 Like, first of all, let's just admit that this looks gorgeous.

01:05:34.000 Pretty cool.

01:05:35.000 It's incredibly cool.

01:05:35.000 Turn it around, Jamie, so they can see it, please.

01:05:39.000 So, you know, the problem, Terrence, is that you have a desire to go immediately towards what this means, right?

01:05:47.000 And before you get to what it means, people don't even know what it is.

01:05:50.000 True.

01:05:51.000 Right?

01:05:52.000 So what I'm going to claim is I've got these eight rambutons here.

01:05:58.000 What's a rambuton? 0.99

01:06:00.000 It's like a gorilla testicle. 0.99

01:06:01.000 You ever had these? 0.99

01:06:02.000 No, what are they?

01:06:03.000 Is it fruit?

01:06:04.000 Yeah, it's like lychees.

01:06:06.000 Oh, lychees.

01:06:06.000 I've had lychees.

01:06:07.000 But this is, I think rambut is the Indonesian word for hair.

01:06:11.000 Where'd you pick those up?

01:06:14.000 Ranch 99 Market.

01:06:16.000 It would have got you some flowers, but the light changed.

01:06:20.000 If I take eight of these suckers...

01:06:22.000 Okay.

01:06:23.000 ...and I arrange them in a cubicle formation, there's going to be one of Terrence's things...

01:06:30.000 In the center.

01:06:31.000 Right.

01:06:32.000 Except there are going to be six holes...

01:06:36.000 For the sides of the cube where you can get in.

01:06:39.000 Now what Terence is saying is imagine that these are special magical rambutons.

01:06:44.000 I can't even hold this thing.

01:06:45.000 And that you allow them to grow a little bit bigger so that those holes close off by moving through each other.

01:06:52.000 Imagine that they're made of magical substances.

01:06:54.000 In the center, you're going to get one of his curved linear octahedral structures, which is the thing that he just subtracted off.

01:07:02.000 He calls it the hunting.

01:07:03.000 If you tap on the pink right there, you'll be back to that.

01:07:07.000 Oh, the next one next to it.

01:07:09.000 Wow, I shouldn't have done that.

01:07:11.000 Okay.

01:07:11.000 So what's going on is that, for example, Neil can't figure out, well, where did this come from?

01:07:18.000 So what it is is...

01:07:20.000 Spheres of radius root two at the eight vertices of a cube passing through each other but closing off an octahedral cavity with positively curved triangles inside.

01:07:36.000 That's what I needed you for.

01:07:38.000 Well...

01:07:41.000 That's just when I needed you most.

01:07:43.000 Thank you.

01:07:45.000 Pretty glamorous.

01:07:47.000 Okay.

01:07:48.000 Can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for diving into this?

01:07:53.000 Like, what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as a 3D structure and the space inside of it?

01:08:01.000 They're going to call me crazy again, but when I was 42 and had been kicked out of the world as a result of the allegations, I had another dream.

01:08:12.000 And that same being woke me up and took me back to where I was when I was a child.

01:08:17.000 And I started putting the pieces together, the all shapes.

01:08:23.000 In your dream.

01:08:24.000 In the dream together.

01:08:26.000 And then I was like, oh.

01:08:27.000 So it's where four forces meet that makes a difference.

01:08:30.000 So when I put four spheres, four circles, I cut four circles out, and I made the all shape.

01:08:36.000 And then when I started adding them together, then I saw the flower of life.

01:08:41.000 I didn't see the flower of life initially.

01:08:43.000 I saw that after when...

01:08:46.000 I'll show you the piece.

01:08:47.000 But the all shape is a different thing.

01:08:49.000 Because in this case, in order to do this, what he did is he said...

01:08:53.000 I'm going to make mathematical spheres, they're going to start to intersect each other, right?

01:08:57.000 And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material, until they close off the holes in the cubical lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature.

01:09:12.000 To make what he calls the all-shape, you do something very different.

01:09:16.000 You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self-dual.

01:09:22.000 That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces, and you can interchange faces with vertices.

01:09:29.000 And in fact, I don't know if you guys have these things.

01:09:33.000 You have this?

01:09:34.000 No.

01:09:35.000 What is it?

01:09:36.000 So this is an engineering feat.

01:09:40.000 So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Haberman figured out how to take the self-duality of a tetrahedron, and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up.

01:09:54.000 And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, In between them are four triangles.

01:10:04.000 And he figured out a mechanism.

01:10:07.000 We can cut one of these open.

01:10:08.000 There's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the public.

01:10:12.000 You should hold that up so they could see it.

01:10:15.000 So the audience could see it.

01:10:19.000 So as you pull this thing apart, it can change colors.

01:10:24.000 Yeah.

01:10:25.000 If you spin it ever so slightly, Joe.

01:10:28.000 Oh, wow.

01:10:29.000 Yeah?

01:10:31.000 Alright, that's for you guys.

01:10:32.000 It's cool, right?

01:10:33.000 Yeah.

01:10:33.000 That's very bizarre.

01:10:34.000 Alright, now my point is that one of the things that Terence has going against him is people are saying, oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity.

01:10:44.000 There's nothing new.

01:10:45.000 And then I would say, well, then why did Charles Haberman...

01:10:49.000 Create a mechanism realizing the self-duality of the tetrahedron.

01:10:53.000 Nobody even talks about it that way.

01:10:55.000 And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons and Dragons they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and you put the tetrahedron in the middle and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides,

01:11:16.000 there's a duality That interchanges the pairs with the center being self-dual.

01:11:25.000 In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices.

01:11:30.000 The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices.

01:11:34.000 The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices.

01:11:38.000 The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices.

01:11:41.000 Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal two for anything that is spherical in nature.

01:11:52.000 Now, if all of my things, when they come together, if they create a natural dodecahedron and they create a natural icosahedron, What does that say?

01:12:05.000 They do and they don't.

01:12:06.000 They do.

01:12:06.000 No, I'm going to show you.

01:12:07.000 No, I'm saying you haven't seen yet.

01:12:09.000 I haven't shown you yet.

01:12:10.000 But they will when you see it.

01:12:12.000 So, Terry, why don't you show it to them right now?

01:12:15.000 We're on it right now.

01:12:16.000 Show it to them right now. 0.99

01:12:25.000 Shout out to all the homies right now trying to figure out what the fuck's going on. 1.00

01:12:31.000 Like, what are these guys talking about? 1.00

01:12:34.000 Holy shit. 0.99

01:12:35.000 Legalized schedule one. 0.98

01:12:42.000 So, we can't hear Terrence, you're not on camera right now, unfortunately.

01:12:47.000 Right.

01:12:49.000 The problem is it's in the middle of a podcast.

01:12:54.000 How's the family?

01:12:55.000 Everything's great, man.

01:12:55.000 How you doing?

01:12:56.000 I saw your dog.

01:12:57.000 I met Marshall for the first time.

01:12:58.000 Oh, that's right.

01:12:59.000 You've never met him before.

01:13:00.000 He's the best.

01:13:01.000 He's a lovable guy.

01:13:02.000 Him and Carl, they were getting after it.

01:13:04.000 Is Carl worn out?

01:13:05.000 Oh, yeah.

01:13:06.000 Oh, he's done.

01:13:07.000 Yeah, I wore Carl out.

01:13:08.000 Everybody wore Carl out.

01:13:10.000 So, here we are.

01:13:14.000 Terrence, no one can hear you.

01:13:15.000 I know you can.

01:13:16.000 I know, but we have a podcast going on right now.

01:13:18.000 Yes, we're about to Okay, here we go.

01:13:20.000 The problem is you were talking off in the distance.

01:13:23.000 I can't even hear you.

01:13:24.000 I'm right here.

01:13:25.000 So this is where, if you'll go to where the 12 bubbles meet.

01:13:29.000 Yeah.

01:13:30.000 On the thing, so these...

01:13:32.000 Can I finish my riff on those toys before we get to these toys?

01:13:38.000 Sure.

01:13:38.000 My point was that...

01:13:42.000 I call bullshit on the idea that because Terence is playing with stuff that people have been playing with since antiquity, that there's nothing new under the sun.

01:13:51.000 Because if there's nothing new under the sun, first of all, how did Charles Haberman come up with something so cool? 0.95

01:13:57.000 Second of all...

01:13:59.000 That means that there's an object that hasn't been invented.

01:14:02.000 I give this to high school kids.

01:14:04.000 You should be able to throw one of these up as a cube and have it come back as an octahedron.

01:14:08.000 You should come up with a gearing mechanism.

01:14:10.000 And you should be able to throw up a dodecahedron and have it come back in your hand as a differently colored icosahedron.

01:14:16.000 And I've never seen those toys.

01:14:17.000 Just the way the Rubik's Cube came out of nowhere, or Hungary, and that thing took over the world by storm. 1.00

01:14:26.000 So to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up with something new, the Rubik's Cube, the Habermans switch pitch, these things prove that that's not true.

01:14:40.000 I think it's a foolish thing almost always to pretend there's nothing new under the sun.

01:14:44.000 You should always consider it.

01:14:46.000 It might not be correct, but there's only one way to find out.

01:14:50.000 Well, there's a difference between – you see, Terence has much greater odds of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics.

01:14:58.000 I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt, are very, very small.

01:15:04.000 Even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this...

01:15:07.000 I don't want to go there.

01:15:08.000 The patents do not speak to what you think that they speak to.

01:15:12.000 That's...

01:15:12.000 Okay.

01:15:13.000 Look, you can see into my heart.

01:15:15.000 I'm not trying to...

01:15:16.000 No.

01:15:17.000 No, no, no, no, no.

01:15:18.000 All right.

01:15:18.000 But we were talking...

01:15:19.000 I told you that they produce a supersymmetrical structure that...

01:15:23.000 When you say supersymmetry, I don't know that you know what a supersymmetry is.

01:15:27.000 What does supersymmetry mean to you, Terrence?

01:15:29.000 Supersymmetry means that all things come together, fit together, relate to each other.

01:15:34.000 They are self-referential, and they are from a fractal that comes back to that same fractal space.

01:15:42.000 That's supersymmetry.

01:15:43.000 So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up, but supersymmetry is a reserved term that means something hyper-particular between bosons and fermions.

01:15:55.000 That's what this is.

01:15:58.000 For the layman out there, the boson, the cloud, the whole boson thing is the force field or the energy field.

01:16:06.000 The fermions is considered the matter aspects of it.

01:16:12.000 He's got five of these patterns, one of which he calls the...

01:16:18.000 What is wrong with the term supersymmetry?

01:16:22.000 Then I want to see an algebra, which is a linear vector space, which has an object called a bracket.

01:16:32.000 And I want to see that that bracket obeys a super Jacoby identity. 0.95

01:16:36.000 And otherwise, there's no supersymmetry.

01:16:38.000 So it's a specifically used scientific term.

01:16:41.000 It's a reserved term of art.

01:16:43.000 Yeah, but geometry is its own proof.

01:16:47.000 Supersymmetry and geometry allows you to visualize, like you look at the ocean and you see the supersymmetry associated with it.

01:16:55.000 I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the term supersymmetry, and he's saying that supersymmetry only applies to a very specific thing.

01:17:05.000 Because in their math, the platonic solids, like I said before, have a discrete symmetry.

01:17:12.000 You can only line up the blocks and all of those things.

01:17:15.000 You can't put all of them together and tell a full story to where they fold into each other.

01:17:21.000 I don't think he's disagreeing with you with that.

01:17:23.000 I think he's disagreeing the term that you're using.

01:17:26.000 You're using a reserved term of art.

01:17:27.000 And you're using it incorrectly.

01:17:29.000 That's what he said.

01:17:29.000 And you're going to pay a penalty.

01:17:31.000 Okay, I don't want to pay no penalty.

01:17:33.000 This is a thing where, like, if I'm watching an MMA fight and someone's doing commentary and they call a kick wrong, I'm like, why are you doing this?

01:17:40.000 You don't even know what that is.

01:17:42.000 You incorrectly reference something.

01:17:45.000 It's very specific that we've been talking about for a long time.

01:17:49.000 If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's not wearing any clothes, is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind? 1.00

01:17:57.000 No.

01:17:58.000 A rear naked choke is a particular move.

01:18:00.000 Yes.

01:18:00.000 It doesn't have anything to do with what she did.

01:18:02.000 Right.

01:18:02.000 Unless she gets the hooks in.

01:18:05.000 Question.

01:18:06.000 In the world of physics, in the world of mathematics, is there a supersymmetrical system, geometric system, ever been produced in mathematics?

01:18:19.000 Yes.

01:18:19.000 In mathematics, yes.

01:18:21.000 What is it?

01:18:21.000 We've never seen supersymmetrical.

01:18:23.000 Super Poincaré algebra.

01:18:26.000 Yeah, but that's on a plane.

01:18:30.000 That's not volumetrically.

01:18:33.000 That doesn't scale up.

01:18:34.000 Terence, you have an entire way of thinking that is completely foreign to everyone that I know.

01:18:39.000 And I've tried to understand what it is.

01:18:41.000 Oh, I'm sorry.

01:18:42.000 No, it's not a question.

01:18:44.000 I don't think he's saying this is a negative.

01:18:46.000 No, no, no, no.

01:18:46.000 I didn't see it as a negative.

01:18:47.000 What I'm trying to say is...

01:18:51.000 The reason that science works as well as it does is that up until very recently, there were clear rules, cultures.

01:19:00.000 We agreed to leave certain things at the door, like our religious beliefs.

01:19:05.000 We agreed to submit to certain sorts of things.

01:19:07.000 We were decent to each other.

01:19:09.000 And that system is in a process of collapse at the moment.

01:19:16.000 Well, Terence comes from an earlier way of thinking, when things were much more wide open.

01:19:23.000 You don't find many polymaths anywhere in a respectable position anymore.

01:19:29.000 Terence is coming from a polymathic perspective.

01:19:33.000 He's all over the map in terms of the quality of his thinking.

01:19:37.000 As far as I understand, some of his stuff is really, really good.

01:19:41.000 Some of his stuff is offensive.

01:19:43.000 And it's everything in between.

01:19:45.000 Now, I'm not gunning for you.

01:19:46.000 No, no, no.

01:19:47.000 I don't take that offensively.

01:19:48.000 I take it in the fact that you're here.

01:19:51.000 But let's get back to what I was saying about having...

01:19:54.000 If my pieces naturally come together and form those same structure...

01:19:59.000 They do and they don't.

01:20:00.000 Well, here...

01:20:03.000 How do they not, Eric?

01:20:04.000 Well, I'm going to show them.

01:20:05.000 Here's where 12 bubbles meet. 1.00

01:20:07.000 If you go to the yellow one right there, Jamie, please tap on that.

01:20:12.000 This is where the negative space where 12 bubbles meet.

01:20:16.000 I call this the Aubrian.

01:20:17.000 I named it after my oldest daughter.

01:20:19.000 You can take a look at it and how it behaves.

01:20:23.000 Here, Joe.

01:20:23.000 So you can have it, and you can have a larger one or a smaller one.

01:20:28.000 By the way, I would be honored to have anything that you make of this type in my home.

01:20:33.000 It's very, very cool.

01:20:35.000 So when I put 10 of them together, they look like this.

01:20:40.000 I put 20 of them together, they make a natural icosahedron without breaking any rules.

01:20:53.000 I'm saying that the...

01:20:54.000 I believe in this.

01:20:55.000 This I don't disbelieve.

01:20:57.000 I haven't gone through the math, but I don't disbelieve this.

01:20:59.000 I said the same thing about one other thing, so here's the light unit.

01:21:04.000 If you'll go back to the green, Jamie, please.

01:21:08.000 This is the light unit.

01:21:09.000 Now we're going to get into some stuff that's not going to be so much fun, but it is going to be...

01:21:14.000 You are going to get what you want.

01:21:16.000 No, you're going to love this.

01:21:17.000 You're going to love this, because what I'm going to show you...

01:21:24.000 And what you said concerning...

01:21:27.000 Now look at that.

01:21:29.000 That's pretty dope.

01:21:31.000 And it'll show you...

01:21:32.000 This is where I've put 20 of them together.

01:21:36.000 The same way I put 20 of these together.

01:21:38.000 And it makes a natural dodecahedron.

01:21:41.000 But what it's showing you is where electricity is being pushed into the center.

01:21:46.000 And you'll see these magnetic waves coming out.

01:21:49.000 It's showing you the magnetic field.

01:21:51.000 So these...

01:21:53.000 Predict and create a natural dodecahedron, whereas these come together and create a natural arcosahedron.

01:22:00.000 That's not something that just happens by accident.

01:22:04.000 No, this isn't an accident.

01:22:08.000 What's going on, Terrence, for me?

01:22:11.000 Can you connect all these together in one big ball of fury?

01:22:14.000 Yes, they just keep getting...

01:22:16.000 Because it's supersymmetry.

01:22:17.000 They all fit together.

01:22:18.000 I want to see these and these together.

01:22:20.000 It ain't supersymmetry, but it's freaking cool.

01:22:23.000 Right.

01:22:23.000 I know what you're saying.

01:22:24.000 The problem is that term, right?

01:22:26.000 It keeps using that term.

01:22:27.000 Again, my point is that you can run into all kinds of terms of art in a field that you don't know well.

01:22:33.000 Right.

01:22:34.000 And Terrence is...

01:22:37.000 I come on your show and I do this thing, which I've never really discussed why I do it.

01:22:41.000 I have this feeling that somehow Sean Carroll, 15 years ago, started talking about a suite of ideas like entanglement, the multiverse, these Boltzmann brains, whatever.

01:22:53.000 And people have been talking about them ever since because it was a very successful tour.

01:22:58.000 Much of the coolest stuff in mathematics and physics that's completely established, that's non-speculative, is not discussed.

01:23:05.000 And I don't know why.

01:23:07.000 And one of the things that I tried to do was I tried to show you the hop vibration.

01:23:10.000 I tried to do the thing about the Dirac string trick.

01:23:16.000 Terence is bringing cool stuff from the world of geometry.

01:23:24.000 It's a proof, effectively, that people don't know where it's coming from A lot of this is real as geometry.

01:23:33.000 If you look at the thing that he calls the Tarrington?

01:23:36.000 The Tetrean.

01:23:38.000 The Tetrean.

01:23:40.000 The Tetrean is just the Tetrean.

01:23:41.000 So the Tetrean that is the thing that is closest to us, the black thing that is closest to us. 1.00

01:23:45.000 So he then starts to make noises about it, and he says things that I don't love, which are that those faces he associates with the electric field And the vertices, which sometimes he calls vortices and sometimes I'm not quite sure,

01:24:02.000 he associates with the magnetic field.

01:24:05.000 Now, I don't have a clue Why he says the next thing, which is, and because the number of magnetic and the number of electric things are balanced,

01:24:20.000 they cancel out and therefore it's the weak force.

01:24:23.000 And to me, it's just like super cool stuff and then suddenly turns into horseshit.

01:24:31.000 But listen, why?

01:24:33.000 Here we have those two tetrians on the end, they both have equal poles, four electric poles and four magnetic poles, according to how I see it, where magnetism is spinning off of the tips,

01:24:48.000 the vortices, because it's no longer able to maintain that center space of spinning centrically.

01:24:54.000 I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

01:24:56.000 What brought you to that conclusion?

01:24:59.000 The way you're describing the energy involved in this.

01:25:02.000 Well, anytime you look at electricity, that was one of the things that Victor Schauberger was talking about.

01:25:07.000 Electricity, when water starts to spin to the right, it cools down.

01:25:13.000 That's the natural nature of electricity.

01:25:16.000 Electricity is colder It flows better in the coldest environment.

01:25:22.000 So as it's cooling down, as it's spinning down to a higher point, trying to get to that higher point, that's the highest point there.

01:25:31.000 It's looking for the highest density.

01:25:33.000 That's the North. 0.66

01:25:34.000 North is always the highest density.

01:25:37.000 South, no matter where you are, South is always away from the higher point when you're talking about universally, not talking about geographically on the Earth.

01:25:47.000 North is always seeking a higher position.

01:25:50.000 South is always seeking a lower position.

01:25:52.000 That's based upon stuff that Walter Russell talked about, based upon the stuff that Victor Schauberger talked about.

01:25:58.000 But it's a problem with the definition of the words, the terms.

01:26:02.000 Right, but your description of electromagnetic force and magnetism, like what is happening that it's bringing you to this conclusion?

01:26:15.000 That you're so specifically saying that something that you literally can't even see with the human eye is happening very clearly.

01:26:23.000 I'm saying four magnetic fields are pushing in on that area.

01:26:28.000 I don't see magnetic fields.

01:26:32.000 I see those spheres.

01:26:35.000 Magnetism, what does magnetism do?

01:26:37.000 It expands out.

01:26:37.000 But what brings you to that?

01:26:39.000 Radiation.

01:26:40.000 Well, that's a radiative field.

01:26:41.000 Let me use the term radiative field.

01:26:43.000 Do you know what we think electricity and magnetism are?

01:26:45.000 You think it's the same thing?

01:26:47.000 No.

01:26:48.000 Part of the same force, and you have them coupled together.

01:26:52.000 Jamie, could I ask you to find a Faraday tensor?

01:26:57.000 Yeah, what I was trying to get to the conclusion, like magnetism and electricity, like what brings you to this definitive conclusion that you can so clearly state that this is what's happening there?

01:27:08.000 Well, based upon any time there's an electric force acting on something, it causes a cavity.

01:27:16.000 Electricity is always pulling in from the inside.

01:27:18.000 It's always trying to tighten the density.

01:27:22.000 And you assume this energy exists in the flower of life.

01:27:24.000 Why?

01:27:25.000 Because that's where all those circles, the overlapping circles, they represent the magnetic field.

01:27:32.000 They represent the radiative field that's coming out and coming back.

01:27:36.000 Well, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball?

01:27:39.000 Why not a square or a triangle?

01:27:42.000 Why does it expand into a sphere?

01:27:44.000 A sphere is an abstraction that's going to be the solution to many different problems.

01:27:49.000 If I ask you to give me the maximum possible volume with the minimum possible area, I'm going to get a sphere.

01:27:57.000 If I ask you, what is the best thing to launch out of an old-style canon and to stack next to it, you're going to say a sphere.

01:28:05.000 Then you have a question about, is that the same concept of a sphere?

01:28:09.000 If I take the three-dimensional sphere of unit quaternions, is that the same concept of a sphere?

01:28:16.000 You are, in part, freely associating We're good to go.

01:28:28.000 We're good to go.

01:28:39.000 The Volkswagen chassis is not capable of supporting something else that you're doing really well.

01:28:44.000 And so what you're constantly doing, as far as I can tell...

01:28:47.000 So the chassis being education, formal education.

01:28:49.000 It's not just that.

01:28:50.000 I mean, it's in part...

01:28:52.000 People who see many connections are often bad at cleaning up their own stuff. 0.96

01:29:00.000 And people who don't see connections are often very rigorous and they don't do shit for their entire life, right?

01:29:06.000 See, that's why I love the geometry, because the geometry demonstrates, even though I've been autodidactic and have learned these things on my own, the geometry is its own proof.

01:29:19.000 Like, even in showing that these create an icosahedron, if you'll move those just for a second...

01:29:26.000 Eric, you pulled this up, though, before we get any further away from that.

01:29:28.000 Explain this, please.

01:29:30.000 Electromagnetic tensor.

01:29:31.000 What you see, that F super mu nu... 1.00

01:29:34.000 Is an anti-symmetric 4x4 matrix.

01:29:38.000 That is, there are only six independent components, because if you flip that matrix from the northwest to the southeast as the line in which you flip over with the zeros, The things above the zeros determine the things below.

01:29:56.000 So there's six independent entries in the top triangle.

01:30:00.000 Now, the top three are the electric components in a Cartesian coordinate system of the tensor, and the B fields are the magnetic, okay?

01:30:12.000 Terence could say something closer to what we understand reality to be.

01:30:17.000 He could, for example, hold up a cube and say, you know, the six faces of the cube Remind me of the six independent entries in the electromagnetic field strength.

01:30:30.000 And then the idea is there's a duality, and the duality relates the electric field to the magnetic field.

01:30:36.000 And then you might invent something called Olive-Montone and electromagnetic duality, right?

01:30:43.000 So, in other words, if I took the top three, if I hold the cube up like this, and I put electric above and magnetic below, and then I did a transformation that took top faces to bottom faces, He would be doing something that might bring him to recent research on electromagnetic duality.

01:31:05.000 But instead, what's happening is that the spheres are reminding him of waves, like wave fronts, that are expanding spherically.

01:31:14.000 And he's got super cool geometry.

01:31:18.000 The reason that this is so cool is that we haven't seen much of it.

01:31:22.000 It's not saying that it doesn't exist.

01:31:23.000 I'm not saying he's the inventor.

01:31:24.000 Well, I am the inventor because I own the patents to it.

01:31:27.000 Okay, but you can find out that there's prior art later.

01:31:30.000 Look, everybody's been hurt.

01:31:32.000 I would love to see that.

01:31:33.000 Okay.

01:31:33.000 Like I said, though, I think Giordano...

01:31:36.000 Terrence, I have no desire to take this away.

01:31:37.000 So far as I know, you're the first person to do this.

01:31:40.000 Okay?

01:31:41.000 Now, with that said, you're taking something where he's saying real stuff...

01:31:47.000 About geometrical understanding based on a spiritual undertaking.

01:31:53.000 And it used to be that spirituality and science were hand in hand.

01:31:56.000 That's what I was trying to say about the Kerala school that figured out almost got calculus coming out of religious verse, like stuff that rhymed.

01:32:03.000 It's crazy.

01:32:06.000 Terence is coming from an older perspective, where he's drawing tons of inspiration from all these different sources.

01:32:12.000 I can track it, but good luck finding people who can track this, because the number of people who can do this is very, very small.

01:32:19.000 But that's the problem.

01:32:21.000 Agreed.

01:32:22.000 Now, then, every time he steps on a landmine, my colleagues just start laughing.

01:32:27.000 And that makes me crazy.

01:32:29.000 Because they could help him, This electromagnetic tensor, how does this apply to these patterns and the void between these patterns?

01:32:44.000 That thing, we did not understand until the mid-1970s.

01:32:49.000 Remember I tried to tell you to get Jim Simons on this podcast and then he just died?

01:32:54.000 Jim Simons and C.N. Yang figured out, and this is going to figure into what Terence is saying, that everything, all forces are curvature.

01:33:02.000 It's not just gravity, which we've known has been curvature since 1915, actually 1913 for Einstein Grossman.

01:33:09.000 It's actually the case that electromagnetism The weak force and the strong force are a different form of curvature, which might be called Erismanian curvature or fiber bundle curvature, which is not necessarily Riemannian intrinsic curvature.

01:33:24.000 This object encodes the curvature, encodes electromagnetism as the components of curvature, to your point about nothing is a straight line.

01:33:34.000 But this is where I have issues.

01:33:37.000 You're talking about this is in Cartesian space, and in Cartesian space, Curvature is not allowed.

01:33:45.000 There's no curvature that's allowed in Cartesian space.

01:33:48.000 No, that's wrong.

01:33:50.000 Really?

01:33:51.000 Yeah, because what you have, and by the way, this is a super subtle thing.

01:33:54.000 We've only really known this for 50 years, thereabouts.

01:33:59.000 There is a weird, mysterious circle that none of us can see at every point in space and time that we can't derive from space.

01:34:08.000 Okay?

01:34:09.000 You can have space-time and something else put a circle at every point that is obscured from us.

01:34:15.000 And that thing has a curvature even if space and time is flat.

01:34:21.000 So we call the idealization of flat space-time Minkowski space.

01:34:25.000 You can slap a curvature Tensor of a circle on top of it generate this and it wasn't until and this is mind-blowing Can we get the Aronoff-Bohm effect up here?

01:34:36.000 See but that's where My biggest issue is why go through all of those steps to define curved space with flat plane Matrix when you have the definition of it right in front of you That's why when you get a chance,

01:34:54.000 I'd love for you to lay these out so you can see it predicts every distribution, every waveform.

01:34:59.000 There's nothing that this doesn't predict.

01:35:01.000 I want you to think about, you ever play blackjack?

01:35:04.000 I've never been good at blackjack.

01:35:06.000 I've never been good.

01:35:07.000 I always overbet.

01:35:09.000 You're sitting there on 19 and you say, hit me.

01:35:14.000 And all I hear is, hit me on 19, and you keep going over.

01:35:20.000 Now, this thing here is...

01:35:26.000 A proof.

01:35:27.000 This is a gift for you.

01:35:30.000 This says we did not understand classical electromagnetism until the late 1950s, well after Mr. Maxwell.

01:35:38.000 Now, what happened is we thought electromagnetism was that thing with the electromagnetic field components that we just saw.

01:35:46.000 If you put I think?

01:36:09.000 And you want to know whether or not there's current flowing in this insulated thing that you can't see.

01:36:16.000 Now you think that the insulation is going to keep you from being able to tell whether there's current flowing.

01:36:20.000 It turns out that the interference pattern It changes whether there's current, even though there's no E and B fields outside of that insulated structure.

01:36:32.000 And that proves that it cannot be the electromagnetic field strength that actually determines electromagnetic phenomena.

01:36:40.000 What's really going on, can we call up the electromagnetic four potential?

01:36:47.000 So one of the things is if you want to hang with the cool kids on any of this stuff, you don't try to map the electromagnetic fields because it's the electromagnetic four potential that's got it going on.

01:36:58.000 Look at that thing. 0.98

01:37:00.000 That was cool as fuck. 0.97

01:37:02.000 I'm looking for something that looks like A equals and then four components. 0.98

01:37:08.000 Hit that thing that you just had.

01:37:10.000 That's good.

01:37:12.000 That A, where you see partial derivative of A, that thing is called the gauge potential.

01:37:18.000 And the gauge potential is really where the electromagnetism is happening.

01:37:25.000 This thing over here on the right, the Faraday tensor, is a consequence of the real star of the show.

01:37:34.000 A is the thing that matters.

01:37:36.000 And we thought that A was a convenience product that constructed the electromagnetic field strength until the late 1950s.

01:37:42.000 I think one of these guys who developed this, his name is Yakir Aronoff, who's at Chapman University.

01:37:48.000 I think he's still alive.

01:37:49.000 So in other words, we fooled ourselves into thinking we understood electromagnetism until the late 1950s, which is one of the reasons that you listen to your heterodox colleagues as opposed to making fun of them mercilessly, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

01:38:03.000 Now, most of the time, what Neil says is, oh yes, one in 10,000 heterodox people have a point, and Neil bets on the 9,999 who don't, and so he doesn't listen.

01:38:17.000 This thing here Is a proof that you can find elementary omissions very late in the game that change everything.

01:38:29.000 And everybody who pretends that peer review works and that we've known this since antiquity, all this stuff, they need to understand the exceptions we've already found.

01:38:38.000 If Terence wants to do good, he would take that A with the new At the beginning.

01:38:45.000 And he would say, okay, electromagnetism isn't about the electric and magnetic fields.

01:38:49.000 It's about four of these suckers rather than six of those.

01:38:53.000 On a simple level, how would you describe electricity?

01:38:58.000 Well, I wouldn't know how to do it simply.

01:39:04.000 Electromagnetism is really about rock, paper, scissors.

01:39:08.000 In other words, is rock better than paper?

01:39:13.000 No, it's worse.

01:39:14.000 Then you do it around that thing.

01:39:16.000 The failure of these things to knit together.

01:39:19.000 If I had...

01:39:20.000 Terrence, give me your hands.

01:39:22.000 I want to put my hand over yours.

01:39:25.000 Under, go your right hand under.

01:39:27.000 It's like jujitsu.

01:39:28.000 Go your right hand under, under on your hand, and I'll grab his wrist. 0.84

01:39:32.000 There you go.

01:39:33.000 That thing.

01:39:34.000 Who's on top?

01:39:37.000 All of us.

01:39:37.000 Okay, the electromagnetic field strength, so now make your hand into like a plane, measures the degree of the Escher staircase.

01:39:46.000 The Escherness in that Penrose staircase is measured by that E and B stuff.

01:39:54.000 That A basically is the collection of hands that we had, the planes. 0.85

01:40:01.000 Jamie, show the Penrose staircase just so people know what the fuck we're talking about because it's a very bizarre optical illusion. 0.92

01:40:11.000 All right. 0.91

01:40:12.000 So the key point is the Penrose staircase is not just an optical illusion.

01:40:16.000 It's actually an effect called holonomy.

01:40:19.000 And those things are called horizontal subspaces.

01:40:21.000 And the electromagnetic potential, which gives rise to the photon, actually is a series of stairs that appears to be in some kind of a contradiction.

01:40:31.000 The curvature that he keeps talking about is the thing that actually resolves that contradiction.

01:40:39.000 And, in a weird way, the photon is a function, sorry, the photon is a derivative, and the electron is its function, and you use that derivative to differentiate the function.

01:40:50.000 That's a crazy way of saying it, but at its deepest level, that's really what we are.

01:40:56.000 We're in a geometry in which those flat planes say derivative equals zero.

01:41:00.000 And you're trying to take the derivative of an electron based on this stuff.

01:41:04.000 And geometrically, this only got worked out in Stony Brook, Massachusetts, in the mid-1970s, except for a guy named Robert Herman, who nobody listened to in Boston, who was off self-publishing.

01:41:16.000 Well, let's consider.

01:41:19.000 One of the things that this is talking about, again, this is where I have issues because we're talking about two-dimensional or three-dimensional space that does not exist.

01:41:30.000 We're still talking about imaginary things instead of talking about real things like math's departure from reality.

01:41:38.000 Where numbers started representing actual things.

01:41:42.000 Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things.

01:41:47.000 The numbers don't represent any true things.

01:41:50.000 And so anything can happen inside the mathematics that they build from.

01:41:55.000 But when you have the actual stuff, like what I wanted you to do, if you could lay these out just for...

01:42:03.000 I'm so worried I'm going to break these.

01:42:04.000 No, you're not.

01:42:04.000 I made these over the last few days.

01:42:06.000 Just lay them out.

01:42:07.000 You have to move those other things so you can see.

01:42:10.000 And what I'm talking about, the interesting thing...

01:42:12.000 Bro, I want to see a YouTube video of you and your lab putting these things together.

01:42:16.000 If you shine a light on these, they end up creating all of the cymatics.

01:42:23.000 No, don't even stack them up.

01:42:24.000 I don't even want you to stack them.

01:42:26.000 I just want you to align them.

01:42:29.000 Here, put a light through.

01:42:30.000 Like I'm saying...

01:42:33.000 If you move this one out of that, out of the way, and some of those.

01:42:39.000 This will continually predict every harmonic node, every wave function.

01:42:47.000 It will continue on.

01:42:49.000 They overlap on each other to where any size, any crystalline configuration that somebody could hope for This is the supersymmetry that I'm talking about that defines the entire wave field.

01:43:08.000 This is one part of...

01:43:09.000 This is the crystalline electric wave field.

01:43:11.000 That's not even...

01:43:12.000 How cool is this?

01:43:14.000 The problem that you're in right now is...

01:43:20.000 Everything that you touch in this space made of spheres and platonic solids and whatever.

01:43:25.000 You could spend your entire life, and I've seen people do it, staring into this and just finding cool thing after cool thing, thinking that you're seeing Jesus.

01:43:34.000 I promise you.

01:43:35.000 Okay?

01:43:36.000 I want you to hold this in your hand.

01:43:38.000 This is made by a woman named Beth Sheba Grossman.

01:43:42.000 Pleasure to shout her out.

01:43:43.000 She is a mathematical artist par excellence.

01:43:46.000 Shout out to Beth. 1.00

01:43:47.000 That is an eight-dimensional...

01:43:51.000 Lattice called E8 projected into three dimensions, which is one of the craziest sort of sphere packing gadgets.

01:43:58.000 This is ultimately maybe the weirdest object in the universe.

01:44:02.000 It comes from a 248 dimensional group.

01:44:05.000 Let me show you this in real life.

01:44:08.000 No, no, no.

01:44:08.000 Wait.

01:44:10.000 You're going to bob and riff and all this stuff.

01:44:14.000 Hold on.

01:44:14.000 Let him keep going.

01:44:14.000 And what I'm trying to get at is...

01:44:18.000 Look, I want you to think about this legitimately as a drug.

01:44:22.000 Okay?

01:44:23.000 And if you're not very careful with the mathematics that you're playing with, you are going to get so high.

01:44:29.000 You are going to see everything connect to everything.

01:44:33.000 And there's a reason that this stuff takes place in Islamic art.

01:44:37.000 There's a reason.

01:44:39.000 You know, if I bring up...

01:44:41.000 This is another version of the...

01:44:48.000 I believe in spiritual, sacred geometry, they call this the Merkaba, which is like Hebrew for chariot.

01:44:57.000 Everything connects to everything else in this unbelievably beautiful way.

01:45:01.000 And the concern that I have, Terence, to be entirely honest, is...

01:45:07.000 You have to get disciplined about this as a drug because otherwise you're going to see everything in everything all the time and you're going to have the same repetitive conversation where people don't take you seriously because you're going to keep hitting on 19. But if light passing through these show the same cymatics that we look at when we're looking at natural occurrences of individual frequencies,

01:45:35.000 Doesn't that become its own secondary proof beyond the symmetry of what it does?

01:45:41.000 You say geometry is a proof, and one of the things is you are at your weakest when you have an equal sign.

01:45:48.000 No, no, no.

01:45:48.000 You're at your strongest geometrically.

01:45:50.000 You're at your weakest when you have an equal sign. 0.97

01:45:53.000 You say the dumbest stuff about equalities, and you say the coolest stuff about geometries. 0.94

01:45:59.000 And I wonder whether you mean something. 0.97

01:46:03.000 Like, it took me a long time to figure out what I think you mean when you do this riff on the square root of 2. Jamie, could I trouble you for that portal group slash TH? Okay.

01:46:18.000 If you do the square root of 2 challenge, right?

01:46:21.000 You say, Howard's unbalanced equation.

01:46:23.000 You say, okay, take the square root of 2. You cube it.

01:46:28.000 That's equal to two times the square root of two.

01:46:30.000 That is illogical.

01:46:31.000 It is unbalanced.

01:46:32.000 It is unnatural.

01:46:34.000 Now, first, I had no idea what the hell you were doing.

01:46:37.000 So I came up with something to prove to you that I'm trying to understand you.

01:46:41.000 And I said, take the number of Magi at Jesus's birth. 0.82

01:46:45.000 He was born in the 25th day of the 12th month.

01:46:49.000 If I raise the 12th root of three to the 25th power, And I take the fact that Jesus died in the ninth hour according to the Bible.

01:46:59.000 I see the same Trinity rooted by the number of apostles.

01:47:04.000 Now that seems to be like a profound statement.

01:47:08.000 But the fact is, all I really did is I created an equation based on two numbers, X and Y. And your version of it, I put in 1 and square root of 2. And in mine, I used 12 and 3. And the reason I got 12,

01:47:25.000 25 was that 25 is just 2 times 12 plus 1. So, in other words, the danger of this stuff...

01:47:33.000 Right?

01:47:33.000 Is that when you start to see patterns and you start to see stuff that looks crazy, you don't realize what you're actually doing.

01:47:40.000 What you're really saying is you're coming from a perspective that is philosophical before it's scientific or mathematical.

01:47:46.000 And you have a statement which says, everything is in motion.

01:47:50.000 And then you go into a riff about loops and you say, take out your calculator, turn it to the side, take the square root of 2, cube it, take that Divided by two.

01:48:01.000 Then you do this thing where you happen to know the large decimal expansion up to a point, which increases people's confidence.

01:48:08.000 You've got to be worried because that's like the confidence in con man too.

01:48:11.000 But you make a point.

01:48:13.000 We have a name for the thing you call a loop.

01:48:15.000 We call it a fixed point.

01:48:17.000 A fixed point.

01:48:18.000 A fixed point.

01:48:19.000 Now a fixed point, you have something called a transformation.

01:48:22.000 The transformation, let me see if, Jamie, if we can bring that back.

01:48:29.000 So I'm just trying to standardize your...

01:48:31.000 Can we go below that?

01:48:33.000 Let me see.

01:48:34.000 Okay, Terence loop.

01:48:36.000 You have a mapping, T for Terence, from the real numbers to the real numbers, given by x cubed divided by 2. If you take the polynomial y cubed minus 2y equals 0, that factors as y minus square root of 2 times y plus square root of 2 times y minus 0. You claim that there's only one number that satisfies a fixed point relationship according to that mapping,

01:49:00.000 which you call a loop.

01:49:02.000 There are actually three.

01:49:04.000 Zero, negative square root of two, and two.

01:49:07.000 You make the correct point that if you iterate that for numbers above the square root of two, it's going to go off to infinity.

01:49:13.000 If you were to go below numbers of square root of two but above zero, it'll go towards zero.

01:49:18.000 Zero will go to zero.

01:49:20.000 And then you'll have the same thing below negative square root of two.

01:49:23.000 It'll go off to negative infinity.

01:49:25.000 And above square root of two, but below zero, I think it'll go off to zero, okay?

01:49:29.000 That thing is studied under fixed point theory.

01:49:33.000 And you can look up the Lefschetz fixed point theorem, the Kakutani fixed point theorem, the Brouwer fixed point theorem.

01:49:40.000 All of these are proofs that you have to have fixed points.

01:49:44.000 Now I thought, why does he keep doing this riff?

01:49:46.000 And then I realized that he's got a thing about everything is in motion.

01:49:50.000 So for him, it's unnatural In the illogical, you use both words, that the square root of 2 would be fixed under this iterated experiment.

01:50:02.000 Now, that is not unnatural.

01:50:05.000 There is something, I hate to say it, it's called the hairy ball theorem.

01:50:09.000 Can we bring up the hairy ball theorem? 0.98

01:50:12.000 Before you put your hairy balls on my pieces. 1.00

01:50:18.000 That was good. 0.99

01:50:21.000 Okay, the hairy ball theorem says that you cannot comb the hair on a rambutan without creating a colic. 0.59

01:50:31.000 So let's see if we have any cool images of it.

01:50:33.000 In other words, if you have a map of the wind that is going along the surface of a sphere, there has to be some point which is perfectly still.

01:50:42.000 If you have a map of a sphere to a sphere, there has to be some point that doesn't move.

01:50:47.000 In other words, what you're saying about things can't be still is not only incorrect, it is impossible to avoid stillness.

01:50:58.000 And this is in part what John Nash got his Nobel Award in economics for, because he took work of von Neumann and Morgenstern on two-person games, turned them into multi-person games with a higher dimensional fixed-point theorem,

01:51:13.000 and said a multi-person game is more interesting because that's a market, therefore markets have equilibria.

01:51:19.000 So you're saying real stuff in a way that fundamentally just doesn't We don't know how to talk your talk.

01:51:28.000 Then teach me.

01:51:30.000 Yeah, I know.

01:51:30.000 Teach me.

01:51:31.000 I'm learning right now.

01:51:32.000 But, Jamie, do me a favor.

01:51:34.000 Pull up the calculator.

01:51:35.000 I want you to pull up the calculator.

01:51:37.000 We're going to look at this loop.

01:51:39.000 And you tell me that this loop isn't a contradiction and says that the math...

01:51:45.000 I want a scientific calculator.

01:51:47.000 There we go.

01:51:48.000 Yep.

01:51:49.000 Hit two.

01:51:51.000 Square root.

01:51:53.000 It'll be over one more.

01:51:56.000 I think that may be it.

01:51:58.000 Yeah.

01:51:59.000 Yep.

01:52:00.000 Cubit.

01:52:01.000 Hit X to the third.

01:52:03.000 No, no.

01:52:04.000 No, no.

01:52:04.000 Go back.

01:52:05.000 Go back.

01:52:06.000 Yep.

01:52:07.000 Hit two.

01:52:08.000 Square root.

01:52:10.000 Cubit.

01:52:10.000 Up.

01:52:11.000 Right up there.

01:52:11.000 Yep.

01:52:12.000 Now divide by two.

01:52:16.000 Hit equal.

01:52:17.000 Cubit again. 0.82

01:52:19.000 X to the third.

01:52:21.000 Divide by two.

01:52:23.000 That is a loop.

01:52:26.000 Cubit again. 0.82

01:52:27.000 Hit X to the third.

01:52:29.000 That's an unnatural equation.

01:52:32.000 Talk to me about unnatural.

01:52:33.000 It's a loop.

01:52:34.000 It's a tuck inside of the matrix.

01:52:37.000 It does not allow for math to make sense because of the identity principle.

01:52:44.000 Okay.

01:52:44.000 Eric.

01:52:47.000 You're trying to say a something.

01:52:49.000 What you're saying is wrong.

01:52:51.000 What I'm saying...

01:52:52.000 No, no, no, no, no.

01:52:53.000 You're saying...

01:52:54.000 What you're saying is fine.

01:52:55.000 I agree that you have a transformation that I called T. You can put those two steps together, which is cube and divide by two.

01:53:02.000 That thing is going to be dead still till the end of time.

01:53:07.000 That's your point.

01:53:09.000 And then you pass judgment on it.

01:53:11.000 And you say, that is not logical and it's irrational.

01:53:16.000 And I don't know what you mean.

01:53:19.000 Well, because here we're multiplying something basically three times, and it's coming up to the same value as if we multiplied it by two.

01:53:29.000 And you keep doing that.

01:53:31.000 Yeah, I did that with the 12th root of 3, and I have a transform just like you. 0.71

01:53:36.000 But that 12th root of 3, that hypothetical situation you put up there, does not affect the rest of mathematics.

01:53:45.000 Sure it does.

01:53:48.000 Is your point that there's something special about the square root of 2?

01:53:52.000 I'm saying that the square root of 2 is a manufactured number because of the identity principle.

01:53:58.000 If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with 1 times 1 equaling 2. Why are you offended by 1 times 1 equaling Just because action and reaction.

01:54:12.000 The universe, it's the separation of math from science when math was supposed to define physical things.

01:54:19.000 So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense.

01:54:23.000 The rest of the audience don't understand.

01:54:25.000 They're like, wait a minute.

01:54:26.000 Okay, objects in motion tend to remain in motion, right?

01:54:29.000 That was his first law.

01:54:31.000 But what do objects at rest do?

01:54:33.000 There's no object at rest.

01:54:35.000 Ah, so you have a problem with Mr. Newton.

01:54:37.000 No, no.

01:54:38.000 There are no objects at rest because everything is sitting on something that's in motion.

01:54:44.000 Everything is in motion within itself.

01:54:46.000 So this is like there's no straight lines in nature.

01:54:48.000 So the idea is you're saying at some level...

01:54:52.000 That you don't believe.

01:54:53.000 That anything's steel.

01:54:55.000 At a subatomic level.

01:54:56.000 That nothing's steel because everything in the universe is connected.

01:54:59.000 So if you have one steel thing, then everything connected to it also has to be steel.

01:55:04.000 If I understand what you're doing and I try to steel man it, you're trying to say, look, first of all, the vacuum isn't a vacuum.

01:55:09.000 It's roiling with activity.

01:55:12.000 Right?

01:55:12.000 The void isn't a void.

01:55:14.000 Stuff is happening.

01:55:16.000 Virtual particles are coming in and out of existence.

01:55:18.000 There is no vacuum.

01:55:19.000 Right?

01:55:20.000 You're very much in tune with modern physics on that.

01:55:22.000 You really are.

01:55:23.000 Okay?

01:55:25.000 Then you have this idea of math is supposed to be about the physical world.

01:55:29.000 It's not supposed to be unto itself.

01:55:31.000 And if there is no vacuum, then there is nothing at rest because the vacuum is going to be in constant quantum tumult.

01:55:41.000 And then you get to the point which is something that is rest therefore is unphysical, therefore it is unnatural.

01:55:47.000 It took me a long time to figure out what the hell...

01:55:50.000 No, I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest because everything is moving and communicating through vibration and vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion.

01:56:06.000 So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum, in a naive sense that the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people naively think,

01:56:24.000 therefore any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or whatever is invalid.

01:56:31.000 Is imaginary.

01:56:32.000 It's talking about an imaginary space.

01:56:34.000 Okay.

01:56:35.000 I don't...

01:56:40.000 I don't know what to tell you about this because it's like if I say something about a sphere, you might say, hey, Eric, what is the thickness of your sphere, all the points unit distance away from the origin?

01:56:53.000 And I'd say, it has no thickness.

01:56:55.000 And you'd say, show me one thing in the universe that doesn't have thickness.

01:57:00.000 And then I'd say, well, wait a second.

01:57:02.000 I'm talking to you about a mathematical structure that exists as math.

01:57:08.000 I don't want it to hear about math that isn't immediately referenced to physics.

01:57:12.000 First of all, that's not how this game goes.

01:57:14.000 When did math separate from accounting for physical things?

01:57:20.000 The beginning of imaginary numbers?

01:57:22.000 The beginning of imagination.

01:57:25.000 If I have a picture from AI of a woman that doesn't exist...

01:57:29.000 But you can't tell the fact that that was generated by an AI. Are you going to say that that graphics file doesn't exist?

01:57:36.000 No.

01:57:37.000 The graphics file exists.

01:57:39.000 Mathematics has a physically independent structure.

01:57:43.000 It is a system of logic.

01:57:45.000 Then you have this very weird thing, which is You know, Eugene Wigner famously talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences.

01:57:55.000 But, you know, David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in the mathematical sciences.

01:58:02.000 Many of us have had that for the last 50 years since Simons and Yang.

01:58:09.000 And then there's also this thing which people associate with Max Tegmark, which is older, which is the mathematical universe that The math is the basis, that there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community.

01:58:24.000 Now, I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you, but what you were doing when you were lecturing is terrible.

01:58:35.000 It's really, really bad because you have points, and by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing, You are, in fact, causing people who don't trust Tony Fauci, let's say,

01:58:51.000 because Tony Fauci shouldn't be trusted, to say, maybe we can't trust mathematics.

01:58:57.000 Now, I have a lot of competitors, enemies, people I really don't like.

01:59:02.000 I have stalkers who actually stalk my family and interfere in my personal life who have PhDs.

01:59:09.000 Okay?

01:59:12.000 My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe and the mathematical universe is essentially zero up to 1973. We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think, until the 1980s.

01:59:28.000 And why is that?

01:59:30.000 Well, money.

01:59:31.000 And power.

01:59:32.000 Money and power.

01:59:33.000 Ronald Reagan brought in a guy named Eric House to the NSF, and the university stopped expanding, and they started playing games.

01:59:41.000 We had a thing called the Mansfield Amendment, which got the military out of science, which was a disaster.

01:59:45.000 There's a lot of things that happened.

01:59:47.000 But imagine if...

01:59:51.000 Science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of relativity in abandoning the ether and now they've walked down this road and now they realize that it's a potential dead end but instead of turning around And saying,

02:00:07.000 okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these equations were built off of.

02:00:12.000 And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the etheric nature, the etheric substance.

02:00:26.000 That's what I want to...

02:00:27.000 Jamie, if we could bring back the Portal Group page, I can sort of show what Terrence is talking about, what his...

02:00:40.000 Okay.

02:00:44.000 So you say you've come up with the grand unified field equation.

02:00:50.000 First of all, He's doing something very unusual.

02:00:54.000 He's saying grand unified, which actually is less than unified, because unified would include gravity.

02:01:01.000 But he's also drawing from a group, I think, called the Electric Universe.

02:01:05.000 No.

02:01:06.000 Okay.

02:01:07.000 No, no, no.

02:01:07.000 I'm drawing from Lorentz and Heinz's work when they were deciding They were trying to prove that it was electricity and magnetism.

02:01:17.000 They could derive all of the effects of nature that we see from electricity and magnetism.

02:01:24.000 All right.

02:01:24.000 So if we go down here, hopefully, because we just prepared this.

02:01:27.000 By the way, shout out to Dr. Brooke Dallas, who put this together and just got her PhD from Caltech. 0.97

02:01:34.000 Congratulations.

02:01:35.000 Yeah, congratulations.

02:01:36.000 Okay.

02:01:37.000 So all of this, these four things are how...

02:01:42.000 The community that you're trying to unseat thinks about nature at its deepest level.

02:01:49.000 Now let me see, is there anything under there?

02:01:51.000 Maybe not.

02:01:52.000 So go up to, let's do David Tong's because you brought up David Tong, okay?

02:02:01.000 I think I understand this, and I'm able to talk to you about it.

02:02:06.000 Is this something – so this is my community and how it thinks of everything in the world, all right?

02:02:12.000 Right.

02:02:14.000 Do you have a way of relating what you think about in terms of what my community has wronged?

02:02:22.000 Does this mean anything to you?

02:02:24.000 If you remove gravity outside of the equation, you take gravity out because gravity is affected.

02:02:31.000 Gravity is actually covered by that strong electrical force.

02:02:36.000 Terence, one second.

02:02:37.000 Without, this is not a gotcha and it's not me.

02:02:40.000 No, no, I'm just saying.

02:02:41.000 Do you know how to read this?

02:02:44.000 As best as, we're talking about I as imaginary.

02:02:50.000 Yeah.

02:02:51.000 You know, D to the 4, I don't know what the D represents.

02:02:54.000 So that's the volume element saying that you're in four-dimensional space and you're going to take an integral.

02:02:58.000 Right.

02:02:59.000 And why to a negative G? Why to a negative gravity?

02:03:01.000 It's the determinant of the space-time metric with which you might have an issue.

02:03:06.000 Okay?

02:03:07.000 So in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers look one way or the rulers look another way, according to Einstein, you have to put more weight or less weight on a region of space.

02:03:18.000 Do you know what that R is?

02:03:19.000 That's the foreplay, and then in the parentheses is where the stuff gets crazy.

02:03:24.000 Explain it.

02:03:25.000 That's what's called the scalar curvature.

02:03:28.000 So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was like Einstein scaling the sheer face of halftone.

02:03:37.000 Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later.

02:03:40.000 And said, you know, you can derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the world, which is the scalar curvature.

02:03:47.000 So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of Einstein's pseudo-Romanian metric.

02:03:55.000 And then, remember F mu nu? 0.98

02:03:56.000 That's what we were just riffing on before?

02:03:59.000 That's saying, we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff, so we're going to do the stupidest thing possible, and we're going to figure out how big it is and square that, and we're going to shove that into this thing...

02:04:09.000 To be minimized, which means make this as small as possible, so give me the configuration that gives me the least electromagnetic size.

02:04:19.000 Then, because of 1954, a guy named C.N. Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't do nearly as much afterwards, said, you know what, the strong and the weak force Are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism and we didn't know that.

02:04:36.000 So nature in that first line from the R to the W It takes curvature four times, and three of those are doubled, like FFGGWW, but one of them is singly in there, and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility,

02:04:53.000 not what Ed Witton says about you can't quantize gravity.

02:04:59.000 That's not the discrepancy.

02:05:00.000 We've been lied to for a long time, in my opinion.

02:05:03.000 What it is, is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and electromagnetism, occurs differently.

02:05:13.000 One is Ramanian, one is Erismanian.

02:05:15.000 The line below that, Dirac, in that term, psi bar d psi, is telling us the kinetics and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's in the line above.

02:05:32.000 And then the last three terms are the fudge factor due to Peter Higgs because we found out in the late 50s A gal named Madame Wu, the dragon lady of physics, told us that if you put cobalt-60 and let it beta decay in a strong magnetic field,

02:05:49.000 all the particles come out spun one way.

02:05:52.000 And that left-right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a standard way for the matter which is showing up as psi.

02:05:59.000 So instead what we do is we have this thing which is a field called the Higgs boson.

02:06:04.000 Psi is the wave function?

02:06:06.000 Psi is the fermionic Wave function of the matter.

02:06:10.000 That's the quarks, that's the electron, and that's all the neutrinos that are penetrating us all the time.

02:06:17.000 That kinetic term, the DHs, tells us how this Higgs field will move.

02:06:23.000 But mostly, you see, imagine that in this room it's 69 degrees Fahrenheit.

02:06:31.000 You think that it's the same everywhere.

02:06:33.000 But maybe where Joe is is actually like 68.7.

02:06:36.000 And over there it's 70.1.

02:06:39.000 There's a different frequency, a different space.

02:06:41.000 And so that H thing is said to have a VEV that varies slightly in the world.

02:06:47.000 Vacuum expectation value because the vacuum isn't boring.

02:06:50.000 Now that V of H That is the potential term that you neglect every time you say that all energy in the world comes from kinetics.

02:07:00.000 That's not true.

02:07:01.000 And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those FFGGWWs, which is pure potential.

02:07:09.000 That last thing, which is not commented upon here, is called the Yukawa coupling.

02:07:13.000 And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass To the matter which was prohibited from having a naked mass because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Li, which is the same Yang of Yang and Mills.

02:07:30.000 That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level.

02:07:39.000 This thing right here, which might be called the partition function, Is a Feynman path integral of this, and if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't in what you're seeing.

02:07:50.000 It's a woe.

02:07:52.000 Can I get a woe?

02:07:54.000 I live for this.

02:07:56.000 Now, this is the difference between having, you know, they've been working on this for damn near 60, 70 years, but they don't have any physical models.

02:08:09.000 That represent any of these things.

02:08:12.000 And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects that we see, then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through...

02:08:30.000 Terrence, you didn't do that.

02:08:31.000 I did do that.

02:08:32.000 Let me show you.

02:08:33.000 Let me show you.

02:08:34.000 Now it's time to show.

02:08:35.000 Okay, here we go.

02:08:41.000 I really want a YouTube video of him creating these things.

02:08:44.000 I would love that.

02:08:46.000 So...

02:08:47.000 Just you with an acetylene torch.

02:08:49.000 I want them in glass.

02:08:51.000 I want them in glass, brother.

02:08:52.000 Yeah, somebody needs to make these.

02:08:53.000 Yeah, well, I tried to do that before.

02:08:55.000 Well, you know, we have a community of mathematical artists I want to hook you up.

02:08:58.000 I would love that.

02:08:59.000 So this Tetrian...

02:09:00.000 As I say, begins the entire dance.

02:09:04.000 I would call that, that would be plonk to me. 0.56

02:09:07.000 That would be the proton.

02:09:09.000 That would be the beginning of everything.

02:09:11.000 Sorry, you map four different things to this.

02:09:13.000 You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial.

02:09:17.000 You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial.

02:09:21.000 Two, you say it's hydrogen.

02:09:23.000 It becomes...

02:09:25.000 Three, you say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic because you associate the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic.

02:09:37.000 You say, you go back to Walter Russell who has this whole thing about exhaling and inhaling, expanding and contraction.

02:09:43.000 You know, it's a lot like Ecclesiastes.

02:09:46.000 There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven.

02:09:48.000 And then you say, because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak force because there's no net voodoo on it.

02:09:57.000 Okay?

02:09:58.000 Then when you get to your, if you can bring up what you call the Huntian...

02:10:02.000 Hold on.

02:10:03.000 Let's stay on this one.

02:10:05.000 I say that this right here, like nothing in the universe, the universe does nothing for a single motive.

02:10:12.000 Everything has multiple purposes and accomplishes multiple things.

02:10:18.000 This becoming the geometry of hydrogen or the very first visible element is as a result of all of those forces pushing on it.

02:10:29.000 But the first...

02:10:30.000 No, yeah, I can use another here.

02:10:34.000 It's called explainer juice.

02:10:36.000 Yes.

02:10:37.000 Yeah.

02:10:39.000 So, thank you.

02:10:40.000 Thank you.

02:10:42.000 Thank both of you.

02:10:43.000 So, if we start with this as electricity, then we want to go to the very first phase from it.

02:10:52.000 The first thing that happens to it is it decays.

02:10:55.000 The first line of decay.

02:10:57.000 And that first line of decay is literally just putting on two magnetic fields.

02:11:03.000 If you'll hold that for a second.

02:11:07.000 I've got to get something else out.

02:11:11.000 Gotta say, I love these things.

02:11:13.000 They're really dope.

02:11:15.000 Yeah, you need a shelf in your office.

02:11:17.000 For sure I put this in my house, but Taren, I just don't see...

02:11:21.000 We're not done.

02:11:22.000 Alright.

02:11:23.000 We're not done.

02:11:23.000 Alright.

02:11:24.000 So when you put...

02:11:26.000 Didn't you see the box you came in with, bro?

02:11:28.000 What kind of box?

02:11:30.000 No.

02:11:31.000 Box of stuff.

02:11:32.000 So when you now, when they line up...

02:11:37.000 Yeah.

02:11:38.000 Then they begin to create, and if you lay it down on your thing, you can lay them down, and you'll see them align.

02:11:50.000 I want to design a skate park around these.

02:11:53.000 A lot of sharp surfaces. 0.99

02:11:55.000 This is going to get fucked up. 0.99

02:11:57.000 Anytime you're urinating, a man is urinating, he sees this pattern where it's expanding, And contracting. 0.99

02:12:07.000 Expanding, contracting, that braiding behind the boat.

02:12:11.000 This describes that motion from that.

02:12:15.000 But then, let's add, let's go to the next stage of decay.

02:12:18.000 The next stage of decay would be, it would be four sides.

02:12:23.000 Now, what these are responsible for.

02:12:25.000 Boom, boom.

02:12:30.000 How you doing, Eric?

02:12:32.000 All right, Joe.

02:12:32.000 Yeah, here we go.

02:12:36.000 This is the hard part for me.

02:12:37.000 That's the fun part.

02:12:38.000 Okay.

02:12:38.000 This is the part I've been waiting for.

02:12:41.000 This is the part I've been waiting for.

02:12:43.000 Now let's put this in.

02:12:44.000 This is an elaborate hoax.

02:12:45.000 Yes.

02:12:46.000 My whole life's an elaborate hoax. 0.99

02:12:48.000 Now I should be putting the patents up so that everybody isn't out there saying, you know, this isn't his shit, but... 0.94

02:12:56.000 So when you get to this level of decay, they start to come together and they create this natural curvature. 0.94

02:13:03.000 How gorgeous is that?

02:13:04.000 Look at that.

02:13:05.000 But do me a favor, they also create these spaces.

02:13:09.000 And if you lay them out, one on top of...

02:13:13.000 Well, I'm still riffing on this one.

02:13:14.000 Well, you're about to see that interact with the other side.

02:13:20.000 Like, we came to play today.

02:13:22.000 Boy, nothing like these conversations make me understand how different people's brains work.

02:13:28.000 There's just different humans out there.

02:13:30.000 Here we go.

02:13:31.000 So, all right, let's...

02:13:34.000 If I can move some of your stuff.

02:13:37.000 By the way, I just didn't know what I was...

02:13:39.000 I brought, like, some weird tools in case you were going to make weird points.

02:13:42.000 So, if you're laying these out, you're starting to see...

02:13:47.000 This pattern.

02:13:48.000 But what's interesting, these have chirality.

02:13:52.000 These spin in opposite directions from each other, but they ultimately reform together to fully tell that story.

02:14:08.000 So this is why category theory is so powerful, because you're analogizing brain.

02:14:14.000 I mean, let's be honest.

02:14:16.000 I want everybody to form without saying anything to each other.

02:14:21.000 What is this most similar to?

02:14:24.000 The DNA. I was going to say the same.

02:14:27.000 And if it was DNA, what would be the interstitial between these two things?

02:14:33.000 That would be that ladder.

02:14:35.000 Each line, it would be the ATCG, the hydrogen.

02:14:39.000 That would be the hydrogen bond.

02:14:40.000 It would be phosphorus, phosphorus, oxygen, oxygen.

02:14:44.000 Now, if I was a protein scientist, what would I say this was?

02:14:47.000 You would say it's a ribosome.

02:14:48.000 I would say it's an alpha helix.

02:14:52.000 I would say this was a secondary structure in protein.

02:14:55.000 So my claim is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't actually get to the double helix is that she was a really good scientist, and Watson and Crick were not good scientists.

02:15:08.000 She said, look, I can see right through you.

02:15:11.000 You just found out that Linus Pauling I figured out the alpha helix in protein. 0.94

02:15:16.000 And you wannabes who don't know jack shit about biochemistry want an alpha helix. 1.00

02:15:22.000 And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the X-ray crystallography of the Maltese cross. 0.55

02:15:29.000 You're going to try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling all over again.

02:15:35.000 I don't want any part of it.

02:15:36.000 And the problem for her was, yeah, helices are ubiquitous at all different levels.

02:15:43.000 Right?

02:15:43.000 So in other words, Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix.

02:15:47.000 What happened is, is that a very common structure that's going to come up over and over again, it's going to come up in viruses, where you have helical viruses, you have it in protein, you have it in nucleic acid.

02:15:58.000 That structure is because there's a platonic form, which you're finding here.

02:16:05.000 You're going to find helices over and over and over again because you can't really have nature stop finding the structure.

02:16:12.000 It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system.

02:16:15.000 And so everything is going to rhyme.

02:16:18.000 Now, your big problem is that everything rhymes to you because you know a lot of stuff and you know a lot of similarities.

02:16:25.000 Your brain is very good at that.

02:16:26.000 And what your brain is not very good at is pruning the amount of rhymes that it sees.

02:16:30.000 Well, what I'm saying is this is defining all motion.

02:16:35.000 We just define the motion behind the boat.

02:16:37.000 We just define that other aspect.

02:16:40.000 And remember I was saying about the Tetris, about the Huntian being a massless particle.

02:16:46.000 It only exists as a result of these four to eight Tetris pushing down because of pressure.

02:16:52.000 The moment that these eight Tetris disappear, that interior space It's no longer there the moment that that disappears.

02:17:02.000 I don't know how to stop you from doing this.

02:17:04.000 I hate doing that.

02:17:05.000 Well, I hate you stopping me from doing what I'm not supposed to be doing.

02:17:08.000 No, no, I don't...

02:17:09.000 Terry, I'm so far out over my skis.

02:17:12.000 I promise you what the internet is going to say the next day about me is, ha-ha, Eric Weinstein, blah, blah, blah.

02:17:17.000 Don't read the internet.

02:17:18.000 Stop reading the damage.

02:17:20.000 Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is...

02:17:22.000 You're taking all the good stuff that you're doing and you get into 19 and you're saying, hit me. 0.84

02:17:28.000 And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say, don't do that.

02:17:33.000 Because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find Some structures like the ones you're talking about in wave fronts, right?

02:17:42.000 I think what you're doing is totally canonical, and it's very, very natural.

02:17:46.000 And I think you're building models, and you don't know how to do the algebra, probably, and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all that.

02:17:54.000 Fine.

02:17:54.000 I can point you to books.

02:17:55.000 I can try to help you.

02:17:58.000 I'm a geometer.

02:17:59.000 I like doing geometry.

02:18:01.000 I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these pieces and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or postulates to be made from it.

02:18:13.000 That's what I wanted to do with Dr. Tyson.

02:18:17.000 Okay, but part of what you're doing is you're coming into another community.

02:18:21.000 Like what you said about David Tong is so unfair to David Tong.

02:18:25.000 What did I say?

02:18:27.000 David Tong.

02:18:28.000 Okay.

02:18:29.000 First of all, do you know who David Tong is?

02:18:31.000 I know him on the internet.

02:18:32.000 I know, but I've watched a few of his things.

02:18:35.000 I was very impressed with it.

02:18:36.000 That's why I reached out to him.

02:18:38.000 He's amazing.

02:18:40.000 And I have my difference.

02:18:41.000 He's an acquaintance of mine.

02:18:43.000 I haven't seen him since 2011. Okay?

02:18:46.000 He's an amazing treasure because that guy has a gift for explanation in our community and in a world where a lot of people in string theory have lost complete touch with reality, right?

02:18:59.000 This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with razor-sharp clarity.

02:19:06.000 So he's an absolute – he's a national treasure of the UK. And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16 fields?

02:19:18.000 I said, I have the models for your 16 fields.

02:19:21.000 You're teaching.

02:19:24.000 If you want to say, I don't understand this, you get a positive reaction from us.

02:19:29.000 If you say, I have something and I'm not quite sure what it is, can I get an evaluation because I think I might have something?

02:19:37.000 You should be able to get something from a guy like me.

02:19:40.000 And that's what I did.

02:19:41.000 I went to Oxford.

02:19:42.000 I know.

02:19:42.000 Didn't get that.

02:19:43.000 But I'm trying to say something.

02:19:45.000 Then you do this other thing, which is you teach.

02:19:49.000 And your teaching is not good.

02:19:52.000 You tell us stuff that's not true, that we can tell is not true, and then we say, okay, I can throw out the entirety of what he's saying.

02:20:01.000 What did I say that wasn't true, though?

02:20:05.000 Well, one times one is not equal to two.

02:20:09.000 Let's start there.

02:20:11.000 In fact, I'm angry at Joe because Joe should have pushed back on that.

02:20:17.000 Joe is in awe.

02:20:18.000 The calculator says 1 times 1 doesn't equal 1 because of that square root of 2 ratio.

02:20:23.000 Can we pull the portal group back up? 0.99

02:20:25.000 There's a lot of wild shit I don't push back on if I'm not sure what the fuck that person's saying. 0.99

02:20:29.000 I understand. 1.00

02:20:30.000 That's why.

02:20:30.000 But also because I know that people are going to eventually respond to it.

02:20:34.000 But Joe, right now we've got a crisis where nobody knows what to believe in.

02:20:37.000 Unfortunately for you, you were in a bad spot because you wanted to have fun.

02:20:40.000 You had a show and it got really big.

02:20:42.000 That's why you're a big daddy.

02:20:44.000 I'm saying people have...

02:20:46.000 Can we go to the Terrence product, maybe below that?

02:20:53.000 I think you were in the right place.

02:20:55.000 Yeah.

02:20:56.000 Okay, here's how we would do this in mathematics.

02:20:59.000 Assume you were a colleague, right?

02:21:01.000 And I wasn't trying to get rid of you and get you out of my office.

02:21:03.000 I'd say, okay.

02:21:04.000 No, I'm not kidding.

02:21:06.000 I know you're interested in wanting to have further conversations, so go on.

02:21:10.000 Okay, standard thing what we would do is we'd say, okay, wait a second.

02:21:12.000 I don't really buy your claim that 1 times 1 equals 2, but let's try to evaluate what you're saying.

02:21:18.000 Then I'd create something called the Terence times binary operation star sub t.

02:21:24.000 And I'd say that provisionally, I define a star sub t times b to be equal to a times 1 plus b because your rule says that you should add a to itself b number of times.

02:21:40.000 So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times.

02:21:47.000 Then I come up with the Terence root of c, equaling d if d Terence producted with itself equals c.

02:22:01.000 So now I have Terence binary operation, Terence root, and the Terence square operation.

02:22:08.000 And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object.

02:22:13.000 Until you try to blow away times or multiplication in the normal sense, Now what I've got is I've got a new operation and I want to know its properties.

02:22:21.000 Is it commutative?

02:22:22.000 No.

02:22:23.000 A Terence times B is not B Terence times A. Those are two different numbers.

02:22:28.000 Then I ask, is it associative?

02:22:30.000 Yes, it is associative. 0.99

02:22:31.000 So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy-ass shit that you say when you go to Oxford, and this is how I would start to understand it. 0.97

02:22:41.000 I would say, Terence, do we get anything new out of Terence times Terence root Terence square? 0.98

02:22:47.000 And I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring.

02:22:52.000 The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our effing asses off.

02:22:57.000 And you come in and you say, I've developed – imagine if I got on this program and I said, is John Jones out there? 1.00

02:23:04.000 He's a huge pussy. 1.00

02:23:05.000 He doesn't know how to fight. 1.00

02:23:06.000 I have a one-touch technique.

02:23:08.000 If I lay a pinky on John Jones, you're going to see a quivering little pat of butter.

02:23:13.000 Sean Strickland has no disciplines. 0.98

02:23:15.000 The guy's a big fatty. 0.95

02:23:18.000 It's not going to go well. 0.99

02:23:20.000 No.

02:23:20.000 Okay.

02:23:21.000 So what I'm trying to get at is that's what you're doing to us.

02:23:24.000 I didn't mean to.

02:23:25.000 That's not what I meant to do.

02:23:26.000 But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that there's something very wrong with the math because math should not be done.

02:23:36.000 There's nothing wrong with the math.

02:23:37.000 I'm saying the math that we are doing is still based on linear projections, even though we are in a multidimensional space.

02:23:45.000 And if the square root of two didn't have that problem...

02:23:49.000 Terrence, listen to me very carefully.

02:23:51.000 Assume you have the most beautiful curved linear object.

02:23:54.000 My wife.

02:23:55.000 Yeah.

02:23:57.000 Can we do a...

02:23:59.000 I don't want to talk about...

02:24:01.000 I don't want my words about...

02:24:04.000 I saw what happened to Will Smith.

02:24:06.000 I want to keep your wife's name out of my mouth. 1.00

02:24:09.000 You'll meet my wife.

02:24:10.000 She's very beautiful.

02:24:11.000 I'm sure she's dope. 1.00

02:24:12.000 Okay.

02:24:13.000 If you take the most beautiful ski slope you've ever been on and you imagine it was perfectly groomed so that there's just...

02:24:19.000 All it is is smooth.

02:24:22.000 You cannot create...

02:24:25.000 Non-linear smoothness without giving rise to something called the tangent bundle.

02:24:30.000 And the tangent bundle has made up of linear objects.

02:24:34.000 The non-linear includes the linear.

02:24:39.000 And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an action and a reaction.

02:24:43.000 The non-linear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the non-linearity.

02:24:48.000 So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you could on Walter Russell, You would not try to deny the linear.

02:24:56.000 You would say that the nonlinear is part and parcel with the linear and that creating the nonlinear requires creating the linear.

02:25:05.000 The differential operators at a point on a nonlinear structure form a linear space.

02:25:13.000 And that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside of something else, because you hear that the universe is expanding.

02:25:20.000 You say, well, what's it expanding into?

02:25:21.000 Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around it, no ambient space, by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear.

02:25:34.000 So we've got an entire language that you don't know about.

02:25:37.000 But let's unpack that.

02:25:40.000 Sure.

02:25:40.000 For...

02:25:42.000 Something to be linear, something to be straight.

02:25:45.000 That means that it is no longer having to deal with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything.

02:25:54.000 Because the greater the action, the greater the reaction.

02:25:58.000 Greater the reaction, greater the resistance, greater the resistance, greater the curvature.

02:26:02.000 Everything in this universe has the resistance and that's where the curvature come from.

02:26:07.000 So when they talk about I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line.

02:26:13.000 But the curvature of the universe is literally that phi at 1.618, that expansion aspect of it, that's the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe.

02:26:28.000 If you take the concept of why is the cosmological constant almost zero?

02:26:38.000 I have no idea.

02:26:39.000 Well, nobody really knows.

02:26:41.000 So you're not alone.

02:26:42.000 I mean, and them saying that the cosmological constant is zero, which means...

02:26:47.000 Do you know who Jim Gates is?

02:26:49.000 No.

02:26:50.000 Can you explain what the cosmological constant means?

02:26:52.000 Can we bring up the Einstein field equations with cosmological constants?

02:26:59.000 Is that the...

02:27:01.000 The dark energy?

02:27:02.000 That's that dark, the quantum field that they, not the quantum field, the, what do they call it, the vacuum.

02:27:13.000 All right.

02:27:14.000 Is that the vacuum?

02:27:15.000 Yeah, let's pull that one.

02:27:16.000 No, no, no.

02:27:17.000 Yeah, I like that one.

02:27:19.000 Okay.

02:27:19.000 So that arm you knew is the Ricci curvature.

02:27:22.000 That is sort of a sub-packaging of the full curvature.

02:27:27.000 So you throw away a piece, like filleting it, and you throw away the vial curvature.

02:27:31.000 Plus a bi-vector?

02:27:34.000 Well, these are symmetric two-tensors.

02:27:37.000 Sometimes people call bi-vector.

02:27:39.000 I find that terminology confusing.

02:27:40.000 But yeah, you're in the right neighborhood.

02:27:42.000 That lambda...

02:27:43.000 Is what's called the cosmological constant.

02:27:45.000 And there's a raging controversy as to whether that thing is a number or whether that thing is like the temperature, which might vary subtly.

02:27:55.000 And this was this thing where Einstein supposedly said his greatest blunder was to put this in.

02:28:02.000 He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the universe is expanding and then very recently in the end of the millennium they said not only is it expanding but it's expanding at an accelerating rate and that's when this whole dark energy thing really took shape.

02:28:17.000 That thing, and where was I going with this?

02:28:21.000 Oh, yeah.

02:28:22.000 Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African-American physicist we have, brilliant, brilliant guy at the University of Maryland College Park.

02:28:32.000 He's a strengthier, so he and I are naturally like Montagues and Capulets, but he's a lovely guy and very, very brilliant.

02:28:39.000 He says, look, we need supersymmetry because that thing should blow up.

02:28:43.000 And it's almost zero.

02:28:45.000 And the only way that it's almost zero is because the bosons and the fermions, if supersymmetry is true, have to be balanced.

02:28:53.000 Right?

02:28:53.000 So imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door.

02:28:57.000 And they're of exactly equal strength.

02:29:01.000 The door doesn't move practically at all, not because they're not powerful, but because they're perfectly balanced, like unnaturally balanced.

02:29:08.000 And so what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object?

02:29:11.000 Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and creating the immovable object between them, to carry through the analogy.

02:29:18.000 So that thing has to do with a balancing Between two incredibly powerful but opposite structures.

02:29:31.000 And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have perfectly balanced things through fine-tuning issues.

02:29:40.000 Now, one of the fine-tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk about them in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is before we had DNA, there was a guy named Erwin Chargaff who And he gave Watson and Crick the worst peer review in human history. 0.84

02:29:56.000 He said that these are two idiots, that they were pitch men in search of a helix. 0.89

02:29:59.000 They didn't know anything about chemistry. 1.00

02:30:02.000 And he totally dismissed them.

02:30:05.000 He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C and the amount of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true...

02:30:14.000 It's because of hydrogen bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side.

02:30:21.000 That's right.

02:30:22.000 And so the idea is that that was the fine-tuning solution.

02:30:26.000 Why did you always have equal amounts of these things?

02:30:28.000 Oh, because you didn't see that they'd been paired in a helix.

02:30:32.000 You just saw it once it was broken.

02:30:35.000 But the actual nucleotides had been paired, and so the hydrogen bond enforced that.

02:30:40.000 One was a double bond, one was a triple bond.

02:30:44.000 This is like this.

02:30:46.000 We're trying to figure out why lambda... 0.56

02:30:48.000 We would understand better if it were zero, or we would understand better if it was enormous.

02:30:54.000 The fact that it is almost zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff, to your point, this is one of the greatest reasons for...

02:31:04.000 It's probably the greatest...

02:31:05.000 I agree with Jim.

02:31:06.000 This is the reason for supersymmetry.

02:31:08.000 Without supersymmetry, we don't have an explanation for why that thing doesn't blow up.

02:31:13.000 So if you saw a geometric structure that defined and worked together completely, would this qualify as a supersymmetrical system?

02:31:27.000 And we haven't even gotten to the magnetic field yet, but you see how these things fit together and what they might do in replacing...

02:31:34.000 So you have a metaphor, and you have a metaphorical mind.

02:31:37.000 So you have this thing that you call the, what's the tetrahedron one?

02:31:41.000 The Tetritarian. 0.96

02:31:43.000 Tetritarian.

02:31:44.000 You've got one called the Huntean.

02:31:45.000 The Huntean, that's my son.

02:31:47.000 Okay.

02:31:47.000 And then you have a different one where the Huntean is flanked by two Tetritarian, which you call a transformer.

02:31:56.000 I call it a light unit.

02:31:57.000 I call that a light unit.

02:31:58.000 Then you say it's a photon.

02:31:59.000 Yes, it's a step up and step down transformer.

02:32:02.000 And then here's how your unification scheme goes.

02:32:03.000 You say, look...

02:32:04.000 I don't need gravity because I simulated Saturn without gravity.

02:32:08.000 By the way, electromagnetism looks very similar to gravity, which causes all older electrical engineers- That's what I've been saying.

02:32:14.000 Electricity is the cause of gravity.

02:32:17.000 Gravity is an effect.

02:32:19.000 It's a draft.

02:32:20.000 Like the thermos- Will you stop teaching, man?

02:32:23.000 You've got to stop teaching because you're saying interesting stuff and then you'll just always go over it.

02:32:29.000 Okay.

02:32:30.000 You want to know what the DMT of this stuff is?

02:32:33.000 I'll hand you the stuff that'll blow your mind.

02:32:36.000 Right now, where this is, is something called the double copy...

02:32:41.000 The double copy is a relation that was totally unexpected between the amplitudes associated with gravity and the amplitudes associated with the Yang-Mills stuff.

02:32:52.000 And I just met with a guy, Zvi Byrne, at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought us this double copy.

02:32:59.000 And it's a great mystery.

02:33:01.000 It's like looking directly into the equimolar relations before you have the double helix.

02:33:07.000 So there is a relationship that is much deeper than the superficial relationship between, you know, can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation?

02:33:18.000 Yeah, and then let's do a bathroom break.

02:33:20.000 Sure.

02:33:21.000 We could do one right now.

02:33:22.000 We could do it right now.

02:33:23.000 Do a bathroom break right now.

02:33:24.000 Yeah.

02:33:25.000 We'll be right back.

02:33:26.000 You don't know who he is? 1.00

02:33:28.000 No, the last three weeks, all I've been doing is watching your shit. 1.00

02:33:31.000 Bob Lazar, me. 1.00

02:33:32.000 I'm like, let me see what happened.

02:33:34.000 Oh, man.

02:33:36.000 Bob Lazar was the guy who cleaned.

02:33:38.000 I caught you on TMZ suddenly talking about me.

02:33:39.000 It was like, what is my name doing in Terrence's mouth?

02:33:42.000 That's hilarious.

02:33:43.000 TMZ asked you a question?

02:33:45.000 Yeah, man.

02:33:45.000 They said, do I have anything going on?

02:33:47.000 And I was like, yeah, man, I'm Eric Weinstein.

02:33:50.000 I said Weinstein.

02:33:51.000 Stein.

02:33:52.000 I said Weinstein because Brian Keaton said Weinstein.

02:33:56.000 He said Weinstein, not Weinstein.

02:33:59.000 Yeah.

02:34:00.000 So it's Weinstein.

02:34:01.000 It's whatever Harvey is.

02:34:02.000 Keating said Weinstein?

02:34:04.000 Is that what you're saying?

02:34:05.000 No, he said Weinstein, so I thought I said Weinstein, but I didn't know if that was just a joke or a play on things.

02:34:11.000 They got super sensitive after Harvey.

02:34:13.000 Yeah.

02:34:18.000 So what we were talking about was Bob Lazar who's a guy who claimed to be back engineering UFOs for the government back in the late 80s.

02:34:27.000 That's what we were just talking about.

02:34:29.000 I did see something about him.

02:34:31.000 Yeah.

02:34:31.000 He was on the podcast many years ago.

02:34:34.000 It's a fascinating story that I hope is real.

02:34:37.000 And that's what we were discussing, like whether or not Eric could make sense of it.

02:34:42.000 So that's what we were talking about when we walked in here.

02:34:44.000 What were we talking about right before we went for our bathroom break?

02:34:47.000 He threw up an equation.

02:34:50.000 Not threw up.

02:34:51.000 The Newtonian, and then what was after that?

02:34:54.000 We're about to do the analogy between electromagnetism and gravitation.

02:34:59.000 Newtonian gravitational force law.

02:35:02.000 So we have these inverse square laws, and because of the similarity, can we do the electromagnetic force law?

02:35:13.000 With two charges separated by a distance of r.

02:35:23.000 Joe, who has smoked weed in this while we're waiting for it?

02:35:26.000 Nobody.

02:35:27.000 Okay, just Elon.

02:35:28.000 He's the only one who...

02:35:30.000 Okay.

02:35:31.000 So if you look at...

02:35:32.000 Let's do the electromagnetic...

02:35:34.000 The FE equals KQQ over R squared.

02:35:39.000 Yeah.

02:35:41.000 Okay, so fix that in your mind, and imagine that I turn the q1 and the q2 into masses, and the r is the distance between them, and that k becomes a different constant.

02:35:53.000 So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.

02:36:01.000 Okay.

02:36:02.000 You go above?

02:36:04.000 Yeah, let's do the one with the two big spheres right there.

02:36:07.000 So you see that it's like very, very similar, formally, right?

02:36:11.000 There's a constant in front, there are two different objects, and there's a distance.

02:36:15.000 So one of the reasons that I wasn't...

02:36:17.000 I have the same feeling you do about that Saturn hexagon.

02:36:22.000 Like, what the hell is that?

02:36:23.000 It's unexpected.

02:36:24.000 And I've never understood this great red spot on Jupiter being a...

02:36:28.000 If it's a gas giant, it's so stable for millennia.

02:36:32.000 The whole thing doesn't super make sense to me.

02:36:34.000 It's going to give birth to a moon. 1.00

02:36:36.000 Okay.

02:36:37.000 So...

02:36:39.000 Partially what happens when electrical engineers get older, they start to have this idea about electricity and gravitation.

02:36:46.000 And you get this stuff about electric gravitics.

02:36:50.000 Sometimes people call it gravited dynamics.

02:36:52.000 And the formal similarities between these things appeal to people, and they want to see one as the other.

02:36:59.000 And, of course, the Kaluza-Klein theory tried to connect gravitation and electromagnetism super early on.

02:37:07.000 So part of what happens is that Terence tries to say, look, I keep coming up with these ideas of somehow wave fronts.

02:37:15.000 The wave fronts create these shapes that are related to the platonic solids but curved linear versions of them.

02:37:20.000 He associates the tetrahedron with the weak force.

02:37:23.000 He associates...

02:37:25.000 The octahedron with the strong force, he associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron, all curved linear, on opposite faces with the photon, i.e.

02:37:38.000 electromagnetism.

02:37:39.000 He replaces gravitation.

02:37:42.000 Then he says, weirdly, that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't have gravity, so he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity.

02:37:51.000 And then he's got these shapes.

02:37:53.000 And the disconnect is between the shapes and invoking forces.

02:38:03.000 In other words, there's a moment in the story in which it's just this massive leap.

02:38:12.000 From the shapes creating force?

02:38:15.000 Well, it was the issue in which I tried to show you the Lagrangian inside of a partition function for encoding everything.

02:38:24.000 And in order to unseat...

02:38:26.000 Let me just give an advertisement for the establishment.

02:38:30.000 The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying this further, Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic fields meet up into where there's almost a balance.

02:38:43.000 Same cat, different issue.

02:38:46.000 Okay.

02:38:46.000 Like when ZZ Top is singing about Lagrange.

02:38:49.000 No, that's what I'm saying.

02:38:50.000 When most people hear Lagrangian, that's what they're thinking is Lagrangian, but I'm sure you're thinking about something else.

02:38:56.000 No, I'm thinking about an objective function.

02:38:58.000 I'm thinking about something to be minimized.

02:39:01.000 In effect, Normal human beings think about physics in equations, like Einstein's equation, or the Schrodinger equation, or all this kind of stuff.

02:39:10.000 Physicists don't think in that way.

02:39:12.000 And if you permit me an analogy, imagine you have four forces.

02:39:17.000 And the four forces are analogized to the four different configurations of the Beatles.

02:39:22.000 When Ringo is singing Octopus's Garden, he's in front, everybody else is supporting, right?

02:39:28.000 So when it's, well, my guitar gently weeps, George is out front, Penny Lane is going to be...

02:39:36.000 Paul and Strawberry Fields is going to be John.

02:39:40.000 Those four different configurations of the Beatles are all the Beatles, but they're different configurations, right?

02:39:46.000 And the equations are like the different configurations of one person in front and everybody else supporting that person.

02:39:53.000 But the Beatles is like the Lagrangian, right?

02:39:57.000 So the Lagrangian is a machine for creating those four configurations.

02:40:02.000 Now, in the case of...

02:40:07.000 Physics, right?

02:40:09.000 You have these different equations for the different fields.

02:40:14.000 The gravitational field equation has gravity and the metric out front.

02:40:18.000 The Yang-Mills equation has the photon, the gluons, the WZ particles out front.

02:40:26.000 The Dirac equation has the matter out front.

02:40:29.000 And the Klein-Gordon equation with potential has the Higgs field out front.

02:40:35.000 And those are the basic fields of reality, so far as we understand it.

02:40:40.000 But the Higgs field is responsible for like 1% of the force applied upon them, right?

02:40:47.000 So that I understand the Higgs field.

02:40:49.000 The Higgs field has to do with the fact like none of us are zipping off at the speed of light, yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the weak force.

02:40:59.000 If the weak force was not around, We would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs field, rather, the Higgs field to generate an as-if mass.

02:41:09.000 But because of the asymmetry built into the weak force, which is the only thing that has this left-right asymmetry, We can't have normal mass.

02:41:17.000 There's a place to put a normal mass in the equation that's forbidden if the universe is left-right asymmetric.

02:41:23.000 This has to do with this thing called the tau-theta puzzle from the 1950s.

02:41:27.000 We were freaked out.

02:41:29.000 Can we get a picture of Cindy Crawford?

02:41:34.000 That's a good transition.

02:41:36.000 No, it's important.

02:41:40.000 So, by the way, I'm dating myself because, okay.

02:41:43.000 How old are you?

02:41:44.000 What?

02:41:44.000 How old are you?

02:41:45.000 58. Okay, you got me by three years.

02:41:47.000 Well, you said you were a young man.

02:41:48.000 I was flattered to hear.

02:41:49.000 I'm 55, so we're good.

02:41:50.000 Now, let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric, right? 1.00

02:41:56.000 And the asymmetry has to do with a mold that she didn't remove from her face.

02:42:01.000 So we can tell when you have an image of her, like if she wasn't holding a can of Pepsi, and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell but for the mole whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her.

02:42:20.000 So Marilyn Monroe, Sydney Crawford have this left-right asymmetry to them.

02:42:25.000 That thing is like the weak force.

02:42:28.000 It's the only thing that can detect this difference between left and right.

02:42:33.000 And the weak force is the thing that prohibits a normal mass that forces us into a Higgs mass through something called a Yukawa coupling.

02:42:39.000 So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing, is it's a crazy Hail Mary to save all of physics, because normally if the world were left-right asymmetric due to beta decay, the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and emit an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process,

02:42:58.000 That process is the thing that denies us mass.

02:43:01.000 And we would be at the speed of light, and we would all zip off in opposite directions, but for the Higgs field.

02:43:06.000 And that process is the radiative process.

02:43:09.000 That's the process I call magnetism that tears apart, that rarefies that which was concentrically drawn together through electricity.

02:43:22.000 That weak force is an equal force to electricity.

02:43:27.000 Terence, let me ask you a question.

02:43:28.000 That's what I feel.

02:43:29.000 I'm taller than Joe.

02:43:30.000 Right.

02:43:31.000 Imagine I challenge Joe to a fight.

02:43:33.000 What do you think happens next? 1.00

02:43:36.000 I get my ass kicked. 1.00

02:43:38.000 Well, Joe knows some shit that you don't know. 1.00

02:43:40.000 Joe knows some serious shit. 1.00

02:43:41.000 I have an advantage on it in terms of weight. 1.00

02:43:45.000 I have an advantage on it in terms of height.

02:43:47.000 He's in great condition.

02:43:48.000 The guy knows how to fight, and he's got a spinning back kick to die for, okay? 1.00

02:43:52.000 What happens is I get my ass kicked. 1.00

02:43:55.000 You do not know when you're gonna get your ass kicked. 1.00

02:43:58.000 And it's a big problem that you're gonna keep courting because I watch you. 1.00

02:44:02.000 You keep finding the space where we could come together and you insist on teaching into it.

02:44:09.000 And it's like I'm trying to be nice as pie because I'm inspired by what you're trying to do. 0.97

02:44:17.000 But you have no idea like When you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last name in a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't recognize, you just, you gotta stop. 0.98

02:44:30.000 Yeah, and I see the metaphor in it.

02:44:34.000 Can I ask you, before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is incorrect, and there's something else that accounts for all of the effects that we call gravity.

02:44:49.000 Yes.

02:44:50.000 And what do you think that is?

02:44:51.000 I feel that it's electricity.

02:44:53.000 I feel that gravity is the draft left behind from the electric force.

02:44:59.000 As the electricity moves through, there's a draft that's generated because it creates whirlpools.

02:45:06.000 Each of those whirlpools is the gravity, or the cosmic foam, or I forgot, there's another term that they were using for this foam, but it's a flowing.

02:45:19.000 In the same way that thermals are effective by magnetism, Or radiation creates these thermals that you're able to fly on.

02:45:31.000 The opposite of those thermals, I believe that gravity is the opposite of those thermals in the electric force.

02:45:38.000 It's the pulling down the same way the thermals push up.

02:45:43.000 What do you think about that?

02:45:45.000 I didn't even want to touch it.

02:45:49.000 Because I'm going to get into the same thing I'm trying to say to you.

02:45:52.000 I know, and I'm just saying, and I could be wrong, because based upon what I am putting together is taking commonsensical geometries.

02:46:03.000 And taking definitions of words and putting them together in a manner by which the layman sees it.

02:46:10.000 Because the whole point is for everyone to understand science.

02:46:15.000 But you're teaching repeatedly.

02:46:18.000 And that is going to be your downfall.

02:46:20.000 No, I'm listening.

02:46:21.000 Right now, I'm a student.

02:46:22.000 Right now, I swear to you, right now, I am a student right now.

02:46:25.000 I don't know how you generate all that stuff.

02:46:27.000 I've tried to understand your mind.

02:46:31.000 By the way, this isn't peculiar to you.

02:46:34.000 So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's theory of the universe, Garrett Lisi's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's theory of the universe, your theory of the universe.

02:46:45.000 My colleagues don't do this.

02:46:47.000 See, I thought I was special.

02:46:49.000 You just made me feel not special anymore.

02:46:53.000 Brother, you are certainly special.

02:46:54.000 That's not what I'm trying to say.

02:46:56.000 What I'm trying to say is that physics and science is broken down.

02:47:00.000 I will steel man you. 0.98

02:47:02.000 I will try to put your best foot forward.

02:47:03.000 I'm not out to get you.

02:47:05.000 Where we are right now is that the Brian Greens of the universe... 0.75

02:47:12.000 We're good to go.

02:47:29.000 Right?

02:47:29.000 And that's all they do.

02:47:32.000 There's also something called gripe and swipe, where they try to find any flaw in what you do so that they can throw you aside and then they can take every right thing that you did and put it under their own name.

02:47:42.000 That's why I patented everything before doing it, because I thought that might be the case.

02:47:49.000 Because I went to somebody at MIT, and I showed him the wave conjugations.

02:47:53.000 I can't remember his name.

02:47:55.000 Because it's a small community.

02:47:57.000 We all know each other.

02:47:59.000 I will remember his name by the time I'm done.

02:48:03.000 But he said, oh, I've seen these before.

02:48:06.000 And I was like, no, you wouldn't.

02:48:07.000 No, you haven't.

02:48:07.000 Because if you had seen them, I wouldn't have the patents.

02:48:10.000 So this is part of the problem.

02:48:12.000 This is a very important digression.

02:48:14.000 You need help from the community.

02:48:17.000 Yes.

02:48:18.000 But the community also sees you as a 17-year-old blonde girl from Minnesota getting off the bus in the Sunset Strip having no idea where she is.

02:48:28.000 Even though I've got the 97 patents and all of that stuff, it doesn't matter.

02:48:31.000 First of all, you cannot patent science.

02:48:33.000 They took away our ability to earn a living from doing science, right?

02:48:39.000 You can do technology and patent it, but you cannot patent fundamental mathematics and physics.

02:48:47.000 Well, see, that's what I'm hoping.

02:48:48.000 I'm hoping that they ultimately take the patents from me because they become basic, general...

02:48:54.000 Terrence, let me tell you something.

02:48:55.000 It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something than you fooled some patent examiner who has no idea what the hell's going on and can't actually earn a living the way he dreamed of being an engineer.

02:49:07.000 And so, you know, at some level.

02:49:09.000 The most important thing that you've done Is weirdly based on an error, so far as I can tell.

02:49:17.000 So, can you bring us a linchpin?

02:49:21.000 Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing.

02:49:22.000 Okay.

02:49:23.000 And Jamie, could I trouble you for bringing up that same page over and over again?

02:49:28.000 I'm sorry about that, brother.

02:49:38.000 Just bring one.

02:49:39.000 No, no, no.

02:49:40.000 Okay.

02:49:40.000 But we're dead air here.

02:49:43.000 Okay.

02:49:43.000 Howard's linchpin.

02:49:45.000 Howard's extraordinary claims for the linchpin appear to mirror Green's extraordinary claims for the string.

02:49:51.000 So let's look at Terrence Howard, filling up the dead air here, talking about the linchpin.

02:49:56.000 Okay.

02:49:57.000 The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter, either seen or unseen.

02:50:02.000 The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus...

02:50:05.000 The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter.

02:50:08.000 It is the true currency of the universal flow because it is the common factor of all things.

02:50:13.000 It is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quanta, the smallest reflection, ultimately in collective potential of all things, which equals the multiverse, blah, blah, blah.

02:50:23.000 Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green do the same thing.

02:50:28.000 It's a great expression on Brian's face.

02:50:31.000 String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is something else.

02:50:37.000 So if I take a little cork and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's nothing inside, but string theory says I'll find a little tiny filament, a little filament of energy, a little string-like filament.

02:50:50.000 And just like the string on a violin, I pluck it and it vibrates, creates a little musical note that I can hear.

02:50:58.000 The little strings in string theory When they vibrate, they don't produce musical notes, they produce the particles themselves.

02:51:06.000 So a quark is nothing but a string vibrating in one pattern.

02:51:10.000 An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern.

02:51:16.000 A neutrino!

02:51:19.000 Nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still.

02:51:23.000 So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right, deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter is nothing but a dancing, vibrating cosmic symphony of strings.

02:51:40.000 Okay.

02:51:40.000 Now, if you take what he just said, this is entirely respectable.

02:51:45.000 This is a Columbia professor lecturing me for 40 fucking years about what they're going to do one day when they grow up. 0.98

02:51:54.000 That everything is just a string. 0.99

02:51:56.000 And just the way a violin can vibrate in different modes.

02:51:59.000 All of the particles come from this excitation of the string.

02:52:02.000 That's exactly how you sound with the linchpin.

02:52:06.000 Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially.

02:52:10.000 It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else has happened for 40 years and they've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues.

02:52:25.000 And so, in part, you're going to incur an emotional penalty from me with the linchpin, which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool.

02:52:34.000 So the same basic pattern, which is one thing explains it all, has a terrible kind of...

02:52:43.000 Because I'm about to get you!

02:52:44.000 I'm about to get you!

02:52:46.000 My point is, this thing that you created is based on an error.

02:52:53.000 And it's a beautiful error.

02:52:54.000 And I think people are just not going to grasp it.

02:52:57.000 What's the error?

02:52:58.000 The error is that the arc cosine of minus one-third is not equal to three-fifths pi.

02:53:08.000 Garlic makes my feet stink.

02:53:10.000 Okay.

02:53:16.000 That was perfect.

02:53:18.000 Okay.

02:53:20.000 Terence with the timing today.

02:53:22.000 I'm sorry.

02:53:23.000 It may be the whiskey.

02:53:25.000 It is the whiskey.

02:53:26.000 No, but I'm not mad about it at all.

02:53:30.000 No, it's hilarious.

02:53:31.000 So what's going on is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly, I've got these vectors that point out towards the vertices, and between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six edges.

02:53:46.000 Right.

02:53:48.000 What's the angle between those two vertices as measured from the center of mass inside of a tetrahedron?

02:53:55.000 Still be at 120 degrees.

02:53:58.000 No, it's the arc cosine of minus one-third.

02:54:02.000 That's what you're talking about.

02:54:03.000 That's what I'm talking about.

02:54:04.000 Okay.

02:54:04.000 Now, you say this is an undiscovered geometry.

02:54:08.000 Now, why is that an undiscovered geometry?

02:54:10.000 Well, because they gave me the patents.

02:54:12.000 No, no, no.

02:54:13.000 You've got to stop that with the patents. 0.99

02:54:14.000 I don't give a shit about these patents. 0.95

02:54:15.000 No, no, I did the patents because I have watched so many people come and take somebody's work. 0.98

02:54:21.000 So it was just, it was a protection.

02:54:23.000 Okay, we've covered the patents.

02:54:25.000 Okay.

02:54:25.000 My claim is that...

02:54:28.000 What you discovered is a little bit like even temperament.

02:54:36.000 Even temperament is a lie.

02:54:38.000 Do you know about even temperament?

02:54:39.000 Yes, yes.

02:54:40.000 Going up to 440 instead of 432. Well, no, no, no, no, no.

02:54:45.000 Keep re-tucking it back together.

02:54:47.000 It's an attempt to modulate or keep everything start right back at the beginning and avoid the Pythagorean comma.

02:54:55.000 Avoid the necessary expansion.

02:54:57.000 Okay, now we're talking the Pythagorean comma.

02:55:00.000 The difference...

02:55:02.000 All right, Jamie, can we get...

02:55:06.000 Can we get the 12th root of 2 raised to the 19th power?

02:55:12.000 Good luck with that, Jamie.

02:55:13.000 Come on, Jamie.

02:55:16.000 I'm going to do this Terrence Howard style.

02:55:20.000 There's a flaw in all of mathematics and all of music.

02:55:22.000 Take out your calculators.

02:55:24.000 They won't allow me to project it.

02:55:26.000 So if we take the scientific calculator, turn it on its side, take the number 2. Okay.

02:55:32.000 Two.

02:55:33.000 Now, we have an X root Y. Can we find...

02:55:39.000 No, root...

02:55:41.000 Right below that.

02:55:42.000 Yeah.

02:55:43.000 Try it again.

02:55:45.000 Two.

02:55:46.000 Okay.

02:55:46.000 Two, X root Y, and then do 12. Just type in 12. Okay.

02:55:59.000 And now raise that to the 19th power.

02:56:02.000 That's this one, right?

02:56:03.000 Yeah. 1.00

02:56:08.000 Oh, shit. 0.99

02:56:09.000 It's almost three. 1.00

02:56:11.000 The speed of light.

02:56:11.000 It's almost three.

02:56:12.000 It's 2.9966.

02:56:15.000 That is, if we take the national anthem.

02:56:18.000 Can you sing?

02:56:18.000 I think you can.

02:56:20.000 Give me Oh Say. 0.82

02:56:22.000 Oh Say.

02:56:24.000 Okay, now take from Say and get me to Land of the Free.

02:56:27.000 Okay.

02:56:29.000 To the land of the free...

02:56:34.000 Okay.

02:56:35.000 That is supposed to be the ratio of three.

02:56:39.000 But if we did it on a harmonica, and the harmonica was probably tuned...

02:56:44.000 Sorry.

02:56:53.000 That's not going to be three.

02:56:55.000 It's going to be 2.966.

02:56:58.000 Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts is that we couldn't figure out how to get three to be perfect, because what you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of.

02:57:10.000 By the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on the show.

02:57:12.000 We call it the Percostrian fifth, because even like when I put these together. 0.80

02:57:17.000 Yeah.

02:57:18.000 You'll see that there's points where they will not connect because everything is expanding by fee.

02:57:25.000 And that expansion...

02:57:27.000 You've got a Pythagorean comma in the middle of your linchpin.

02:57:30.000 Yes, I do. 1.00

02:57:31.000 With 109.47 rather than 108, you bastard. 1.00

02:57:37.000 Yeah, so I caught you. 1.00

02:57:39.000 Okay, well, you didn't catch me.

02:57:40.000 I just used a little thing that they don't know about.

02:57:44.000 No, I know about the reason.

02:57:46.000 Wait, wait, wait.

02:57:47.000 I ain't going to keep talking.

02:57:48.000 Terrence, come back here, Terrence.

02:57:50.000 I'm about to bring you something.

02:57:52.000 We're talking about this.

02:57:53.000 Terrence, Terrence, come with.

02:57:55.000 I'm coming, I'm coming, I promise you.

02:57:57.000 I'm coming right over to you.

02:57:59.000 I just want to have these so when it's time to talk about...

02:58:02.000 Terrence, I don't think you understand the dead air principle at the JRE. Dead air principle, I'm here.

02:58:07.000 As long as I'm here, everything is well and alive.

02:58:10.000 Terence, okay.

02:58:12.000 So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you figured out something that is analogous to even temperament, which is, if you shove a pentagon, which should have three radians distributed around five angles,

02:58:31.000 In degree terms, that's 108. But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is 109.47 and change.

02:58:43.000 And so effectively, the same game that we played, and people like Bach started playing with even temperament, is where do you pay for even temperament?

02:58:54.000 Well, you end up paying for it in the expansion of the song.

02:58:58.000 It does not follow a natural extension.

02:59:01.000 That's true.

02:59:01.000 There's no circle of fifths.

02:59:02.000 There's what?

02:59:03.000 A spiral of fifths.

02:59:05.000 There's a phi.

02:59:05.000 And you know what the worst note is?

02:59:08.000 The worst note?

02:59:09.000 Between it's C and B and E and F hitting at the same time.

02:59:14.000 No, no, no.

02:59:15.000 You're saying something different.

02:59:16.000 I mean that in the Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, Do, right?

02:59:21.000 Do to me is an abomination.

02:59:25.000 Can we do, do I can turn?

02:59:28.000 Yes.

02:59:29.000 Left a good job in the city.

02:59:30.000 Let's go.

02:59:30.000 Left a good job in the city.

02:59:34.000 Okay.

02:59:35.000 Working for a man every night and day. 0.50

02:59:40.000 But I never lost a minute of sleep.

02:59:45.000 Thinking about the way things might have been.

02:59:50.000 Big wheels keep on turning.

02:59:53.000 Keep on turning.

02:59:55.000 While Mary keep on burning. 1.00

02:59:58.000 Keep on burning now.

02:59:59.000 Rolling.

03:00:00.000 Oh, Lord.

03:00:01.000 Rolling.

03:00:02.000 Oh, Lord.

03:00:03.000 Rolling on the river.

03:00:06.000 Rolling on the river.

03:00:08.000 It's basically Mary Had a Little Lamb, right?

03:00:11.000 But it's much cooler.

03:00:13.000 Now, left a good job in the cité.

03:00:15.000 Cité is going to be the third, and that third is wildly sharp to the Pythagorean third.

03:00:20.000 That's the penalty we pay for dividing the perfect octave, right?

03:00:25.000 Can you give me Somewhere Over the Rainbow?

03:00:29.000 Somewhere over the rainbow Birds fly way up high Let me see what it would be.

03:00:48.000 I feel like I'm in a boxcar.

03:00:52.000 I feel like I'm on the launching pad where the UFO lands on Close Encounters.

03:00:59.000 Somewhere is a doubling of frequency, right?

03:01:03.000 The doubling is perfect.

03:01:05.000 The fifth is a lie.

03:01:08.000 But it's a good lie.

03:01:10.000 The third is an abomination.

03:01:12.000 It's not until you get to 53 notes, which the Turks use, that you get a better fifth and a better third. 0.96

03:01:18.000 You get a better fifth at 29 notes per scale.

03:01:21.000 Yes.

03:01:22.000 And you get a worse third.

03:01:24.000 So there's no reason to do that.

03:01:26.000 It's the 12th, the 29th, 53rd.

03:01:28.000 Yeah.

03:01:29.000 Now, my claim is that you pulled off the same thing by finding...

03:01:34.000 A cheat inside of the linchpin, which is why it's genius.

03:01:39.000 And I don't even think you know how genius this thing is, is my guess.

03:01:42.000 I'm about to show you noble gas and I'm going to show you matter. 0.99

03:01:46.000 You're going to fuck the whole thing up. 0.99

03:01:49.000 Listen to me. 0.98

03:01:51.000 The number of edges in a tetrahedron is what?

03:01:54.000 In a tetrahedron is six.

03:01:57.000 And that's why you have six pentagons.

03:01:59.000 But these six pentagons are not, either they're not perfect or they're not joined perfectly.

03:02:04.000 You put six motors in these things with propellers and you have six degrees of freedom.

03:02:10.000 You have an object.

03:02:13.000 So we talk about pitch, roll, and yaw.

03:02:16.000 But those are basically, if I understand correctly, the basis vectors for the Lie algebra of SO3 or spin 3 or SU2. What's only algebra?

03:02:27.000 Well, so the idea is I have a rotation group of symmetries of this object about its central vertex.

03:02:33.000 Right.

03:02:34.000 And that's one of the things.

03:02:36.000 You can put one of these things up, and with three degrees of freedom, I can spin it, right, like a full-on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that nothing else can move.

03:02:46.000 Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four motors.

03:02:49.000 This is unlimited.

03:02:51.000 Okay.

03:02:52.000 But it's going to distract us.

03:02:54.000 Let's get to that in one second because it's super cool.

03:02:57.000 Okay.

03:02:57.000 By the way, that's a CGI. Yes, that's a CGI. I'm going to show you the mirror.

03:03:01.000 I've seen guys actually flying this around, so I don't want to do this.

03:03:04.000 We've got like 19 of them.

03:03:06.000 So what's going on with this is that you have three degrees of freedom, which is the rotations that I need here.

03:03:13.000 But you've got three extra degrees of freedom to move in different places.

03:03:18.000 Now there's something called the affine group, which is the semi-direct product of SO3 with the R3 group of translations.

03:03:25.000 And the SO3 introduces the chromatic aspect of...

03:03:31.000 Don't go chromatic.

03:03:32.000 You've got something brilliant.

03:03:34.000 Okay.

03:03:34.000 I'm just trying to understand.

03:03:36.000 The best thing that I've seen out of Terrence Howard, I will tell people, this is why you never throw the baby out with the bathwater.

03:03:44.000 And again, I don't know that you invented it.

03:03:46.000 I think you did.

03:03:47.000 I did invent it.

03:03:48.000 I promise you I think you did.

03:03:49.000 No, I didn't invent it.

03:03:50.000 It was given to me.

03:03:51.000 An angel gave that to me, and I'm sorry that everybody don't believe in it.

03:03:53.000 Terrence, I'm sorry to say this.

03:03:55.000 There's a way in which we all feel pressure to give away the genius stuff that we do to some higher power.

03:04:03.000 This is why if you ask, like, Khabib Nurmagomedov, like, how do you do such great things?

03:04:08.000 He'll say, mashallah, or estafrallah, right?

03:04:12.000 Alhamdulillah.

03:04:13.000 Alhamdulillah.

03:04:14.000 Islam is very good about you always give away the compliment because you can't hold it because it'll cause you an ego distortion. 0.99

03:04:21.000 This thing here It has six degrees of freedom based on the relative speeds of the motors that you put into it.

03:04:29.000 Plus, there's an affine group called SO3 semidirect product R3, which has six Lie algebra elements.

03:04:38.000 That means that this thing can potentially span the Lie algebra.

03:04:42.000 And if you have a trackball Over here is a controller.

03:04:48.000 And you put like three theremins so that you could control in three-dimensional space.

03:04:54.000 You potentially have a drone that can rotate itself in three dimensions and get anywhere based on these six objects.

03:05:02.000 Now, I could be wrong about that.

03:05:04.000 No, you're right.

03:05:04.000 We've actually done that.

03:05:05.000 Okay.

03:05:06.000 So my claim is, if the only thing you've done, forget the art, forget the science, forget the this, forget the that.

03:05:13.000 If the only thing you did was to introduce an error, Which is 109.47 is not exactly 108. But 108 is that key of A, which is...

03:05:24.000 God damn it, you won't stop. 0.98

03:05:25.000 I'm not stopping! 1.00

03:05:26.000 I'm just...

03:05:27.000 I'm working with you!

03:05:28.000 I know.

03:05:29.000 Keep going, keep going.

03:05:30.000 All right, you talk.

03:05:31.000 That is a really cool grade A idea until I hear that somebody else did it or that when you machine this, because this is the thing...

03:05:39.000 Now, this is when you put four of them together.

03:05:41.000 Now, the thing is...

03:05:44.000 It's very cool if you take what Intel does with drones where they sort of synchronize these swarms.

03:05:50.000 This thing comes together and it forms a stable structure.

03:05:54.000 Now, if you look at it, the tolerances that you've built into this thing because these pentagons do not exactly come together...

03:06:01.000 109.47.

03:06:03.000 It's not 108. That thing within engineering is like even temperament.

03:06:12.000 Even temperament is a lie.

03:06:15.000 It's a fraud, but oh my god, all the most beautiful music in the world is built on even temperament.

03:06:21.000 But look at what it generates.

03:06:22.000 That's what I'm talking about.

03:06:24.000 Now, four of these come together and make this.

03:06:28.000 Four of these come together and they make this larger structure that is the same exact thing.

03:06:35.000 So that's not a lie.

03:06:37.000 It is a lie.

03:06:38.000 You're trying to build the whole universe off of the lynching.

03:06:41.000 I'm defining something new.

03:06:43.000 You are.

03:06:43.000 To the best of my knowledge.

03:06:45.000 By the way, I looked at this years ago.

03:06:47.000 Hold on, hold on.

03:06:48.000 No, no, no.

03:06:49.000 Before you go there.

03:06:49.000 This is the other side of it.

03:06:51.000 Yeah.

03:06:52.000 This is what's very interesting.

03:06:56.000 Like these, they'll come together and meet.

03:06:59.000 You can see where they meet up.

03:07:00.000 Yeah.

03:07:01.000 Their natural meeting up.

03:07:03.000 Yeah.

03:07:03.000 Now this one looks exactly like this one, but they don't have the same mixture.

03:07:09.000 So what this is creating, this is actually showing, this is the equal and opposite.

03:07:14.000 This is matter.

03:07:15.000 This becomes the antimatter of it.

03:07:17.000 I can't stop you doing that.

03:07:18.000 You can't stop me.

03:07:19.000 I'm so sorry.

03:07:20.000 I'm my own worst enemy and my own best friend.

03:07:23.000 You know what?

03:07:24.000 That was a beautiful statement.

03:07:26.000 But what I'm trying to say is the fact that they keep, and these four will keep, this is just the magnetic, what I consider the magnetic field.

03:07:34.000 You see, you stopped yourself.

03:07:35.000 I consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding at the center and magnetism, in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater.

03:07:47.000 And you know when you just said, in my language?

03:07:49.000 In my language.

03:07:49.000 That's what I just did with the Terrence product.

03:07:51.000 In other words, I'm trying to get you to stop pissing my community off.

03:07:55.000 I don't want to piss them off.

03:07:56.000 I want friends.

03:07:57.000 I need friends.

03:07:58.000 Terrence, that's why we're here.

03:07:59.000 But this right here, when you have, and these will keep bonding with greater ones and keep making the same structure.

03:08:06.000 The point is, it's good enough within engineering tolerances to be a dodecahedron.

03:08:14.000 This dodecahedron, I'm not going to teach.

03:08:17.000 Now, Jamie, can we bring up T4 bacteriophage capsid?

03:08:24.000 Do you know what a Capsomere is?

03:08:26.000 No.

03:08:26.000 I know what a Papsomere is.

03:08:30.000 That's the second time you did that.

03:08:31.000 I just had one last week.

03:08:34.000 I think you got a bad doctor.

03:08:37.000 Now, let's do the one below the cartoon.

03:08:46.000 So you see where it says collard and sheath?

03:08:48.000 Let's do...

03:08:49.000 Yeah.

03:08:50.000 Oh, those are those quick things that run along.

03:08:54.000 They move so very quickly along...

03:08:56.000 No, you're talking about something else.

03:08:57.000 You're talking about a transport thing.

03:08:58.000 This is a virus.

03:08:59.000 Oh, this is a virus.

03:09:00.000 It looks like the transport thing.

03:09:02.000 This is phage lambda.

03:09:03.000 And what this thing is, that thing is an icosahedral capsid.

03:09:07.000 So all of the nucleic acid is upstairs in that compartment.

03:09:11.000 But it's not a perfect icosahedron.

03:09:14.000 Because it has the elongation of some triangles and the truncation of others.

03:09:18.000 Now this thing is an example of imperfection in nature, right?

03:09:26.000 So nature wanted to do something very rigid to protect the nucleic acid by coming up with a nicosahedron, but she didn't do a perfect one. 0.95

03:09:35.000 Can we find any other that, like, you see above that one, that's way too perfect.

03:09:39.000 It's not true.

03:09:41.000 That's a good one.

03:09:42.000 So in some sense, what you find often enough is that nature actually chooses imperfect perfection.

03:09:51.000 Nested.

03:09:52.000 Yeah.

03:09:52.000 They're just nesting instead of...

03:09:54.000 Now, the way this works, can we look up Capsomere?

03:09:57.000 Again, I'm way out of my element.

03:10:01.000 C-A-P-S-O Capsomere. 0.94

03:10:08.000 Yeah.

03:10:12.000 And then images.

03:10:15.000 So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your drone units, your linchpins, that come together to form capsids.

03:10:26.000 So can you hold up one that encases a dodecahedron?

03:10:31.000 Like right here, right here.

03:10:33.000 So that is like a capsid made from capsomeres.

03:10:37.000 So I want you to spend some time on the protein data bank.

03:10:40.000 Maybe let's go to the protein PDB capsomere.

03:10:44.000 And you'll get an understanding of all the ways in which nature has been doing this engineering that we've been learning from.

03:10:54.000 Maybe actually just go to the site PDB. Yeah, let's try that.

03:11:05.000 Herpes.

03:11:09.000 Basically what these are are little nature's version of linchpins.

03:11:18.000 The triangular platonic solids are valued because the triangle is a stable structure.

03:11:23.000 If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily.

03:11:30.000 Engineers will use triangles over squares.

03:11:34.000 What you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out...

03:11:38.000 The Eternal One's understanding of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability that actually use the imperfections just the way you were using the imperfections.

03:11:51.000 And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because 108 wasn't equal to 109.47.

03:11:58.000 It's close.

03:11:59.000 And the fact that you're willing to deal with something doped with imperfection Is what actually is the genius akin to even temperament.

03:12:08.000 Well, it's like how do you walk?

03:12:10.000 You don't walk by a perfect gait.

03:12:12.000 You walk by moving past the point of equilibrium and catching yourself.

03:12:18.000 I don't know how to think like that.

03:12:21.000 I think perfectly, not imperfectly, and it's to my detriment in many situations.

03:12:25.000 Well, you've got an incredible mind.

03:12:27.000 Can we go back to the main page?

03:12:30.000 Because another thing that I see you taking a lot of guff for is the periodic table.

03:12:35.000 Now, I don't like your periodic table, but you are also the only person I know who's pushing into the public consciousness.

03:12:43.000 The understanding.

03:12:45.000 Okay.

03:12:45.000 So first of all, do you know Stanley Jordan?

03:12:48.000 Not by name.

03:12:50.000 He smoked weed.

03:12:52.000 Stanley Jordan is one of the...

03:12:53.000 I don't even want to call him a guitarist.

03:12:55.000 He's an alien intelligence from another universe.

03:13:00.000 But if you go up...

03:13:02.000 And you click that.

03:13:04.000 People have been saying that Terence Howard is making up this thing about the periodic table and the sound of the elements.

03:13:10.000 And I want you to hear what he calls sonification.

03:13:13.000 The ionization energies of the elements as represented here in a periodic table.

03:13:18.000 And we are going to produce tones representing those energies.

03:13:23.000 The way that this app works is each one of these elements in the table is actually a push button and I can play tones with these push buttons.

03:13:34.000 The settings in this control panel here will determine how those energies will be converted into tones that we can hear.

03:13:42.000 First of all, we're just going to look at a few of the controls for now.

03:13:45.000 See, we have transposed frequency.

03:13:47.000 The frequencies corresponding to these ionization energies are extremely high, so we have to transpose them down to a range...

03:13:55.000 As you said...

03:13:56.000 So here we're going to transpose it down, in this case, 42 octaves, negative 42. So let's start with hydrogen.

03:14:05.000 If I transpose it 43 octaves down, I get that tone.

03:14:11.000 Or I can go 44 octaves down, I can also transpose it chromatically.

03:14:18.000 As you can see here, I can go up, and up again, and up again.

03:14:28.000 But normally I set that at zero and just leave it there, and I only change the octave.

03:14:34.000 Let's go back to 42, and I'm going to show you some of the other controls that we have here.

03:14:39.000 The duration is in seconds, so here we go, one second long.

03:14:45.000 Or we could go longer, let's say two seconds.

03:14:50.000 And the damping factor controls how quickly the tone decays.

03:14:54.000 Three is kind of like a nice...

03:14:55.000 So what he's doing is he's preparing you for the fact that he's going to play the periodic table.

03:14:59.000 And by the way, I just want to say this thing. 0.92

03:15:01.000 Stanley Jordan is a friggin' mega genius. 0.73

03:15:05.000 I see that now. 0.61

03:15:06.000 And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago, and what he was going to do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the elements and also go beyond that for molecules.

03:15:21.000 See, I tried to do the same thing, and I asked, I called... 0.98

03:15:26.000 People treat you like you're nuts.

03:15:28.000 I called UCLA asking for the prime resonant frequency of the elements, and they wouldn't give them to me. 0.89

03:15:33.000 Nobody would give them to me.

03:15:34.000 Well because in part...

03:15:35.000 Wait, listen to this.

03:15:38.000 Boron.

03:15:40.000 Carbon.

03:15:43.000 Nitrogen.

03:15:45.000 Oxygen.

03:15:48.000 Fluorine.

03:15:50.000 Neon.

03:15:53.000 Now what happens is...

03:15:55.000 As you start listening to these, you start to notice patterns.

03:15:57.000 Let me go and go through this second row again, but I won't say them.

03:16:02.000 I'll just go ahead and play through them.

03:16:22.000 Kind of a beautiful melody, isn't it?

03:16:25.000 Now, these pitches that we're hearing are determined straight from a calculation based on the actual energy of the element.

03:16:36.000 So we are getting tones that you couldn't necessarily play on a piano.

03:16:42.000 A lot of them would fall in between the keys.

03:16:45.000 So they don't fit our conventional...

03:16:48.000 Their sense sharp or sense flat.

03:16:50.000 ...pitch system.

03:16:51.000 But if you want it to fit, we can enable this So when you say key of E. And I'm talking about 432 when I'm talking about the key of E on it.

03:17:08.000 Well, you make an error again.

03:17:13.000 So, you say this thing about hydrogen, 40.5 hertz.

03:17:18.000 Wait a second.

03:17:20.000 But I wasn't saying that hydrogen is 40.5.

03:17:23.000 I was saying that the key of E is 40.5 hertz and doubles to 162. Yeah, but you said it in a very authoritative way.

03:17:32.000 And the 40.5 is not 40.5 hertz.

03:17:35.000 It's 40.5 megahertz associated not with hydrogen, but with mercury.

03:17:40.000 Right.

03:17:40.000 But you have to keep, once you keep doubling that...

03:17:43.000 But wait a second, Terrence.

03:17:44.000 You activated a bunch of chemists who said, I don't know this frequency.

03:17:50.000 Because they're looking at 440. They're looking at their...

03:17:52.000 440 is an irrelevancy, Terrence.

03:17:55.000 440 is concert A in a time when we've decided that that is concert A. If you were to use the Hindustani system, let's say, instead of do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do...

03:18:07.000 It was ut, re, mi, fa, so, la.

03:18:09.000 No, they do...

03:18:11.000 I did the suffolgian skill.

03:18:21.000 I know.

03:18:22.000 But I'm saying this is that for North India, right? 0.82

03:18:25.000 It's an irrelevancy, because everybody's allowed to tune their sa to a different tone.

03:18:31.000 They don't have to tune their sa around A440, because there's only three instruments.

03:18:37.000 There's a tabla, which doesn't have that tone as an important part.

03:18:42.000 There's a tanpura, which is tuned to the soloist, and the soloist determines what their sa should be.

03:18:47.000 So can we do sarega?

03:18:53.000 So, in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter, because you can tune it to whatever you want to tune it.

03:19:00.000 You're not trying to come up with an orchestra.

03:19:01.000 It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament that forces us all to listen to the concertmaster as to what A440 is, right?

03:19:12.000 Joseph Goebbels pushed that around the world.

03:19:14.000 Okay, let's not do Joseph Goebbels.

03:19:16.000 Just keep drinking whiskey.

03:19:19.000 What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the periodic table, except for a tiny number of people.

03:19:28.000 Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go back below that.

03:19:38.000 The Sound of Hydrogen from WSU. So this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure out how to play these things, and this is the sonification.

03:19:52.000 Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think, but you need to know about a guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University, which is trying to do some wild radical stuff.

03:20:06.000 They are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on frequency of the valence electrons.

03:20:14.000 And that particles that vibrate the same way smell the same, even if the shapes are different.

03:20:21.000 And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations are very different, they don't smell the same.

03:20:27.000 So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Scent about the academic, like all the people who try to push you down.

03:20:34.000 They're trying to push Luca Turin down as if he doesn't know what's going on.

03:20:38.000 He's written the Bible of perfume.

03:20:40.000 I don't know if you like scent.

03:20:42.000 I do.

03:20:42.000 He understands the vibratory quality of scent.

03:20:46.000 And so trying to sort of synesthese these things by saying that everything that has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms It's a small, freak community of very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing.

03:21:00.000 The only problem is, you gave us...

03:21:03.000 People ask me for an analogy, what do you think of Terrence Howard?

03:21:06.000 That's all I got for like a week.

03:21:07.000 Can we pull up the...

03:21:09.000 Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan experience?

03:21:13.000 Yeah.

03:21:13.000 No, no.

03:21:15.000 We're having that right now.

03:21:18.000 It'll come up as Janet Left Step Periodic Table.

03:21:23.000 What you did to the periodic table was, by the way, what a gift that I hate the periodic table.

03:21:30.000 Can't stand it.

03:21:32.000 The problem is, I had to analogize when I said, when people asked me what I thought of you, let's click on that thing.

03:21:39.000 That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables that's much more in favor with people who are mathematically minded, like you are, Rather than the Walter Russell periodic table.

03:21:53.000 Because what this does is it uses the quantum mechanics to stop with those exceptions.

03:22:00.000 Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the rule.

03:22:08.000 This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical harmonics Where you're looking at complex valued functions on the two-dimensional sphere.

03:22:25.000 And this sort of Aufbau principle, imagine that there was only a Coulomb potential centered at the origin in the hydrogen situation.

03:22:33.000 You would go along and say, hydrogen first, helium, then lithium, then beryllium, then boron, carbon, nitrogen, etc.

03:22:40.000 And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the electrons in which the You have this principal quantum number, which is basically the energy level, but then the L quantum number is what we would call a highest weight for a highest weight representation of SU2 or spin 3,

03:22:59.000 which is the double cover of SO3. That first one is one-dimensional, but it's spin up and spin down, so you get two elements.

03:23:08.000 The next one is going to be three-dimensional, but you're going to get six elements.

03:23:13.000 And then you're going to get five-dimensional, because it's SO3 that determines the representation theory.

03:23:21.000 This thing is what I wish you had given us, rather than the Walter Russell thing, which is sort of a historical artifact.

03:23:30.000 Now, no offense, but the big problem is that if you are trying to talk about hydrogen, And then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is what you said.

03:23:45.000 Doubling the frequency.

03:23:48.000 What is that thing below hydrogen?

03:23:50.000 And you say, no, no, no, it's too dense to be perceived. 1.00

03:23:53.000 Like, bullshit. 0.99

03:23:55.000 But there is ultra-low frequencies, even though we cannot hear it. 0.99

03:24:00.000 Yes, but there's ultra-low frequencies, and that's what I'm saying.

03:24:03.000 That's where your analogy broke down, Terrence.

03:24:05.000 No, because hydrogen sits in the same exact position as carbon does when you're looking at it.

03:24:12.000 No, it doesn't.

03:24:13.000 It doesn't come off at the same coloration.

03:24:16.000 It doesn't have the same tone.

03:24:18.000 Terence, you're talking about a periodic table from like 1926, something like that.

03:24:24.000 And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly. 0.99

03:24:31.000 Now look at all this shit that you're doing. 0.98

03:24:33.000 And look at the fact that he's locked in 1926. Dirac is not going to come up with the Dirac equation to supersede the Schrodinger equation for another two years. 0.99

03:24:42.000 Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born.

03:24:45.000 The neutron isn't going to be discovered until the early 30s.

03:24:49.000 And you're taking the wrong fight.

03:24:52.000 You're saying when David Tong, here's what I really didn't appreciate about what you did.

03:24:57.000 David Tong said, this is all a lie.

03:25:01.000 And you took the wrong meaning from that.

03:25:03.000 What David Tong was saying was different.

03:25:05.000 David Tong was saying, we teach hard little ball theory.

03:25:10.000 Right?

03:25:10.000 There's an up quark and two down quarks in every neutron and two up quarks and one down quark.

03:25:16.000 And they're all little hard little balls stuck together by rubber bands.

03:25:19.000 And then we've got one electron going crazy around it.

03:25:21.000 He's like, that's not what's true.

03:25:23.000 And what did he say?

03:25:24.000 It wasn't a lie in the sense that...

03:25:26.000 He said, that's the best knowledge that we have.

03:25:28.000 He said, I don't know how to say the word field to a seven-year-old.

03:25:32.000 They're fields.

03:25:33.000 They're not hard little balls. 0.54

03:25:34.000 But that was my problem with David Tong because here I showed him. 0.98

03:25:38.000 You don't have a problem with David Tong.

03:25:39.000 No, no.

03:25:40.000 The problem that I had was with his response to me was here I was showing him these are the wave fields that your particles sit within.

03:25:49.000 Every time you teach, you incur a penalty.

03:25:52.000 But see, that's the problem.

03:25:53.000 How do you not teach when you have something new?

03:25:56.000 I'll tell you how to do it.

03:25:57.000 Okay?

03:25:58.000 First thing is, you try to figure out who's ethical and who isn't.

03:26:04.000 I'm not kidding around with this thing.

03:26:05.000 You've got to be Jesus Christ to figure that out.

03:26:08.000 Because most people, they have a good faith.

03:26:10.000 Terrence, let me ask you a question.

03:26:11.000 Have I been fair to you this time?

03:26:12.000 You've been amazingly fair.

03:26:14.000 Have I been very kind?

03:26:16.000 No, I haven't been uniformly kind.

03:26:18.000 You have.

03:26:18.000 You've been honest.

03:26:19.000 Well, you're talking to me about my heart is open to you, right?

03:26:22.000 No, you've actually talked about the things that I've talked about.

03:26:25.000 That's right.

03:26:26.000 You've given me criticism on things where I've made mistakes.

03:26:29.000 You've told me where I've offended people.

03:26:30.000 Okay, this is not available as a service in academics. 0.96

03:26:32.000 In academics, basically, it's a closed little world, and if you don't come with protection, we stab you in the eye.

03:26:41.000 This idea that Neil said about, why doesn't he just submit to peer review? 1.00

03:26:45.000 It's the biggest bunch of shit I've ever heard in my life. 0.92

03:26:48.000 We've got two papers, The Geometry of the Proton. 1.00

03:26:50.000 Did you get to see that?

03:26:51.000 Can we pull up the Neil stuff that I prepared on that page?

03:26:56.000 Yeah.

03:26:58.000 Because I cannot believe how disingenuous this is.

03:27:02.000 He calls you the worst insult in academics, which is...

03:27:06.000 There was a study called...

03:27:06.000 Dunning-Kroger effect.

03:27:07.000 Dunning-Kroger is both an effect that is studied and the ultimate insult.

03:27:14.000 It's basically your mama, right?

03:27:17.000 Let's just click on that and see what happens.

03:27:21.000 I spent a lot of time on it, and I thought, out of respect for him, what I should do...

03:27:28.000 It's given my most informed critical analysis that I can.

03:27:33.000 In my field, we call that a peer review.

03:27:35.000 You come up with an idea, you present it either at a conference or you first write it up, and you send it to your colleagues.

03:27:43.000 It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided or wrong, or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out, or the logic doesn't comport.

03:27:57.000 That's their job.

03:27:58.000 Not all ideas will turn out to be correct.

03:28:01.000 Most won't be.

03:28:02.000 But to get to that point, you need to know things like, what has everyone else said about this same subject?

03:28:08.000 Am I repeating someone else's work?

03:28:10.000 Is this a new insight that no one else has had, but has foundations that are authentic or legitimate or objectively true?

03:28:18.000 Am I making a false assumption?

03:28:20.000 Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false?

03:28:23.000 All of this It goes on, on the frontier of science.

03:28:27.000 Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe.

03:28:37.000 It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier.

03:28:41.000 What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's call it, it's possible to know enough about that subject To think you're right, but not enough about that subject to know that you're wrong.

03:28:58.000 And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence.

03:29:03.000 This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

03:29:08.000 It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge, you over assess how much of that subject you actually know.

03:29:16.000 And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I thought I did.

03:29:19.000 So then there's a sort of a lull there.

03:29:21.000 And then when you learn even more, you come back up.

03:29:24.000 Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong.

03:29:27.000 To become an expert means you spend all this time.

03:29:31.000 It doesn't happen overnight.

03:29:33.000 You can't just sit in an armchair and say, I'm now an expert.

03:29:36.000 It requires years and years.

03:29:40.000 of study, especially looking through journals where new ideas are published and contested.

03:29:47.000 That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that which is objectively true or determining that which is objectively false.

03:29:58.000 Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the universe.

03:30:03.000 I'm going to read you just my opening line here.

03:30:06.000 It's titled, 1 x 1 equals 2. Okay.

03:30:10.000 So I lead off.

03:30:10.000 So that was the...

03:30:11.000 Now, if we go below that...

03:30:15.000 What do we have?

03:30:17.000 Let's try that.

03:30:19.000 Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which, by the way, was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

03:30:31.000 Crazy idea.

03:30:32.000 The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media.

03:30:39.000 It is not Joe Rogan.

03:30:43.000 It is not my podcast.

03:30:44.000 It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end of the day offers no higher respect For your energy and intellect than by declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or worthy of publication or not.

03:31:06.000 I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with his treatise.

03:31:11.000 But you got the sense of it.

03:31:14.000 Thanks for listening.

03:31:16.000 Okay.

03:31:18.000 I want to be very careful about my words.

03:31:20.000 Is there anything below that that we've put together?

03:31:24.000 This is...

03:31:27.000 Let's go above.

03:31:29.000 This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, just so you don't feel bad about yourself, talking about me and my theories based on a question in an Ask Me Anything.

03:31:45.000 Will you be able to talk to Eric Weinstein about the new theory of geometric unity?

03:31:48.000 This is from 2013. We are all wondering about that.

03:31:52.000 Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary.

03:31:55.000 In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science documentaries that came afterwards.

03:32:02.000 So the answer is no.

03:32:05.000 Let me explain where you are.

03:32:09.000 Neil is not unaware that you are never going to get your hearing in a peer-reviewed journal.

03:32:15.000 Your ideas are going to come through.

03:32:18.000 You're a self-taught autodidact polymath.

03:32:22.000 You haven't been cleaned up.

03:32:23.000 You haven't been taught how to speak properly.

03:32:28.000 You don't know the fact that when you say lube, we know fixed point.

03:32:31.000 I know how to do all this stuff, right?

03:32:34.000 You're not getting a peer review from me.

03:32:36.000 I know a lot more than you do about a lot of this stuff.

03:32:39.000 You're getting an elite review.

03:32:42.000 And my elite review says that a lot of this is bathwater, but a small amount of this is baby.

03:32:49.000 And that's not available anywhere.

03:32:50.000 It's not available in a university.

03:32:51.000 It's not available in a journal.

03:32:54.000 That's available on the Joe Rogan Experience.

03:32:58.000 And, you know, Neil's right.

03:33:01.000 If what you want is peer review, you should go to a journal and they will laugh you out.

03:33:06.000 They will take one look at your email address.

03:33:08.000 And if it doesn't end in.edu, I promise you, you're not going to get hurt.

03:33:12.000 Do me a favor, Jamie.

03:33:13.000 Can you pull up?

03:33:14.000 Let him finish.

03:33:15.000 Let him finish because this is a sustained thought.

03:33:19.000 Let's go below where we just were, Jamie.

03:33:22.000 I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review.

03:33:27.000 This is Google Ngrams and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus of English language books published in the world.

03:33:37.000 Peer review basically begins in the mid-1960s.

03:33:44.000 Now, there were various forms of review.

03:33:46.000 Editors, in particular, were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to not peer review things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who should be not.

03:33:56.000 Can we bring that back up?

03:34:01.000 More or less, from what I can piece together, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, who started Pergamon Press, destroyed...

03:34:09.000 Jeffrey Epstein's Ghislaine Maxwell?

03:34:11.000 Correct.

03:34:13.000 He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune by blowing out the number of journals and forcing every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to publish, because to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission that you had an incomplete library.

03:34:35.000 So he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals.

03:34:41.000 This was a group, a very informal, high-quality enterprise.

03:34:45.000 Now, most of the destruction of science, in terms of how high-quality it used to be, has taken place relatively recently, post-Robert Maxwell.

03:34:56.000 Because now we have an enormous number of journals staffed by people who can't spot publication cartels where we agree to cite each other's work and we agree to publish stuff, pay for play.

03:35:08.000 All of the nonsense that you see with irreproducible research comes...

03:35:34.000 Neil is giving you a very cursory back-of-the-hand brush-off.

03:35:40.000 Okay?

03:35:42.000 I felt it.

03:35:43.000 All right.

03:35:45.000 I'm here because I love this man.

03:35:47.000 And this is a higher quality environment.

03:35:49.000 We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci and the origin of COVID. I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything that you were saying.

03:36:06.000 Joe has established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose.

03:36:11.000 He can call on all sorts of amazing people.

03:36:14.000 He called on you.

03:36:15.000 Well, he has lapses in judgment, but he has his good quality.

03:36:21.000 My point being that this is actually what science was supposed to be.

03:36:26.000 We were supposed to listen to each other, not go after each other with an ice pick to the eye.

03:36:30.000 We were supposed to try to figure out the best version.

03:36:33.000 Remember at the beginning of this where I was trying to say, look, I want to do the best version of your idea and build it up.

03:36:37.000 So what you're saying, though, can I just summarize this?

03:36:40.000 What you're saying is that Neil deGrasse's understanding of peer review is flawed.

03:36:45.000 Sure.

03:36:45.000 And that it is not really available to someone like Terrence.

03:36:49.000 It really isn't.

03:36:50.000 He knows that.

03:36:51.000 You see, peer review is not one thing.

03:36:55.000 One thing peer review is the ability to get rid of the axe murderer who's just wandered into your office with a manuscript and red crayon.

03:37:03.000 Well, while you guys are talking, I've got to run to the bathroom.

03:37:06.000 Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

03:37:08.000 It's just this alone.

03:37:09.000 It's an important point.

03:37:10.000 Yeah.

03:37:11.000 Okay.

03:37:12.000 So what Joe and I were just talking about...

03:37:13.000 Yeah, we're back from the bathroom break.

03:37:15.000 ...is what is peer review actually and why is it controversial?

03:37:18.000 So imagine that you have four types of people.

03:37:22.000 You've got two establishment figures, one of whom is screwing up the field, who's in a very powerful position and should be removed from being the impediment to progress that they are.

03:37:37.000 Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it.

03:37:40.000 They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment.

03:37:43.000 The establishment has recognized how valuable that person is.

03:37:45.000 Now you've got two other figures.

03:37:47.000 You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of the universe and anybody who doesn't understand them is a horrible person.

03:37:58.000 Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about and can overturn the established order, which is where you get a revolution.

03:38:09.000 Peer review just sees establishment versus non-establishment.

03:38:15.000 It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years.

03:38:20.000 And it will stop somebody coming from outside.

03:38:24.000 It will reapportion credit.

03:38:26.000 So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I said about gripe and swipe.

03:38:31.000 We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've produced away from you and we publish it under our own name.

03:38:39.000 I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues, particularly younger colleagues. 0.97

03:38:53.000 And to simply say peer review, it works, bitches? 1.00

03:38:58.000 Holy cow! 0.99

03:39:00.000 How can this be?

03:39:03.000 I thought I was upset with some things that you had said and done.

03:39:06.000 No, no, no.

03:39:06.000 They're dwarfed.

03:39:09.000 They're dwarfed by this.

03:39:10.000 This is so disingenuous.

03:39:12.000 Basically, this is saying, please submit your stuff from a gmail.com address.

03:39:20.000 We'll take one look and say, it doesn't look like.edu to me.

03:39:24.000 And we'll throw whatever you do in the trash heap and we'll say, well, you got the benefit of my peer review.

03:39:30.000 Now you look at what Neil said about your stuff, and by the way, he's right about one times one equaling one.

03:39:37.000 You're wrong about that.

03:39:39.000 That was your opener.

03:39:40.000 You picked a terrible move.

03:39:43.000 On the other hand, you heard what I said about the linchpin.

03:39:46.000 It was a combination of bath water and baby.

03:39:51.000 I do not have any economic or authoritative interest in taking anything that you've done and putting it under my own name.

03:40:02.000 I am simply here to help you.

03:40:04.000 And when we talked about the angle and all this stuff, I can tell you that that's a great idea.

03:40:09.000 It may have been had by somebody else because I don't know.

03:40:12.000 But I assume it comes from you.

03:40:14.000 It may not work in practice.

03:40:16.000 I think it's pretty promising.

03:40:19.000 And I think if you don't do anything else and you create one drone that just does that really cool thing, it'll all have been worth it.

03:40:28.000 No, we've got tons of those.

03:40:32.000 You're obviously doing cool stuff.

03:40:35.000 What I'm trying to say is we in science have lost the ability to talk to people who do flawed stuff from outside.

03:40:43.000 All we want to do is get rid of you. 0.99

03:40:46.000 And it's because we have this fake openness. 0.91

03:40:49.000 We have a fake scientific method.

03:40:51.000 Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method.

03:40:54.000 We got along fine without it.

03:40:56.000 Peer review isn't even peer review.

03:40:58.000 It's something called peer injunction, where your peers can stop you without shorting you.

03:41:04.000 I'm happy to bet against you in all sorts of things that you're doing.

03:41:07.000 And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience.

03:41:11.000 But if I block you and I won't short you, That's saying that I think you're dangerous because it's too dangerous to go short.

03:41:22.000 And the idea that we're handing old people and established people and very politically savvy people the ability to block you without shorting you is unforgivable.

03:41:34.000 So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer, I'm like, I'm not pretending to be your peer.

03:41:39.000 I know a lot more than you do.

03:41:41.000 I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome.

03:41:44.000 And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that supposedly got handed to you does.

03:41:50.000 So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is, in my field that I care about, for 40 years we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory people are doing real work and everybody else isn't.

03:42:08.000 And it's total hogwash, and there's no way we can get out from under these people.

03:42:11.000 In the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya, I was just with Jay Bhattacharya in Italy, you have this guy who has a PhD in economics, and he's a doctor, and he's a professor, and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some bureaucrat who is probably in control of the bioweapons portfolio Because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s,

03:42:38.000 the Geneva Convention and the Bioweapons Convention.

03:42:43.000 He and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe epidemiologist.

03:42:51.000 It's like, no, we're going to have a mutiny.

03:42:55.000 And the mutiny is going to be based here, because this is a place that you'd invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya.

03:43:02.000 Oh, for sure.

03:43:03.000 Yeah.

03:43:04.000 We could do any of that.

03:43:05.000 I'd bring garlic.

03:43:08.000 We could have Michio Kaku in here.

03:43:09.000 And some crosses on the wall.

03:43:11.000 Let's have Michio Kaku and Brian Greene.

03:43:12.000 Let's have a discussion about string theory.

03:43:14.000 Let's fundamentally discuss neoclassical economics.

03:43:17.000 Shall we discuss whether or not random mutation is the true engine of neo-Darwinism?

03:43:23.000 Is that reasonable?

03:43:24.000 Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is, but random mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins because stability is too difficult?

03:43:35.000 The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility.

03:43:40.000 And even though you think of it as, I just like having conversations with people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have any other place.

03:43:47.000 We can't go to the National Academy of Sciences.

03:43:49.000 It's too politicized.

03:43:50.000 We can't go to Harvard.

03:43:50.000 You saw what just happened with Claudine Gay, who's still a professor.

03:43:54.000 We've lost everything.

03:43:56.000 And podcasts, as dippy and shitty and as variable in quality as they are, Jerry very much included, is this is all that's left.

03:44:07.000 And my claim is that I'll challenge Neil. 0.52

03:44:10.000 I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the hook. 0.97

03:44:14.000 And by the way, some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong. 0.90

03:44:18.000 The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind what I'm talking about. 0.95

03:44:25.000 When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasmic field, I've got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be reviewed.

03:44:36.000 I will short you.

03:44:37.000 I would love that.

03:44:39.000 I would love that.

03:44:40.000 I'll take some of your money.

03:44:41.000 I would love that.

03:44:42.000 I would love that.

03:44:44.000 But I'll also try to help make them better.

03:44:45.000 But it's having the proof.

03:44:49.000 And then, mind you, like Jamie, if you pull up the...

03:44:52.000 But Terrence, you know what he's saying about not being an expert in teaching and then coming from the outside and that it's like...

03:44:59.000 It's insulting.

03:45:01.000 Yeah, it's insulting.

03:45:01.000 It's a bad way to approach a concept.

03:45:05.000 Because the people that have been studying these concepts for so long instantaneously are told that they don't know, but you know.

03:45:14.000 And that's offensive to people that are actual experts in a thing.

03:45:18.000 I think the same ideas could be portrayed in a way that does not do that.

03:45:24.000 I have to learn that nomenclature.

03:45:26.000 It's just you're so much smarter than most of the people you're talking to.

03:45:29.000 That's what the problem is. 1.00

03:45:30.000 And this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector. 0.98

03:45:34.000 In other words, You believe what you're saying, and you're obviously very, very smart, and you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to. 0.98

03:45:42.000 Like, how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and Geometric Algebra and Clifford Algebra?

03:45:48.000 I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do that, right?

03:45:51.000 When I saw you mention Clifford Algebra, I was like, okay, there's a commonality.

03:45:56.000 Right?

03:45:56.000 Now, Sean Carroll for sure knows what a Clifford Algebra.

03:45:58.000 I'm not sure whether Neil deGrasse Tyson does.

03:46:01.000 Brian Greene certainly does.

03:46:02.000 But in general, this stuff doesn't get introduced in places like this.

03:46:06.000 And then, and you'll watch this in yourself.

03:46:09.000 I'll try to put a circuit in your mind so you'll know exactly the point where you start pissing my community off.

03:46:14.000 Can we bring up the cruel tutelage of Paime?

03:46:18.000 What's that?

03:46:20.000 I love chick flicks, and I think the ultimate chick flick.

03:46:24.000 Joe?

03:46:26.000 I'm seeing you there watching Legally Blonde.

03:46:29.000 I'm seeing you right now with your socks on.

03:46:33.000 Let's go earlier than this.

03:46:37.000 Is that from Kill Bill?

03:46:39.000 Yeah.

03:46:40.000 Oh, okay.

03:46:41.000 I can't show this.

03:46:42.000 That's why we can't.

03:46:42.000 You gotta be more specific.

03:46:44.000 I can't show this stuff.

03:46:45.000 Well, the bride goes up to the top of these stairs. 0.97

03:46:49.000 And Pai Mei asks her, what do you know? 0.87

03:46:53.000 And she says something like, I am acquainted with such and such so and so and I am more than proficient in the fine art of Japanese whatever. 0.99

03:47:03.000 And Pai Mei completely kicks her ass because she doesn't understand where she is. 1.00

03:47:14.000 And my claim is, is that you need your ass kicked. 1.00

03:47:18.000 And you need to apprentice to some of us who know more than you. 1.00

03:47:24.000 And believe me, let me just tell you this. 0.99

03:47:26.000 I've had my ass kicked, and I will get my ass kicked more because you need some kind of humility. 0.99

03:47:32.000 You're coming across wrong. 1.00

03:47:34.000 By the way, never pick a fight with Jamie Foxx. 0.99

03:47:36.000 Holy shit, is that guy good at everything. 0.99

03:47:38.000 I learned that the hard way. 0.99

03:47:41.000 Jamie, if you're out there, I totally love you, and what you did in Ray is just unbelievable.

03:47:47.000 He does in every movie.

03:47:49.000 He's so damn good.

03:47:50.000 Yeah, he's an insanely talented person.

03:47:52.000 He's an insanely talented person.

03:47:53.000 He's one of the most intelligent people I've met.

03:47:56.000 I was sitting on the set of Ali with him and I'm playing chess with him and I'm playing a serious game of chess.

03:48:04.000 He's having a conversation with two other people while he's playing chess with me.

03:48:11.000 As if it's nothing.

03:48:13.000 As if it's nothing.

03:48:15.000 And I play chess well.

03:48:19.000 I've never been more impressed with somebody who can compartmentalize.

03:48:23.000 And he's an organizational genius.

03:48:27.000 Whatever he is, he is.

03:48:29.000 But you know what?

03:48:30.000 I had my guy.

03:48:31.000 My guy was named Noam Elkies.

03:48:33.000 I don't know if you've never heard of Noam Elkies.

03:48:36.000 Noam Elkies, I entered Harvard at 19 with a master's degree.

03:48:39.000 Noam was 18. He didn't have a master's degree, so we were sort of in a weird way, neck and neck.

03:48:44.000 And everything that I thought I was good at, Noam was better.

03:48:47.000 Noam, I played a little piano.

03:48:49.000 Noam could compose anything.

03:48:51.000 I mean, this guy's just like super genius beyond genius, right?

03:48:55.000 And he wasn't a bad guy at all, but he was so powerful in his mind that he composed, I think, an 11 by 11 crossword with no black squares.

03:49:06.000 Stuff that just can't be done.

03:49:10.000 And I thought, geez, there's just no point in competing with Noam Elkies.

03:49:14.000 And one Christmas party, a professor named Raoul Bott heard me trying to play boogie-woogie piano.

03:49:22.000 And Noam sat down and, like...

03:49:25.000 Raoul said, well, why don't you play us some Boogie Woogie?

03:49:28.000 And Noam started playing what he thought was Boogie Woogie, but it was like Rachmaninoff.

03:49:32.000 And Raoul would say, no, no, no.

03:49:34.000 And Noam would go into Chopin, and then he'd go into Liszt.

03:49:37.000 He was playing ever more brilliant things, and finally his brain just blew, because he couldn't think through Boogie Woogie.

03:49:43.000 But Noam then became the youngest professor in the history of Harvard University.

03:49:48.000 I realized that I had accidentally entered in a year in which a Noam Elkes was present. 0.96

03:49:54.000 And by having my ass kicked repeatedly by this guy, I had to ask myself the question, well, what am I doing on this planet? 0.96

03:50:01.000 What do I have to contribute? 0.99

03:50:03.000 And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like this, right?

03:50:09.000 There's a creative spark and a spirit in you that I really see and appreciate.

03:50:12.000 It comes from an older era, and we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere.

03:50:17.000 We used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields.

03:50:20.000 And right now, what we've got is a specialization epidemic.

03:50:25.000 And as far as I can tell, what you need is some discipline.

03:50:29.000 And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot more than you, who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those things.

03:50:39.000 And not just shut them down.

03:50:41.000 And the epidemic we have is assassins.

03:50:46.000 We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system All they do is see things in terms of like Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger.

03:50:56.000 The funny part about it is that that's the midwits endpoint, is that they see heterodox thinkers.

03:51:03.000 And they can't figure out how to place them.

03:51:05.000 And so they just say, if I can find one error, I can reject everything.

03:51:10.000 And you keep triggering that, and that's why you are where you are.

03:51:12.000 With the one times one, but that's why I keep saying the one times one is more of a metaphor.

03:51:16.000 It's not a metaphor to us.

03:51:18.000 It is life and death.

03:51:19.000 You try to sneak one times one through airport security.

03:51:22.000 It's like, it's just the Glock 19. I understand that, but it was really to gain the attention.

03:51:31.000 They never do it.

03:51:32.000 To gain the attention of something is wrong.

03:51:33.000 Listen, you didn't know and now you know.

03:51:35.000 It's that simple.

03:51:36.000 There's one more that's going to keep us from ever getting you through this thing.

03:51:39.000 Can we pull up my page again?

03:51:42.000 We're going to wrap it up with this one.

03:51:44.000 Yeah, I want to do this.

03:51:45.000 It'll be a little bit...

03:51:46.000 We're four and a half hours, man.

03:51:47.000 But we didn't even do the lynch man.

03:51:49.000 Terrence, we're so far down the road.

03:51:53.000 This is four and a half hours?

03:51:54.000 Okay.

03:51:56.000 I want you to take a look at the chemical engineering PhD, because if we don't do that, I can't actually help you.

03:52:04.000 Oh, that right there.

03:52:06.000 Let me explain that.

03:52:08.000 Here I took over to, what was the name of the university?

03:52:13.000 South Carolina University.

03:52:15.000 I was working with...

03:52:20.000 Apollo Diamonds.

03:52:22.000 We were growing diamonds.

03:52:24.000 And I developed a way in which to grow diamonds larger than the two-carat diamonds.

03:52:29.000 I went over to South Carolina University and I talked to them about introducing the diamond process into their university.

03:52:39.000 They were going to give me an honorary degree.

03:52:42.000 Now, I'm thinking they're giving me an honorary degree in chemical engineering because of what I'm doing.

03:52:49.000 And it's just an honorary degree in humanities that they gave me.

03:52:54.000 And so I went on the show and I was like, yeah, well, I got an honorary degree from them.

03:52:59.000 But that ended up coming across as if I got an honorary degree in chemical engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering.

03:53:07.000 I assume you did.

03:53:08.000 An honorary degree...

03:53:10.000 Is worthless.

03:53:11.000 It's like, if your child needed brain surgery, would you go to Dr. Dre?

03:53:17.000 Yeah.

03:53:20.000 No.

03:53:20.000 Okay.

03:53:22.000 Aaron, I want you to hold this.

03:53:25.000 As a guy who was 19 with a master's degree, Harvard University and I got into a fight.

03:53:33.000 And it took me seven years to get that away from them.

03:53:36.000 And they would have been happy to bury me without it.

03:53:40.000 Okay?

03:53:41.000 That is blood, sweat, and tears.

03:53:44.000 And the work that I actually started doing ended up in somebody else's name because Harvard University in part credited with them.

03:53:52.000 That's the peanut person?

03:53:54.000 When you screw around with a PhD, like this Claudine Gay, this woman needs to be fired, okay? 1.00

03:54:03.000 Okay. 0.99

03:54:05.000 Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill. 0.97

03:54:13.000 Enough with the anti-Semitism, enough with the woke, enough with the DEI. Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics. 0.97

03:54:22.000 You're getting absolutely Treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've done.

03:54:28.000 You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff.

03:54:32.000 That thing about the PhD, it's basically fraud. 0.99

03:54:36.000 What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit. 0.98

03:54:40.000 Merit is merit. 0.98

03:54:41.000 If I can catch you in a fraud, if I can catch you in a lie, I can catch you in an error, I don't care.

03:54:46.000 My question is, what did you do?

03:54:49.000 What was the cool stuff you did do?

03:54:51.000 I'm not an assassin.

03:54:53.000 I don't care if you, in part, exaggerated your achievements. 0.99

03:54:56.000 I know how it feels like to be shat on.

03:54:58.000 I know that you have no ability to fight what's being said to you from on high. 0.98

03:55:04.000 Okay?

03:55:06.000 What I'm saying is the only thing that matters is what you contribute in the end.

03:55:10.000 And imagine that there was fraud.

03:55:12.000 Imagine that there were lies.

03:55:13.000 Imagine that there were errors.

03:55:15.000 And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines everything because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six dimensions in the semi-direct product of SO3 with R3, whatever.

03:55:29.000 It doesn't matter.

03:55:30.000 It's that cool.

03:55:31.000 Gregor Mendel probably faked his Peapod experiments.

03:55:35.000 And there's a guy named David E. Kaplan at Johns Hopkins University who said to me something.

03:55:41.000 It's so beautiful I can't reproduce it.

03:55:43.000 He said, physics is based on everything.

03:55:45.000 It's the backstabbing.

03:55:47.000 It's the frauds.

03:55:48.000 It's the geniuses.

03:55:50.000 It's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done.

03:55:53.000 The experimentalists who toil on papers with a thousand people.

03:55:57.000 And this community of all of these people Have come together to produce something which is something close to the source code of the universe. 0.89

03:56:06.000 And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help.

03:56:15.000 There's a lot of work to do it. 0.96

03:56:17.000 It happens that I had done a lot of the work over my life so I didn't have to put an infinite amount of energy into this.

03:56:23.000 But what happened is that you created a mass delusion.

03:56:27.000 And it was a mass delusion in part because we're not aware of what mass delusions actually are.

03:56:32.000 They start with a nub of truth.

03:56:34.000 They start with creative sparks of genius.

03:56:37.000 So we're on the lookout for people who are just frauds, who have nothing that they actually can contribute.

03:56:43.000 What we don't realize is that you have these things about kayfabe, which are these melanges of reality and fakery, and they're interwoven.

03:56:54.000 What you've produced... 0.98

03:56:56.000 Is something that is part bullshit and part real contribution. 0.99

03:57:01.000 And we don't have a system to pull it apart, and we don't have any experience for how to sense when that's what's going on. 0.97

03:57:07.000 But they consider the bullshit to be the one times one equaling two, and the 97 patents, the supersymmetry...

03:57:16.000 It's not the 97 patents, it's not the supersymmetry. 0.88

03:57:19.000 It's simply the residue, the reduction, of when we get rid of all the stuff that wasn't supposed to be here.

03:57:25.000 Because you're a self-taught polymath.

03:57:27.000 You're obviously incredibly intelligent.

03:57:30.000 You're obviously not taught by the system.

03:57:33.000 And you can't do that work all on your own.

03:57:38.000 So you've got to come in and you've got to find somebody who's not looking to kill you.

03:57:42.000 And that's been the entire dance.

03:57:44.000 What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and mathematical community so that they can advance past the platonic solids.

03:57:57.000 The platonic solids I still see in a two- or three-dimensional position.

03:58:04.000 And since we are living in hyperspace and hyperbolic reality, then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space so we don't have to go through Loren's transformations and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space.

03:58:26.000 I think that the real story, Terrence, is going to be whether you can stop teaching long enough to accept some help.

03:58:33.000 I'm here to accept the help.

03:58:35.000 And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something, the linchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know, and to the extent that I did know it, I threw it away, and I think it's a great idea, and I think that the art, and I think that some of the higher dimensional stuff,

03:58:50.000 and I think that a lot of this stuff, Has a kind of beauty that if John Horton Conway were still alive and hadn't been killed by COVID, I'd know where to send you.

03:59:02.000 There's a guy, you know, there are sphere-packing people, there are combinatorists, there are all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm.

03:59:10.000 But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is that when you get on a program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion.

03:59:19.000 I've got a Fauci mass delusion.

03:59:20.000 I've got a string theory mass delusion.

03:59:22.000 I've got a Biden is fine mass delusion.

03:59:24.000 I've got a Trump is not a problem mass delusion.

03:59:27.000 All I have morning, noon, and night is mass delusion on mass delusion.

03:59:31.000 But people don't understand that the reason that these mass delusions get started is that there's a nub of truth in them. 0.97

03:59:38.000 QAnon can't be total bullshit because it's got some core in it that's right and some craziness. 0.91

03:59:46.000 If you think about Dianetics and Scientology, the first thing that they teach you about is the reactive mind. 0.98

03:59:52.000 That's not a terrible theory.

03:59:53.000 And then before you know it, it's Xenu and Volcanoes, right?

03:59:57.000 So what's going on is that people are not aware Of how kayfabe works, right?

04:00:04.000 Wrestling is one of the most dangerous, demanding sports of a certain kind.

04:00:11.000 Now, it happens to be theatrical and pre-programmed.

04:00:14.000 But if you've ever dealt with anybody, like, the wrestling community suffers a death rate unlike any other sport in the world.

04:00:23.000 What you have to understand is that kayfabe, and I highly recommend you look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality intermingle.

04:00:33.000 And that's what you did on the last time that you were here.

04:00:36.000 And I can talk to you about the fantasy, I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies, but I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius, and the insight.

04:00:43.000 And what I want the world to learn is you're getting sucked into mass delusions that you're not properly imagining.

04:00:50.000 There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't acknowledge. 0.68

04:00:55.000 And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in because, in some sense, the mainstream is our official cult. 0.79

04:01:05.000 And then all of the rest of us produce these other cults. 0.93

04:01:07.000 In my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep conversation about GU, Geometric Unity, with my own community.

04:01:17.000 Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you has dwindling to fewer than 10. It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you.

04:01:31.000 Thanks for being a decent guy.

04:01:33.000 I know that not all of this has been welcome.

04:01:34.000 This has all been welcomed.

04:01:36.000 Any truth.

04:01:37.000 And like I said, I take you up on examining and exploring these into the areas.

04:01:44.000 Because like I said, these are tools.

04:01:46.000 I just want to offer a new set of tools to that community so that they can now advance past the points where we are.

04:01:55.000 Try not offering, because the first thing you need to do, the first thing you need to do is not necessarily be a student.

04:02:00.000 It's not a higher versus lower.

04:02:02.000 But just recognize that you're bringing gifts.

04:02:04.000 And you're bringing problems, and it's very expensive to help you.

04:02:09.000 But it doesn't mean it's impossible.

04:02:11.000 And one of the great things about this program is that if there is anybody out there, they can hear it.

04:02:16.000 Now, I'll be honest with you.

04:02:17.000 I've been on this program maybe six times before.

04:02:21.000 I am often astounded that I can reach all of planet Earth, and there isn't a single soul who can hear me.

04:02:27.000 And I think that one of the things you're going to have to reckon with is you're saying certain things And you may get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of responses, and there won't be a single meaningful response among them.

04:02:39.000 And I don't know what to do about that.

04:02:41.000 Stay off Twitter.

04:02:43.000 Yeah.

04:02:44.000 I did my best to give you whatever response I could.

04:02:47.000 All I really want is if you saw some benefit in the things that I've displayed and shared with you.

04:02:54.000 I want them in my house.

04:02:55.000 Then let's have a conversation.

04:02:56.000 I've got a set for you.

04:02:59.000 We got it.

04:03:00.000 We're all connected now.

04:03:01.000 Thank you very much, gentlemen.

04:03:02.000 It was a lot of fun.

04:03:03.000 Thank you, guys.

04:03:04.000 It was very interesting, very informative.

04:03:06.000 Thank you, Jamie.

04:03:07.000 Thank you, Jamie, very, very much.

04:03:08.000 All right.

04:03:09.000 Bye, everybody.

04:03:10.000 Thank you.

The Joe Rogan Experience - July 01, 2024

Joe Rogan Experience #2171 - Eric Weinstein & Terrence Howard

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript