Valuetainment - ＂1 x 1 = 2？＂ – Terrence Howard CLASHES With Eric Weinstein Over CONTROVERSIAL Math Theory

00:00:00.000 You go on Rogan's first podcast, you guys talk,

00:00:03.480 and then that leads to you going back with Rogan,

00:00:06.460 with Eric Weinstein, the four-hour one that you guys did, right?

00:00:09.040 And even, I think, Neil deGrasse Tyson did a video

00:00:12.040 reacting to all the stuff that you had.

00:00:13.900 Brian Keating did as well.

00:00:16.000 I asked Brian Keating about the one document that you sent to me.

00:00:20.660 I forwarded it to him, and he read a look through it,

00:00:24.160 and I'll preface what he said.

00:00:26.320 But, you know, he's really trying to figure things out.

00:00:30.640 And he made a video talking about one area that he was wrong.

00:00:33.300 I don't know if you've seen that video or not.

00:00:35.380 But he seemed very much willing to sit down and have the conversation.

00:00:39.700 But, you know, it almost seems like when even watching Weinstein, Eric, with you,

00:00:44.520 it's like, look, we love what you're doing.

00:00:47.760 But stop doing it.

00:00:48.780 Yeah, but stop doing it because peer review, you're not one of our peers.

00:00:52.200 You're not qualified enough to get a peer review,

00:00:54.360 but we'll give you an opinion on this, right?

00:00:55.880 That was kind of like the establishment side towards you.

00:00:59.360 What was your biggest takeaway after your four hours with Eric and Joe,

00:01:03.620 and what's happened ever since?

00:01:04.740 Well, I gave Eric a great deal of grace.

00:01:07.640 You know, he was a little rude and cut me off a lot of times,

00:01:11.320 but that's the nature of being in the position of authority.

00:01:15.520 I had hoped that he would evaluate the geometry I gave him.

00:01:19.460 I went to his house two days later, and we had dinner,

00:01:24.560 and I took buckets of proof of geometry of all the linchpins and their configurations,

00:01:30.840 all the wave conjugations and their configurations.

00:01:33.700 The wave conjugations, so you understand, is the electric part of the world,

00:01:37.700 is how plasma is the contractive part.

00:01:40.700 All shapes are the expansive stuff that describes radiation's work.

00:01:46.760 The linchpin is the constitution between the two.

00:01:49.960 It's the friend.

00:01:50.920 It's the translator between the big and the little.

00:01:54.240 And I took all these things to his house.

00:01:56.280 I thought he would evaluate them.

00:01:57.900 I thought he would send them throughout his friends.

00:01:59.720 And then I watched him go on Piers Morgan and literally say that 99% of everything I said was bathwater, 0.99

00:02:09.740 was bullshit, the Howard comma. 0.52

00:02:12.620 He said that afterwards or before you guys getting on together? 0.98

00:02:15.620 He did this after our talk on Joe Rogan, but before our meeting when I went to his house.

00:02:23.260 So I let that go, him saying that 99% of everything I was doing was bathwater.

00:02:28.760 And then he said, the one thing that might be good is this linchpin.

00:02:32.080 But he got there by a mistake, which I clearly showed that it wasn't a mistake, the 109.47.

00:02:38.780 But he said that everything I did was just by accident and nothing had value.

00:02:44.580 So we were able to take the Howard comma, which is the resonance created from the linchpin.

00:02:50.800 And we were able to take the Tetrian wave conjugations, which is the shape of the fractal in itself.

00:02:58.320 And we were able to take the mirrored all shapes and literally rebuild the entire world the way that according to, well, not rebuild the world. 0.51

00:03:09.340 We've been able to take those same things that he called bathwater and apply them to the three-body problem 0.98

00:03:16.680 and solve a 300-year-old problem that Newton couldn't solve, that Poincare couldn't solve,

00:03:22.280 because they needed a finite space.

00:03:25.220 They needed curved multiplication.

00:03:27.820 They also needed to reimagine how the prime numbers behave.

00:03:33.160 They needed to understand that gravity was just an effect of electricity.

00:03:38.140 But how could we take the things he said was bathwater and solve the biggest problems in math and in physics

00:03:46.360 when he said it had no physical application, no chemistry application, no application towards mathematics?

00:03:53.920 But we solved all the biggest problems with it, and that's why I gave it to you ahead of time

00:03:58.160 and asked you to run it through your AI.

00:04:00.060 Yeah, and we did that.

00:04:01.280 I guess the most basic one, okay?

00:04:03.620 So if I go to someone like you who's an outsider coming in in the scientist world, right, the mathematics world,

00:04:10.420 and you make certain claims, first question the academia is going to ask is what is your qualification?

00:04:17.120 What is your education?

00:04:18.460 Where did you go to?

00:04:19.260 And it seems like some of these guys came out and said, well, that school this, the school that,

00:04:22.660 that I don't know which one it was, South Carolina or whatever it was, the school, the degree, all this stuff.

00:04:28.320 Yeah, because I went to, I took over, went over to South Carolina University,

00:04:34.000 and I took them over the, at the time I had a company where we were growing diamonds

00:04:38.940 through not high pressure, high temperature, but through chemical vapor deposition.

00:04:46.260 And the conversation I was having with them, and they were talking about giving me an honorary degree,

00:04:51.120 which should have been in chemistry because that's the stuff that we were doing.

00:04:54.380 We were transmuting one thing into another thing.

00:04:57.240 So when I went on that other show and I had my honorary degree that was given to me,

00:05:03.420 I had no idea it was in, I had no idea it was in humanities.

00:05:07.020 I thought it was going to be in the thing that I went to talk to them about.

00:05:11.560 So to them, so to say I'm a, you don't have a PhD from South Carolina, it's an honorary, right?

00:05:17.000 So it's not like, okay, so to, to, to act, to the folks who went to school to see all these

00:05:24.140 different theories, what do they tell you when they explain it to you?

00:05:27.040 What do they say to say, because right now I just went online and I typed in,

00:05:30.420 which scientists agree with Terrence Howard, okay?

00:05:33.760 And mainstream scientific response, Howard's reviews are widely rejected by academic and

00:05:39.180 scientific communities.

00:05:40.660 His interpretation of math and physics are generally considered mathematically incorrect,

00:05:44.240 scientifically unfounded, right?

00:05:46.400 Independent and French thinkers, they gave some folks that are from, on the YouTube side

00:05:50.660 that do, why the rejection claims one times one equals two.

00:05:54.740 And that's the most basic one, right?

00:05:57.400 Where it starts from there.

00:05:58.280 And it goes to some of the other theories that you have, that you guys have spoken about.

00:06:02.380 Help me understand how in your mind to, to the average person who hasn't put amount of

00:06:08.260 time that you have put in, credibility after one times one times two, one times one equals two.

00:06:15.040 How do you come up with that conclusion?

00:06:16.000 Well, if, if I was wrong, then they wouldn't have made such a big stink about it.

00:06:21.320 But the fact that I was able to show them with their calculator, that because they have one

00:06:26.960 times one equaling one, an action times an action without a reaction, and as a result of it,

00:06:33.140 you get this contradiction with the square root of two being cubed, having the same value

00:06:38.540 as the square root of two times two, which should say a red flag, a herring right away that

00:06:43.940 there's something wrong with the mathematics, with that being the problem that leads into the

00:06:48.420 distribution of prime numbers, because the number two, any, any, any prime number, any

00:06:55.300 prime number that you subtract from another prime number, always is going to end up in

00:07:00.020 a composite number.

00:07:01.940 But, except with the case of the number two, that's the only prime number that you subtract

00:07:09.100 from another prime number and you end up in a prime number.

00:07:12.200 Why?

00:07:12.640 Because the number two is a composite number.

00:07:15.480 But they've changed that by trying to force that into a prime because they wanted one

00:07:21.580 times one to equal one, and the square root of two being 1.414, they say that times itself

00:07:29.040 will equal it.

00:07:29.580 So it's all convoluted.

00:07:31.860 None of their stuff makes sense.

00:07:33.180 If I was a student, a mathematical student, or a calculus student, or an algebraic student,

00:07:38.460 and I come in and I show a proof where, okay, one times one equals one, and the proof of

00:07:45.000 this is the square root of two having a contradiction with being cubed and multiplied by two, that's

00:07:52.500 a loop.

00:07:53.020 Okay, so now let me ask you this.

00:07:54.040 That's a problem.

00:07:54.520 So then what's 1.1 times 1.1?

00:07:59.120 I don't know.

00:07:59.980 Is it bigger than two?

00:08:00.940 It would have to be.

00:08:02.740 Anytime action times an action has to increase in volume.

00:08:06.320 No, but so if one times one is two, that would mean that 1.1 times 1.1 would need to be bigger

00:08:13.960 than two, right?

00:08:14.660 It would have to be.

00:08:15.900 Why wouldn't it be?

00:08:16.880 It's only the mathematics that they're using, the identity principles, which I call the Jim

00:08:23.060 Crow laws of mathematics.

00:08:24.780 That's the thing that holds them back because they want to keep things back into a balanced

00:08:29.640 place.

00:08:30.240 Instead of allowing the expansion that happens with most numbers, they just want to repeat.

00:08:35.480 They would just want to get back to a repeat.

00:08:37.460 Even for a basic, simple guy like me, let's just say if I have $1.10 in a stock, okay?

00:08:46.220 And that goes up 1.1%.

00:08:49.640 What is it?

00:08:52.020 $1.10 in a stock, but it goes up 1.1% rate of return in my stock portfolio.

00:08:58.240 What's 1.1% of $1.10?

00:09:02.860 Look it up on the calculator.

00:09:04.420 It's $1.21.

00:09:05.700 So for example, so if I get a 1% rate of return on one, if I do the percentage on the basic

00:09:18.960 1.1 times 1.1, it's still getting me 1.21.

00:09:22.080 So to me, the basics of the 1 times 1 equals 2, that throws even a regular guy like me

00:09:29.780 off.

00:09:30.480 Well, you've got to remember, in multiplying volumetrically, you're wrapping things back

00:09:35.440 around.

00:09:36.040 Right.

00:09:36.400 Like in a pool, in a swimming pool, the ripples go out, hit the edge, and then they come back.

00:09:42.440 The returning waves are added to the expanding waves.

00:09:46.520 Each returning wave is going to become multiplied even more.

00:09:49.800 The pressure doesn't just expand out and keep going out.

00:09:53.900 It's coming back.

00:09:55.060 So you have to include the contraction.

00:09:57.940 You have to include the returning wave.

00:09:59.900 So that's why the volumetric would be different.

00:10:02.380 But like even with what you just did, like if I asked you, what's 0.10 times 0.10?

00:10:08.660 0.10 times 0.10 says 0.001, right?

00:10:12.600 Right.

00:10:12.940 But we know that 0.10 is a dime.

00:10:17.400 Okay.

00:10:17.660 We know that a dime times a dime, 10 dimes times 10 dimes equals a dollar, should equal

00:10:23.940 a dollar.

00:10:24.540 Not necessarily.

00:10:25.360 10 times 10.

00:10:26.520 No, I know what you're doing.

00:10:27.720 I know what you're doing.

00:10:28.640 But that is a whole number.

00:10:30.540 A dime is still 10 cents.

00:10:33.300 So 10 dimes is a dollar.

00:10:36.140 So it's not the same in the dollar sense.

00:10:38.220 I see what you're thinking, like 0.1 equals a tenth of a dollar.

00:10:41.840 I'm saying there's a problem with the decimal system.

00:10:45.400 Yeah.

00:10:45.560 But if I have, if a dime is 0.1 of a dollar, let's simplify it, right?

00:10:52.460 But if you tell me, give me 10 of 0.1s, that equals one.

00:10:58.540 So that means I got 10 dimes.

00:11:00.480 But if you do 0.1 times 0.1, then you get 0.01, right?

00:11:07.400 0.01.

00:11:08.200 Yeah.

00:11:08.420 But that's a difference.

00:11:10.020 So to me, the basics of the math, when you went there one time...

00:11:13.380 That doesn't go off to you?

00:11:14.680 That doesn't seem off?

00:11:15.880 That if this was, if we turn it into physical things, that's what I'm saying.

00:11:20.320 Let's turn it.

00:11:21.000 The problem with our math is they've reversed, they've allowed it to be all imaginary.

00:11:26.560 It does not have any physical resemblance.

00:11:29.620 It's all fiat, where it should be measuring reality.

00:11:32.800 No, but I just do investment.

00:11:34.020 The way I look at it is to say, what's 0.1% of, you know, a penny?

00:11:46.800 What's 0.1% of a penny?

00:11:48.820 What's the value of a penny?

00:11:50.800 What's 0.1% of a dime?

00:11:53.260 It's a penny, right?

00:11:55.060 It gets smaller, right?

00:11:56.520 So that's the...

00:11:58.160 I don't look at it from the physics side.

00:11:59.820 Wait a minute.

00:12:00.220 10% of a penny would be...

00:12:02.000 Of a dime would be a penny.

00:12:03.380 That's right.

00:12:03.900 10%.

00:12:04.360 So 0.1 is 10%, right?

00:12:06.740 So if you go to the investment side, the argument of one-time-ones in investment, stocks, bonds,

00:12:11.960 mutual funds, insurance, it stops right there.

00:12:14.420 But you're going out there and saying one times one equals two.

00:12:17.340 And, you know, that...

00:12:20.240 We're saying that as far...

00:12:22.580 Since our economics are still based on this linear, flat-plane geometry, you can still

00:12:29.920 use the one times one equaling one to perform their economic growth and their economic reactions.

00:12:37.160 But if you're dealing with universal interactions, you have to...

00:12:43.700 Our money may go out linearly and we may measure it on a flat plane.

00:12:48.320 But as far as the universe behaving, how energy behaves, energy curves and wraps back around

00:12:55.140 itself.

00:12:56.040 Energy doesn't follow a linear path.

00:12:58.680 And all of the stuff we're talking about in physics and science is about energy.

00:13:03.280 We're not talking about a fiat system where they can have arbitrary rules for the money

00:13:08.200 that anything can happen with the numbers.

00:13:11.500 Something times nothing can equal nothing and violate conservation of energies.

00:13:17.080 If you're saying one times zero, or you can divide...

00:13:20.380 You can multiply by zero, but if you divide by zero, it creates an infinity and division

00:13:25.740 is supposed to be the inverse operation of multiplication.

00:13:29.680 So what you're supposed to be able to do, multiplying, you're able to reverse that with division.

00:13:34.540 So if you cannot divide by zero, then you cannot multiply by zero.

00:13:39.680 All of their rules that they break so that their economic pathway can remain consistent.

00:13:46.980 You want to do that, do that.

00:13:48.480 But if you're talking about saving our planet, you're talking about how the universe behaves

00:13:53.100 and how the energy of the ether behaves, then there's very specific associations to the numbers.

00:14:01.540 Each number is alive.

00:14:02.860 If each number has value, it's not imaginary, it's not intangible, it is going to have an effect.

00:14:09.760 So we have to multiply it according to how the universe does it.

00:14:13.580 Okay.

00:14:13.980 So I look at it more from the investment side, the math side, the financial side, but that's your theory.

00:14:22.000 And by the way, Terrence, the reason why I think folks like you are important, very important,

00:14:28.400 because anybody that challenges the status quo, that puts the establishment against the wall

00:14:36.220 to kind of have to prove themselves, I love it.

00:14:38.600 I think Bobby Kennedy did that.

00:14:40.000 And Bobby Kennedy wasn't a scientist.

00:14:41.600 He was a lawyer.

00:14:42.340 And Bobby Kennedy got a lot of people in the health industry to be like, wait a minute,

00:14:47.140 are we supposed to believe 100% of what Fauci is saying?

00:14:49.980 We're not supposed to sit there and believe everything Fauci is saying.

00:14:52.600 And he's not a health guy.

00:14:54.000 So the credibility from the health institution was like, I'm a scientist.

00:14:58.500 I'm Fauci.

00:14:59.120 Trust me.

00:14:59.720 I know what I'm talking about.

00:15:00.740 Bobby doesn't know what he's talking about.

00:15:01.900 So I would like to see something happen here where we're seeing a lens.

00:15:07.380 This is why I suggested for you and your wife to watch the, what was it?

00:15:12.140 The Stephen Greer.

00:15:13.400 Stephen Greer documentary.

00:15:14.680 The last century, the last century.

00:15:16.420 Yeah, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.

00:15:19.360 Hi, everyone.

00:15:20.180 My name is Terrence Howard.

00:15:21.760 I'm an actor, but in the field of science also.

00:15:25.940 So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on Manect.

00:15:31.040 The QR code is down below.

00:15:33.440 And let's have a great conversation.

00:15:36.060 If you enjoyed this video, you want to watch more videos like this, click here.

00:15:39.020 And if you want to watch the entire podcast, click here.

Valuetainment - April 04, 2025

＂1 x 1 = 2？＂ – Terrence Howard CLASHES With Eric Weinstein Over CONTROVERSIAL Math Theory

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript