Valuetainment - April 07, 2025


＂We Made A HUGE Mistake＂ - Terrence Howard EXPOSES Mind-Blowing Flaws In Science & Physics


Episode Stats

Length

13 minutes

Words per Minute

144.53601

Word Count

2,017

Sentence Count

178


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Dr. Yu, if you're back there, please come to the table.
00:00:04.640 His energy is unbelievable.
00:00:06.540 I know.
00:00:07.240 I've watched him.
00:00:07.780 You are right here, sir.
00:00:08.840 I look at him.
00:00:11.160 Okay.
00:00:18.540 Great to have you.
00:00:19.860 I met earlier.
00:00:21.000 Pleasure having you on.
00:00:22.860 So, Dr. Yu, if you don't mind, I have your business card here.
00:00:26.060 Okay.
00:00:26.320 If you can take a moment.
00:00:28.120 And here it tells me, Wei Ping Yu PhD, physicist, supercraft subsystem manager, spacecraft fluids, and structures branch.
00:00:37.040 If you don't mind taking a moment and introducing your background, your experience, what you've worked on.
00:00:41.880 Okay.
00:00:42.920 First of all, thank you for having me on.
00:00:45.620 It's great.
00:00:48.260 Terrence wants to fix this.
00:00:50.220 He's a perfectionist.
00:00:51.100 He is.
00:00:51.920 I love Tai being right.
00:00:53.980 Yes.
00:00:54.380 My name, Wei Ping Yu.
00:00:55.800 I'm currently with employee by federal government, NASA.
00:01:01.400 Okay.
00:01:01.920 So, I'm the physics based on the training.
00:01:06.260 I have a PhD in engineering physics.
00:01:08.800 And I have did a lot of fundamental research.
00:01:11.560 And so, when I'm the founder of called the Yuan theory of everything, try to bring the bridges between relativity and quantum mechanics and try to find out the unified theory of everything.
00:01:28.960 Just like Ninja Pin theory, right?
00:01:31.600 Have you guys ever met before?
00:01:35.960 No.
00:01:36.200 This is the first time.
00:01:37.160 This is very important for the audience to know.
00:01:38.700 You guys have never met.
00:01:39.780 Never met.
00:01:40.160 And you're currently working for NASA.
00:01:43.480 That's correct.
00:01:44.500 I'm currently working for NASA.
00:01:46.100 But let me make a disclaimer.
00:01:47.760 So, all the views and the opinions expressed here represent purely on my own and does not reflect any of those of my employer, NASA.
00:02:00.480 Fantastic.
00:02:01.120 And I appreciate you saying that.
00:02:02.560 So, you know Eric Weinstein.
00:02:06.000 Yes.
00:02:06.540 Have you guys spoken before?
00:02:07.560 Have you guys met before?
00:02:08.040 Yes.
00:02:08.340 Eric Weinstein called me.
00:02:09.940 So, we were talking about it on the phone for about 15, 20 minutes while I was traveling in California.
00:02:16.960 Okay.
00:02:17.700 And did you have a chance to watch the exchange with, you know, Terrence and Eric Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast?
00:02:24.740 Yes.
00:02:26.300 Briefly.
00:02:26.980 Okay.
00:02:27.740 It's a very interesting exchange.
00:02:30.000 Yes.
00:02:30.480 Okay.
00:02:30.820 So, we have a document here.
00:02:35.300 I think it's even a, maybe a, this is that was sent by you right to us.
00:02:40.700 Yes.
00:02:41.100 What was your impression from you hearing the exchange between Eric and what Terrence was discussing?
00:02:48.820 Was there anything where you said there's some credibility to what Terrence is saying here?
00:02:52.640 I don't know if I agree with him, you know, because you would be to the marketplace.
00:02:56.380 You're part of the establishment scientist.
00:02:58.800 You know, you're, you've gone through the school and you've gone a different route than he has.
00:03:02.680 What was your impression of the exchange between the two?
00:03:04.960 I know one of the focuses on the statement, you know, Terrence made by one times one equals two.
00:03:13.640 Yes.
00:03:13.860 And I believe a lot of focus on this statement.
00:03:18.160 In my view, I be, of course, on my conventional view, I would disagree with your statement.
00:03:29.060 However, I noticed, you know, the definition of one times one is different between traditional class than in Terrence's talking.
00:03:42.000 He's bringing another dimension, okay, bring another dimension, three-dimensional or some kind of things into this one.
00:03:50.380 So I believe the difference is probably the definition and the model in our own mind, the difference.
00:03:59.220 I do not believe fundamentally some kind of difference if we have more time to discuss the detail, but not on the setting.
00:04:08.020 Yeah, no, and what I'm doing with, I'm contrasting the linear projection and attempt to multiply linearly, just repeating, in comparison to multiplying volumetrically.
00:04:22.420 So you're right in, in adding dimensions.
00:04:25.400 And these necessary dimensions are dimensions that you exist in.
00:04:30.160 Nothing exists in a two-dimensional space.
00:04:33.260 Even a three-dimension, like you talk about one dimension, two dimensions, those things are not, you cannot measure them until it has height, width, and depth.
00:04:42.900 So it all becomes basically imaginary as far as the real world goes until it has at least the three dimensions of height, width, and depth.
00:04:52.080 And then it needs your fourth perspective in order to be able to measure it.
00:04:57.140 So when they're talking about one and two-dimensional things, I'm just looking at, okay, another imaginary thing because it has to be in motion.
00:05:04.720 It has to have width, it has to have depth in order for us to be able to consider it, but they consider two-dimensional space or our mathematics.
00:05:14.100 It's all based on reductionary attempts to reduce things, living things down to dead things.
00:05:21.660 Doctor, you, you read the white paper.
00:05:23.620 You read all the papers here that he sent, right?
00:05:25.500 We sent you yesterday.
00:05:26.400 I don't know if you have to read all.
00:05:27.980 I hope you threw them into the AI because I was like, this is a lot of stuff.
00:05:31.480 Did you have a chance to look through some of it?
00:05:33.140 Yes.
00:05:33.500 Okay, what's your impression of what Terrence is saying here and how much credibility is there behind it?
00:05:38.540 Oh, okay.
00:05:39.940 So I would say I'm not talking about credibility.
00:05:43.200 I do not believe when the credibility is based on the education and how many degrees or how many years, even years of working in the field.
00:05:52.740 I believe this intelligence could come out instant.
00:05:57.380 Like Terrence mentioned from the gift of divine.
00:06:01.440 Is that right?
00:06:01.880 Something, and instantly, like me working in physics field for decades, I just got to recognize there's something fundamental wrong,
00:06:12.180 which something happened, you know, in Terrence's interview.
00:06:17.020 He mentioned about something fundamental wrong with current physics, which I actually agree with.
00:06:22.520 What's that?
00:06:24.560 Okay.
00:06:25.580 Let me first talk about the first thing.
00:06:28.680 The first thing, talking about the fundamental wrong, this is a secret to current physical community.
00:06:35.820 It's something we got wrong by we made electron model wrong.
00:06:40.940 This is an electron is elementary particles.
00:06:45.740 In physics, it's found that elementary particles cannot be subdivided, do not have another detailed structure or something.
00:06:53.660 And if we get this wrong, and what happens next?
00:06:57.560 So, if we get the electron wrong, I will explain why we get it wrong, if you have the time.
00:07:03.280 Yeah, I can help with that, too.
00:07:05.220 And then, if we get the electron wrong, we get the, called the planetary atomic model.
00:07:13.060 You know the model, the similar model, the planetary with orbiting free electrons, we get the model wrong.
00:07:18.940 So, what I find is there is no free-orbiting electrons around the nucleus at the nearest speed of light forever, constantly.
00:07:33.120 That's completely wrong.
00:07:34.800 So, what's the implication of this one?
00:07:37.620 So, first, we got the electron wrong, and then we got the model wrong.
00:07:42.180 What happens if this atomic model has no orbiting electrons, no free, called the prince of orbit, entire quantum mechanics built on this model were completely out of the water.
00:07:58.920 Because their foundation on the electron, their view of the electron, they saw it as a particle, as an individual thing.
00:08:05.120 When it's an entire cloud, it's an energy, it's a wave of energy.
00:08:09.760 That's what the electron is.
00:08:10.980 It's the discharge coming from accumulated electrical potential.
00:08:16.500 The discharged electricity, the devitalized electricity, is what we're calling this electron or this magnetism.
00:08:25.100 And they're seeing it as a particle when it's just a wave form.
00:08:28.720 It's a pressure condition.
00:08:30.340 It's a resonant thing that can be manipulated by other frequencies.
00:08:35.860 That you don't need actual force, but you can create the conditions to change and affect a wave form.
00:08:44.540 What, are you going to show something?
00:08:46.040 You brought some props?
00:08:47.000 I'm going to expand my statement, say, why we get the electron wrong and why it's so significant.
00:08:53.500 Okay.
00:08:54.640 So, from, I believe, from the 1785, the French physicist Coulomb proposed the Coulomb's law.
00:09:06.940 It says, there are two types of charges.
00:09:09.860 One is negative, one is positive.
00:09:12.720 And the like charge, repel.
00:09:15.240 Unlike charge, attract.
00:09:17.580 This is a fundamental law.
00:09:19.100 It's a great discovery.
00:09:20.240 However, the mistake, the mistake, he described the two charges carried by two separate particles.
00:09:34.940 Instead of having everything being both positive, having both attractors and detractive things.
00:09:41.920 It's a dipole.
00:09:43.700 It's not a monopole.
00:09:44.980 And the way they're seeing it, how can something, this is something that always got me.
00:09:48.300 How can, you can say something is charged, positively charged, how can it be negatively charged?
00:09:54.820 How can you negatively charge something?
00:09:57.460 A negative charge is a discharge.
00:09:59.760 It means that it's coming out of it in comparison to attracting into it.
00:10:04.260 So, their entire terms of a negatively charged particle is wrong.
00:10:09.560 It's a discharging particle.
00:10:11.920 Can let me strengthen your idea.
00:10:14.720 Yes, I'm sorry.
00:10:15.440 This is a brilliant, you know, a discovery and the root cause of our physics.
00:10:23.500 So, now, people would say, how do you know, how can we get the electron wrong?
00:10:28.240 Entire modern technology is built on electrons, right?
00:10:32.640 So, that's why all the interpretations are needed to be rewritten.
00:10:37.020 So, let's assume electron is a negative charge and proton is a positive charge.
00:10:44.260 Now, what happens if we split electron into two halves, hypocytically split, geometrical slip?
00:10:54.840 What do we get?
00:10:56.660 Two negative charge particles?
00:10:58.840 Two negative charge particles that come together and make a positive.
00:11:01.860 Do we put two negative charge particles together?
00:11:05.280 No.
00:11:06.220 Negative things are always going to push each other away.
00:11:08.540 They're always going to push each other away.
00:11:11.360 The violate Coulomb's law.
00:11:13.500 So, it cannot exist in this universe or if there's other universe.
00:11:18.640 It cannot.
00:11:20.700 And think about Kirchhoff's law regarding the black body.
00:11:24.760 Now, this is where Planck, if you could look up Kirchhoff, this is where the Planck model came from.
00:11:31.120 Max Planck was working off of his model.
00:11:33.800 And part of the radiation from Kirchhoff's law was that a black body, it's always going to radiate into these individual cavities.
00:11:43.120 And these cavities are not going to be dependent on the temperature of the walls.
00:11:47.440 They're going to be dependent upon the temperature of what came in there.
00:11:50.360 That was all wrong.
00:11:52.300 Kirchhoff's entire law is wrong and that's what Planck was based off of.
00:11:56.360 But you look at the Planck model and think about, it talks about if you want to do a Planck charge and all of these things, you have to use gravity.
00:12:06.920 Gravity is included in there and the speed of light is included in there.
00:12:10.400 But gravity at the Planck charge, at the Planck point, is not supposed to be in effect.
00:12:15.320 When you get down to the quantum area, gravity is not something that's able to affect those small areas.
00:12:23.820 So why is gravity part of Planck's constant or the speed of light, which we know changes constantly depending upon the medium that it's going in there.
00:12:36.820 So having the speed of light as a constant, having gravity as a constant, and Planck's charge lets you know that this is, the Planck's charge, that Planck's entire Planck number is false.
00:12:49.020 Because they've changed the speed of light.
00:12:51.640 Now they've attached it to another thing in order, instead of, so that the speed of light doesn't fluctuate, they've attached it to the measurement itself.
00:13:00.200 So it's always going to be the measurement.
00:13:02.820 That's wrong.
00:13:03.740 That's fudgery.
00:13:05.060 Rupert Sheldrake talked about that, about morphisms, with the speed of light being fudged and changed.
00:13:12.220 So all of their principles are seemingly fudged.
00:13:16.080 Who has questioned this over the years?
00:13:18.160 Like, what scientists have...
00:13:20.160 Dirac, Feynman, all of them questioned it.
00:13:23.760 That's why they were like, all of this renormalization makes this stuff bad.
00:13:27.720 Hi, everyone.
00:13:29.020 My name is Terrence Howard.
00:13:30.600 I'm an actor, but in the field of science also.
00:13:34.960 So if you would like to connect with me, you can connect with me on MNECT.
00:13:39.840 The QR code is down below.
00:13:42.240 And let's have a great conversation.
00:13:44.860 If you enjoyed this video, you want to watch more videos like this, click here.
00:13:47.860 And if you want to watch the entire podcast, click here.
00:13:50.620 We'll see you next time later.