The REAL Reason Terrence Howard Says 1x1=2

Terrence Howard, is asserting that 1 x 1 equals 2. Sounds insane, right? Or could he be onto something revolutionary? Terrence Howard has been going viral lately after his appearance on the Joe Rogan show. This sparked a wildfire of discussion on the internet, with many people, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, responding and talking about it.
Terrence uses mathematical laws to justify his claim, but do these laws actually support him? He also believes that civilizations were tricked thousands of years ago to misunderstand these concepts and there’s been a global conspiracy to keep humanity in the dark.
So, does 1 x 1 actually equal 2? Is Terrence Howard a mastermind or out of his mind? Whether you think he's a genius or completely off his rocker, you're about to find out what this really means.
Read my book "Neogenesis: Dawn of the New Mind" here: amzn.to/3XvrZMD
Get access to members videos by supporting at / morgueofficial
More ways to support:
Get MERCH at www.morgueofficial.com
Follow Morgue:
⇀ Facebook: / morgueofficial
⇀ Instagram: / morgueofficial
⇀ Twitter: / morgueofficial
#TerrenceHoward #JoeRogan #NeilDeGrasseTyson #Mathematics #ViralDiscussion #GlobalConspiracy #MathematicalLaws #MultiplicationDebate #Terryology #AncientCivilizations #Annunaki #AleisterCrowley #OccultSymbols #Numerology #NewAgeThinking #Metarationalism #HigherConsciousness #Metaphysics #RationalThinking #MysticalInsights #neogenian #HiddenKnowledge #TrueNatureOfReality

[@morgueofficial]

My new book "Neogenesis: Dawn of the New Mind" is available now: amzn.to/3znDXgY

[@anahigarcia3292]

Terrence is speaking about a deeper insight about life itself, and math is a part of life, but math stands alone as being what it literally is with out the spiritual part of life. so of course it won’t make sense. but when you are adding spirituality to math, you must let go of “literally”. and this is where people will not accept it bc truth is not everyone is spiritual so they will not understand it. it’s not embarrassing to discuss 1x1=2. it is a higher level of understanding that not all people have :).

[@WarrenDay-we9do]

@EL-IS-Saturn one is represented by two pillars in masonry, as 1, 1 in the Fibonacci Sequence are 2 of the same figures. 1 of 1 is negative...the other is balanced out as positive.

[@WarrenDay-we9do]

@EL-IS-Saturn I of Adam's ribs, which were paired as 2 in the same ribcage, became 2 when multipled.

[@TeddyRidal]

@EL-IS-Saturn Masonry is not based on the Hebrew Bible. Masonry is represented by the title "Builder" in the Bible, which is congested with numerology and alphanumeric encodes.

[@aliclarke9800]

Yup, I've started reading it. Loving it, and it's so great to find someone with the same outlook and belief system as myself.

[@digitalrevolution6476]

Huge waste of time arguing about that...

[@zaneba7056]

Who cares what Terrance Howard says not the first insane celebrity and not the last either smh

[@Dkaizen3000]

I completely agree. But for some reason, people are paying attention to this. It’s not just conspiracy nuts which are going to be the usual culprit, but it’s because Terrence Howard is very well respected in the acting community and then all of a sudden it sounds crazy AF. And, his career will tank after this.

[@spiritualsoul387]

@@Dkaizen3000 he be aight

[@flashraylaser157]

​@@Dkaizen3000 To be honest I didn't even know who he was before this. I think he'll get more roles. Whole thing could be a publicity stunt even but I don't think so.

[@Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Play]

This is funny though....😂

[@stevieg7403]

We can disprove someone’s ideas without ridiculing them, I know that’s a controversial idea these days.

[@TeddyRidal]

Not if they're intentionally in operation as deceivers and mind controllers, like Morgue.

[@gabrielwong9063]

Terrance Howard ridiculed Tyson and lied when Tyson respectfully told him he was completely wrong; but challenged him to stay interested in mathematics.

[@stevieg7403]

@@gabrielwong9063 Two wrongs don’t make a right..

[@TeddyRidal]

@@gabrielwong9063 Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Masonic-strung PSYOPs agent and fraud, and so is Morgue. Get it right and get your head out from your pooper!

[@gabrielwong9063]

@@stevieg7403 Tyson was respectful, I don't have to be. As an onlooker someone as stupid as Terrence Howard shouldn't get a platform. There are a lot of gullible stupid fucking people out there; hopping around flat earth theories and Trumpism. We don't need to cater as a society to giving those morons a platform or peace.

[@SwaggerDolphin1]

1 x 1 is obviously 3 because 1 person multiplies with 1 person you get 3 in end

[@JennaSakura]

What? 😂

[@Brousey]

Or 4, or 5.. 8 1x1= anything

[@Himeko-wv7fu]

Unless you have triplets then 1x1 =5 😬

[@kemadjounyawillyamcastro200]

what about twins, triplicate, quadruple etc.., Terrence is a mad delusional morons

[@Nomadicshieldmaid75]

Hey I knew that! Why did I fail in math😂

[@BigEnergy123]

It's 1984, where 2+2=5. Thank y'all for not being deceived

[@AyitaLightfoot622]

And thank you for bringing this up. 1984 literally told us a story about a dystopian world ran by a government in control of the media that had us believing what our own eyes and ears knew better. Amazing this world of ours. I'm with professor Farnsworth on this one...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@AyitaLightfoot622]

@@TheG5Studio if I give u one coke 1 time u have one coke..if I give u 2 cokes 1 time then u have two.

[@TheG5Studio]

"If you give me 1 coke 1 time and one coke 1 time that will equal 2 cokes. Giving me 1 coke at a time.

[@TheG5Studio]

@@AyitaLightfoot622 ...1 coke 1 time is equivalent to 1x 0. A multiple 1 and multiple 0 Equal 1 itself.

[@jimpanse1638]

This guy is just after scaming people and making a bunch of money... nobody can be that stupid.

[@Jcs57]

Lol you would think so………and you would also be incorrect. Ever watch a Trump cult member in an interview answer simple questions about their beliefs and position?

[@mp-uy9sv]

no it isn't a scam, . there is nothing to gain, and everything to lose. the man clearly has schizophrenia or bipolar. He is expressing literally every sign of a mental patient with delusions of grandeur. and has never once defended his claims in a debate with the countless people who have refuted every statement he has made about, science, math, history, etc.. he just ignores everyone and repeats the same nonsense.its sad , really sad

[@coolguy1952]

How do you make money?

[@jimpanse1638]

@@coolguy1952 I work? You know doing stuff with my hands?

[@JernosComicsPopCulture]

At first, I thought this guy was either a vampire from an Anne Rice novel, or an Elf from Middle Earth, but after watching this, this dude is freaking legit! I like this guy!

[@margott.244]

😆😁

[@TheG5Studio]

The catch was that 2 physical items are the reality drawing from a theoretical rule of 1. For example, if the ad sale would have actually meant, buy 1 and get one for free , but the merchant will only allow you to leave with only 1. This would prove what the system is doing to the minds that have been taught the basic multiplication that eliminates the physical values of multiple groups. Remember this, most of us have been taught that math is a problem not a solution. All of math's problems are actually exposed to us in the unfoldment of nature. Most people are taking those answers for granted 🤔?

[@TheG5Studio]

@Will_Love_2Hear_From_You are you inviting me to a chat?

[@truenemesisprime550]

Why did you only talk about the equation? He said alot more than just that in the Rogan interview for instance the spiraled version of the periodic table, his work on the flower of life and his various innovations?

[@TurdBoi-tf5lf]

That's all BS

[@DawnshieId]

@@TurdBoi-tf5lf Nah, you're just closed minded.

[@Buttz2Buttz]

Howard talked alot on the same things Tesla worked on, and every person making videos on that interview, only ever talk about this part. Funny how that works huh.

[@benjaminwallace457]

Because he started the podcast with his equation and based everything else he said off his equation

[@radgoncan]

@@DawnshieId If you passed elementary school, you should know that his "version" of the periodic table is just a different graphical representation of the periodic table... the "gender" aspect of the table has no scientific base and is utter nonsense. The Flower of Life... NDT aptly put it... its art, not science. I don't know what you think Terrence was trying to say with it, cause it sure didn't make sense. The only thing I found midly plausible are the drones. However, I am fairly certain, that any flight engineer (which there are bound to be thousands around the world) would coin the idea if it was actually more effective than existing tech. Again, if you have elementary education and a sliver of critical thinking, these things should be self-evident. Its one thing keeping an open-mind, and completely another thing throwing our your basic knowledge of how the laws of nature work in favor of believing an appealing idea.

[@gani2an1]

All i can say is terrence is next level genius. Here is a clue to what he is saying. When you say 1 x 1 it is foolishness because you are mixing apples with bananas. If i say i have 2 apples multiplied by 1 the number 1 is not a number. It represents a quantity. That quantity is 2. So a better way to say it is 2 x 2 quants. Now we are not mixing apples and bananas. 2x2q = 4 apples. So in this case a quant Is 2. So when you say 2×2 you really should be saying 2xq. When you say 1x1 you should be saying 1xq. In both these case the value of q depends on what you are multiplying with. We should not be saying 1 x 1. Or 2x3 . That is foolishness. It is 1 times quantity and 2 times 3quantities. You should not introduce another number to the equation. It is 1 x quantity. Because that is equal to 1. But 1x1 =2 because you now have 2 numbers there. Our maths is primitive because it gives you the same answer if you say 1x2 or 2x1 . That makes no sense. You should not get the same answer. There should be one truth. And that one truth is that 2 times quantity is 2 . This represents 2x1 in our backward math. In terrence's math 2x6 is 2 times 3quantities. The quantities will always be 3. In our broken math you can change the quantity to 2 which would require you to change the other number to a 3. Which is not the same thing. 2x3 is not the same as 3x2. Think about it

[@gani2an1]

I can drink 2cups x 365 quantities of water. This means i drink 2 cups everyday for 365 days. making it a total of 730 cups of water. But we our foolish math, 365cups x 2 days is also 730 cups. you try drinking 365 cups of water every day for 2 days and then tell me both equations are the same.

[@farkler4785]

@@gani2an1??? Are you high

[@Jus-Listen]

​@@gani2an1they are the same equation the result is still the same amount of consumption of water, regardless of it being a good or bad idea to do...

[@Jus-Listen]

​@@farkler4785😂

[@Jus-Listen]

In 2x1 and 1x2 think of the left number as an item, and the right as the amount of times you will be given said item. 2x1 = you receive 2 of the item, 1 time. 1x2 = you receive 1 of the ite., 2 times. It is very simple and logical man come on.

[@user-iv4rr6yr6l]

I remember in high school geometry we had to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5. it had something to do with the number line position. is that what he's doing?

[@trustnoone9921]

I think he is a genius in helping to amplify and perpetuate the view that conspiracy theorists are gullible fools. In this context he has succeeded with a little help from JR's limited hangout.

[@violetbirkline1061]

I agree

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@sweetspleen795]

😂 sure all conspiracy are shared between people that think that JFK was assassinated by government agency and flat earth they all belive the same things. Just like religion and they vote for Trump. It's a realy narrow way of thinking you got there.😊

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

This is the exact opposite of truth, are you a CIA agent?

[@trustnoone9921]

@@PuppetMasterdaath144 yes but it's a secret

[@Krillep]

This is what happens when New Age guys - think they found something cool on internet..

[@cellerdoor2954]

😂

[@metastatic746]

Terrence being the New Age guy, and Morgue being the grounded mathematician.

[@kuncklehead9186]

Did you change the name from hyperion to neo-geni?

[@WarrenDay-we9do]

@@kuncklehead9186 to support another distinct batch of contrived deception. Morgue is masonic sock puppet, and has been since his (or her) tellLIEvision debute.

[@P.Subaeruginosa]

Neo means new and genesis is creation. Its simply a book title

[@donnamariefarrell533]

Was hyperion like I think, reading now

[@asssassyn]

Underwater the fish dont stink.

[@TeddyRidal]

Why would they stink if they're not rotting? Smdh

[@euclid47pha]

Bobby's World😂😂😂😂😂

[@asssassyn]

@@euclid47pha 😆 🤣 😂

[@AscendingGuru]

It is a claim about the syntax. If the system was perfect, I should not be ble to write 1x1=1. Because what I am saying is "Hey, I have multiplied!" And he is is right in pointing out that I have not. So the syntax of the math is built on linear 2d graph ideas. So his idea is about 3d expansion, spiraling and bending. Opposed to linear graph representable development, in order to figure out what really goes on, or better calculate, when something in nature is multiplied or expanded in multiplicity. He essentially wants a math adapted for new physics. For example, the area when bacteria multiplies, also would include the area between organisms, so it might be better to just calculate the area between the bacteria, since we allready know they grow exponentially and the average size of their cell, then set up a spatial field of probability of where they might be in a given area. I am thinking: maybe to find electrons, lots of people wanna get on that quantum stuff.

[@macronomicus]

If you only have one "thing" that is still multiplying to complete the graph, you can also multiply by 0, in which case there is no thing, again, thats important to have a full view of the math. If you want to get philosophical about things then do so, but math is clean & straight forward. There are areas we will learn much more & our math will continue to improve, but this 1x1 thing is an absolute joke... literally made to make fun of how ignorant the mAsses are...

[@josephdillon9698]

I’m pretty certain one penny one time equals one penny once. I mean you wouldn’t say one penny twice equals three, or one penny fifty seven times equals fifty eight. If I was writing paychecks and everyone was paid the same and only one person showed up one day I’d just put out one share that day not two. If two showed up I would write one share times two. I mean all these people and no one realized they were getting cheated on their checks? Edit I spoke ahead of the video he summed up what I said

[@user-dw3fe2co7e]

A better example would be why does 2x2 and 2+2 = 4

[@marcusroark9197]

Yes

[@AscendingGuru]

@@josephdillon9698 that only works because you don't have enough dimensions, given the dimension of time, your penny might be worth thousands of pennies as a rare coin or nothing as a coin that has gone out of production. Same might be true for bacteria or other natural phenomena, coins are man made, we crave stability, thus linear math equations are sufficient. On a full time spectrum, your penny goes from being worth a penny, to being a invaluable artifact in a museum, to nothing but eroded dust. Nature is like that mang, it has huge perspectives and plans to develop Embryos into human bodies, my dude. Ordinary Joe Math won't cut it, you need that Hollywood celebrity mathematics, and weed.

[@ghostofarockstar]

lizard overlords is more believable than 1x1=2

[@goulddddable]

The Pentagon is a Reptilian Mind Control Center. It is not a part of the US Government. It is run by Lizard people aliens. That is a fact. 1x1 does not equal 2

[@buythedip5300]

Based on what we were taught… I guess we will see. Certain algorithms won’t work with an improper basic mathematical principle.

[@ShapeZERO]

Lizard overlords are just people who don't use their parasympathetic nervous system and consequently lack mammal attributes of love and compassion. The ANS of the brain is the "lizard brain"

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@tarnis3d]

​@@TheG5Studio But it is 1 group of 1 number

[@GiGiDollTV]

Probably another Psyop like "Flat earth" to test how gullible the general public really is.

[@user-bh3mc6bp6r]

How do you know how the earth is shaped?

[@therealmr.incredible3179]

@@user-bh3mc6bp6rHonestly? It’s simply wayyyy too big a Secret to keep Hidden. You have independent entities and People now that Build Rockets, Spaceships and other ways to take objects to space all out of their Own Pockets and free acting engineers that aren’t sanctioned by Governments or Corporations. Typically these things are also crowdfunded and Highly public….The fact that none of these independent agencies have discovered that the Earth is flat is just a indicator that the Earth isn’t indeed flat. I’m not saying it’s not possible all I am saying is that It’s WAYYY TOO BIG a Secret to keep and It would’ve been found out Ages ago…Even before the Internet. Now what’s more likely is that they are hiding atleast Something about the Earth that’s wayyy easier to control but is provable by the common public if they tried to find out this Hidden Secret.

[@natfailz]

Because. Live cameras.

[@danielthalion]

​@@user-bh3mc6bp6rdo you see the curve? Do you feel it spinning / moving? How does water bend when we base leveling everything off Water bubble levels. Water cant bend , sea is level, the horizon is horizontal. There is no curve. We live in the most deceptive realm. If people aren't thinking for themself they arent really themself / running a program

[@user-bh3mc6bp6r]

The real Psyop is convincing everyone that earth is a planet

[@JanabYD]

Howard's core premise is that the current mathematical systems, while widely accepted, do not accurately represent the fundamental nature of numbers and their relationships. He argues that there is a more profound understanding of mathematics that has been overlooked or suppressed by the mainstream. By challenging the dogma of 1 x 1 = 1, Howard is attempting to open up new avenues of mathematical exploration and discovery. Questioning long-held axioms is often a necessary step in advancing scientific and intellectual progress. Howard's alternative theory presents a novel perspective on the underlying structure of numbers. His diagrams and examples suggest there may be deeper geometric or symbolic relationships between quantities that are not captured by the standard arithmetic operations. While his claims may seem radical, Howard is not the first mathematician or thinker to propose unorthodox ideas that challenge the status quo. Many groundbreaking discoveries in the history of mathematics and physics were initially dismissed before gaining acceptance. Howard's theory, if valid, could open up new frontiers in mathematics and lead to the development of more accurate and insightful models of reality. Even if his specific claims are flawed, the spirit of his work may inspire further inquiries and inspire alternative approaches to fundamental mathematical principles. The scientific community should be open-minded and willing to evaluate unconventional ideas, rather than automatically rejecting them based on preconceived notions. Rigorous, evidence-based debate and experimentation are necessary to determine the merit of Howard's proposals. In summary, while Howard's claims may be controversial and contradictory to established mathematical knowledge, his work represents a thought-provoking challenge to the foundations of the discipline. Exploring such alternative perspectives, even if they are ultimately disproven, can potentially lead to advancements in our understanding of the nature of numbers and their applications.

[@benphillips4081]

Numbers are just symbols fabricated out of thin air by minds less evolved than ours. The semantics behind those symbols were fabricated as well. Even to this day, physicist cannot get the Hilbert zone vectors to fall in line with their equations in regards to quantum physics. Mathematics is useful for creating your little boxes made of tiki taki, and your technology. However it was, is, and always will be false. The semantics behind it were based off of false premise. Mathematics was the brain child of the physicalists and materialists, basically the same thing, thoroughly debunked for years now. However the status quo can't get off the grift tit, and won't admit defeat.

[@Silentnocturnes]

At least someone else understands this fact. If Terrance is wrong then let be proven wrong through experiment. Just like everything else we must first give it a try. You sir gave a very thoughtful and mature explanation

[@TurdBoi-tf5lf]

@@Silentnocturnes it's called burden of proof. Terrence is the one who has to provide evidence because he is the one making claims.

[@Silentnocturnes]

@@TurdBoi-tf5lf well he needs to provide and the other side must give him that chance. If he can’t provide proof then he is a fraud. If he can and they won’t let him then they are hiding something. We have seen how the elites will stop any new advancements from happening. Many people have had smear jobs or outright assassinations done to them bc they had invented or discovered something that would improve our lives or understanding of the world.

[@tetrasphere8165]

OK ChatGPT.

[@florencenicolay7214]

After seing terrence having a dance from Beyoncé and he look on his face, sorry but i take what he has to say as controlled opposition

[@davidjulseth8667]

Agree!!!

[@aqrealestateking]

What dance from beyonce?????

[@AngleNeo]

Was it a dirty dance ?

[@Smoked_5L]

I saw Degrasse Tyson as controlled opposition for a long time and still is an establishment shill. The establishment does not attack its own unless they do something that breaks the rules. Sharing secrets is one of these things. They're not going after Tyson but they're going after Howard.

[@hammersaw3135]

Yes he is made to make anybody who questions the western twisted view of reality as foolish as he is. Can't even understand basic math.

[@JeevelPorse]

I don't generally comment on KZbin, but after reading some of the comments I'm usure how many are trolls and how many are genuine, so I'm compelled to do so. For those that believe Terrance Howard is correct, I would just like to help clarify the misunderstanding here. With the way the world is today, sometimes we can understandably get a little turned around. If 1x1 does indeed equal 2, what is 1x2? By his logic it would seemingly be three, and we know that's not correct. 1 + 2 = 3. The plus (addition) is the required operation to get three. With this misunderstanding, I think the word "multiply" is being associated with always increasing the value. While this is generally true, this is not the case in all instances. Multiplication is the act (operation) of adding groups of like items. For instance, if you have 1 group of 4 apples, you have 4 apples (1x4=4). If you have 2 groups of 4 apples, you have 8 apples (2x4=8). If you have 1 group of 1 apple, you have 1 apple (1x1=1). Just because there's two ones on one side of the equation "1x1=1" doesn't imply that the equation is unbalanced. You need to take into account the operation being used (multiplication vs. addition) within the equation. I hope this helps.

[@brennanferdig6590]

I’m not a fan or morgue. He is a bit far off, but this one he is close to on point more ore less. But he’s missing the spiritual picture. This guy won’t get everything because he’s all about loving Lilith and satan. I’ve seen his videos

[@MerinaGunn-yw4uv]

Worked that way from the Ancients.

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@flashraylaser157]

​@@TheG5StudioTry it out on a calculator.

[@ThePawcios]

@@TheG5Studio Is there any consecuence to it? Does it have any practical applications? Idiocrasy become a real thing...

[@TheG5Studio]

@@ThePawcios without applying this form of mathematics to the "real thing" which is tangible all you'll get in return is number figures in your head as most grade school participants walk around confused with.

[@TheG5Studio]

Did you have your critic filter on when you were applying the logic to the equation of this mathematic design?🤨?

[@andresclavijo119]

With that explanation now it makes sense what Terrance is saying.. 😭😅

[@johnsaltzohuigin6660]

If I am in class, and the teacher says this item is 1x0 and they say 0, can I take the 1 and pretend it didn't exist?

[@Anders01]

I have a guess that Terrence is talking about Aristotelian numbers. According to Aristotle 1 is not a number. A stretch can perhaps be made so that 1 represents any number, and 1 * 1 is undefined, so it can be any number, including 2.

[@MysteryBusters69]

amazing

[@EdwardHaren-zp6re]

He's genius in a paid off way! He's changing history by manipulating with word salad . So they figured how to make b s sound smart. People are stupid. It's how many times did you do 1. It's not an equation. It's times tables.

[@Cheeks63091]

Boom 💥

[@dougmurray3692]

2:55 - You can have a 'group' of one b/c a group is 'more than one'. However if you are thinking of a group as a category context, that would be different. The word 'group' seems pretty basic but this is where the split of logic can occur, especially in grade school. Then you wake up one day, thinking abt it and say, "Wait a second! How can you have a group of only one thing?!" You can't, but it makes you pause, now doesn't it? Now, take that confusion of a "group" with another "group", and being the groups together, in 'making more'. Now, you can't have '1' anymore. "This" group of '1' with "that" group of '1', brings both groups together to form 'both'. And multiplication immediately becomes an excluded operation and must therefore be the context of 'addition'. And this is the connection between 1X1. We are taught in early learning that 'multiplying' means to 'make more'. How can we verify this? Let's go to an old book, called The Bible. "Be fruitful, and multiply." Are we supposed to stay the same in number, or 'make more'? But here, math gets a free pass for its authority - 1X1 MUST be 1, regardless of the fact that other contexts of consideration, which I just pointed out from the Bible, creates the glitch in real life. And why do we let math skate on this issue and then call Terrence "crazy"? Because the 'order of operations' gets to have control over the real world. There is a reason this is being addressed now in history, and why we believe grade school resolves all of it. If it did, why is this not automatically rejected by anybody who completed elementary school to have it be the debate it's become? Because there's something to it. Now, look at the curriculum. One little word like 'group', according to what I'm saying is throwing us for a loop. Imagine what gender studies as a whole has done to the minds of participants. See the world? What are we ignoring?

[@nothingbutfreedom]

This guy is off his rocker. 1 x 1 equals one. Always has, always will.

[@thego-o-dstuff1036]

A×1=A

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@ponaskompetencija]

@@TheG5Studio dude, stop smoking crack

[@K-9Belgianbros]

Seems odd the way in which you attacked this one. Almost like you were told too. Howard is not going to be right about everything. But you just showed your agenda I believe.

[@TheLYPHrPodcast]

In mathematics, the identity property for multiplication states that when you multiply any number by 1, the result is the original number unchanged. This is a fundamental property that applies in the abstract world of numbers and arithmetic. However, when we try to apply this concept to physical objects or real-world scenarios, such as multiplying your body by your brother's body, it doesn't make sense because multiplication in mathematics and the physical world are fundamentally different concepts. Terrence Howard was right!!! In the physical world, multiplying two physical objects like bodies doesn't result in a combined single body. Instead, you have two separate bodies. Physical objects don't interact or combine in the same way that numbers do in mathematical operations. When you use a calculator or perform mathematical operations, the rules and properties of mathematics apply within that abstract system. The identity property for multiplication is a mathematical concept that helps define the behavior of numbers in arithmetic operations. It doesn't necessarily translate directly to physical objects or real-world scenarios. So, while the identity property holds true in the realm of mathematics for \(1 \times 1 = 1\), it doesn't directly apply to the physical world or real-life scenarios involving physical objects like bodies……… Universal God!!! It is correct to say that the concept of multiplication in mathematics, as implemented in computer calculations, does not always align perfectly with real-world physical scenarios involving multiplication of physical objects or entities like bodies. In the realm of mathematics and computer calculations, multiplication follows strict rules and properties, such as the identity property, that are defined within the context of abstract mathematical operations. These rules ensure consistency and accuracy in mathematical calculations but may not always directly correspond to how multiplication works in the physical universe. When dealing with physical objects or real-world scenarios, multiplication operates differently than it does in mathematics. Physical multiplication is not a direct translation of mathematical multiplication; it involves combining or replicating physical entities, which may not follow the same rules and properties as mathematical operations. Therefore, while computer multiplication aligns with mathematical principles for arithmetic operations, it may not always accurately represent or reflect the complexities and nuances of physical multiplication in the universe. It's essential to recognize the distinction between mathematical operations, computer calculations, and real-world applications to understand how these concepts interact and differ in various contexts

[@TecNickelSwag]

Anyone saying that Terrence Howard literally meant 1 * 1 equals 2 is being disingenuous at this point. He literally addressed it on video

[@Zenoandturtle]

Multiplication is indeed addition multiple times and in fact this is reflected in integrated circuit design. Logic citcuit uses binary half adder + carry (full adder) that in turn functions as a multiplier by virtue of performing a series of multiple additions or multiple subtractions (division); There is no ‘multiplier’ in logic circuits apart from memory storage and full-adders.

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@timothycarnagie750]

@@TheG5Studio exactly. The long hair guy shot himself in the foot when he used two groups of 1 and equaled it 1. 1 group multiplied by another 1 group can’t be one in reality. That’s two groups. People don’t ask how December gotten from Decagon happens to be the 12th month. Same with October (Octagon).

[@flashraylaser157]

​I'm going to make an assumption that you know 2 times 3 is 6 and that you know 3 times 4 is 12. You'll understand when you use coins. Take two (the first number) pennies and clutch them in your hand, get a feel of them, and place them in a jar. Do this three (the second number) times. Count the pennies in the jar. 6. Now take 3 (first number) pennies in your hand, feel them, and place them in an empty jar. Do this 4 (second number) times. Count the pennies. 12. So let's do 1 times 1. Take 1 (first number) penny in your hand, feel it, and place it in a jar. Do this 1 (second number) single time. How many pennies are in the jar? It's one.

[@TheG5Studio]

@@flashraylaser157 The beginning of the magicians trick. Placing a penny in a jar 1 time and only 1 penny ends up in the jar is the multiplication table of 1 x 0 = 1... Which is the same result as 1 + 0 = 1

[@flashraylaser157]

@@TheG5Studio 1x0=0 1x1=1 1x2=2 These are hard, incontrovertible facts.

[@Ruwazad]

You were doing well, until you said, at about 2:55-3:00, that you can have ONE GROUP OF ONE APPLE……..One apple cannot be part of a GROUP of apples. Ergo, Sum. And that’s where all y’all still cannot convince us, yet, that Terrence Howards is off his rocker. Alternatively, let us give the word MULTIPLICATION (implying, more than the original), a new Name….

[@foxsotired3038]

You can give it any name you want. An operator can be any defined function you want. You can invent your own. Tetration for example. We have decided on 4 elementary operators because they are used everywhere. Multiplication is defined a simplified addition or scaling because you find yourself needing to simplify long additions or scaling a number often. If you want to invent a new operator feel free. In your paper you just write out that you are using some symbol to represent an operator defined as etc and you can now use it wherever.

[@hopemokaya]

One stick: | Two sticks: | | Three sticks: | | | One stick, one time: | One stick, two times: | | One stick, three times: | | | 1×1: One stick one time... is One stick once. One instance of 1 thing. 1×2: One stick two times ... is One stick twice. Two instances of 1 thing. 1×3: One stick three times... is One stick thrice. Three instances of 1 thing. Now we swap the words to match as they're displayed in symbol. "1×1 pronounced 1 times 1" ... "is a swap of 1, 1 times... I don't have to write 1,1×" One stick, times one: | One stick, times two: | | One stick, times three: | | | Or: One stick, only once: | One stick, only twice: | | One stick, only thrice: | | | And lastly: One stick, once: | One stick, twice: | | One stick, thrice: | | |

[@heartofthunder1440]

Actually the 1 times 1 should equal 2, because times is doubling it self by the number, there should be an exception for 2 through the rest of the numbers.

[@timebandit7119]

Incorrect. 1x1 is just a simpler way of saying "I have one one." 2x4 would be the same as saying "I have two fours, or four twos."

[@heartofthunder1440]

@@timebandit7119 all depends what your perspective is. Just who came up with idea of multiplication anyway? Who founded it, who invented it, reckon they went through the same process of trying to come up with these equations and answers too?

[@flashraylaser157]

​@@heartofthunder1440 Math wasn't invented but discovered, like electricity. We came up with the symbols to represent discovered things, and counting in base-10 is a choice, but math exists with or without us.

[@heartofthunder1440]

@@flashraylaser157 let’s just say math wasn’t invented, but noticed. Then someone had to find a way to teach it correctly, probably got fumbled upon while adding and subtracting numbers, oh wait but if I had two, 2s it would be 4, and that’s how it happened. Of course you really can’t have multiplication without having division either.

[@heartofthunder1440]

@@timebandit7119 yet 2 ✖️2 = 4 why ? Because it’s 4, 2 times 4 is 8. If 1 times 1 is one, shouldn’t 2 times 2 be 2 and so on.

[@dontalib2341]

Believe it or not, I questioned this 1×1=1 a long time ago. However, I've questioned these systems of learning for years and thought that I was the smartest guy in the room. After a while, you will see that you (in the case meaning myself) are not the smartest guy in the room and in a lot of cases, you'll see that many details have escaped your attention. I understand what Terrence Howard is trying to say. He's locked into a definition or functionary view of "multiple" vs "times" vs "equals." If we say 1 times 1 =1. You are saying we have 1, one time. Which is how common mathematicians see it. However, Terrence Howard's logic is... If by function of the term multiple, when you say 1 multiplied by 1, by function (by his logic to make more) the number should increase and by function the equal sign (=)makes 1×1=2. Again that's the logic in which Terrence Howard is proposing. However, these PH.D'ed professors or educators are giving Terrence Howard's logic and findings the business. My personal view is that Terrence Howard is at best sparking persons from near and far, young and old to revisit the realms of mathematics, which is a wonderful thing. And he doesn't want his many years of work and efforts to be in vain. And perhaps he wants some return on his investment. This is the Dunning-Krugger effect in bright lights. I had my moment. He's perhaps having his. I think that he's well read and knowledgeable. Again, how often have we read a book and didn't fully understand all that we read?

[@bonnarlunda]

I believe we need some kind of double vision and non-dual approach to be able to grasp the extent of this discussion. How many times in history has humans laughed at some poor sod, even hanging or burning them alive for saying stupid things? And a few hundred years down the line "everybody" knows they were actually right. So I would like to apply some modesty and say that my understanding of math (which is quite limited) makes me repeat the information I was programmed to accept, which means that within the limits of the current worldview and understanding, 1x1 actually equals 1. That may depend on the interpretation and value of the language, as we also know from history and research, that lack of words or unclear/erronous definition of words, may cause impaired thinking. We can't know what we would think if we had different words to describe things with, because we don't know that. Thus we are caught in the limitations of our current language, that still makes me come to the conclusion, given the accepted meaning of words, that 1x1=1. But I also love individuals who dare tread beyond the accepted limits of our collective reality. They might be bonkers and wrong, but they do stretch the limits of possible thinking. Since a lot of years I've been saying that we shouldn't be afraid of really bad ideas (as long as they do not entail violence and oppression). To be able to think new thoughts, your mind needs some manure so that things below the surface will start growing.

[@purplehaze2342]

He can provide zero evidence to back up his backward claims, and you talk so much waffle it makes your channel very uninteresting

[@svens3722]

the vibration element thing can you find in alchemy aswell. the seperation with elements can you test by yourself.

[@foxsotired3038]

@@svens3722 But can be better explained with modern chemical knowledge. Even before our understanding of quantum chemistry advanced, the periodicity of elements can be better illustrated using a standard Mendeleevian periodic table. Many non-existent elements were predicted with russel's table.

[@svens3722]

@@foxsotired3038 thanks for giving me that name. im currently tryin to understand walters table. idk why people whining here so much. its just information. what you do with it, its your thing. and mainstream science stuck like in 1900 (for a reason ofc). imagine watching jr because mainstream sucks and then hating presented other information.

[@foxsotired3038]

@@svens3722 Feel free to waste your time with outdated ideas but the Table has already been analysed to death and found wanting. The only slight credit I can give it is that he did leave a gap for technetium which was artificially created 30 years later or so but again, Mendeleev did it first.

[@svens3722]

@@foxsotired3038 and whats the new ideas currently which are official? im curious. and could you exactly name, whats wrong with walters table? are the frequences incorrect on a certain place or something? i just try to understand. from my understanding and after frequently asking chatgpt what is the problem with walters table, its just says that his including the metaphysical world and phylosophical sights are wrong. and ofc you cant prove methaphysical things. i would love to know, one certain thing which is wrong. its basicly the same table just with frequncies or not? sorry for my dogshit english.

[@TheG5Studio]

Lets finalize this once and for all, Whenever the = symbol that is used following numbers that require mathematical equation. Keep in mind that all 10 numbers from 0 - 9 are multiple group numbers, which also includes multiple group 1. The = symbol represents a scale. On the left side of the scale represents the group number or numbers in their full quantity, coming into balance with the number or numbers on the right side of the = symbol. Addition is commonly used on a store register. which is different than the keys on the common calculator, you will see the total key is applied. The register is commonly used as a tool for adding group numbers or priced items, giving you the TOTAL of quantity of numbers that add up to a higher quantity number or numbers. Multiplication keys are rarely see on Registers, if they are applied or used, they are used for multiplying the same group Items for purchase of sale. Subtraction - is the reverse method of registering the quantity of a price or items that results in a minus TOTAL of numbers or items.

[@joefuentes2977]

You can do 1 × 1 = 2 but you end up with an algebraic structure that's not very useful. It's abstract algebra.

[@AAZZCH]

I had a friend years ago and she was studying mathemathics on high level. She also told me that 2x2 was actually 5. So thats that.

[@yoshim7991]

Some people loose their minds looking for answers to questions they already think they know the answer to. They have a bias going in so when they get the wrong answer but it confirms their theory they think they've got the right answer

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@eliebouzeid7062]

so 2x2 is equivalent to adding 2 to itself 2 times meaning that 2x2 = 2+2. So your friend is also saying that 2+2 = 5. What kind of math did she study? Bulshitmatics?

[@aquili1]

80 iq

[@OldQueen]

Your friend is an idiot then

[@303machine]

How to Teach Math to Black Students. By the way, some things you can't explain logicallly. This does not mean that Terrence Howar approach is logical and with common sense.

[@Mysticalturkey]

So said two years ago you practice Hyperianism now you're neogenion? What's the difference?

[@sekemas]

I think this guy is very confused, even from the way he talks. I could actually defend that 1x1=2, but I'm still waiting to see which realm Terrence Howard visited. 😉

[@sekemas]

I think this guy is very confused, even from the way he talks. I could actually defend that 1x1=2, but I'm still waiting to see which realm Terrence Howard visited. 😉

[@sekemas]

I think this guy is very confused, even from the way he talks. I could actually defend that 1x1=2, but I'm still waiting to see which realm Terrence Howard visited. 😉

[@sekemas]

I think this guy is very confused, even from the way he talks. I could actually defend that 1x1=2, but I'm still waiting to see which realm Terrence Howard visited. 😉

[@sekemas]

@MorgueOfficial___2 😉

[@stacyrosa6672]

I thought for a hot second that Morgue was going to concur with Howard's hypothesis. I had a moment of anxiety. I am so relieved that I was just taking this nonsense seriously. Love you, Morgue!

[@lalahaha5313]

The fact that Terrance has received so much backlash tells me he has hit a nerve. I might not believe every word he says but I like most of it.

[@johndias5160]

Let's agree to disagree and let's see what Terrence Howard's new patterns are able to do as far as flight and see if we are taken another direction

[@farkler4785]

They’ll go literally nowhere because they’re nonsense

[@MysteryBusters69]

@@farkler4785 dont speak too soon.

[@farkler4785]

@@MysteryBusters69 they’re probably false, this isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s facts based on the fundamental truths of the universe

[@spiritualsoul387]

The universe is constantly changing fundamentally we just cant fully percieve it but it even changes things never expected to have been able to be changed.​@farkler4785

[@MouseleyMarshals-fm5vr]

@@farkler4785 uuuuhm ..you are wrong coz his flower of life surprisingly works..I have models and am glad to share how sound produced electrical energy from his theories, through the experiments I tried..so YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR EGO AND TRY TO LEARN..He may have missed how to properly present himself but it works..If it works it cant be wrong..science is all about replication..if an experiment can be replicated it aint wrong..share me your email am glad to share video evidence of what am saying

[@Micheal313]

A lot of other people and groups are doing what Howard is doing too. They try to force an equilibrium.

[@Micheal313]

People love diversity so much that they want it to be ubiquitous.

[@Pisceanripple]

In multiplication the first number Is the number being multiplied and the second number is the amount of times it's multiplied.

[@yoshim7991]

You conjugate verbs. Not waves.

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@macronomicus]

See 'Phase Conjugation'... not only applicable to light but also many other things...

[@dnmousin1653]

He is expanding the alternative fact.

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@joshmason3692]

The whole 1x1=2 aside, I think I actually saw my brain from how hard I rolled my eyes when I head Annunaki.

[@jang900]

Who and why invented rules for mathematics? I think he is actually saying , that we have been lied to , maby on purpose, to hold our technological evolution back. What if our foundations are all out off whack

[@aaronthepsychonaut5771]

Or to challenge ourselves

[@alive2583]

I don’t see him being wrong I just don’t think people understand him cause they are fools to the message.

[@ThePawcios]

Flat Earthers say the same :P

[@halloweenmom]

Look here, all you thought criminals: 2+2=5!

[@joebloggs5436]

Actually that can be correct depending upon the higher values of 5.

[@halloweenmom]

@@joebloggs5436Let’s keep it in context.

[@tedgriffin8459]

I thought 5! = 15

[@halloweenmom]

@@tedgriffin8459 😂😂

[@ShapeZERO]

The answer is always eleventeen

[@robertedward7023]

I just wanted to say that asking people to like your video now before it even starts is like asking someone to give your movie a great review before watching it.

[@jaeljade3609]

He did admit in that same interview that he understood that 1 1x is 1. It's not like I understand his whole logic, but I think he knows what you are saying, but he means something else. I guess if you are going to play clips, then you should be fair and play that he said that as well.

[@UniversalistSon9]

Why can’t he just be bad at math, I know I am and that’s ok. He’s an actor, not a mathematician.

[@joebloggs5436]

True. But... Have you written a paper that explains just how bad at math you are? Because Terry has. To be honest I actually really like his idea about suns spitting out planets. Kinda like a cellular exosome. Unfortunately I think people are more likely to focus on his poor math. Which he is wrong about. Years ago, when I went to school, another word for 'times' was 'of'. 1 of 1 is 1.

[@Michael-gp3vl]

1x1 represents 1 one time. There are not two ones. Terrence belongs in a rubber room.

[@JamesWillis-yy5px]

Honestly, 1x1 = invalid multiplication. There is not multiply in this equation.

[@DawnshieId]

You're just a mean-spirited cruel person.

[@farkler4785]

@@JamesWillis-yy5px ??? 1x1 is completely valid

[@tetrasphere8165]

Nor should there be. That's how it works. 1x1 is simply there to explain how multiplication works. 1 of 1. End of story​@@JamesWillis-yy5px

[@GreatestOneEver]

@@JamesWillis-yy5px Take your meds

[@afreakhanh]

wait a sec... 2x5 means a group of things multiplied by a number, in this case by 2, so that we could say something like, a group of 5 apples multiplied by 2 equals 10 apples. 2x5=10 But something is missing. Where is the mention of the group gone now? We should have said something like: ,,A group of 5 apples multiplied by 2 equals a group of 10 apples." Maybe that could be written like this: 2x[5]=[10] why? because 2x5 = 2x5 and 2x[5] = 2x[5] or 2x[5] = [10] but 2x5 =/= 10

[@neuraaquaria]

Most of the time what Morgue says is heretical, but this video distinguishing metaphor vs literalism and the flaws of new age spirituality is really well articulated.

[@GeorgeNeofotistos]

Like the lies of the devil tiny nugget of truth enough to mislead you the entirely and by the way if you're looking for truth from Crowley you're looking in the wrong place

[@------YeahOK------]

1 wad of chewing gum + 1 wad of chewing gum (1+1 =1) 😂

[@vicky-ed3nc]

1x1=2 is a classic war between left brain and right brain. Those in the middle just know everything is true and untrue at the same time.

[@monbeauparfum1452]

Valid

[@lukejiang3227]

Time for ur schizo meds

[@mummra7]

terrence howard..."hey, woooo....our contract calls for me to be paid 2 MILLION dollars for my last role." producers: "uh yeah.....we used your math, how's it workin' for ya?"

[@FromInsideTheHologram]

whats up with your free masonic symbols on your thumbnails... the one eye and the vow of silence?

[@TeddyRidal]

He's a Freemason, like Neil deGrasse Tyson is, and an assigned shill for counter intelligence. He is not allowed to admit it, but he is.

[@MysteryBusters69]

question everything. goodjob.

[@SFDestiny]

I wish you had discussed the psychological value of Howard's claim, the grandiosity. But perhaps bringing this into awareness is at odds with certain goals? 🤭

[@JesperHellvik]

If you can believe it, Joe Rogan also had Billy Carson on the podcast - and that guy is even crazier than Howard.

[@imllendream]

Duality and Trinity is something that people are obsessed with for many centuries. They emphasize these through mathematics, scientific, and spiritual concepts and proceed to adapt them as if they're real and ultimate. However, this is really not the case at all. - Humanity is obsessed in duality in most things because this is something that's naturally within our grasp and control - to manipulate, be creative, and build things. It is called 2D. Anything singular and or dual dimension is within our power to see, control, manipulate, and produce some other things. - as for the Trinity, that is simply where we are at a level of dimension. But being in this level of dimension, there's not much we can see, control, and manipulate. There's only in fact and even at this present age, only a tiny fraction that Humanity has accomplished... We are in 3D or a third level of dimension. Therefore we look up at the Trinity as the ultimate power - the alpha and Omega. But this is actually the result of our failure to understan, grasp, and take full control. Elite scientific communities nowadays have confirmed that there are indeed a total of 11 dimensions this universe has which actually made up its entire structure. In fact, with just a single level dimension that goes missing, the entire universe would collapse.

[@kurtpoulsen95]

The earth is actually flat in present. (On surface of earth). And the earth is also a sphere in future. (From space). Reason is time is relative.

[@xBellevueBallerZx]

your activation code has been sent in the mail

[@ponaskompetencija]

Damn, I guess no point for me to go to high places and stare at the ocean and see horizon curve. Darn it man. How dare you

[@cellerdoor2954]

This was cherry picked watch horwards whole video.

[@gabrielwong9063]

Cherry picked? His whole 36 page thesis was as insane and idiotic as a monkey on a type writer.

[@bennyacosta1560]

Saying one times one is not the same as saying one multiplied by one. The number one one time is just what it is. But if you have the number one And you wish to multiply that one by another one then the answer must needs be two. Also I found it curious that when I use the calculator to calculate the square root of 2, I did not get one. What I got was a number that was ever so slightly more than one. I should have been able to take that answer and multiply it by itself and gotten the number two because that's how that is supposed to work. Instead what I got back was a number that was ever so slightly more than two. In the world of mathematics such a deviation means something. There is something to this.

[@fredflintstone8048]

Terry wants to name his new math after himself. He also claims to have lots of patents. He in fact filed for patents but none have been awarded. Maybe his fame in acting has gone to his head breaking something up there.

[@allenchristensen4958]

If my life was based on logic and reason, I'd be dead. Whether you want to see it or not, logic and reason are systems of control. They are parameters that keep you from following your heart. If you ever hope to fly out of the nest little birds, you have to believe you can fly.

[@pspspspssspspps]

you're such a failure

[@Jcs57]

So you could say following a muscle inside your chest is the logical thing to do. I know a tall building to test your hypothesis out on little birdie. Logic is the tool that tells you believing you can fly isn’t the same as being able to fly and if you what to be illogical because logic is a constraint by all means birdie flap those arms! 😂 Oh and a side note it’s never been demonstrated that the heart muscle can make directional decisions or motor commands for movement.

[@Jcs57]

Oh yeah how did you _reason_ yourself into these conclusions without using reason. 🙄

[@allenchristensen4958]

First off, if your first instinct is to be condescending to someone who challenges what you believe, it tells me you're not ready for the truth. Secondly, the heart actually has more neurons than the brain, and so does the stomach. Third. I'm speaking of my heart chakra, not my physical heart. The ascended master known as Jesus tells us that the truth is written in your heart, and that is the truth. If you spent any time in meditation, you will become aware of this truth. You can believe whatever you want, and I'll wave as I fly way above your head. I'm a high level mystic, I've met the real Jesus, Metatron, Gabriel, and more. You will never meet them, why? Because in the world you've created for yourself, angels don't logically exist. The way to heaven is following your heart.

[@pspspspssspspps]

@@allenchristensen4958 i'm sure your stomach has more neurons than your brain

[@Grayraven777]

What about when you multiply one person by one imaginary friend? Then you would have two persons; one real and one imaginary.

[@pspspspssspspps]

that's the sum

[@Grayraven777]

@@pspspspssspspps the Sum god

[@DonaldMiller-zr2kn]

one boy meets one girl, they multiply. you think they multiplied into one? or do they have a child?

[@DonaldMiller-zr2kn]

free your mind

[@pspspspssspspps]

@@DonaldMiller-zr2kn you're the dumbest person alive, "they multiplied" does not mean "to have the result, you gave to multiply them (which makes no sense)", it is a methaphore than conveys the fact that multiplication can yield big numbers with little starting ones (10×10=100)

[@DonaldMiller-zr2kn]

you missed the very definition of the word multiply to increase in number,no?

[@foxsotired3038]

That is not the definition of multiply. Literally just Google it or watch a khan academy video. Or do this calculation 1 * 0.5 = 0.5. quite obviously this is correct but you are not getting a larger number. You might notice that when you multiply a number before 1 you get an answer below 2 but if you multiply by a number after 1 you get a number above 1. Shouldn't there be some point at which the answer must equal 1?

[@Mihaylovich]

So I did 1 series of 2 reps in bench press. So I did 3 reps?

[@jdomsmagabilin7319]

Those brilliant minds in the past are considered crazy and now were regarded as genius and correct. Let's see this equation after decades..

[@brooklynnoxford]

“With an open mind but not so open that our brain falls out” SNAPS 🫰🏽🫰🏽

[@Loricstone]

People get confused with the 1×1 equals one because they think of it as groups. The problem is one by itself does not equal a group. It is a singular or singularity. If you were saying, take three groups of this one apple it really doesn’t compute when you say it like that, but when you say take one apple and multiply it by itself three times now it makes sense. so if you’re saying the same thing for one time itself, it doesn’t make sense. A definition is 2 or more. This thought process is no difference than religion. I always say tradition is the worst word in human language because to me it says I’m stuck in my ways because I was TOLD or taught to do it a certain way. We need to change how we think. Look up the definition of group in Merriman-Webster dictionary.

[@Keymoney11]

Maybe I’m understanding different but what I think he’s saying our way of operating 1x1 is fundamentally wrong. 1x1 does = 1 but maybe his way of doing math is completely different than our system. I prob make no sense but I’m trying to be open minded

[@BRUSEMISSIONTRAVEL]

Terrace Howard is talking about the sacred geometry to the fibonacci spiral & yall know it. You just want to make him sound crazy.

[@soyouthink__you_can_dance]

Today people call him crazy later on they will say he was right all along...

[@pspspspssspspps]

1×1=2😂

[@pspspspssspspps]

​@@soyouthink__you_can_danceyou know nothing about anything, make us a favour and study something

[@ReneeJayTheWriter]

@@soyouthink__you_can_dancehe will never be right about the things he is absolutely wrong about. 1 x 1 will never equal 2.

[@zayzillions7319]

@@ReneeJayTheWriterhow so if 2x4=8(because your adding 2 four times)1x1 would equal 2 because your adding 1 to another 1 one time making it 2.

[@simeonmcknight6121]

Yup he’s right and all these so called astrophysicists and scientists are all upset because he found out also that the universe doesn’t have a straight lines that it has curves and last but not least 1x1 =2 if you think about it how could 1x1= I’m 45 and it never made sense to me!!!🤔

[@sonofshaitan]

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it false... do you understand nuclear physics, brain chemistry, electrical engineering, space travel, wormholes... etc etc... I don't - but I'm not about to argue with those that do without some deep level of understanding of this myself. This video is only about the 1x1 topic; Morgue is not talking about any other concept than that. These "so called" astrophysicists and scientists ARE astrophysicists and scientists... lol

[@flashraylaser157]

This will make perfect sense to you when you use actual objects instead of abstract ideas in your head. I can teach you in a super intuitive and hands-on way with pennies, coins, jellybeans, or some other item. Now I'll show some variables but I promise it's not hard. A times B equals C. Let's apply that to 2 times 3 is 6. Start with a full jar and an empty jar. Get two coins from the first jar and hold them in your hand. That's A, 2 in this case. B is how many times I want you to get amount A out of the first jar and place it in the second jar. So B is 3 here. Take 2 coins from the first jar and place them in the second jar, 3 times. Now count the coins in the second jar and that's C, 6 in this case. Repeat this with 2 times 4 and you'll have 8. Because 4 times you will place 2 coins in the empty jar. 3 times 5 is 15, and naturally if you place 3 coins in 5 times, you'll count 15 at the end. Now think about 1 times 1. So using the same process, that means I'm asking you to take one coin from the first jar, just one time, and put it in the second jar. How many coins are now in the second jar? 1.

[@azazelsgoat]

Let's maintain an open mind, but not so open that our brain falls out. 😂

[@SportsSpy_Media-mr1do]

Terrence has a problem with English comprehension "Multiplication" has many meanings just like the word " run" , "chill" etc and are all based on context. In the case of the word " run" ,if I put hair dye and I stood in the sun for a while and the dye starts to run. Is it jogging, sprinting,? Or is it just flowing down due to it melting and the pull of gravity.? Or if I'm in a conversation and I start ranting, and people say I was only running my mouth. Does that mean my mouth took of down the side walk for am evening jog? No it's all based on context. Multiply for the context mathematics means result of product.

[@mandziar2]

What about 1x0 = 0 ??? when You have something multiplied by nothing and it dissapeared and You got nothing left , that was interesting part for me :D

[@macronomicus]

1x0 is the same as saying there is no 1 at all... one number represents the actual things, the other number represents how many groups of those things there are. if you have NO groups of the thing, well.... thats.... ZERO....

[@lucidlife934]

1 zero times is zero. You all fail kindergarten math.

[@mandziar2]

@@macronomicus yes so You can apply this to math abstract construct with its rules but if You apply this for real thing like You put something in place of (1) for example one apple and You multiply it by nothing , it can't just dissapear , so its going by little different rule

[@NewaccountNumber]

​@@mandziar2I perfectly understood your comment, it is impossible to destroy energy, so something × by nothing will always equal something

[@roberthawthorne8396]

I have spoken with Terrance's colleagues Chris Sellye and David Johnson about this issue and what I got from it is this. Take for example a cartesian plane with an x and y axis. Now move one unit along the x axis and another vector along the y axis and connect them resulting in one square. Basically one has multiplied the two vectors (x•y) or length times width right? The result is 1 square but two vectors were multiplied 1•1=2. I know it's mind numbing but that was my best take from it. 🤷 The reason why I engaged in the talk was that this principle was supposedly applied to the flying model Terrance showed in the Rogan video. I have seen this prototype in actual flight and it's like no other flying machine I have ever seen and I was in the US Navy in the aviation field. This prototype can rotate left/right, clockwise/ counterclockwise, AND forward/backward All WHILE HOVERING!!! 😮 That blew my mind and I wanted to find out how the math applied to this method of flight and maneuverability. Well the prototype files and I still don't understand how that math is applied but somehow it works which I think is very cool.

[@morgueofficial]

Multiplying two vectors can result in either a scalar or a new vector, depending on the type of multiplication used (dot product or cross product.) Vectors have both magnitude and direction, so multiplying them is not the same as multiplying two numbers.

[@roberthawthorne8396]

@@morgueofficial I agree but that the best way I could explain it seeing as the prototype files and the equation was supposedly used in the mechanics. I still don't see how it applies, just sharing my experience with the issue. All in all it is a trip to watch that prototype fly.

[@bonnarlunda]

I'm not good at maths, and this whole conversation makes my head hurt, BUT... Science don't evolve if we stick to old beliefs, defending them like religion. For those who dare take Terrence's ideas into consideration and think deeply about them before dismissing them as bonkers within the current system and understanding, will have done good groundwork. There's a tremendous difference between "I know this because my teacher told me so" and "I know this because I've tested the idea and were able to dismiss all other suggested solutions as false". That is in essence, the difference between religion and science.

[@angeloflight1199]

Complementing the idea around Crowley, I do think he said that 0 equals 2 because the number 0 stays right in the middle of an "infinite numeric line" dividing it in two parts (negative and positive)

[@MrMarcocain]

Please never speak of him again as we all lose IQ

[@TheG5Studio]

" Multiplication will always result to how many multiple groups you arrive with.... number 1 is a multiple number in itself... So, 1 x 1 will always = 2 groups of the number 1"

[@redmed10]

He himself admitted its a metaphor when eventually pushed on it.

[@twinflame7411]

It's because of the word multiply and times is totally different. If you multiply one thing, now you got two. If you have one of one thing is one.

[@guidedmeditation2396]

Terrence Howard is a genius so I have to keep an open mind. However 1 big mac times 1 price of $3.50 is $3.50. Truly I am keeping an open mind but It is useful to know that one time one is different than one time two. Think about it. If one times one is two. Then what is one time two? The very same?

[@morgueofficial]

He believes 1 x 2 = 3. Which is, of course, incorrect.

[@roberthawthorne8396]

@@morgueofficial I wonder what 1 cubed would equal. I hope his answer isn't three. I have run this by Chris Sellye and it wasn't discussed with Terrance so who knows but Terrance. 🤷

[@foxsotired3038]

He is not a genius. Or at least there is no evidence he is a genius.

[@roberthawthorne8396]

@@foxsotired3038 there is evidence. If one designs an aircraft unlike any other on the planet which can rotate 360 degrees (roll, pitch, or yaw)... that's genius. How the math is involved, or if the math even applies, or if the math is being explained completely wrong is a different story. The lynchpin drone and its maneuverability will change aeronautics forever!

[@foxsotired3038]

@@roberthawthorne8396 I still don't understand what the point of the lynchpin drone is. You can do 3d movement with less rotors and less weight by simply using adjustable rotors. This is how you get your stable drones with 4 rotors. The drone also ha motors pointing into eachother reducing efficiency. He also only designed the rotor which is where all the issues are. The engineering and software was done by others and are actually quite nice.

[@ea22an]

Terrence Howard knows something you don't know.

[@achebwahs1111]

No one knows all, but Terrence spoke more than just times tables and thought manifestation. It is what's been ignored in this video that should have been the focus of your intellect. A missed opportunity, but perhaps a lesson in waiting

[@user-zp2lc6yo8m]

No sir he has an opinion and feelings about it but 1×1=1 is a definition of and so fact

[@solinjrgensen2540]

Terrance Howard doesn't know what it means to know anything

[@RjReactionZone]

​@achebwahs1111 that guy is a loonie more like Howard the duck

[@martymartinez737]

No! He doesn't know anything!!!!

[@JPColter]

The problem is that Terrance wants to multiply apples with bottles of water . Then wants to give colours to music notes . Everything he says can make sense if he doesn't mix it up ... And his ego its his worst enemy .

[@planetanimal7890]

i got 1 orange in my left hand, multiply it by 1 orange in my right hand..how many oranges do i have😂

[@ac12484]

You guys all need to go to school again ;)

[@TheLYPHrPodcast]

In mathematics, the identity property for multiplication states that when you multiply any number by 1, the result is the original number unchanged. This is a fundamental property that applies in the abstract world of numbers and arithmetic. However, when we try to apply this concept to physical objects or real-world scenarios, such as multiplying your body by your brother's body, it doesn't make sense because multiplication in mathematics and the physical world are fundamentally different concepts. Terrence Howard was right!!! In the physical world, multiplying two physical objects like bodies doesn't result in a combined single body. Instead, you have two separate bodies. Physical objects don't interact or combine in the same way that numbers do in mathematical operations. When you use a calculator or perform mathematical operations, the rules and properties of mathematics apply within that abstract system. The identity property for multiplication is a mathematical concept that helps define the behavior of numbers in arithmetic operations. It doesn't necessarily translate directly to physical objects or real-world scenarios. So, while the identity property holds true in the realm of mathematics for \(1 \times 1 = 1\), it doesn't directly apply to the physical world or real-life scenarios involving physical objects like bodies……… Universal God!!! It is correct to say that the concept of multiplication in mathematics, as implemented in computer calculations, does not always align perfectly with real-world physical scenarios involving multiplication of physical objects or entities like bodies. In the realm of mathematics and computer calculations, multiplication follows strict rules and properties, such as the identity property, that are defined within the context of abstract mathematical operations. These rules ensure consistency and accuracy in mathematical calculations but may not always directly correspond to how multiplication works in the physical universe. When dealing with physical objects or real-world scenarios, multiplication operates differently than it does in mathematics. Physical multiplication is not a direct translation of mathematical multiplication; it involves combining or replicating physical entities, which may not follow the same rules and properties as mathematical operations. Therefore, while computer multiplication aligns with mathematical principles for arithmetic operations, it may not always accurately represent or reflect the complexities and nuances of physical multiplication in the universe. It's essential to recognize the distinction between mathematical operations, computer calculations, and real-world applications to understand how these concepts interact and differ in various contexts

[@pompano3ve]

Man × woman = many /man × man = nothing /woman × woman =nothing