My Apology: Terrence Howard

[@DrBrianKeating]

📰 Want to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage, and avoid media bias? Go to www.ground.news/drbrian and sign up through my link for 40% OFF unlimited access!

[@TCTC-zu6mh]

He didn’t know that there is something called intertia potential energy or kinetic energy lol, I mean seriously the sad fact if he took a basic math test he would be less than proficient, even if you disagree with the math at least prove you understand the concept and how to do it, but he doesn’t so…..we’re going to waste time with this? You have to be pretty stupid to make video after video about someone who can’t even pass the asvab lol.

[@TCTC-zu6mh]

Also we’re.Now understanding propulsion systems that don’t work off action and reaction like he says how everything in the universe works like this also not true…

[@TCTC-zu6mh]

And lastly he claims gravity is electromagnetism, LOL, our solar system literally is held together by the gravity of the milky way we don’t just revolve around the sun our solar system rotates and is held together by the Milky Way. Not just the Sun. But I’m sure that goes overs someone head who thinks 1times1=2 lol.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

You can replace ether with dark matter and dark energy it is exactly the same thing they create a dark matter and dark energy for the aether problem... You know what you don't hear people talking about is the dielectric. There are no electromagnetic waves magnetism is a toroid with opposite spinning vortices... This is proven with the replicable experiments of Ken wheeler and his CRT TV experiment on his KZbin channel...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Actually as Ken wheeler points out the South Pole is higher energy... This is how birds navigate looking at the "electromagnetic field" of earth... This is their compass... There are approvable experiments again by Ken wheeler showing that the North Pole is red shifted in energy State and the South Pole is more ultraviolet in spectrum... Again I can point you to the exact videos for the replicable experiments so you can do this on your own if you want to...

[@marcelkernfx]

I think it's great Terrence spends time and energy trying to figure out stuff. Not wasting energy complaining about other people like so many do.

[@ichigokurosaki2838]

EXACTLY 💯

[@neon1899]

Didn't he spend a whole bunch of time complaining about Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@mirba6933]

And he is not lying too.

[@mirba6933]

​@@neon1899Neil is a fraudster.

[@TheMikesylv]

@@marcelkernfx I am almost positive people are missing what terrace is saying. He is lateral thinking comparing sound , color to matter seeing the same patterns and trying to relate one to the other to make sense of it. Right now a bunch of mathematicians are jumping around with excitement over something called the Langdon conjecture, which is doing the same thing. This screams to me hey this is very similar look please look there is something here.

[@CHAOSTACTICAL]

This guy hates that Terrence is smarter than him

[@TastelessOpinion]

Terrance: I have many patents. Brian: He doesn't have none. Terrance: I do, here. Brian: Ohh yeah, those are patents, but they are different types. Terrance: Are the types of them invalidate their status of patents? Brian: No. Terrence: Then STFU.

[@mirba6933]

Sir, just because we don't know if something works or don't understand it doesn't automatically rule out the possibilities that are unknown. Which means that you cannot say that you have debanked something one hundred percent. You can only say that something is currently unprovable

[@Getsmore]

Element 115 didn’t exist, but Bob Lazar spoke of it and explained it and then it came to light years later. He knew more than people believe. He was at the base and he did do that stuff.

[@m-bronte]

and your point is....Terrance knows something ? he has some kind of inside knowledge ?

[@VOLRAK1]

Galileo had trouble with his ideas. Now many many years later long after his last breath, we take his same ideas for granted facts. His ideas undermined established ideas and academic traditions and the naysayers were powerful and many. Now academia has him as a hero and pioneer. That's something worth thinking about.

[@Getsmore]

@@VOLRAK1 true

[@plopdoo339]

​@@m-brontehis point is you're a follower sheep and shouldn't put down Terences ideas until you've published your own papers and then thoroughly studied his works.

[@galveston8929]

33:46 "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

[@benpeterson1238]

Basically sums up the interview with Sean Kirkpatrick in one sentence.

[@jamesmiller7457]

Joe Biden on economics.

[@rooruffneck]

Why is Brian talking in this new style of speech? Is this how his sarcasm sounds?

[@lukevaichus]

I think he’s reading his script

[@woodandwandco]

You want to know what's ironic? When a scientist who claims that we need to be more open in the field and accepting of new ways of looking at the problems of cosmology and physics is also the bobblehead gatekeeper trying to discredit people who are not even in the field and don't even pose a threat to the paradigm. Or do they? Why is it that every science educator on KZbin is scared of some random actor's patents or claims about the universe? Literally billions of people have billions of different ideas about the origins and ultimate destination of the universe. There are religions with beautiful metaphysical elaborations on the origins and destination of the universe. There are engineers with technical elaborations on the origins and destination of the universe. There are science fiction authors with imaginative elaborations on the origins and destination of the universe. I wonder why it's the TV actor who says 1x1=2 who is the target. Perhaps because his premise is an attack on logic itself, which scientists hold onto dearly for fear of unemployment if illogic (literally all that exists outside the boundary of logic) were suddenly to become a field worthy of study. Peer-review is the gate that separates logic from illogic. Therein lies the problem. The same people who claim there is peer-review capture and gatekeeping by major journals are defending the peer-review process. It is Stockholm Syndrome at its finest. In my view, peer-review is a heavily archaic mode of evaluating relevance, and new relevance realization mechanisms are needed to accelerate scientific self-sufficiency, or the capability of science to address the problems it generates alongside innovation. The reason science communication has lost its innovative spark is because new paradigms that are possible with technology that already exists are being stifled because we invest more in immediate innovation of ideas than long-term evaluation and implementation strategies, so we could not possibly implement our innovations without destroying ourselves because we never invested in trying to figure out how we could even possibly implement them. Free energy is one example. Let's assume that 100 years ago, someone discovered a way to generate free energy that is completely safe and has 0 pollutants and infrastructure costs that are negligible compared to other sources of fuel. Here is my question. As someone who is genuinely curious about advancing human understanding and capabilities and harmonizing our activities with those of the planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe, how could I help make it possible for everyone to have access to such a source of energy in a way that ensures that harmony? Whose job is it to communicate that? Why scientists are not hard at work trying to solve this problem rather than attack illogic is the real mystery. We are literally more than 100 years behind the cutting-edge science in every aspect of our existence, yet we fund AI and Nvidia chips and colliders so that we can innovate more when we don't have solutions for implementing what we already know. The fact that these experts keep telling us what we should and shouldn't be looking at and what we should and shouldn't explore, without even addressing the underlying scientific claims at all, simply by attacking character, credentials, and status is honestly frightening. This is what fascist regimes do to discredit honest people, so we should be weary when an attack becomes rhetoric amongst literally all science educators at once. Learn to think for yourselves, but more importantly, learn to shut off the thinking mind, otherwise, there can be no relation to illogic, your mind will be forever in bureaucratic order, incapable of experiencing what lies beyond the limited paradigm that has been projected into your mind. Peer-review is nothing more than a filtering process that stifles implementation in favor of selective innovation, and it is a disgrace to the human project.

[@jasongarcia2140]

Jeeeez man splitting hairs here and throwing shade too

[@michael-4k4000]

@@jasongarcia2140 shade is only thrown where the sun don't shine

[@m-bronte]

this is how Brian talks to his children when he is being gentle with them.

[@musicmoonshine]

Terrence Howard was right about the shape thing it turns out, popular science is now touting it gyroid lattices look it up they just rotated some parts to make it visually dissimilar, turns out it's the least amount of materials for a gap between two spaces, and it's the leading field in energy and flight science

[@musicmoonshine]

Also if you ask ai what invalidates his math thing, it can will give you an exhaustive list of what in math invalidates it and in science, you can then ask it if all these things can be changed for the new paradigm, and the answer is yes, it will even show you how 😂

[@cossak.G.nederlander]

as a programmer . 0 and Null and IsMissing and IsEmpty are all different things . what is fascinating about those set of facts, is that if you try to ignore them your program won't withstand rigorous use . Terrence arguing that if our sciences are failing to use all the basic facts near the base of the math system -- strikes me as a valid investigation . if there is an explanation i didn't hear it in this video . in fact both Keating and Weinstein seem to actually confirm Howard in the process of 'debunking him

[@yvonnejensen1969]

Technically, 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2. There can never be a one or a two. But the basis for that philosophical point isn’t Terrence Howard’s argument. His argument, however, does address the rigidity in standardized systems of academia. Unfortunately the internet has become socialized, which is why the demand for libertarianism has increased. @1:27 I would like to hear (I’m open to) the specific statements regarding science that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have made and if they did make those statements, how they are false.These figures are political and cultural critics. From a vantage point of never having had heard the statements regarding their science “beliefs”, anything inline with their statements would more than likely be rooted in objecting to anything institutional but with respect to fundamentals. I’m open to being prove wrong (with out bias) regarding their statements. What has been incorrectly enmeshed with racism in the conservative party is the emergence of a new political thought process emerging. The thought process isn’t entirely political left but somehow progressive. Progressive conservatism, if you will. Embracing the old, with fresh eyes. The old internet would call it conspiracy theories and entertain the thought without it being disruptive. The new socialized internet doesn’t allow that type of free flowing thought. This type of thought process isn’t being applied to our current government fiscal policies. Using the rules of economics we can see that the current Executive administration is tempting to create their own self-sustaining fiscal supply. You can call that a conspiracy or use a standardized thought process to look at things objectively which sometimes requires creativity. My guess is that those in Wall Street are probably already aware. This conclusion made you squirm if you are liberal. It shouldn’t if you are analyzing from a philosophical perspective. Terrence Howard is refuting standardized processes using fundamentals, he just doesn’t know it yet. When Terrence Howard embraces efforts on his logical fundamentals, he will be in good company.

[@Getsmore]

And also mathematics was created by man. That doesn’t mean that it is the basis of the universe. It’s the basis of earth and what we created. Just cause we created it doesn’t mean it right

[@Naturesway08]

First Joe rogan is won on the Terrence Howard train. Then Eric Weinstein . And now the once angry Brian is won too. My God ! Where is professor Dave when you need him most ? 😢😢😂😂😂

[@dpmadness6179]

Terrence was gaslit in that interview, he made a bunch true scientifically observed statements that Eric deflected from only to resort to using his math knowledge as a defense mechanism. Anyone smart enough would've realized how Eric was shying away from a PHYSICS debate...to boast about abstract math concepts and math theory...which would obviously make any physicist look dumb. Also theorectical physics IMO are at a roadblock and the many ideas ie. wave-particle duality, many worlds, entanglement are much more insane than anything Terrence mentioned. Terrence main points for those who don't know: 1. Math as it relates to physics should always represent physical things in the natural world. 2. Scientific advancement by way of advanced geometry should be considered. 3. The science surrounding a "luminiferous aether" should be revisited - this idea took the backseat after Einstein's publications on relativity. If you care any inch about science then you agree somewhat with those points.

[@marinejackdaniels]

This isn't a fight against pseudoscience; it's an opportunity for people who resonate with somebody like Terrance Howard (as well as himself) to have their perspective expanded by professionals and their expertise. I don't think it should matter who brings the audience or how they brought them, just that the audience leaves with the best version of the truth possible. That requires what you guys have all been doing. Thank you for engaging. Sincerely, random internet guy.

[@michael-4k4000]

The problem with Terrance Howard is not his ideas. Everyone has ideas and thoughts that may be correct wrong. The issue people have with Terrance is that he tries to teach instead of explaining his ideas. He is not humble, it doesn't seem like he spent years in school learning, collaborating with peers, reading books, heck on the Joe Rogan podcast Eric asked to if he knew the standard model equation, Terrance did not. That's not to say he's stupid. It is to say that, he should NOT be teaching others and telling others that the math is wrong. Terrance Howard is a professional actor, he is a member of the Screen Actors Guild. His peers are mostly actors, agents, producers, writers, etc. So he might sound smart to a Hollywood producer, but he doesn't make sense to educated people. Neil Degrass Tyson was NOT mean to him. What should Neil have said to convey the message that 1 X 1 doesn't equal 2? Maybe Neil could have gave Terrance a fake grade on his paper, like a B minus good try Terrance.

[@marinejackdaniels]

@@michael-4k4000 I can both see and empathize with that perspective. In my experience, people who learn things on their own, and especially if they make something from those ideas, generally have an excitement and enthusiasm about their ideas. People also seek to surround themselves with people who encourage their ideas and creativity, and that generally compounds the confidence issue. Take into account Mr. Howard appears to have been in that spot for what seems like years. The expectation that he will be well versed and understanding of the culture he has stepped into, and holding him to those values, should be reduced a bit at the front end of engagement (which is where we are). If Mr. Howard adjusts his angle towards being approachable and learning more so he can zero in on the ideas that he has developed then this should be applauded. Due to the audience size engaged, I think this should be the outcome the people who are professionals should strive for and guide Mr. Howard towards. Why? For me it's because of all the videos I watch of scientists and physicists basically admitting they don't like their own culture because it's all about generating money and a lot of lying goes on to generate it, while stealing ideas from each other based on seniority. Engaging in this sort of thing with its audience size has the potential to curb the sentiment people have towards the scientific community, and make themselves/the field more approachable for people who have an interest in both science/math, and the kind of stuff Mr. Howard is trying to do. I'm not a unique person, and most of the people who follow this stuff that I've talked to share my distrust of pretty much anything institutionalized. Mr. Howard isn't in the realm of producing the mechanisms in which we run society, he's got ideas and some things he's created from it, and a strong personality developed from his own trials in life. I've learned so much between the original podcasts and all these interactions, and my trust in the professional's community has grown. I really needed that in my life, because I don't have a whole lot of hope in society at this point with everything that's going on. At the end of the day it's not the ideas that matter, it's if anything can be produced by them. There is an opportunity to strengthen faith and trust with a large audience here. It should be taken, and it is being taken whether that's the intent or not. I am grateful to be able to engage with it, even if it is just observing.

[@Keymoney11]

@@michael-4k4000 while that may be true. You would have to know most people don’t even have that type of intellect. When you’re smarter than most of the people around them you normally have to teach or talk in a way so people understand. Terrance found someone smarter than him so he didn’t need to and it annoyed Eric. But what’s funny is that wasn’t what people were saying before Eric Weinstein pointed that out about Terrance. Before that he was getting called all types of crazy and other names just for trying to bring something new to the table.

[@ichigokurosaki2838]

​@michael-4k4000 You think Terrance just pulled all this stuff up in a couple weeks? Who cares if he's not humble, he's a brilliant man. He could have been a bit more humble but let's be honest, the ppl in academia can be arrogant pricks.

[@MichaelChapmanArt]

200 years from now they will call him the black Tesla 🤣

[@danielforcier5264]

@@MichaelChapmanArt 200 years from now nobody will know who he is.

[@tomkolo8115]

Brian, it depends what math we are using here, for instance, Romans had no zero, plus no negative numbers, lol... so You rewrite Your patents with Roman numerals.. good luck

[@ZagrosŞêxbizin]

I think Doctors Keating and Weinstein should have a long form conversation/debate solely on peer review and its history.

[@DrBrianKeating]

That would be great we have spoken but it was offline

[@woodandwandco]

@@DrBrianKeating Slow clap for deleting my comment. Nice to see you are open for real debate and not just another paid mouthpiece.

[@jasongarcia2140]

​@@woodandwandcomaybe your mouth just stunk sometimes people stink so bad they need to be removed because they make things worse for people around them. Understand?

[@woodandwandco]

@@jasongarcia2140 I spent 2 hours writing aprox. 1000 words that were indeed critical, and calling out some really suspicious behavior so called scientists should not be engaged in. If he disagreed, he would have responded, but he knows it's true.

[@AjarnSpencer]

i think its baffling how the whole world cannot see

[@eastafrika728]

The empty set is also infinity, zero is infinitely itself, once, 0=1=infinity.

[@robbydebeuf6405]

i dont have any diploma ,but everyone loves genuin fascination,...no?

[@GoGrowGoGrow]

Exactly! Great comment

[@EnlightenedTurtle]

If 0 X 1 + 0 How can 1 X 1 + 0 it is clearly a doubling of the units in the equation. I do not know what this means, other than that. If I have zero pound and times it by one, I get no pounds. However if I get one pounds and times it by another pound, then is this not the first addition to a multiplication. If I hold up one finger and do not hold up my other hand, that is one finger, on one hand on one arm, yet if I raise a finger on my other hand, then the space in front of me shows two fingers. This epitomises the lack of creativity in modern science, and honesty to admit that holding up two fingers is two fingers. Everything must be written down and applied to a certain form of rationality. There is something to this beyond the vail of academic perception. For sure people may agree or disagree with what I have just typed out. Alas, it is those who think of themselves in a box, who think they think outside of the box, will never find there is no box, other than perception, perceived lines of limitation based upon personal bias., knowledge and creativity. I came here after watching the conversation on the Piers Morgan channel. I found each of you to be intelligent in your own rights, though I seen ego, rigid principles and a heightened sense of self worth. The interaction was fairly pleasant, yet clearly much of the dialog was cosmopolitan to mainstream theoretical physics and such. This indicates, indeed validates the very reasoning behind the fallacy of peer review and the scientific community at large. Just because one chooses to gain a scientific PHD, does not mean they are the best choice to discuss, learn and educate any given field. A person who has never took singing lessons who can sing with beautiful harmonies, is deemed a natural. Most regular Joes, not align with the principles or motives as the scientific community, yet take to such thought processes deemed "scientific" like a duck to water, but chose a different path. Science has become bogged down by theoretics, social orientation and personal ideologies that align with a mainstream scientific consensus mind set. That is the legacy of the 20th century. Anyhow, what do I know, I am just an amateur.

[@matmachin9992]

Science "facts" change all the time, depending on how you view the ideas of time. I hate how scientists say this is 100% true, then 100 years later it gets proven wrong. Oh that's just science.......

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

13:13 Planck noticed that:”The ether is an illegitimate child of classical physics, conceived in sorrow”. In fact, GR delivered and adopted this child... in sad: “The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). P.S. In Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, space is unthinkable without ether. Einstein sometimes used the word "aether" to refer to the gravitational field in general relativity. The ether in this context is not a substance or state of motion, and it cannot be thought of as having the qualities of ponderable media. Instead, it's a material medium that can't be used as a frame of reference, and it's necessary for the existence of light, space and time standards, and spacetime intervals.

[@pensive8552]

You are making too much out of this.

[@will4us]

I disagree. Brian is doing exactly what is right given what he previously said and what he has discovered since talking to Terrence on areas they agree and disagree on to find a common ground.

[@luciaceba4640]

there is money in it to be made on views, so,

[@AjarnSpencer]

because it scares him. that is always why people do rants like this. But it is clear; multiplication means increment by definition of the meaning of the word, so 1 x 1can not be 1, it has to increment, if not, it hasn't multiplied itself. a living single cell organism multiplies itself into 2, by splitting dividing itself in half, hence division is multiplication, two opposites in your head, become one in mine

[@micnorton9487]

​@@AjarnSpencerWOW - you've "mastered" math and "discovered the secrets" of using terms wrong, combining those terms wrongly, and then drawing a WRONG conclusion... CONGRATS 👏 you have become a delusional narcissist with paranoid features lol...

[@robertlewis2542]

@@AjarnSpencer Dude you are quantifying... you are counting sets when you multiply as in 1 set of one equals 1. If I gave you 2 boxes each containing 4 apples you would have 8. If I gave you 1 box with one apple you would have 1x1=1. Unless you don't trust your own eyes.

[@jefferyholmes4954]

Sounds like Terrance is on to something... His only fault is he doesn't have the credentials. 1×1=1 is only real math not in nature... It's time to rethink our mathematics so it matches what we see in nature

[@steveclark2205]

"There's NO room for Bullshit ". - Marie Curie

[@JavaT6437]

Let's waste more time on Terrence Howard folks

[@wearemany73]

If you watch the video (as I am right now) this discussion is bigger than Terrence & Brian. This is about, scientific principles, error correction. (At least the first sixteen minutes anyway) 🙂

[@everything...interesting]

God forbid someone admit when they were wrong and show some public decency to another human being

[@TCTC-zu6mh]

It’s stupid and makes me question this guys intentions or sanity I guess. This is more about views and $

[@TheUuhhh]

Honestly wtf do you even care? Is Terrance “hurting” you in some way?

[@0tedaCecapS]

It gets views, I wish Brian was bigger than this😞

[@Spawn303]

I wonder if Dr. Weinstein has an ear for actor Terrence because of what Harvard and MIT did to Eric in the 90s and 00s…

[@user-iu1dw9kl6p]

Isn't it something how one person original thought can jump start so many nobodies career been working this playbook forever

[@KD-rs6xx]

Age 68 here. Growing up, every year in math class, the textbook opened up with Set Theory problems. There was never an explanation about why this was here, year after year. What did sets of whole numbers, real numbers or imaginary numbers have to do with the following chapters the homework for which I did every night of. my school life, religiously. No one ever explained the importance of acknowledging Sets.

[@mlubinda1620]

Bless Terence. Unfortunately its causing chest pains for some of us. My advice is take a long deep breath and breath out slowly. Relax. its not the end of the world...

[@jesusc137]

i think that the number 0, never intended to describe nothingness, or emptyness, but a point of reference, zero its a staring point, but those who teach us failded to comunicate that fact..

[@jasongarcia2140]

What an incredible world we live in that a professional like this can have his own video channel. So awesome.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

9:23 this is where most get confused, what is 0? Now think a little hard on this one, what is infinity? So really think how 0 is no different than infinity so it’s set is (0, infinity) 0 is able to go anywhere or share to anywhere. When adding and subtracting and multiplying we are crossing dimensions/measurements. Honestly don’t just blow it off because a lot of people don’t understand how important it is. And he says it’s an absence but it’s not, it’s just what we would see as us not knowing so not absence but no reflection. So when multiplying by 0 it doesn’t take away anything instead, what is infinity in its own reflection? The difference is 0. So 0 x anything would show you the difference between. So it’s like a man made absence that people don’t understand how to get to an absence because it doesn’t exist so we look for the differences. Honestly i can understand what I’m trying to say but it’s hard to say it in texts. 0 is not an absence though, that’s the common misconception. Philosophy teaches math. I mean, do you see any absences or do you see differences? There’s no absence or gaps around, just things out of connection so it’s like doing math with something we don’t understand so we don’t use it do it’s full extent. I’m no genius but i believe 0 is more than an absence and should be understood before judging others.

[@alexshtyn6336]

Zero is a confusing number to me because each number can be also a sum, and Zero can be a sum of infinite equal and opposite values .

[@lenahandsen6836]

No dude. You cant multiply nothing with something. Okay? If you can’t understand this you cannot be helped. You are learnt wrong from the start. School doesn’t teach correctly

[@timbuk2.019]

Their could be different types of math like calculus,trig,Algerbra terrence could be doing quantum math or something because current math doesn't answer all questions. He got the patent so other scientist wouldn't steal his work & ideas and take credit for them

[@Serrotonin]

Ignore a lot of these comments. You are enlightening people into being more open-minded. I appreciated this

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this video?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@anialiandr]

I’m very open but Howard spoke like a schizophrenic. No sequenced reasoning. I had to turn off Joe’s show because I physically could not cope with his mess

[@m-bronte]

same I couldn't handle the entirety of the show, I felt bad for Terrance at one point

[@rayray6548]

"rise of anti-science" yeah... you gave him a mic. you're the one to blame for this shit show.

[@SM-nz9ff]

FR this is an embarrassment. We been too nice to people like that if anything. They should be laughed at and mocked out of the room its embarrassing.

[@ttully]

Terrance acts like he doesn't not want to be wrong, which is sad.

[@TheUuhhh]

What’s sad is your use of double negatives while criticizing someone with obviously double your iq score

[@brendawilliams8062]

It’s best to be wrong and keep it at home. Teaching, degrees, books , podcasts are for those who want to them. Dancing pays the fiddler

[@michael-4k4000]

because he is correct, 100%! 1 X 1= 2. A man like Howard comes around every 100 years or so to guide us to our next level. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Feynman, and Doctor Howard.

[@michael-4k4000]

@@brendawilliams8062 Doctor Howard is done tip toeing on water for tips.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@ttully I don’t get his take on the flower of life. I mean it can be different takes on the butterflies dance

[@lucascasey6867]

1x1 is not 2 but 1x1=1 seems pretty useless unless you're doing accounting. Just say 1

[@thaddadeodead]

Nature publishes all kinds of garbage. Big part of the problem are the editors of the journals.

[@readynowforever3676]

“The (political) Right”, “focuses more on safety”, intuitively I find that hard to believe.

[@bastachepistache]

We really need to move on.

[@Eric-vy3hy]

Why is he talking to us like we are children ?

[@lucascasey6867]

I liked the part of that rogan podcast where Eric describes that instead of throwing out math with Howard's claims perhaps there's a new set of math's that can be derived starting with the assumption 1x1=2. It was a short part but something like 1 apple times another 1 apple can't equal 1 apple. Instead of an apple one time is still just one apple.

[@kaing5074]

@@lucascasey6867 its maths stop misusing apostrophes

[@bbamboo3]

Review by peers of the early Keck Telescope software forced a rework that produced excellent code, despite the pain the team experienced. Later the project more than doubled in size and is an important scientific tool 35 years later.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Great point

[@rubensband9467]

I must say that your analogy of the batting averages of baseball players being a faulty method of really showing the overall talent of that player is quite magnificent. I can say very humbly that I know very little about the actual sciences and just a little about baseball but even that being the case was able to in my opinion fully understand everything you were trying to explain at that moment. Thank you for that and I loved this episode. You are very much appreciated for taking the time to do this albeit for a rather ridiculous and comical subject of matter. You were very professional about it all. Your ability to balance on a fence of sarcasm and non condescending tonalities was brilliant.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks stay in touch Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list ✉️

[@rubensband9467]

@@DrBrianKeating will do. Thanks again.

[@Angen77]

many of the critics of science are not against science but about establishment dictating what is science from power and authority or money rather than actual objectivity (which DOES NOT exist anywhere in the human world)

[@michaellowe3665]

Can we admit that 1X1 = 2 is looney?

[@RealQinnMalloryu4]

Yes

[@johncarlson3968]

1 inch x 1 inch = 1 square inch.

[@jimmyintuitive]

Can we agree that voting for the same democrats over and over is insane?

[@timbuk2.019]

​@@johncarlson3968that's measurement for building(geometry)what about quantum mathematics

[@TheMikesylv]

The sq root of 2 = 1.414. 1.414*2 = 2.828. The cube root of 2.828 = 1.414 I still am having trouble with this every time I think ok it makes sense then it doesn’t 1.414*1.414*1.414=2.828. 1.414*2=2.828

[@FeelGoodTV-t1s]

I hate we know for sure is the Brian the scientist has had the time to investigate something clearly insane. Great science sir.

[@user-hm8fs3eq6z]

@DrBrianKeating So essentially this is an apology without an apology "Be accurate" Man, You are so weak for that.

[@FeelGoodTV-t1s]

Still beating this horse and not clearly stating Terrence is out of his mind is diabolical.

[@darriusdeburgh7333]

Forgive me, Doc. The more I listen to you, the more it seems you are not a member of an intellectual SEAL Team Six but rather a team leader. I continue to advocate for bringing Terrence onto a podcast. This would allow him to understand the complexities of the basics and appreciate the significant contributions of those who preceded him- you can directly elaborate on the esteemed lineage of the intellectual giants he aspires to comprehend, join, and contribute to. White belts are permitted to train with black belts. Personally, I don’t believe a geniune black belt would believe they are incapable of learning from a white belt. Experts reteaching the basics to amateurs only increases their competence at the basics themselves. Mastery of the basics covers almost all aspects of any competency hierarchy. Thank you for sharing your expertise, and I look forward to more content.

[@ichigokurosaki2838]

I think you need to watch the JRE interview again and then ho on his channel and watch all his videos. There are plenty of intellectuals who specialize in physics, engineering and mathematics that he appreciates.

[@ArtisanTony]

I actually think the person behind the idea has to be considered. Would you eat a fruit from a tree that you had no knowledge of :) I see a softening toward Terrence which is cool but it will not help because those who backed him for the wrong reasons will not learn from the mistakes. They will just say that he was right all along :)

[@gilesmaybery6181]

Hi Dr Keating, Would love for you to look at the work of Thomas Bearden and the whole "science" movement around the "Forgotten" Maxwell equations and quaternions.

[@danielmccarthyy]

11 granted utility patents. And TH said he has 97 patents. Not sure why BK would need to apologize.

[@wearemany73]

The way I see this is demonstrating to TH that collegial feedback is indeed part of the peer review process, atleast in its unofficial sense.

[@l0zerth]

Because Brian claimed that zero of his patents fillings were granted and/or not actually useful in any way.

[@danielmccarthyy]

@@l0zerth false. He said they weee parents not patent applications. TH lied.

[@TastelessOpinion]

yall claimed he had none. Furthermore... he said he has those patents, which he does. He never claimed approved patents. That's a strawman on your side. Yall were wrong. Lol.

[@atypicalsarge4748]

A well drawn inference from his generalizations aka beautiful deduction, good sir. I’m a monkey and I throw poo: meaning I’m a layperson. Loved the approach and delivery; albeit a possible, well thought out trap in nature. When communicating to someone the possibility of error, it’s best served gently; shields down. Correlate it to: it’s ok to be the smartest person in the room, but it’s not polite to point it out kind of scenario. For redundancy’s sake, what you stated is a necessary “evil”.

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

Science is something that is 100% true. What that means is it will never change. If science changes, it isn't science.

[@johncarlson3968]

1 inch x 1 inch = 1 square inch. Try adding units to 1 x 1 = 2 and see what makes sense.

[@viralsheddingzombie5324]

I think Joe encouraged Weinstein to go easy on Howard and not make him look like a fool.

[@jczeee30]

Personal attacks are wrong, but giving credit to absurd ideas is a waste of time and insulting to the audience.

[@isitme1234]

Unsubscribed for sure, Aliens......Ufo.... Howard.... enough is enough

[@ffunit]

Who decides the ideas are absurd? You?

[@jczeee30]

@@ffunit that’s the point. A random and rational person decides. You should decide for yourself. Don’t accept any idea that doesn’t have a rational basis.

[@ffunit]

@@jczeee30 I think Dr Keating is rational enough. I'd wager he's more so than you.

[@jczeee30]

@@ffunit I am sure he is very rational. He is being charitable and kind to bad ideas excessively here.

[@darrenpereira3030]

Wow.... minutes into this. When you say you are wrong, never attach an objection to overshadow the whole purpose. Brian will never truly come out of his own head long enough to realize his narcissistic tendencies obscure all else. Brian only wishes to be heard. Sad.

[@KieranLeCam]

What Terrence may be saying about 0 is that there can not BE a concept that means NO BEING. I'm not sure why it matters in his theories, but as an idea itself, he is correct. There is no such "thing" as 0. 0 serves no calculative purpose, apart from being the 1rst symbol to create orders of magnitude in bases. It's used to create contrast between something and none of that something, when that's required. But it does not help create any numbers. The starting point of mathematics is 1, the unit, given from the environment, against which contrast can be created of none of that thing. 1 is the thing. It is existence. It is evidence. We do not start from no evidence, NO BEING, 0. Again I say this for a reason, which is that we should not be thinking that anything can come from nothing, in physics, making us put the concept of "fundamental" into question, such as fundamental particles, or the big bang, leading us to think that there cannot be, philosophically, a big bang singularity or a smallest particle. But I'm not sure why Terrence Howard is saying it.

[@somekindofbox264]

1 is the starting point of natural numbers. If you add natural numbers to itself, you will always get a natural number. If you subtract them from another, you may get a number which lies outside the natural numbers. For that, you need to extend the numbers you're looking at. Which is why 0 exists: it is the answer to the question "If you have one thing, and someone takes that thing away, how many do you have?".

[@KieranLeCam]

@@somekindofbox264 yes but different understandings begin with different premises. You may call 1 a natural number or whole number and say 0 is another number that comes about from subtraction. But I could use a different premise. The definition of a number means describing existence. Quantity is in existence. Therefore the minimum allowed natural number is 1. Under the premise that a quantity must have an impact on an operation to be called a quantity, or a number, 0 does not satisfy the conditions of this premise. As I said in my main comment, 0 is a contrast figure. And you yourself say it: first you have to create existing quantities called the natural numbers, to create 0. No math can start with the figure 0. It's like starting to build a car with no intention of building the car. It makes no logical sense. The intention to build the car IS the definition of starting to build a car. 1 is the definition of starting math. Again, it's not just semantics, I use this line of thinking to put very real physical assumptions into question, like the idea of origin, fundamentality, a minimum to the universe essentially. I propose: There should be no minimum, as there cannot be. There cannot be no being, or "nothing". And so for example, fundamental particles, cannot be fundamental. The electron must be made of something else. And that something else of something else, etc. There cannot be a planck length, there cannot be a heisenberg uncertainty principle. So having those things means we are doing math wrong, interpreting results incorrectly, or are missing part of the picture, a new particle or interaction type, perhaps, that when we do take into account, will allow for universe building with no minimum. That will reinterpret all those mathematical concepts such as wave mechanics or the planck constant, as features of a deeper underlying reality, that requires no minimum.

[@somekindofbox264]

@@KieranLeCam Mathematics is just that, mathematics. Natural numbers are defined using what is known as Peano axioms, and those axioms state that 1 is the first natural number and every number has exactly one successor. You can choose other axioms, which are starting points, but Peano axioms are useful for describing processes in reality. Attempting to make metaphysical interpretations of mathematics usually muddies the waters and obscures actual truths about mathematics, so I would rather refrain from that.

[@KieranLeCam]

@@somekindofbox264 that's incorrect. "Metaphysical" may just be a buzzword hard-core mathematicians use to not consider other philosophical perspectives. To be clear and define my terms: by philosophical, I mean logical coherent thoughts. Philosophy is logic. However there are many bad logics. Incomplete, or inconsistent logics. I'd advise you open your mind to all forms of logic and disprove them logically, or by creating theories based on them, and testing them in reality, rather than use a blanket statement that uses the word "metaphysical" with an apparent pejorative connotation of being un-intellectual, to apparently discredit other lines of thought. I suggest analysis of each idea based on its own merit. I will look into the axioms you're talking about, what no doubt are what I called a "premise" in my previous comment. I'd advise you to look into a variety of axioms then. I'll leave you on a Roger Penrose idea: mathematics cannot be self consistent. As such axioms need to all be examined, no matter what the axiom. Could the idea that 0 being a non-number, contrasted from natural numbers, not be a clue that physical reality works the same? The answer must be yes, it is possible. And only checking the idea and testing theories based on that assumption can give us the answer. We cannot fear an idea because it may make things more complicated or "murky the waters". If the evidence says its complicated, then it's complicated. All math is logic. And we constructed it bit by bit. Therefore let us keep doing what has worked so far: to think about how to construct it further.

[@somekindofbox264]

@@KieranLeCam Penroses' statement is related to a much more fundamental property of systems in which you can do arithmetic, and this is not what we're talking about here. If you examine the Peano axioms, you will see that none of them invoke philosophy or metaphysics or any kind of world view. Mathematics are neutral like that, and it works best if we omit that stuff. As I said, you can use other axioms, but these are the ones that comport with our intuitions about the world the most. You are making a thinking error in much the same way that Terrence does: you try to explain a phenomenon in terms of a particular modeling, based on a gut feeling that this particular modeling should be the right one. Terrence does that when he says that Newtons statement about equal and opposite reactions is not in line with multiplication - but that is not the right way to model the event that happens here. He shifts into an arbitrary frame of reference to prove the basis wrong when in fact he should make the observation that his modeling is incorrect and that he made a mistake in lifting the initial statement outside the bounds it is valid in. Math is probably the most powerful tool to predict reality. We shouldn't weaken it by overloading it with feelings and subjective feelings.

[@ralphgreenwood2469]

It will be extremely entertaining if ultimately Terrence is right and all these so called experts are wrong.

[@Scoring57]

I just gotta say, Eric Weistein is so manipulative. And he's also clearly using Terrance and talks about how others attack or insult him when he does the same in slightly more subtle ways lol

[@davidholmes7784]

I made it through 8 hours of TH on JRE.. I couldn't make it through 12 min of this video on 1.5 speed. 😮‍💨

[@warrencarter7562]

Better off to just flood the internet with your idea or invention Anonymously instead of Patenting things. You very well may wind up Dead.. food for thought.. but anyway, im stoked to see You have a good conversation and such with T.H.. I love the man, he's incredibly talented

[@Slarti]

Why do intelligent people give so much time to conmen?

[@SM-nz9ff]

Its embarassing

[@Lord_Nikon33]

Yes Galileo and Einstein are the two great thinkers and world view shapers that i think of alongside terrance howard..... please im sick of hearing about terrance howard. This truly being about ideas and not people its just bs. You know it is. Im sure everyone can think of many unknown or not famous actors that have excellent ideas backed up by real science and math but will joe rogan talk to them? Will you brian? Will eric? No you wont so enough of this bs. This is so over blown its ridiculous.

[@EricJacobusOfficial]

Let's just ignore him until he invents something useful with all his patents.

[@ttully]

😂👍

[@TheUuhhh]

Yeah until he larps a tekken game he deserves no attention 😂 Loser

[@prepsforlifeZ]

His virtual reality patent that is used by everyone supposedly

[@aussiehardwood6196]

He's trying, don't be threatened by his bad science. Rise above it, he is great himself at looking like a fool, he doesn't need your help. At least he ain't robbing stores or burning down cities like BLM activists were. He is talented in his own field. YOU should be smart enough to know Terrence probably isn't the best person to get maths advice from. He is allowed to publically be wrong, there is NOTHING illegal or problematic about that.

[@prepsforlifeZ]

@aussiehardwood6196 you are a head case keep your opinion to yourself homie

[@cossak.G.nederlander]

wouldn't we be better off to have "separate confirmation" than we are with "peer review"? any novel findings won't have a peer -- because they haven't been found before. also interesting that you speak with total assumption that the source of funding for science should be government. doesn't that pervert the process absolutely by causing discoveries to happen too early? or the ethical concern that what science gets done is a the whim of a few government employees?

[@lk7211]

I think you always found a great balance and tone in discussing this issue. You were rightfully very critical of TH.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@JaredFarrer]

You guys should listen to Sam Harris not this guy! Sam is fantastic and fascinating

[@EverythingIsPhotogenic]

Are you really tossing buckets of water on the Titanic? Stop giving this guy ANY air time.

[@coffee_drinker2912]

Okay. Understand something. If we all work really hard and take buckets to dump out water, eventually we will get to the Titanic and free it from its watery grave!

[@EverythingIsPhotogenic]

@@coffee_drinker2912 sure we will....... 🥴

[@michael-4k4000]

Dr. Howard properly disassembled the Flower of life

[@coffee_drinker2912]

@@EverythingIsPhotogenic yOu mEAn wE CaN’t?!

[@ricardocnassif]

You (and I) wish. Brian's ego make this outright impossible.

[@z0nx]

Isn't category theory even more fundamental than set theory? Currently reading the joy of abstraction and I like how it does away with the silliness of naming things and instead focuses on the structure itself.

[@YaKUZZiGirlWorldwide]

If Terrance was white. these conversations would not be even happenning. 😮

[@BB-cf9gx]

I'm way up here in the cheap seats. I listen, and often shake my head when I hear people talking sh!te. But I listen. It provokes thought.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks friend

[@pfcmclevenger]

I love listening to yourself and Eric. hope this isn't harsh to say but you talk about "correct language " but Professors are are changing definitions like with the word "Woman" means and a lot of us have already watch😊😊

[@at-xm5wu]

All this situation it's an intresting example of the time we are living, absolutly unable to come to any conclusion. Not sure why you guys are unable to call out BS for what it is. PS: Eric red flags at this point are just too many.I just ignore the guy.

[@tenholindberg9862]

Eric has a problem, that we no longer live in 15th hundreds, when science were still in childs shoes. Times when many pioneers where emerging, who understood a little bit of everything within different fields. But now when you must be an expert of certain field, in order to have more profound understand ing of those fields, is a problem to him. He is so full of petty ego, that he bash all serious adults, as he clearly long to remystify the world, and whole episode, try to steer the discussion to some metaphysical mumbo jumbo portal stories. Its clear he has a bone to pick, with tyson, bcoz he didnt accept erics geometric unity, with all its flaws. But bcoz string theory also is flawed, Eric delusional reasoning Led him to believe, that all the scientific concencus is trying to silence him. Its pretty absurd when he claimed that he and hes brother, should have won a nobel price each. Its profoundly sad too when grown adult man, cant speak with any clarity, and integrity, bcoz he wants to appeal a little bit of everyone, as hes anti establishement bias, have made him wanting to gather all nutcase and flat earthers as hes apostoles. Peace and god bless

[@Uniblab9000]

This is so tiresome, pretending that engaging with Howard is somehow scientifically enlightening or educational for the public.

[@KieranLeCam]

I just want to say thank you for making great videos and interviewing everyone to make all the issues in science, or about science, clearer for people trying to learn! Thanks Brian!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@KieranLeCam]

@@DrBrianKeating Favourite takeaway? I appreciated the clarity with which you defended peer review, and provided a counter to Eric's perspective! I think that's the kind of clarity people would want to know about. Perhaps in future you can detail exactly what happens during peer review, give some actual examples from your life and your student's lives, this may help to assuage the crowds that do not trust science as much! Maybe even discuss any possible amateur journals that exist, or discuss the possibility of creating one, so that good ideas can come from anywhere! Hope you have a nice day! :)

[@NYCBigBull]

Surprised No one found racism here..

[@bentationfunkiloglio]

I tried so hard to watch the interview. Too painful. Terence was all over the place and didn't demonstrate the ability or perhaps willingness to consider opinions other than his own.

[@beatricenilsson4530]

So, it is an one hour diss video. Why frame it like an apology if you don't agree at all with anything he said? Is everything just click bait now? Just be yourself instead, be genuine. If people disagree, just debate and tell your side and don't try make it something else just for looking more agreeable. If Terences ideas are wrong, just say so and hash it out in a normal, not passive aggressive, conversation. Peace.

[@winstonsmith8240]

1×1=2? And you wonder why the worlds a mess ? Don't tell Elon or nothing will get off of the ground again.

[@mymacaintwag]

Terrence is just struggling with the definition of zero. I can help on this one: Zero is actually the value, that Eric conveys, when he talks about anything. No value, no explanation, just nothing, maybe the listeners time wasted, but that is beside the point.

[@xtropia]

Thank you for challenging nonsense and just outright dis/mis-information. Debunking has become almost as important conveying rationale knowledge. And even being openminded to radicle ideas.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Appreciated!

[@chrisdavis2765]

Well done it takes a bigger man to admit they had a flawed view. There is an arrogance in academia thats always been there and I thought that was Brians flaw. Science is about learning and trying new ideas no matter where they come from. Im glad Erics unorthodox different way of thinking was able to reach through that and get through to Brian and him humble himself a bit. We need more of this in science. I wish that could expand to other areas including life in the galaxy because he is a smart educated guy. Again well done

[@oak1196]

Content rules, Controversy follows, apologies are necessary ! I commend you on your “timely” apology. To the people who believe Western education and acceptance Is some kind of religion please understand that the rest of the world is living sovereign and have VERY different views, as mentioned “Elon Musk”, who is from South Africa ! will absolutely not recognize the system and does what he wants as a sovereign man, science is only a microcosm of philosophy and “some people” have the inner vision to see the bigger picture please stop putting “people” in a box ! we should all get better together not separate my capitalist brothers lol

[@kingjams]

Sometimes you need someone like a Terrence to come and shake things up a little or a lot, to get people to focus and or make changes in how they've been viewing things. I appreciate that you smart people can have this type of discourse, we all want to listen to what you have to say and not some BS politicians. W

[@AncientAdvancedCiv]

we need a good representative of EU given the Eric Weinsten treatment of 'magnanimous engagement'. Would you consider speaking with Dr. Donald Scott? He's no 'fish in a barrel' Actor, so it might require more effort to engage with a scientist with a recognized expertise in an area that has been barred from the cosmological conversation, but it would be very helpful for a very large and growing community, who genuinely believe that EU offers compelling new perspectives on old paradigms.

[@madeofmeat1806]

It seems to me when Eric says "peer review" he refers to it in the narrow sense of the formalized system which began around 1965. But Brian takes it to mean the broader "peer review in some form" that goes back centuries. Isn't this just a definitions disagreement where they are arguing past each other?

[@DrBrianKeating]

Possibly

[@damoregan1743]

I’m sick to death of listening about Terrence Howard.

[@luddity]

And yet, here we are.

[@lreadlResurrected]

You are never going to get a scammer to admit they're a scammer.

[@wearemany73]

I don’t think Terrence thinks he’s scamming. I doubt he’s smart enough to know.

[@_sami_7]

@@wearemany73do you think he is wrong

[@sovereignentity.6425]

In life nothing is finite. There is only existence in and for itself, so when you find a theory and you fix it as finite, you are limiting expansion. It's an absolute, everything MUST change. Period. We are forever contracting and expanding, at least some of us are.😊

[@samwillard5688]

Indeed, we do this; talk about it.

[@gravityalchemist6599]

The impossible things you make possible hurt the most.😄 I'm figuring out a way to climb out of the hole I was thrust into. Gravity can be a deep pit.