Actor Claims His New Theory of Everything Improves Physics 

That's not a problem, that's the explanation for which is which

@@wessltov ok Sherlock

Yes, but Howard is still young enough to know it all.

@@truthstarved Howard is 🌰🌰

@@rethinkyourself1 as a person with an interest in astronomy and also happens to share his surname I'm actually so ashamed of what he published

Just professional liars.

to the point that they themselves have become to believe it

You forgot athletes too.

They also mistake themselfes for it

Facts have been spoken.

The main mission of the actor is to draw attention to himself. This time he succeeded in a big way.

That's too funny!

I think this was first posted on Professor Dave's video on him.

Well, with his math skills, is it any wonder?

🤣🤣🤣

She brutal and eloquent. 😂

She has a donorbox. She is working for a living too. That’s a weird zinger

Sabine has gone Mortal Combat on this poor fool :)

Rogan did bring on Weinstein to put him in his place. I don’t think Rogan expected what he got when bringing him on the first time

LMAO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well he said some of his claims/inventions, something to do with propelers ? are patented, so he is better of that 99% of scientists, that are just readers and never contributed nothing to science.

​@@badtuber1654 Rope to selling + stool + jumping

@@peacefuldecadence328 you dont have to kill yourself for it, I havent patented anything myself.

@@peacefuldecadence328 "Projectile propulsion methods and systems", and "lynchpin structure applications" yes looks like he has about 30 patents. Just checked it out. So I guess 1x1 equals 1. you will get an A for that.

Terrance Howard and Clarence Thomas had similar experiences in higher education. Feeling belittled by their professors for not being high achievers with defendable points of view, they are both hellbent on taking down the entire institutions that left them humiliated.

I liked your explanations. However, I am not entirely sure why you felt the need to be so condescending - "some actor" etc? Belittling him or his 'education' does not make your points any stronger. Afterall, there are so-called important people who get on the world stage and tell people to drink bleach to combat a deadly virus!

YEEZY 4 LIFE BRA!

Lots of people in the comments are just resentful. If you think he is wrong, just say he is wrong. There's absolutely no need to go the extra mile to bash their character.

@saboryagasabo7258 If they publicly present bad character traits, it's not unreasonable to call it out. Idk if you're even talking to me, but my comment was mild. Not much bashing, more of a cynical critique

The opposite of knowledge is belief

A fool doth think himself a wise man and a wise man doth think himself a fool.

From a logical perspective, this is incorrect. The opposite of knowledge is the absence of knowledge. The opposite of white is not black, but not-white.

@@charlesnelson-c1o Another version is: "The less you know, the more you think you know. The more you know, the less you think you know."

Knowledge is the posession of information. The opposite of this is the lack of information. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. Wisdom is the use of knowledge towards benefit. The opposite of wisdom is the lack of using knowledge towards benefit; or using lack of knowledge towards deficit. The opposite of wisdom is stupidity. These are basic philosophical tenents that have been around for thousands of years. The ones who lack should take most heed, but will also insist this historical philosophy is irrelevant or a fallacy. The fallacy is in the belief that ones own current knowledge and wisdom are satisfactory.

@@familyforonehumanity5630 Terry's a perfect example of A SUBCULTURE within western culture,, most people defending him are some black people and some hardcore conspiracy theorists...

Complete Trumpism. "There has never been anything like this." or "it's just not understood by anyone".

The really odd thing about quantum mechanics ist that it works even if you do not understand it. This actor seems to be afraid of that. Hopefully.

You have been listening to flat earthers. That's pretty much what all their "arguments" come down to.

@@JohnSmith-ux3tt except the flat earthers have the disadvantage of the stuff they claim no one can understand are actually pretty easily understandable lol

Hi Mr Strawman. Who exactly is saying that? not TH...

Can we pause to appreciate the whole 1^3=|pi| - it's so beautiful and obvious that no proof is required!

It depends on whether the rounding operation is postponed until the end, to improve accuracy. For example, 2.25 rounds to 2, but 2.25 plus 2.25 equals 4.5, which rounds to 5. I wouldn't call 2.25 "extremely large." I would call it sufficiently large. (I do like your joke. I'm just trying to be pedantic.)

@@brothermine2292 its not about rounding, its just a meaingless joke. youre not being pedantic, youre just trying too hard to be

For not believing that is true, according to liberals: you are a racist.

@@akaakaakaak5779 it’s a joke that has a truth behind it in the field of measurement. If you measure to 1 digit precision, the statement reflects reality.

You seem like the kind of buffoon who thinks 1x1=1. Why can't you accept Howard's gene-ius?

Best comment I've read in months! Thank you!

so glad someone pointed this out. It drives me nuts when people use 'click' , a metallic sound, when they mean 'clique', an exclusive group of people.

It looks like he was his own editor, too. That sentence is a run-on. He is rewriting the rules of grammar and spelling while he's at it.

You really think that was edited?

He talks about the importance of getting your units right and then just completely forgets about the unit (the penny) in his 1p*1p example

😂😂😂😂 so true

This is exactly what I thought. Terrence Howard’s origin story.

pretty scary

he thinks a half is a/2

Best quote spotted

Best Quote about this issue I've seen since the interview came out ..This needs 1.mil like 🤣🤣

Actually his point was that if you have two singles that you are multiplying so that you are multiplying 1x1, you still have two singular ones. Not necessarily that 1x1=2, but that it doesn’t make sense for 1x1 to be on the multiplication table. As always, the most ignorant who comprehend the least respond the quickest with the least amount of objective data from that situation in which they are condemning. Keep voting blue kids.

Did you make that up? Or is it a quote (the "" seem to indicate that)? Anyway: great!

. . . And always beware of mental malware.

1 x 1 = 1²

Don't forget Timecube guy!

But is this new, strictly speaking? Feelings based science has been touted for about a decade now where gender is just an opinion and literacy, math etc are no longer needed to get a high school diploma. Isn't this guy in essence just the culmination of all those efforts? To us he looks like a clown but the people inside that ideology probably do believe him to be godlike, as he himself does.

But to give some credit at least he uses creativity to make up stuff (pseudoscience) unlike flat earthers who just believes in conspiracies

​​@SabineHossenfelder money should never be multiplied by money... this is the problem... 1 dollar should never be multiplied by 1 dollar. Instead it should be $1×1=$1 because $1×$1=$2

he got tired trying to explain the physics of the iron man suit

I can’t understand why he stopped taking his meds

lmao

How would he respond if he was explained what Dunning-Kruger effect is, and told it applies to him?

​@@calculuslover2078 my guess to your question: "Or maybe YOU are so ignorant, that you cannot process a new idea, and you believe in what was hammered in your head in school to the degree that you stop even recognising your ignorance".

A ha! I knew there was a name for that. I simply couldn't remember it. Thanks!

@calculuslover2078 The problem with stupid people is that they are constitutionally incapable of understanding just how stupid they truly are. Intelligent people are exquisitely aware of their own limitations.

Ignorance is bliss, and Howard looks a happy man !

It cracked me up when she got to the crash course into particle physics and quantum mechanics…“That sounds promising, let’s have a look”😂😂😂

This is where I kind of give Sean Strickland his credit. No, if someone deserves it, you make them feel and understand why they don't do that again.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0nMFmUFunjI.htmlsi=AnFSiw1QfGhoP4I2&t=1380

Sabine does polite rage very well... Can't say I blame her. : (

She is too kind...I think Terrence knows full well he is mistaken, he just likes the attention he gets by being a contrarian and appealing to conspiracy theoriests.

As someone once said, "It’s difficult to argue with a genius but it’s impossible to argue with an idiot"

ITS JOES FAULT!!! JoE rOgaN BaD!!!

Jonathan Swift said 'You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.'

thats a good one

@@Teetseremooniayou beat me to it!

You can multiply fruits and vegetables. As Sabine presented in the video that would be 6 Apple Potatoes.

Problem is science and technology is at a complexity level that unless you can dedicate years yo learning it, instead of working, it's impossible for society as a whole to understand everything.

That can happen when we deal with Magic!

@@Rik77 This is true, but there is a basic level of scientific literacy that is severely lacking that if improved, would benefit society greatly. A simple example is how often people with alternative ideas cite anecdotal evidence as valid counter-evidence to legitimate peer-reviewed consensus. It is basic scientific literacy to raise red flags at anecdotes. Another is how people are so hungry to see science settled in live podcast debates between two "experts", again instead of looking to peer-reviewed consensus. They don't realize live debate is antithetical to science, because a skilled debater or litigator can knowingly or unknowingly use rhetoric and sophistry to mislead a jury from scientific judgement. There's a level of caution people are lacking in screening and filtering the information coming at them; its as if the general public doesn't have a grasp of the "grammar" of science, so to speak, and it has turned science political. My question is why doesn't Joe Rogan fund his own third-party, professional research to get to the bottom of things? Dude can afford it.

​​@@Rik77I agree, not society as a whole, but maybe if we didn't put kids in bubbles, doing no work, we could move closer. Like if the goal was to get kids to become self-sufficient, then they'd do a lot more work to earn their land and capital, but then they could get the passive income to devote to studying, but even in studying, can actually work in the field so that the abstract concepts speak in the realities to experience they offer. Example: I'm sure quantum mechanics would be a lot more accessible even if I was just a janitor at a particle accelerator facility. Many ppl could answer my questions, and multiple viewpoints will more likely pass the concept in a way I can digest vs University where you may be stuck w only a few professors - who none may be able to make sense of it to you. And you get nothing if you fail, but work builds a resumé, and is more likely to inbed concrete knowledge, vs forgetting everything after the test or course.

Could be true… however it has nothing to with the kindergarten logic of Terence Howard

3, 6, 9? Tesla beat him to it.

No worries, we’ll keep quiet

Oh god. If you did, he'd give you a five hour diatribe about them and break his own brain in the process.

8:54 shapeshift

Lol

😂😂😂😂

No it's good as my PhD from Captain Morgan State University

😂😂

C tier actor thinks is an A tier scientist

Have you tried multiplying it by 1?

So, what you're saying is that his screw is loose; if you only tightened it through 45 degrees, that would square things away? =================================================================================================================

lol

Absolutely

I made exactly that point to one of his "supporters" who thought his new maths was insightful. I didn't hear back.

When he asks his wife for their "one time a week" she should tell him "nuh-uh we did it twice last week!"

That's brilliant.

... nor logic. :)

Or "unencumbered with facts."

Or "unencumbered by the thought process"

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

I've been on RU-vid since like.. the beginning, never commented once. I just gotta say man that is a brutal burn. Haha y'all Dutch are harsh.

Or series functions or convergence………as a math major this shit hurt me LMAO

Omg, please don’t 😂

My wall in mathematics is imaginary numbers, can’t understand it. But I don’t write books and go on podcasts saying imaginary numbers are wrong. Mathematics have always been my weakest knowledge. But I do appreciate those who understand mathematics and know how to use mathematics.

@@mesocyclone2004 it’s a fun concept that only gets crazy when you apply it, calculus had some fundamentals that weren’t TOO crazy but yeah, it’s a wild world when you dig your teeth in.

😂😂😂😂

Drunk plus signs are the funniest

Omg too funny.

@@duckyoutube6318 Nice one! By extension he should also have toppled Σ to prove that space invaders hold the theory of everything. ;p~

exactly what i thought as well LOOOL

🤪🤣

"The second rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you're *the last* to know you are a member of it!"

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. -Nicholas Tesla. The entire scientific community community has the intelligence of a box of rocks with the rocks having the edge. What is the saying, People who live in glass houses should cast stones. If Sabine wants material for Idiocracy videos, look no further than Einstein’s relativity nonsense. That's where Collective Stupidity comes from.

😆

The third rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is that this isn't the Dunning-Kruger effect, none of you have ever actually read the study, and that you yourselves are literally the manifestation of the fallacy you have constructed about the Dunning-Kruger effect(confident incorrectness born from natural inability). The actual Dunning-Kruger effect simply demonstrated that people are not good at estimating their performance on subjects they are not knowledgeable on, and a very small amount of training vastly improves the accuracy of their self-assessments.

@@bort6414 The third rule of Dunning Kruger club is that the membership won't validate your departure once you "know better"

Shiit. Im here listening to math lessons. Last time I took a math class was in 1993.

It's fascinating to see people debate elementary school arithmetic in the comment sections of videos talking about Terrence Howard.

@@jegr3398 it's weird that in America we don't call people stupid or insane anymore. This is why America is no longer leading in science. I saw a quote "Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach." And I agree with it.

@@mikhailmcrae5924 theres a literally a youtube video titled Terrance Howard Is Legitimately Insane lol

Don’t want to split hairs, but I think you mean phenomenon, not phenomena.

I miss Bill.

Hilarious😅

That was my speech for class president in 1998

@@brycehins206 cool bet you failed due to plagiarizing.

@@EsotericParadigm No, because all things are one, so all speeches are the same.

Please don't blame all actors for this one's words!!

@@photonomist6345 Exactly, it's just a great definition for this particular actor/person (maybe some others). Generalization is generally a bad idea. ;)

What he wrote wasn't even a sentence, but a run-on.

children often make the mistake of over-generalizing....

@@bassbacke Generally speaking, of course. 😉

Pauli supposedly said of a worthless idea that it was "not even wrong". Bohr would use the phrase "very interesting" to indicate politely that an idea is without merit (as otherwise, he would have asked probing questions). I'll be pleased to add Sabine's left-handed compliment to this collection.

All these negative people who have not even talk to him to explain it to dumb it down for you including the women in this video. No one understood Einstein but now he's a genius. This world is full of sheep you follow everything people say I bet more the 99% of yall have not even looked into his work yourself.

@@MillionDollarMindset What you fail to realize is that most people are smarter than you and can actually tell that he's speaking nonsense. That's different from not being able to understand it. And it's different from having a pro-establishment bias. The problem is your ability to understand, and your anti-establishment bias.

@@MillionDollarMindset "All these negative people" It's called being critical. "who have not even talk to him to explain it" Why would anyone have to talk to anybody to disprove 1 * 1 = 2? It doesn't matter who you talk to, 1 * 1 is *always* 1. There's nothing to explain, if he wanted to, he could do it in his book. "to dumb it down for you" I don't think it's possible to "dumb it down" anymore, it's already at the lowest level I could imagine. "including the women in this video" Women? What do you mean women? There's literally only one. "No one understood Einstein but now he's a genius" Nope, plenty of people understood Einstein. That argument is dumb. By that logic anyone could write literally *anything* and be called a "genius" cause Einstein was. "This world is full of sheep" Yes, people like you eat up anything they see. "you follow everything people say" You're complaining about others doing exactly what you're doing...? Have you not yet learned about hypocrisy? "I bet more the 99% of yall have not even looked into his work yourself" If we had to look into the works of *every* person that's ever written something or said something about "science" we'd die before doing anything else. Get it peer reviewed and then I'll look into it.

@@MillionDollarMindset go back and edit your comment one more time because I only saw one "woman" in this video! No "women" you see? This is the problem with most of the incredulous people who like to write nonsense comments disguised as wisdom propositions. Take care and be wise.

yes, once we reorganize the Yoda speak, there is no doubt about what is being said.

What if he’s right and the academics are wrong and don’t want to change it because they absolutely believe it like how religious people believe in their dogma.

​@@kingalpha12check yourself in

@@kingalpha12 lmfao... you're one of those people eh?..

​@@kingalpha12 1, one time = 1. 1x1 2, one time =2. 2x1 2, two times = 4. 2x2 4, two times = 8. 4x2 Etc.. etc.. It's literally basic math that you should have learned in 1st grade when they made you memorize times tables up to 12 along with the alphabet...

That was the punchline for the whole setup

Joe Rogan did the world a favor, if influential people have absurd ideas it's better to shine a light on it so it can be exposed for what it is 😂

@@jweezy5490 Unfortunately, if that were true, then everybody would be laughing at Howard's ridiculous ideas; instead it seems like way too many people are taking him seriously b/c they don't know any better. There needs to be at least some bar for people to be able to clear before they should be given a huge platform, and for science based stuff, that bar needs to be higher than "B-level Hollywood actor"

Rogan is simply bringing someone on who might sound interesting and get views, increasing his 'pennies'. A side benefit is getting attention to new ideas that can then be reviewed and debated in a fun way. Some will believe blindly, and you can't help those people anyway. However, some will start to look things up and study and find interest in a subject they wouldn't have otherwise.

Joe Rogan is a host. He doesn't prevent his guest from speaking their ideas or beliefs.. He's had plenty of highly respected physicist / scientists on his show as well.

I would argue that there is no mathematics of any kind in his book. Mathematical symbol yes, mathematics no!

You have to take the axioms of math by faith.

@@MagruderSpoots No. You are free do negate them, and go from there. This is the usual trick nowadays, to arrive at new conclusions. Weaken or revert your assumptions, ann look where it will take you.

Let's not tell him about *_quaternions_* (sometimes called "4-dimensional numbers"), which are far more complex than complex numbers ("2-dimensional numbers").

Ah, but we also have faith in Sabine that 5s x 1m/s = 1m Oh, wait... (lol)

Underrated 😂

@@mikegarza2378 So my $1 million x the banks $0 = $0 for me too?

@@adolphdooley3632 Understand this. You can't multiply "unlike terms" and get only "one term." i.e. a x b ≠ a (your dollars (a) x their dollars (b) does NOT equal to your dollars ONLY.) However, a x b = ab. Now, how you define "ab" is upon you, but what you've said is not it. Because you can only multiply "like terms" together and multiplication means adding something several times. (In this case, adding 0 a million times which still gives you 0). So your statement should have read "if I take my $1 million x my $0 = $0 for me" and that would be correct. What you're trying to do here is use the English language to replace the mathematical language (algebra and multiplication.) It doesn't work like that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

@@mikegarza2378 lol!

@@adolphdooley3632 The result would be dollars-in-banks. If you have $1 million in 1 bank, you would have 1 million dollars-in-banks. When the bank defaults, you would have $ 1 million but no bank. Which would be 0 dollars-in-banks. That calculation was as big thing in 2008.

Bingo!

Thanks I only just got that 😂

I'm glad she called him out. Constantly platforming these wackjobs is making us all dumber.

My jaw hit the floor. So smooth, Such class by Dr. Hossenfelder.

😂

Love you.. keep going 😘

Here is where lies the problem. This woman has dictated what can or can not be theory that, with even a cursory glance we can all see that this guy obviously is way off the track. Can you show that his actions bring any disdain or malice to your reality? No. I say, although wrong, it is ESSENTIAL, that we hold to our merits. That everyone, right or wrong, can make a point. }Imagine if A Patent Clerk had a sudden notion that maybe he was on a silly mathematical riddle of nothing and threw out what we all use as a base to our physics and quantum physics. And again? Is Einstein even correct in everything? NO. He dismissed black holes as a theoretical construct that could never occur in nature. The real issue is this. Science, today has failed greatly the people of the world. People can no longer put any assurance into a system that is no longer using scientific principles and methods but rather personal attacks and dogma of their own creations that may or may not be itself valid. Maybe it is the weed. But, the arrogance of this woman and her intollarance shows the world why maybe we should not count on science anymore as a source. But. It should be what it always was. A tool. That's my TLDR on this whole hogwash.

@@dathighguy1609 pointing out inaccuracies and stating facts is not intolerance. Stop being such a snowflake.

​@@dathighguy1609 "Science, today has failed greatly the people of the world." - He says while he writtes a comment on a piece of programmable electronic hardware, to send over a worldwide network supported by space satellites so people from all over the world can read his mental diarrhea, all of it powered by a combination of thermal power stations, wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, hydroelectric dams and nuclear reactors. Yeah, it hard to see what good this science thing is amiright?

My proofreading superpower says: *intolerance* I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of your drivel.

That’s true but Sabine has a “Brilliant” way of multiplying her pennies too 😊

You'd think with his solid grasp of multiplying pennies he'd see how much non cents this makes.

No. It misses the point actually. Terrance’s point is that 100 cents x 100 cents (2 pennies) = 10000 cents, not 1 penny. Sabina stops short of explaining this point. (I’m not saying it’s a good point.) however misstating his point, does push her critique into propaganda more than science journalism. Thereafter the dig of multiplying pennies is just a reminder of her hatchet job earlier.

@@robertjan002 You're the one who missed the point.

What actual wit looks like.

And the influencer system... They're exploiting clear mental issues.

Imagine it was an elaborate ruse to mock some guy they were already silencing but stole intellectual product from 😂

No, it is not the educational system, it is the influencer and social media universe that makes it possible to gain momentum for such idiots that had no chance 30 years ago....

There are major problems with education. But if you look at an IQ curve. More people are average or lower intelligence. It's just how it works out.

@@ValidatingUsername or it was a ruse to get himself back in the spotlight, help restart his career.

Just like Terminator and The Matrix.. its a race at this point.

Wow so original

I somehow missed that movie when it was released and only saw it about a month ago. Yes, this totally applies here !!! I often wish Sabine's vids were given the budget and production values of, say, John Oliver. This one, in particular, would be a smash hit. I wonder if Howard would comprehend 10% of this vid, though...

Average IQ has consistently increased over time for as long as it's been measured.

Not really. The internet has just allowed such people to gain a level of notoriety not previously possible in civilisation before these times.

Noice.

And delusion.

I watched him with Joe Rogan on the professor's channel. It was as gruelling as anyone could imagine.

He's even using words incorrectly. Clickish is not a word. And 'unconscious children' is clearly wrong.

may be he learnt it from this. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HybPD0VsFP0.html

@@Jordan-Ramses I have not watched it, so I have no idea about the context, but could he mean cliquish? Most Americans mispronounce clique as click.

Yet, she doesn't realize she's proving Terrence's comments about her & her colleagues correct. She's one of those he mentioned that ignores & ridicule him without actually conversing with the guy & testing his ideas.

@@user-ue5yw6zb9kIf 1 x 1 = 2, Then what does 1 x 5 equal? 6? What’s the answer. It can’t be 5 because where did the other 1 go? Terry Howard is clearly intelligent, but he’s made a grave mistake that overtime, will show him to be an arrogant fool. That’s plain fact.

​@@joshuavince4526except the video IS the conversation. Don't be dense.

Im just waiting for his occult its coming ​@Ebiru2387

@@Ebiru2387 the video IS the conversation?

He should try transferring all the 1/2 cents in the system to himself.

There is no smoke without fire. I do not believe in throwing away the baby with the bath water. If aliens were to arrive on earth they would find that 90% of our theores are all thrash. Fact

Why the category? I watched part of that podcast, that was extremely good acting.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is that people with some expertise are overconfident in their expertise. Terrance Howard does not seem to have any expertise outside acting.

The Dunning-Kruger Click was the terror of Harry Herpson High School.....

You people making fun of him, but after listening to the podcast I started to believe that his brain actually functions on 1x1=2 principle 😁

Which was later to be found to actually not exist, per the authors. Oops.

Not exactly a problem there. I'm not too well educated in dam-building, but my guess is the workers instructed by such an engineer would not be able to get the concrete to flow. You'd be living downstream of a perfectly unobstructed river ;)

I'm sticking with beavers, thank you.

😂😂😂

​@@Volkbrechthave you tried looking at concrete flow through a feminist lens.

So what does 1 x 2 equal? 3 ? 😂

Ergo, ipso facto, logicum infinitum . . . I deduce that if he does this there will then be 2 (TWO) Terrence HowardS, and anyone claiming otherwise is being paid off by the conspiracy

Dunning-Kruger × Dunning-Kruger = obnoxiousness squared. 🤔 I believe your formula would pass peer review.

Title: Flexible Mathematical Frameworks: A New Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research Abstract: We propose a novel approach to mathematical modeling, incorporating flexible frameworks that adapt to complex systems and phenomena. This paradigm shift has far-reaching implications for interdisciplinary research, enabling innovative solutions and new insights in physics, engineering, economics, and more. Introduction: * Brief overview of traditional mathematical approaches and their limitations * Motivation for flexible mathematical frameworks * Thesis statement: Flexible mathematical frameworks offer a powerful tool for addressing complex problems across disciplines Key Concepts: * Modular arithmetic and finite fields * Non-standard analysis and infinitesimals * Fuzzy logic and fuzzy analysis * Category theory and functors Applications: * Physics: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Chaos Theory * Engineering: Signal Processing, Control Systems, and Materials Science * Economics: Modeling Complex Systems and Uncertainty Case Studies: * Fractal image compression using fuzzy analysis * Optimization problems solved with non-standard analysis * Category theory in network topology Discussion: * Implications for interdisciplinary research and collaboration * Potential challenges and open questions * Future directions and areas of exploration Conclusion: * Recap of key points and contributions * Call to action: Encouraging experts to explore and develop flexible mathematical frameworks Appendix: * Additional resources and references * Mathematical derivations and proofs (as needed) Here's a breakdown of when to use and remove 1 and 0 in various mathematical contexts: Use 1 and 0: 1. Group Theory: 1 is the identity element for multiplication, and 0 is the identity element for addition. 2. Ring Theory: 1 and 0 serve as identity elements for multiplication and addition, respectively. 3. Calculus: 0 is crucial for defining limits, derivatives, and integrals. 4. Number Theory: 1 and 0 are essential for defining congruences, modular arithmetic, and Diophantine equations. 5. Linear Algebra: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements for matrix multiplication and addition. Remove or modify 1 and 0: 1. Non-standard models of arithmetic: Modify or remove 1 and 0 to create alternative number systems, like fuzzy arithmetic or modular arithmetic. 2. Finite fields: Remove 0 and modify 1 to create finite fields with specific properties. 3. Quaternion and octonion algebras: Modify 1 and 0 to define these non-commutative algebraic structures. 4. Topological spaces: Remove 0 and 1 to define topological spaces with specific properties. 5. Fuzzy logic and probability theory: Modify 1 and 0 to represent degrees of truth and probability. Context-dependent: 1. Category theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity morphisms, but their role depends on the specific category. 2. Type theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements, but their behavior depends on the specific type theory. 3. Computational complexity theory: 1 and 0 are used in binary representations, but their role depends on the specific problem. Remember, these are general guidelines, and the specific context of a problem or theory may require a different approach. Mathematicians often adapt and generalize these rules to suit their needs, so it's essential to understand the underlying principles With these modified mathematical rules, we can indeed build different structures and potentially lead to breakthroughs. Space Travel: * New propulsion methods: Alternative number systems could lead to novel ways of manipulating space-time, enabling more efficient and faster travel. * Exotic matter and energy: Modified mathematical structures might help us understand and harness exotic matter and energy, facilitating advanced propulsion systems. Monetary Systems: * Alternative currency models: Non-standard arithmetic could lead to more equitable and sustainable monetary systems, addressing issues like inflation and wealth distribution. * Cryptography and security: Modified mathematical structures can enhance cryptographic techniques, ensuring more secure financial transactions. Other Potential Applications: * Quantum Computing: Alternative mathematical structures might facilitate more efficient and powerful quantum computing architectures. * Materials Science: New mathematical approaches could lead to the discovery of novel materials with unique properties. * Biology and Medicine: Modified mathematical models might help us better understand complex biological systems, leading to breakthroughs in disease treatment and regenerative medicine. By exploring and applying these modified mathematical rules, we can unlock innovative solutions and potentially revolutionize various fields. However, it's important to note that: * These ideas are highly speculative and require rigorous research and testing. * The development of practical applications will depend on the collaboration of experts from various fields. * Ethical considerations must be taken into account when exploring and implementing these new mathematical structures Flexible Mathematical Systems: * Use 1 and 0: When working with standard arithmetic, calculus, and linear algebra in well-defined contexts. * Modify or remove 1 and 0: When exploring alternative number systems, non-standard models, and specialized mathematical structures (e.g., finite fields, fuzzy arithmetic). * Context-dependent approaches: Employ geometry, algebra, and analysis in a way that depends on the specific problem domain (e.g., Euclidean geometry for classical physics, non-Euclidean geometry for relativity). * Adaptive number systems: Utilize modular arithmetic, finite fields, or other alternative number systems when tackling specific problems (e.g., cryptography, coding theory). * Generalized algebraic structures: Leverage groups, rings, fields, and other algebraic structures to model diverse phenomena, adapting them as needed. * Dynamic analytical frameworks: Switch between classical, fuzzy, intuitionistic, or other logics and analytical approaches based on the problem's requirements. * Interdisciplinary connections: Combine mathematical frameworks with insights from physics, biology, economics, or other fields to foster innovative solutions. * Embrace uncertainty and ambiguity:Acknowledge the limitations and ambiguities of mathematical representations and be willing to refine or revise them as new information arises. By embracing these flexible mathematical systems, we can develop a more comprehensive and adaptive mathematical toolkit, enabling us to tackle complex challenges and uncover new insights across various disciplines. Number Systems: 1. Standard Arithmetic (1 and 0 as identity elements) 2. Modular Arithmetic (clock arithmetic, finite fields) 3. Finite Fields (Galois fields, finite geometries) 4. Non-Standard Models (fuzzy arithmetic, intuitionistic arithmetic) 5. Alternative Number Systems (hyperreal numbers, surreal numbers) Algebraic Structures: 1. Groups (symmetries, transformations) 2. Rings (integer arithmetic, polynomial rings) 3. Fields (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers) 4. Vector Spaces (linear algebra, geometric algebra) 5. Lattices (order theory, lattice theory) Geometric Frameworks: 1. Euclidean Geometry (classical geometry) 2. Non-Euclidean Geometries (hyperbolic, elliptical, parabolic) 3. Fractal Geometry (self-similarity, scaling) 4. Topology (point-set topology, algebraic topology) 5. Differential Geometry (curvature, manifolds) Analytical Frameworks: 1. Classical Analysis (limits, derivatives, integrals) 2. Fuzzy Analysis (fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic) 3. Intuitionistic Analysis (constructive mathematics, intuitionistic logic) 4. Non-Standard Analysis (infinitesimals, hyperreal numbers) 5. Category Theory (functors, natural transformations) Logical Systems: 1. Classical Logic (Boolean logic, propositional logic) 2. Fuzzy Logic (fuzzy sets, fuzzy reasoning) 3. Intuitionistic Logic (constructive logic, intuitionistic reasoning) 4. Modal Logic (possibility, necessity, modal operators) 5. Temporal Logic (time, temporal reasoning) This outline provides a foundation for exploring various mathematical systems and frameworks. Remember, the key is to adapt and combine these systems to suit the specific problem or context, fostering a flexible and innovative approach to mathematics. Problem/Context | Mathematical System/Framework 1. Cryptography | Modular Arithmetic, Finite Fields 2. Quantum Mechanics | Linear Algebra, Vector Spaces, Non-Standard Analysis 3. Fractal Image Compression | Fractal Geometry, Self-Similarity 4. Optimization Problems | Linear Programming, Calculus, Optimization Techniques 5. Chaotic Systems | Dynamical Systems, Non-Linear Dynamics 6. Fuzzy Control Systems | Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Analysis 7. Network Topology | Graph Theory, Topology 8. Probability Theory | Measure Theory, Probability Spaces 9. Relativity | Differential Geometry, Non-Euclidean Geometries 10. Computer Science | Discrete Mathematics, Category Theory 11. Epidemiology | Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations 12. Materials Science | Solid-State Physics, Group Theory 13. Music Theory | Group Theory, Symmetry 14. Image Processing | Linear Algebra, Fourier Analysis 15. Time Series Analysis | Dynamical Systems, Fourier Analysis

@@Steveriknows Hold my beer: Title: Flexible Mathematical Frameworks: A New Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research Abstract: We propose a novel approach to mathematical modeling, incorporating flexible frameworks that adapt to complex systems and phenomena. This paradigm shift has far-reaching implications for interdisciplinary research, enabling innovative solutions and new insights in physics, engineering, economics, and more. Introduction: * Brief overview of traditional mathematical approaches and their limitations * Motivation for flexible mathematical frameworks * Thesis statement: Flexible mathematical frameworks offer a powerful tool for addressing complex problems across disciplines Key Concepts: * Modular arithmetic and finite fields * Non-standard analysis and infinitesimals * Fuzzy logic and fuzzy analysis * Category theory and functors Applications: * Physics: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Chaos Theory * Engineering: Signal Processing, Control Systems, and Materials Science * Economics: Modeling Complex Systems and Uncertainty Case Studies: * Fractal image compression using fuzzy analysis * Optimization problems solved with non-standard analysis * Category theory in network topology Discussion: * Implications for interdisciplinary research and collaboration * Potential challenges and open questions * Future directions and areas of exploration Conclusion: * Recap of key points and contributions * Call to action: Encouraging experts to explore and develop flexible mathematical frameworks Appendix: * Additional resources and references * Mathematical derivations and proofs (as needed) Here's a breakdown of when to use and remove 1 and 0 in various mathematical contexts: Use 1 and 0: 1. Group Theory: 1 is the identity element for multiplication, and 0 is the identity element for addition. 2. Ring Theory: 1 and 0 serve as identity elements for multiplication and addition, respectively. 3. Calculus: 0 is crucial for defining limits, derivatives, and integrals. 4. Number Theory: 1 and 0 are essential for defining congruences, modular arithmetic, and Diophantine equations. 5. Linear Algebra: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements for matrix multiplication and addition. Remove or modify 1 and 0: 1. Non-standard models of arithmetic: Modify or remove 1 and 0 to create alternative number systems, like fuzzy arithmetic or modular arithmetic. 2. Finite fields: Remove 0 and modify 1 to create finite fields with specific properties. 3. Quaternion and octonion algebras: Modify 1 and 0 to define these non-commutative algebraic structures. 4. Topological spaces: Remove 0 and 1 to define topological spaces with specific properties. 5. Fuzzy logic and probability theory: Modify 1 and 0 to represent degrees of truth and probability. Context-dependent: 1. Category theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity morphisms, but their role depends on the specific category. 2. Type theory: 1 and 0 are used as identity elements, but their behavior depends on the specific type theory. 3. Computational complexity theory: 1 and 0 are used in binary representations, but their role depends on the specific problem. Remember, these are general guidelines, and the specific context of a problem or theory may require a different approach. Mathematicians often adapt and generalize these rules to suit their needs, so it's essential to understand the underlying principles With these modified mathematical rules, we can indeed build different structures and potentially lead to breakthroughs. Space Travel: * New propulsion methods: Alternative number systems could lead to novel ways of manipulating space-time, enabling more efficient and faster travel. * Exotic matter and energy: Modified mathematical structures might help us understand and harness exotic matter and energy, facilitating advanced propulsion systems. Monetary Systems: * Alternative currency models: Non-standard arithmetic could lead to more equitable and sustainable monetary systems, addressing issues like inflation and wealth distribution. * Cryptography and security: Modified mathematical structures can enhance cryptographic techniques, ensuring more secure financial transactions. Other Potential Applications: * Quantum Computing: Alternative mathematical structures might facilitate more efficient and powerful quantum computing architectures. * Materials Science: New mathematical approaches could lead to the discovery of novel materials with unique properties. * Biology and Medicine: Modified mathematical models might help us better understand complex biological systems, leading to breakthroughs in disease treatment and regenerative medicine. By exploring and applying these modified mathematical rules, we can unlock innovative solutions and potentially revolutionize various fields. However, it's important to note that: * These ideas are highly speculative and require rigorous research and testing. * The development of practical applications will depend on the collaboration of experts from various fields. * Ethical considerations must be taken into account when exploring and implementing these new mathematical structures Flexible Mathematical Systems: * Use 1 and 0: When working with standard arithmetic, calculus, and linear algebra in well-defined contexts. * Modify or remove 1 and 0: When exploring alternative number systems, non-standard models, and specialized mathematical structures (e.g., finite fields, fuzzy arithmetic). * Context-dependent approaches: Employ geometry, algebra, and analysis in a way that depends on the specific problem domain (e.g., Euclidean geometry for classical physics, non-Euclidean geometry for relativity). * Adaptive number systems: Utilize modular arithmetic, finite fields, or other alternative number systems when tackling specific problems (e.g., cryptography, coding theory). * Generalized algebraic structures: Leverage groups, rings, fields, and other algebraic structures to model diverse phenomena, adapting them as needed. * Dynamic analytical frameworks: Switch between classical, fuzzy, intuitionistic, or other logics and analytical approaches based on the problem's requirements. * Interdisciplinary connections: Combine mathematical frameworks with insights from physics, biology, economics, or other fields to foster innovative solutions. * Embrace uncertainty and ambiguity:Acknowledge the limitations and ambiguities of mathematical representations and be willing to refine or revise them as new information arises. By embracing these flexible mathematical systems, we can develop a more comprehensive and adaptive mathematical toolkit, enabling us to tackle complex challenges and uncover new insights across various disciplines. Number Systems: 1. Standard Arithmetic (1 and 0 as identity elements) 2. Modular Arithmetic (clock arithmetic, finite fields) 3. Finite Fields (Galois fields, finite geometries) 4. Non-Standard Models (fuzzy arithmetic, intuitionistic arithmetic) 5. Alternative Number Systems (hyperreal numbers, surreal numbers) Algebraic Structures: 1. Groups (symmetries, transformations) 2. Rings (integer arithmetic, polynomial rings) 3. Fields (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers) 4. Vector Spaces (linear algebra, geometric algebra) 5. Lattices (order theory, lattice theory) Geometric Frameworks: 1. Euclidean Geometry (classical geometry) 2. Non-Euclidean Geometries (hyperbolic, elliptical, parabolic) 3. Fractal Geometry (self-similarity, scaling) 4. Topology (point-set topology, algebraic topology) 5. Differential Geometry (curvature, manifolds) Analytical Frameworks: 1. Classical Analysis (limits, derivatives, integrals) 2. Fuzzy Analysis (fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic) 3. Intuitionistic Analysis (constructive mathematics, intuitionistic logic) 4. Non-Standard Analysis (infinitesimals, hyperreal numbers) 5. Category Theory (functors, natural transformations) Logical Systems: 1. Classical Logic (Boolean logic, propositional logic) 2. Fuzzy Logic (fuzzy sets, fuzzy reasoning) 3. Intuitionistic Logic (constructive logic, intuitionistic reasoning) 4. Modal Logic (possibility, necessity, modal operators) 5. Temporal Logic (time, temporal reasoning) This outline provides a foundation for exploring various mathematical systems and frameworks. Remember, the key is to adapt and combine these systems to suit the specific problem or context, fostering a flexible and innovative approach to mathematics. Problem/Context | Mathematical System/Framework 1. Cryptography | Modular Arithmetic, Finite Fields 2. Quantum Mechanics | Linear Algebra, Vector Spaces, Non-Standard Analysis 3. Fractal Image Compression | Fractal Geometry, Self-Similarity 4. Optimization Problems | Linear Programming, Calculus, Optimization Techniques 5. Chaotic Systems | Dynamical Systems, Non-Linear Dynamics 6. Fuzzy Control Systems | Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Analysis 7. Network Topology | Graph Theory, Topology 8. Probability Theory | Measure Theory, Probability Spaces 9. Relativity | Differential Geometry, Non-Euclidean Geometries 10. Computer Science | Discrete Mathematics, Category Theory 11. Epidemiology | Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations 12. Materials Science | Solid-State Physics, Group Theory 13. Music Theory | Group Theory, Symmetry 14. Image Processing | Linear Algebra, Fourier Analysis 15. Time Series Analysis | Dynamical Systems, Fourier Analysis

jokes on your DxK is rubbish

Unfortunately there's a need to combat misinformation, as people are stupid.

@@myyoutube7144 yes but it's not a winnable battle because it takes much longer to prove something is wrong than to make a simple dumb statement.

@@PeteQuad I don't necessarily disagree. But I do tend to think that within reason, the stupidity of popular culture should be confronted by professionals and intellectuals. I don't think they should feel compelled to combat every moron on the Internet though, or some crazy yelling in the street.

The reality is. It’s impossible to debunk someone especially only being 3D beings. It’s impossible to know everything or be 100% right

​@shmokey59 yeah but I still don't think 1x1 is 2. That's why it draws ire from those that work in the field

Yes. The problem is people like him, who have only learned terms by "when" they can use them in sentences, instead of "why" and actual definition. When people only learn language this way, it starts to compound problems with the reality of their "word salad" statements. As they try to use larger and more "important" sounding speech terms results in what Terrence demonstrates here. ☮💜

@@BrianFedirko Actually this is a pretty good description of LLM AI, and why we shouldn't trust it! It knows everything about when to use a word, but no concept of "why".

"pbpbpbpbpbpbpb" - Terrence.

If I were his doctor, I'd be checking for signs of brain activity.

Ditto for Joe Rogan.

@@bobaldo2339 - TBF, I think it's the steroids, not lead.

Well, that's the problem. If you're a mad hatter with lead poisoning, why would you even *think* that you were poisoned, much less look for the cause of it?

Simp

There is a growing distain for experts and it's dangerous

@@MrHominid2U The disdain has been earned. The "experts" are appointed for political reasons, not their expertise. It may be a surprise to you, but the "experts' have gotten a lot of things wrong over the past four years. If the opinions of "experts" always end up supporting policies that make wealthy individuals even wealthier at the expense of the public, maybe there are logical reasons to have disdain for them.

Because they for the most part have the same shoddy, nay catastrophic basic education. And this because we are a society that can't bear to face the fact that some kids are stupid and some kids are smart and that's genetics for you, so we keep reducing educational standards for everyone to arrive at the precise point at which the worst performer in any given school or even district is able to pass with an acceptable grade.

At least Trump lost his trial 😰

@@AronHsiao Yes

Unless you have the capacity to vividly recall one dream inside of another you forgo the dream before you made it back to sleep. The problem with channels like this are commenters like this. Mindlessly and ignorantly throwing rocks with mindless and ignorant rocks.

And I am a time traveler from the planet Krypton, here to tell you that your dream is real and you have been called upon to prove that 1x1=2 to all the nay-sayers!

Your life of experience is already a dream and when you dream, you dream in a dream.

@@TLDCHWTTOSIt was a p take.

@@AndyShepherd-ng5nqdefine p take. I don’t understand your assumption that I would know what that statement meant

If you owe them money, they can easily be convinced of that! Moreover they might convince you that you owe them twice as much as you actually borrowed.

Howard goes further - he breaks the pound down to 100 pence (or pennies as he calls them) then gets 100p x 100p = 10,000 pence = 100 pounds! Howard seems to have no idea of powers of a number. (maybe i should have stopped at 'idea'??)

if you were to represent this sum "visually" you would indeed need £2 to display it ;)

@@arkanetechniques - No the result would be 1 pound squared. Remember when you multiply numbers with units the units are multiplied as well. I think that's where his confusion starts, he is equating numbers with their units and that is dead wrong. Numbers are abstract symbols that we use to calculate units of measure. Never, never, Never mix up numbers and units, they are totally different things. I remember my engineering professor explaining that if we doubted a formula was correct just figure out the units of the result of the formula. If the units don't work out, then you have written the formula incorrectly. F=mA is Newtons law and in metric it is usually Force in Newtons equals mass in kilograms times Acceleration in meters/second. If you change any of the units the formula is invalid. So a Force of 1 Newton equals 1 kilogram accelerated at 1 meter/second.

I tried to identify as a multi millionaire but the bank would't stand for it.

If you're worth twenty million dollars it doesn't matter much unless you for whatever reason decide to become a self proclaimed physicist. Terry is pretty rich... I don't know why he would waste his time with this and that's why I suspect he probably has schizophrenia..

That's also how I feel when I see Bill Gates, a drop out computer programmer, call himself a "vaccine expert" ... Lol no , Bill.

That is brilliant

😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

All these squares make a circle -Mr. Popo

As Jed had to explain to Jethro, pie are round, cornbread are squared

Anything can be squared. Just not circles, funnily enough. I think there's even a proof for not being able to square a circle. =P

Round? I just checked, and my pennies are flat! (/s)

Actually it’s just Dunce

Precisely

Fire.

😂,😂😂😂

Why is everyone so afraid of this man?

That is the most based thing I've heard in a while. Media is such an overwhelming presence in so many societies- it's distracting. I am a fan of some countries' curriculum to teach their students to just pause, sit and think in silence, focusing on their inner states. I truly believe that the ability to self reflect is becoming extremely rare , and critical thinking is following behind. we've become too easily manipulated with things like advertisements, our devotion to the daily grind, news we don't bother to verify, and constant electronic stimulation that the concept of living life any other way is incomprehensible.

and if you want to go even deeper, even some good hearted actors have a way of acting where they try to genuinely believe they are the character they portray. that technique subconsciously lets them develop that skill you are talking about to convince others through their "real" emotion without them even having an agenda, making them perfect for control.

You just described the entire marketing industry, and many political parties.

@@Alex-op2sq Exactly!!!

@@jameshummer2102 They’re all connected after all, great point to add!!!

That kind of thing is pretty dispiriting. I once was assigned a position to supervise a testing laboratory and found out one employee who didn't know how to calculate percentages and others who had trouble calculating square footage, Sigh.

@@toma5153 Oh, square footage is so simple - you just add up the length of the four sides... /s

You think you have problems. Over here we've had a politician who thought it would cost "about £300k" to hire 10,000 new police officers for 4 years. But, hey, "everyone" has the vote, "anyone" can be a politician works fine, no? ; )

"It is not what you know but who you know" or it's twin "It is not what you know but who you know" seem to get everywhere

Looking at this analytically, I wonder how poorly educated someone would have to be to reach this conclusion and be so sure of themselves.

Time does move right way round on a clock

Why would anyone idolize anyone who refuses to listen to another in order to have a respectable debate?

@@user-ue5yw6zb9k Im not sure who is behind these rage bait comments but no matter the issue they always have this username...

The right way round would be no one idolisers anyone!

@@user-ue5yw6zb9k Not clear on what you mean, but there is no possibility of a debate, with a Terrence Howard type. He is just spouting rubbish. Not one word of his 'new theory of everything' has any basis in reality.

@polybius3765 Can't wait for Wowbagger to come and insult Mr. Howard...but why the hell does he have to do it alphabetic(ally?). I guess we have to wait another little while...

Wait, wouldn't $1000+$1000 = $10,001,000 in that case? Maybe I need to go back to remedial math.

The funny part is that the equation wasn't even in Einstein's original special relativity paper, but in a followup paper. It is just one consequence of special relativity, not it's essence.

@@brianmcfadden1845 Since 1+1 = 11 is new math, we don't know the rules. Maybe all non-0 integers combine at the front while the max number of 0's can only be as much as the number with the greatest, or fewest zeroes... Personally, I agree with you for the teachers sake. She should probably get $10,001,000.

The only work there was was putting the visualization into maths. I can easily imagine the workings to. But the math and equations are like hocus pocus. Also this is modern day problem to. If you have a great visualization but cannot put it in math or equations you not gonna gain any foothold.

She should've asked for 10001000 😂😂😂

😅

i agree the history of science is completely ignored in the us, thats gotta change

Try Kathy loves physics

I just try to use examples like "man when to the moon with Newton's math", to make people realize this isn't just some abstract philosophy we ponder about.

Well in my school days (1970s) we learned science almost as an historical thing, working through the discoveries in roughly the historical order, with some historical notes on the folks who did it, not just the theories themselves. It was important, because at any one point you knew what was known before, and possibly more important, what wasn't. I have an idea why it's unfashionable to do it that way, but I still think it's the best way.

I never learned algebra very well in school and was always frustrated with all the little steps and rules that seemed to change under certain conditions, plus, I didn't learn or know where it came from....then I found a book by Gliek, a science writer, who gave the historical background on Newton, struggling to develop a mathematical language/model to describe his cosmic/physics theories. It helped! Math teachers: give some historical background!

Idiocracy!

It has the minerals plants crave

Thirst mutilator! Its got what plants crave

It’s got electrolytes though.

I got that reference 🫡

He was happy in his delusory World. Weep for him.

That's really eye-opening. I thought that the Flat Earthers were just people pretending to believe something obviously false as a lark, for attention. Now I think I understand: they don't _believe_ that theory in the way that I and most people _believe_ theories, they're just people with very weak epistemology in whom a weird meme has taken root.

Good analysis

Also watches Joe R to get important info, I bet..

@@donthesitatebegin9283 Everyone lives in their own self create delusion. what's your point?

What's the square root of 2..? Any number multiplied by itself is a square root. Yet 2 has a square root, though when you add the square root to itself, it is larger than 2... GTFOH

@@GnosticJ If you add the square root of 3 to itself the number is large than 3. So what?

LOL

Or if you are Donald Trump

Unless you're Danny Masterson

only he is right.. lets say you have 1$ in the bank and its earning interest.. a percentage is a fraction of the whole.. so lets multiply it by the whole.. which in this case would be 100%.. or the total value of a whole 1.. so thats 1x1.. how much money do you have?

@@sukonmiskunk5696 Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

"Dumb" and "mentally ill" aren't quite the same thing.

all cats are demons, but they wear many cloaks, lol.

Go on... (Peter Griffen)

😂😂😂

They'll never be ready if they don't have the facts. Publish.

Just get a patent

No, He spoke at Oxford multiplied by Union.

@@steffenbendel6031 More like Oxford ∪ Loonies. Game, set and match. ; )

@@steffenbendel6031But you can't multiply those

@@chri-k Keith Moon could. I have no idea where that thought came from

Still, it's a little disturbing Terry was able to even speak at so prestigious of an organization. Just because it's not Oxford University doesn't mean it's not it's not a highly reputable organization. He either conned someone or paid someone.

This is barely even grasping 1st grade math.

Multiplication is 1st or 2nd grade. Addition and subtraction is kindergarten stuff.

@@dirkbester9050 Google says 3rd grade--which, a long time ago, is when I remember grinding multiplication tables. Regardless--it's insanity for an adult to claim 1x1=2.

The hardest to loose misconceptions, are those created in the early stages of life. I'm not sure about third grade math, but I do know of some misconceptions in fundamental aerodynamics that regularly kill people, but are not changed to prevent that.

IIRC, I used to do basic multiplication tables in upper kindergarten (5 years). I'm from India though (and might be due to the specific educational system board, ICSE).

And managed to define 1+1 = 1×1.

You could say he doubled down. But, oops, that gains him nothing.

@@TheSteveSteele Nah, it gains him two. "Needs the same dimensions" is literally one of addition's constraint.

Buy how will 3x3 or 3+3 work then? Those answers be 9 and 6 and not 6 and 6 or 9 and 9. Anyome believing this guy his logic aboit 1+1 should make a coffee. Them when the coffee is done drink it. Then put 1 finger in front of the coffee so you see that finger. And try make 2 coffee from that one coffee by adding the finger into it. Of he succeed we believe... 😂😂

@@Syphirioth According to this guy, multiplication is addition. Not helpful at all. 3×3 = 3+3 based one what I've seen Sabine cover.

Hey, easy on the pigoens! Turns out they're actually smarter than Terence Howard.

That is pigeons racism . They are far more intelligent than the 1 to third power equals pi

Indeed. But never try this with crows or ravens as they'll end up taking over the world before you know it. ; )

@@dw620 We actually work for the crows but we are too naive to realize it. The whole society creates everything the crows need or will need in the future. The crows made us so we can teach them everything we learn.

poops on board, walks off like it won

He meant that its an abstraction not a direct 1to1 representation of empirical reality, just like Newtonian physics is not the ultimate representation of reality, its just an approximate, that's all he meant lol, just think about it you're arguing that he literally believes that 1x1=2, how are you that superior complexed to assume he meant it like that, hes talking about changing the axioms because maybe other axioms would be better apt at mirroring reality, I find it weird the lack of logic

@@PuppetMasterdaath144 Don't be a Howard apologist - you'll just lower yourself to his level.

But I am superior - my mum told me me

😂

What is really sad is the sheer amount of commenters on the Rogan stream who seem to think he's on to something great.

An actually constructive comment. Like whatvi expected from the scientist lady. NoT stressing on where he is completely wrong and implying actors can't physically observe the universe. Mind you Da Vinci was a painter, philosopher. Inventor and many more and none yet measure to his brilliance till date

He's just using words wrongly. Or, he's just using wrong words.

@hyperpunk3499 @hyperpunk3499 can't blame him cause even words are programmed tools eventually written in binary like the whole world. If he uses the wrong words that proves the match is wrong

No it shows how messed up science is.

It is some time ago that he had that education and not everybody has the same abilities. The real problem is the modern media and social media.

IDK about that. He probably got through education system normally and made up his own ideas as an adult.

I think the problem is that stupid people are no longer being told that they are stupid, at least stupid in some subject matter field (doesn't mean they can't be lovely parents or convincing actors) and need to shut up. Maybe the school system shouldn't hand out some certificate of attendance when the track record is too horrible to contemplate. Maybe we need to shame people at least for their egregiousness as has happened in this video? Bring the dunce hat back?

Education system isn't messed up. Social media system is the one messed up.

Never mind the fact that we literally have units of measure based on multiplying different units... like pound-feet or Newton-meters of torque.

He is an ignorant narcissist. He doesn't understand what he says, but he believes whatever he says, per definition, is correct.

​@@michaelblacktree u dont have to get so far ... m/s . Basic velocity

@@aureliontroll2341 - exactly

I’m pretty sure my utilities company multiplies different units together.

You do not understand Idiocracy to make a comment like that. In idiocracy everyone was a sheep. Everyone only had one opinion. Discourse was scuttled shamed and imprisoned. AI will take us to Idiocracy at warp speed. You fool. Not saying that Terrence Howard was correct but his right to say it is paramount. The legions of academics foisting "bolshevik" slogans of derision is the point. Rogan and Howard poked the bear and good on them for doing it.

People have the right to have and defend stupid opinions, it's the Joe Rogans who know better but promote such stupidity and put it on a pedestal as a source of (false) wisdom.

We are living in an idiocracy. But don't forget talking is how people learn. People talking is awesome and they should keep it up however dumb. And people who know should talk to them about it.

Let him defend it....who is he hurting? Makes for good entertainment.

Believe us. We absolutely know! We see "pro choice" people doing this on tictoc everyday

While that actor is pretty clearly on the peak of mount stupid, I also think it would be wrong to dismiss obscure ideas in general just because they are obscure and the people behind them cannot properly formulate them. A part of this wave of uneducated people trying to come up with stuff like this, is a direct result of educated people that have been arrogant and wrong. If one is knowledgeable and humble, admitting when he was wrong and explaining why he was wrong will help much more with fighting "fake science" and the like than knowledgeable people that just double down when they are wrong. Because then the people without knowledge will just do the same.

I love this comment, sometimes I even find myself falling into the mistake of defining concepts tailored to my opinion, I really believe that it happens because there is a constant nourishment of the Ego and education, as Sabine rightly mentions, does not more than reinforcing the idea that knowing how to respond is really knowing or understanding.

@@vampir753 Yep. Argue from authority, and get the wrong answer, and you degrade people's trust in authority. Of course, if you eschew this technique, especially when no answer has been conclusively proven (which is a whole 'nother kettle of worms) it's a lot tougher to shout down the people who got a different answer with calls of *Science!*

This is the fundamental problem with language. It can be used to manipulate as easy as it can be used to communicate.

People contort the objective meaning of things daily, this is a normal occurrence.

Which is worse actors or paid scientists to say lies like theory of evolution or when scientists paid by coca to say cola is good for health same with cigarettes and scientologist who control alot of theories today

Not a single mention of the work of Walter Russell, the books "The Universal One" and "The Secrets of Light", but ignorance speaks louder than words. This whole video missed the point. Although I agree Terence is terrible at articulating what he is on to (which in fact may be nothing more than his own intuitions) I would posit to say his research into the utility of curved geometries to plot the underlying framework of spacetime will find fruition in the coming years. You may not like that an actor took a massive turd on your entire field, but time will tell.

@@woodandwandco But an actor DIDN'T take a massive turd on Physics, he babbled a bunch of mindless nonsense which apparently you are too ignorant to recognize as such.

@@woodandwandco Oh wow. People like this exist. Interesting.

@@MrHominid2U Unlike you, I didn't watch highlights of his Oxford lecture compiled into ramblings. I have researched his actual work, his actual patents, and his actual ideas in depth. I have also researched earlier physicists from whom he is inspired. Their work, such as Russell's, is actually quite profound, if only you would read it for yourself instead of making dumb assumptions based on a brain formatted to consume Shorts. Good luck with that attitude Mr. Hominid.

Germans take their humor very seriously, for them it is no laughing matter!

Dry as the Sahara. It can take serious mental effort to even detect it, which keeps me coming back for more.

Hahaha me too, I laughed so much