1.4K views
•
2 years ago
0
0
Share
Save
Audio
7 appearances
Eric Weinstein holds a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard University and is a member of the Galileo Project research team. www.ericweinstein.org www.geometricunity.org
2 appearances
Terrence Howard is an actor of stage and screen lauded for his work in "Crash," "Iron Man," "Empire," and "Shirley," as well as a musician and researcher in the fields of logic and engineering. www.terryslynchpins.com
No timestamps yet... Create the first?
Chandler Burr, The Emperor of Scent: A True Story of Perfume and Obsession
Terrence Howard, One Times One Equals Two
UFOs, aliens, Bigfoot, oh my
Long live the IDW
Black holes, wormholes & other things I'll never understand
Show all
139 views
•
2 years ago
Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day.
Gentlemen, here we go.
Terrence, thank you for coming back.
It was a lot of fun having you on the first time.
Obviously, a lot of people wanted to talk to you after they heard all these
ideas of yours.
And then my friend Eric reached out and he said he would love to do it.
Eric, one of my most brilliant friends, tell everybody your background, like
your academic background so people understand what you...
Sure.
So I'm a Ph.D. in mathematics, specifically in mathematical physics.
I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places
like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, Oxford.
And I'm a podcaster in part...
Very good podcaster.
Boosted.
Bring it back to Portal.
You have a lot to do with all of these things, Joe.
Listen, one of my favorite episodes of any podcast was your interview with Werner
Herzog.
Oh, man.
That was a great episode.
Have you had him in here?
I have not, but I would love to.
Because it seems to me like that's the conversation I want to listen to.
I would like to corner him because I believe that Grizzly Man was a secret
comedy.
I really do.
There's something about the way he edited Grizzly Man.
I'm like, this motherfucker is being funny on purpose.
I know he is.
I know he's like editing these like short clips.
So it's the guy's so ridiculous that you start laughing.
I didn't see it because I...
You haven't seen Grizzly Man?
We have different tastes.
How dare you?
By the way...
It's a work of art.
I need to also just say that I was not...
Terrence, I think, you know, I heard him on TMZ.
I was not looking for a debate.
I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel-manned so that
anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit gave a
chance to put his best foot forward before he got, like, reviewed.
And I didn't ask to come on.
You asked to have me on.
I'm happy to do it because I'm a friend of the show.
Well, you reached out about the episode specifically.
Yeah, sure.
And I felt like if anybody could talk to Terrence and actually understand what
they're talking about.
Yeah, and after I watched the interview with you and Brian Keating, I realized
that you weren't trying to eviscerate me or anything like that.
You actually wanted to hear a well-put-together argument concerning these
things.
So I appreciated you taking the time to come and examine these things and love
to hear your stuff.
But I wanted to say thank you to you, Joe, and for putting me on the show
initially and for your audience for how they responded and, you know, the
support and the people that were against it because it raises the idea of
critical thinking because that's what we're supposed to be doing at this
crucial time is the critical thinking.
So I thank all the haters and I thank all the supporters and I thank the people
that's on the fence.
And I'm hoping that today we can move people over to one side or the other.
Well, at least we can better inform people.
And Terrence, it's been really cool to meet you because I've heard about you
and you're an exceptional human being.
You really are.
You're very, very unusual.
For a guy to be that good of an actor, I almost always dismiss them as being a
moron or at least crazy or at least crazy, you know, like, but in a different
kind of crazy, like, like, you're super friendly and you're, it's, your recall
is insane.
But I wanted you to talk to someone who's had a deep education in it and let's
see, like, what, what he believes about these ideas and maybe you guys can
collaborate or just, like, let's start from Eric.
Like, what at, what out of the podcast that I did with Terrence really stood
out with you or something that you wanted to.
Well, what I thought is, I got to, I have to be honest, I've been listening.
I was not so happy with certain things that happened in the podcast.
And then I started hearing the response to it.
And I was much more infuriated by the response than anything I heard in the
podcast because I thought that a lot of people just use their position of
greater formal education in some of these areas to be jerks.
And to be really dismissive and pretend that they couldn't understand things
that you were saying.
And I didn't.
No, I'm not kidding.
I heard.
Because I think this thing goes out to millions of people and whatever, let me
just say something else positive about Terrence.
What he just did was very big.
He said, thank you to the haters.
I haven't gotten to that plane of existence yet.
You've got to stay offline.
I keep telling you.
No, no, no, no.
Some people just shouldn't be reading the comments.
It's not the online stuff.
It's the academic stuff.
The academic stuff is really vicious stuff.
And it's always with like a pretend smile on the face.
So it's the worst.
And what I thought I would do is I can't critique a man if I haven't built a
model of what he's actually saying in my own mind that he agrees with.
Like, in other words, if I start coming after Terrence and saying, I think this
stuff here is bullshit, and he's like, I didn't say that.
That's what you inferred from what I wrote.
Then I've just basically insulted a person incorrectly.
And so, and if I praise something, I don't know whether I built that in my mind
or he built it.
So the first thing I thought we would do is I would try to recapitulate what I
understand of Terrence's sort of grand arc and see whether or not I can steel
man it.
And then Terrence can say yes, and then I can evaluate it.
But until we do that, I don't know whether I'm actually reacting to the real
man.
I think that's really important.
And what you said about the viciousness of academics, I think that's just a
human thing that exists at the highest levels where people are doing something
very difficult.
And there's a lot of stress and anxiety involved.
And you attack even your peers because your biggest fear is your peers
attacking you.
And usually, generally, it happens with people that are getting more
recognition than someone who thinks they should be getting more think deserve.
Like, someone thinks they should be getting more recognition.
They see someone getting recognition, especially for something that perhaps
could be controversial.
And then they start attacking them viciously.
But it's generally people that wish they got more attention.
It's part of the thing.
Sure.
If you think about it, though, if you think about the number of people in
podcasting who sort of have tried to lift each other up, it's pretty good,
right?
Yes.
Like, you, Lex, Sam Harris, all sorts of people have been good to each other.
And one of the reasons that is is that there's enough money in it.
What happened in academics is that it went into a contractive state in which
you killed or you died, right?
And so, basically, the ethics of academics plummeted after the early 70s.
It was always, it was always very competitive.
But really what it is is it's the Hunger Games.
And, you know, in acting, for example, if there's money among the elite set,
people have trouble with each other.
Same thing in tech.
They kind of fight each other, but they all get rich together and then they
bury hatchets and things like that.
You don't see that as much in academics because it's kill or be killed.
And so we've had an implosion ethically.
And so one of the things that I wanted to do was to try to just begin by steel
manning because I've been really disappointed in a lot of the critique that Terrence
has experienced.
The funny thing is the scientists that attacked, most of them was upset that I
got into their lane and climbed into their lane talking about science.
But here, they're not inside a lab somewhere.
They're not in Cambridge or Oxford somewhere.
They're on social media.
They're on the entertainment world.
And I've never sat up and said, oh, you're full of this because you have no
business doing this.
But they got upset that I'm talking about the foundational problems associated
with mathematics that's held us back.
But I think people really care about these ideas, though.
What they should do is talk about the ideas.
It's the personal attacks that are attached to the ideas by people that want to
be taken seriously.
It fucks the whole thing up because, like, either you're correct or you're
incorrect.
Tell me what you think is right, and then you tell me what you think is right.
Let's work this out.
But this personal attack shit, if you're talking about something as complex as
the things that you discussed on this podcast, there's no room for bullshit.
There's no room for bullshit.
You're dealing with such highly complex ideas.
It says that, and to his credit, you know, I found that interview you were
doing with that woman where you're wearing a wig.
I was doing the movie.
I was in the middle of doing fight night, and they had a shooting.
I had to do the interview in between shots.
It's amazing.
It's an amazing interview with the wig on.
It's amazing.
Well, I remember that line from High Heels, you could put that wig head on your
head.
But, bro, you could pull that wig off.
You could just start to speak it at Oxford with that wig on.
Fuck it.
But anyway, so Terrence was there, wigged out, and he was saying this.
Wigged out, literally?
Literally wigged out.
And he was saying this thing.
He said, look, all I care about is the truth.
And that freed me up to come on, right?
Because the spectrum of Terrence, from the best to the worst, is a broad
spectrum.
And he seriously wants to improve what he's doing.
He cares about it.
And if I can play a part in that, I think he's...
I love you.
I want to offer to you, I want to be able to show you the things that I tried
to show Neil deGrasse Tyson
that he would not even really take a look at.
But no, he did take a look at it, right?
He responded in a long video recently.
Yeah, but his response was disingenuous.
Guys, may I make a recommendation?
Let's start with the ideas, because I think we all care about those.
Yes, for sure.
But hold, please, because this is an important thing that just came out.
He was so disingenuous, because I sent him a long email after he sent me back
the red line
thing, thanking him for reviewing it and saying, look forward to when we can
discuss these things,
because I sent the treaties to him so we could discuss that on the show.
His whole point was, I'm going to bring you on my show, and we're going to
talk.
So here's the stuff that we're going to talk about that I would like to talk
about.
He never followed up from that point forward, just sent one-line emails.
Any other thing you got, you got to go to somebody else.
So he's pretended like, oh, I was trying to be, you know, very helpful, but
that's not what
the email trails show.
So he did make this one very large response, though, right?
He did.
He did go over the treaties, very, like, all the red line stuff.
He only has so much time, you know?
He might be in a position to defend him, but he might be in a position where he's
like, look,
I just said what I said about all this stuff.
Good luck.
I don't have the time to, like, sit here and discuss these things in depth.
Maybe that's possible.
That's great.
But it's like you invited me to come and do your show.
I put this stuff together to come and talk to you on your show, and then there's
no follow-up
with the show.
Got it.
So where's the beer?
I understand it.
I mean, I understand your perspective for sure.
It's like, come on, man.
If you're going to do it, do it.
He got to a point where it's like a thing where he thinks it's ridiculous, and
he doesn't
want to engage it on the show.
Ridiculous.
Amen.
And I believe that, but if you've got 97, 98 patents and four supersymmetrical
systems
that you're claiming you have, and all you need is someone to review them.
I'm going to have to jump in.
I don't want to do it this way.
That'd be great.
Listen, we're just having a conversation.
This isn't about Tyson.
What's the problem?
This is a colleague of mine.
Yeah, this isn't about Tyson, and I love him.
I love him.
I grew up watching him, and I appreciated him.
But what is the problem?
We're defending him.
I certainly am.
Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is that there's a
problem
in general, which we scientists do not behave honestly with respect to certain
things.
We'll make these claims, but science is about communication and challenging
ideas and all
these things, and everybody can be a scientist, and all these sorts of...
of things that we say.
Science is interesting.
Science is fun.
Well, very often it's not interesting.
Very often it's not fun.
Very often you can't really say that everybody can do science, because it's
super demanding.
We don't welcome people.
You know, you're a mathematician, too.
We'll say that to kids, and then the kid will say something, and then we'll say,
be quiet.
And so, this is not peculiar to Neil.
It's like science in general has portrayed itself as a place where everyone's
welcome.
We debate out the ideas.
We have the scientific method to tell us what's true and what isn't.
And that's disingenuous.
It's not really how the game works.
And this is going to involve peer review.
It's going to involve people who are dual in terms of both doing research and
being public
figures.
People who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really
doing much
research.
People who are, you know, pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition
that their
colleagues don't think much of what they're doing.
I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terrence has walked into.
And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they
hear things, what
they will say.
And so, I am in part speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking
to a thousand
people who are seeing this at a different level.
But just for the record, like I said, I grew up watching Neil and having
someone that was
light-skinned, that looked like me, up there making these grand steps towards
helping people
to understand.
I admire him, and I still would like the opportunity to sit down and show him
these things and have
that beer, because I think that he will be pleased once he sees the supersymmetry
associated
with it, and understand where all of the passion came from.
And I hope that other scientists will take a look at it, but that's the whole
point of
us doing this.
I don't know how serious he is about that beer.
No.
Right, because I saw him say that, right?
Mm-hmm.
And, you know, that was a very complicated thing that he did.
And it had many layers as to whether or not you took it on the surface, you
took the hidden
meaning, and you took the meaning below that.
And so plunging right into that from the beginning, in my opinion, is not
served very well by having
the three of us here.
Because the first thing is, what is the nature of Terence's ideas?
I don't think Neil actually understood some of your ideas, to be entirely
honest.
No.
And what he forgot is, when I say one times one equals two, that's a metaphor
for challenging
the status quo.
Despite the fact that the square root of two has all of its issues, when you
cube it or you
multiply it by two, which creates a contradiction, despite the fact that the
square root of two
has a problem with the prime numbers, the fact that they call number two a
prime number,
when it's clearly a composite number.
Any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you
subtract from
another prime number, you always get a composite number, except with the
situation of the number
two.
And there's so many people that, and that's why the prime numbers are
unpredictable, because
of that problem associated.
So there's been a problem with two for so long.
Two is different.
I mean, you will find that mathematicians will often talk about proving
something for characteristic
not equal to two.
So they'll single out two as being just very, very different.
So look that up when you, when we're done.
Yeah, but why?
But why would they do that?
Because in part of what you're saying, the prime two, two, it does belong as a
prime,
but it is also special.
And in other words, I have the opportunity to straw man you if I want to,
because what
you just said sounded crazy.
And I also have the possibility to steal man you.
So all the algebraic topologists who just heard, you know, for characteristic
not equals
to two, they're like saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fair.
And so in part, by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the
benefit of putting
your best foot forward.
Because, you know, if you say one times one equals two, everybody knows that
that's crazy.
But what you actually may mean, and what the fact that you don't use certain
terms, or
the fact that you use certain pronunciations that communicate to me something
very positive,
which is that you taught yourself, you learn the stuff from reading about it,
because nobody
taught you, or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them.
True.
Yeah.
So, you know, in part, you always have the ability to make fun of somebody who
pronounces
a word the way it's read on the page.
And then you also have the opportunity to say, holy cow, that guy actually
taught himself.
That's more impressive.
And so, so in part, what I want to do is I want to start by giving you your
best, your
best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into
this whole flower
of life riff that becomes your, your larger theory.
And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped
it.
Let's go.
Because, you know, I also had to spend some time.
I didn't spend a ton of time.
But, you know, my time is valuable.
Your time is valuable.
So, let's do this thing.
Yeah.
So, I'll follow your lead.
What's going on with the number two?
The CIA is in charge of the number two.
What's up with two?
Two's different.
Because of what he said.
You know, the fact that the even odd distinction.
Isn't that odd, though?
That two's different?
What a strange thing.
The problem that's associated with the number two is because of the identity
principle,
which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics.
That A times 20.
I know.
You don't want to go into it yet.
No, no, no.
Let's get into it.
Just as a base.
Just as a base.
You're going right into his neighborhood.
Just as a base.
You're in the mathematical hood right now.
Trying to keep a black man down.
No.
You have Marie von Franz, who argued about the problems associated with the
identity principle.
You got Kurt Godel, who talked about it.
You got Wells.
All of them said it made everything incommensurable, just because they gave
that identity principle
to the number one.
And that has been the stumbling block for mathematicians, because it's what's
held
everybody behind, because they keep trying to make that work.
Am I wrong?
Yeah, you're wrong if we do it that way.
I mean, in other words, I can take...
Is anything that he's saying correct?
Terrence has several influences, which, again, I don't think it's clear to me.
I have to ask him questions to find out whether I'm even right.
Look, one of the problems is, is I may be wrong about my model of Terrence.
This is the first time I'm meeting him.
I didn't know who he was before the podcast.
And I just, I need to know whether or not I'm even building the right model of
Terrence,
because otherwise it's just silly to have me here, and I'm going to critique
what I built
in my own mind from Terrence's words.
Right.
What I would love, what I was hoping is that you would be able to explain your
geometric
unity model.
That's a different day.
This is about you.
Okay, then, all right, then...
But you guys can definitely get it.
That could be a whole nother podcast.
But what about what he was saying is incorrect just now?
He's saying things that are often at a level that are allegorical, and you
could make them...
So Terrence sometimes mentions something called category theory, right?
And there's a weird way in which category theory can take something that seems
to be an analogy
and make it precise and powerful, right?
So you can have two systems that don't look the same, and you spot an analogy
between them,
and then you say, holy cow, there's an exact mapping of one system onto another
in which it was unexpected
that those are the same structure.
So, for example, we're going to get into something about multiplication, where
Terrence has an issue
with multiplication, but to the best of my knowledge, you don't have an issue
with addition.
I don't have an issue with multiplication either.
Well, then one times one is what?
One times one should equal two.
And action times an action...
If you can show me one place in the universe...
You just shifted frames.
No, no, no.
Show me one place in the universe, one natural observable phenomenon, where one
times one equals
one, where an action times an action doesn't have a reaction.
So then you just went into some...
There's a concept called logomachie, which is arguing over words.
And what you want is not to be caught...
If I can beat you in a word game or you can beat me in a word...
You can beat me in a word game.
I didn't go to MIT or anything like that.
By the way, I heard you with B.B. King, where he was having trouble improv-ing
on the spot.
And your mind just rescued him with a partial rhyme.
I really appreciate that, because he's one of my favorites.
Yeah, he invited me to do a show.
That was a big deal.
I got to play with him.
I was scared to play guitar, though, with him.
I should have put off the guitar.
But I was scared.
I was scared to get on the stage and play with him.
It's B.B. King, man.
I sang with him, but I...
Yeah, it's B.B. King.
Thank you for appreciating that.
So, let's get to this flower of life, because that's sort of the beginning of
this exploration.
But can you correct what he said about one time...
What is, like, what about an action and a reaction?
So, I was trying to get to something.
Do you have a problem with the way we do addition?
I understand...
The addition is the addition, the subtraction, and division is all right beyond...
The only problems I have is dividing by...
You can't divide by zero, but you can multiply by zero.
And if division is the inverse operation of multiplication, then you should be
able to divide by it.
But if you divide by zero, you end up with an infinity.
And there was a great system put together by Marco Rodin, the vortexual-based
math system, where they removed the zero.
But it's able to predict all the things necessary.
It was 100% precise as a model, but it's been abandoned or it's been relegated
to the outskirts.
Don't know that.
We do do things where sometimes we can divide by zero.
We have concepts like the pointed infinity, where you can complete a structure
that the original structure can't accommodate a problem, an operation, but you
can complete it to a larger system in which that thing does become sensible.
So, as an example of the one times one, assume that Terence doesn't have a big
problem with addition, because addition doesn't have the division by zero
problem.
It is the case that if you take any two numbers, A and B, two real numbers,
right, or make them positive, and take the natural logs of those two numbers
and add those together, then you take the exponent of that.
So, we haven't done a times operation at all.
Right.
Right?
The exponential of the LN of A plus LN of B.
That is equal to A times B.
In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic,
or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing.
So, in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you would allow
me, because you like waves, so with waves you need exponentials and you need
natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and
accepting the law of addition, because they're the same system.
The multiplication should initially started as exaggerated addition.
That was the whole point of it.
Well, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under
multiplication, with the identity element being the multiplicative identity,
being one, are isomorphic to the total real numbers under addition, with the
additive identity being zero.
And the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect
the two, with one being the other's inverse.
So, by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part going to
freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability.
And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak
one contradiction through TSA, the entire airport collapses.
Everything that we do just is destroyed.
And so, the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and physical
sciences is extraordinary for outside ideas, because the first contradiction in
the unity of knowledge destroys all of it.
If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses, where some forklift
guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing
with, with the principle of explosion.
And that's the problem with the identity principle, that they've been trying to
work on for years.
For years.
Norman J.
Wildberger talks about it.
It is what's, because you have to cancel conservation of energy, and you have
to cancel the action and reactionary laws in order for one times one.
Now, I understand.
You're seeing one, one time.
But because of the associative law, the associative law that says, if A and B
are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself, in multiplication,
A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B.
Well, hang on there.
If I change the word itself to the word zero, which you're going to say, there
is no zero.
Why do I say there's no zero?
Because you have, well, this is why I keep trying to get back to what I
understand of Terrence's underlying metaphysics.
What I'm saying is to say zero, zero is supposed to represent no thing, nothing
whatsoever.
But they have zero as a number, set up as a number.
But to say no thing, your brain creates a chemical structure even in saying
nothing.
So there is what I'm saying philosophically.
There's a difference between the empty set and zero.
The empty set, that's the difference.
So if I say to you, Terrence, what is the collection of kittens that you have
sold to North Korea to be used for spare parts?
You would say, it's the empty set.
I've never sold a kitten.
I say, hey, Terrence, what is the number of kittens that you've sold for the
internal organs to North Korea?
You would say zero.
So zero is the...
I would say none, yes.
That's right.
So there is a zero.
But to multiply something by the nothing, to multiply something by nothing, don't
they have to be dimensionally equal to in order to multiply?
Like you can't multiply a human by an ant because they're not dimensionally
equal.
Well, if there was a thing called a human ant.
No, that was your point about dollars, right?
What dollar times a dollar, that was a problem that people...
It's not a Dewey Decimal system.
It's not a Dewey Decimal.
No, the problem comes up with the Dewey Decimal system, why a dollar times a
dollar can be different values based on different currencies.
That was the point of that.
I was pointing out, hey, the Dewey Decimal system is whack.
Terrence makes a correct point, that we say one times one equals one, but if
you say a dollar times a dollar is not a sensible thing, unless a dollar
squared is a unit that you can interpret.
That was your point about dimensionality.
Right.
Now, in the moment, what is a dollar squared?
What does a dollar squared become?
But since the dollar is no longer based on a hard asset, it's no longer gold,
it's just an integer.
It's just an integer in a computer being multiplied.
It's a unit of account.
It's a unit of account, but it's an integer that's still...
Now you're able to multiply it under different currencies.
States are not allowed to print dollars, but states are allowed to print as
much change.
So who's to say that the state isn't saying, okay, we're going to make, we're
going to print...
We can get into seniorage, which is the concept of theft that occurs when
either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing,
increasing the unit.
The number of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit.
But my claim is, you're going to do a series of things.
Like, I've watched how you deal with people and interaction.
And you've created an incredible effect.
Rick Rubin, the hip-hop producer...
Yeah, he did my album.
Okay, well, that makes some sense.
Because the first thing that happens is I'm awakened by a message from Rick Rubin.
He's like, how come you can't explain physics the way Terrence Howard explains
it?
That's not a way to get on my good side at 8 o'clock in the morning.
Yeah, but he's probably baiting you.
What?
Rick's probably baiting you.
He's always baiting you.
He's the best.
He's the best.
I'm trying to explain physics the way you explain it.
Well, okay.
I'm looking for a partnership at the end of this.
That's what I'm hoping to win you over as a proselyter.
You can try.
I'm hoping that the information does that.
There's at least one area that you have won me over in, which I'm very excited
about.
But I'd like to get back to you.
What is that area?
Don't leave us hanging.
The linchpin.
We'll get to it.
Yeah, but you can't leave us hanging.
Well, I'm trying to get back.
Look, I'm trying to do a service to this.
Listen, let me let you talk.
You're just going to talk.
Stop trying to control everything, you freak.
He's got a plan.
I know.
He's got a very rigid plan.
Can I have a good time?
Can I get an ayahuasca, Chino?
Actually, is there a way to bring the temperature?
Yeah, we can lower the temperature in here.
Yeah, because I'm schvitzing.
But you are wearing a jacket, sir.
Well, because I'm trying to be professional.
That's hilarious.
Isn't that adorable?
Like, I like how you dress, man.
I do pictures of that cold costume.
Beautiful geometric pattern on your hoodie.
Looks much more comfortable.
This thing you're doing, everybody does that.
Smart as you are, you can wear a fucking dirty Nirvana t-shirt.
You come in.
You don't need this nonsense suit.
Although I do enjoy a good suit.
But most of the stuff that I've been pointing out...
Don't try to control everything.
The stuff I've been pointing out has been the blaring inconsistencies that they
shove down
until you just accept.
And if I hadn't had...
If I didn't come up with a separate cosmogony...
I didn't come up with it.
If a separate cosmogony hadn't been handed to me, given to me, that's why I
explained that thing.
Okay, I'm going to be quiet.
Let's start with the flower of life.
You're wearing it on your shirt.
I'm wearing some aberration of the flower.
That's right.
So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing...
Because it's confusing, right?
And the one thing I can't go with you on is I can't go on the Nantucket Slay
Ride
where we're talking about the Bose-Einstein condensate and then we're talking
about the...
Oh, I'm going to show you that.
We can do that.
But he wants to stick to specific topics one at a time.
Because otherwise it's just, I'll be chasing after you and you'll get nothing.
Yeah, that was part of the plan today.
I just wanted to kind of let some of it play out.
So you want to start with...
The Flower of Life.
The Flower of Life.
Jamie, can you pull that up, please, from my book?
It's on page 134.
Tcotlc.com.
Or it should be in the regular thing.
And also that blender thing is very cool.
Yeah, which for rebuilding of Saturn?
No, the one that you were talking to this other guy where he's asking you
questions about the five forms.
Jeff Menzies.
I found that through sleuthery on the internet where it was doable.
And because it's, you know, in particular, when you do them opaque, it's very
hard to see.
Sometimes when you let it become translucent, it's easier to see.
Well, that's why, while he's getting that, I'm going to...
Got it.
No, no, no, I don't.
I'm on your website.
I don't know exactly where the book would be.
Oh.
Is it one of these links?
Just go down.
I think it'll be a little more, square root of two.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Yeah, if you'll just type into my book, TCO.
That's from...
Well, where is the book?
It's...
Or you could also Google O-T-O-E-T.
O-T-O-E-T will take you to that?
Yeah, one times one equals two is the acronym.
If you go to...
Just go to tcotlc.com, and that'll be a pull-up.
I'll...
It's in T-C-O-T-L-C.com.
Yep, right below there, Terrence Howard.
Yep.
Flower Live, sis.
Yep.
Flower Live.
Let's see if you just open up the book.
You got to open it, though.
Download, yeah.
Right there?
That's...
I don't know if that's what downloads the book.
Yeah, I don't know.
Let's see.
Open.
I'm clicking that, and that just takes me to this, and then it's not doing
anything.
It's not doing it.
Let's try searching Google O-T-O-E-T.
And then several...
All right, so if you go...
And then put in Howard.
No.
Or put in PDF.
We should be able to pick...
Yeah, okay.
That's probably right.
Yeah, there you go.
Okay.
And then go to page 134 on the right-hand side.
You do have several editions.
Yeah.
I didn't even...
That other one somebody else set up there to probably distract and keep people
from being
able to find it.
It's probably the government.
Yeah, we're going to do that later.
You're going to love that.
Mm-hmm.
They're coming.
Yeah, just tap on that jewel right there.
Okay.
Okay.
So this is...
And we can rotate that with the cursor and get a...
Oh, what's great about this, I'll be able to pull pieces out of it.
Yeah, so just tap onto that drill.
Brilliant.
So we can start with this.
So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything of...
I've seen this pattern before, didn't know its history.
I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a
mathematical
thing about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments.
But what these overlapping circles are is a question.
And the way in which I got to understand how Terence sees the world is he says,
look, there's
this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world, and there isn't a
great explanation
for why it's found in so many different places, at least as far as I'm aware
and part of your
point.
And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet
that this
thing is hiding a secret.
And that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic.
There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface.
And then you said something that's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is
that maybe this is
like a shadow on a flat wall, and that those two things are exploitable.
And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface is, first of all,
suspicious to you
because of that curve linear triangle that you see in black.
And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say as above, so below.
But what if you said as below, so above, and you imagine that there was a three
dimensional
structure floating above this that actually projects down to this and distorts
down to
this.
So that's the first idea.
The first idea is, it's not this, it's the thing that projected to this.
And that's what you mean when you say opening the flower.
Because the flower of, when I was researching where the platonic solids came
from, this is
the oldest version that I got from all of antiquity.
It came back to them.
Well, there are no, there are no platonic solids because you're in dimension
two, except for
what you built, which is the thing above in black.
But what they did years ago, 6,000 years ago was draw straight lines where the
circles
overlapped.
And I thought in, in what I was reasoning with regard to all energy being
expressed in motion,
all motion being expressed in waves, all waves being curved, and that there
were no straight
lines in the universe.
So I was like,
There's several errors in what you just said.
If I stop there, we'll get off track again.
Yeah, but you should, you should correct those errors while we're there.
Okay.
It is not true that all energy is expressed in motion.
What energy is not expressed in motion?
Potential energy is not expressed in motion.
If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't
know
this, but most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a
spring.
So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of, of all physics, even the
most theoretical
physics.
It's very, very strange thing.
Hook's law.
When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, energy is
conserved.
Now at the top and at the bottom, that weight is not moving because all of the
energy is in
the potential of the spring.
It's in the stress of the crystallization that has occurred with, within that,
that system.
And then you will say something like.
The moment that, but that energy is still being held together.
There is still energy there and it's still moving at, at a microscopic level.
It's still spinning.
We have to get into what you will make a point, for example.
Is that true?
What he's saying is that it's still in motion.
It's just in motion in a lower frequency.
No, there's nothing moving at the, the, let me, let me show you what goes wrong
in the
interaction.
Okay.
Terrence says, show me in nature, a single straight line.
Okay.
And I liked your point about Euclidean women.
That was awesome.
That was, that was from Alan Watts.
So if I, if I show this to Terrence, cause I just bought this from the end of
the seventh
ray.
A lot of straight lines.
A lot of straight lines.
Now Terrence is going to say.
Or what you would think is a straight line.
You see what, but when you look at it under an electron microscope, you're
going to see
the crystalline structure.
So again, this configuration is an illusion.
You're just saying it's not perfect.
It's an optical illusion because crystals form in symmetrical.
Yeah.
Very often.
But a lot of straight lines, a lot of straight lines, perceived straight lines,
but right.
But every atom is filled with empty space.
I mean, we could take this down to the, like, there is no matter.
That is, we could get crazy.
So we're, we're, we're about to, well, you've seen that Mexican cave.
That's the best example ever.
The Mexican cave is amazing.
It's insane.
The best example I've ever seen of crystals.
Yeah.
Where you've seen it?
No.
Oh my God.
It's insane.
Okay.
Just for a little sidetrack.
Let's take a look at it because this, uh, Mexican cave is probably one of the
most spectacular
things that exists on earth.
By the way, the spaceship behind you is supposed to be a mushroom, Joe.
No, it's a spaceship.
That's the classic UFO.
And that's me with the headphones.
Um, look at that.
That's amazing.
How insane is that this was created on earth?
By nature.
Just by nature.
It's so different.
Than anything else we see that it makes our mind go.
What the fuck?
Yeah.
Like those are crystals.
How?
How?
What happened?
Okay.
Wild.
So in this beautiful thing, I would say there are a lot of straight lines, but
I've also
studied Terrence enough to know that he's going to say, ah, they're not
perfectly straight.
They're not perfectly straight.
They're not straight at all.
The moment you look at them through an electron microscope, you'll see all of
the curves.
This is part of where we get into.
Right.
So they're not precisely straight is your point.
And in fact, let's imagine that I.
But the earth isn't precisely circular, right?
No.
No.
It's a five mile.
Very far away.
We use this thing called the geoid, which is not circular either, but at least
it's smooth.
Right.
We have many different geois.
Let's not get.
It does seem odd though.
The earth isn't round totally.
No, it's, well, the earth is aging.
It's being, it's on its way out.
It's on its way out.
It used to be perfectly spherical.
We're falling apart.
We need some Botox.
No, we don't.
The earth needs Botox.
The earth just.
You want a drink?
We can drink.
No, no, no.
Not this early.
Not this early.
This early.
What does that mean?
You're an American man.
You should be able to do whatever the fuck you want.
God damn it.
I'm in Sweden right now.
And you're in Texas.
You're an American man in Texas.
This is a free state, sir.
What do you have?
Will you have whiskey?
Oh, I would love one.
That's what we need.
We need whiskey.
Let's get some whiskey and some ice.
Yes, and then we're going to get into the wave conjugation.
I want to show you something, and I wanted to ask your opinion before I forget.
There was a recently, well, I recently found it online, of these two photons
that were entangled,
and it looks like a yin and a yang.
Have you seen this?
No.
Yes, no, it's not true.
I have seen it out of the corner of my eye.
I did not study what caused this.
I had to run it by you, because you're probably the only one that I know, other
than maybe
Terrence, it could understand what the fuck they're saying.
I have a motto of it.
Okay.
I do.
And I don't.
I do.
I believe you.
I believe you.
I believe you.
I have a motto of it.
So what are they saying?
How did they see this?
Like this bifoton digital holography?
Can someone explain that?
Maybe, but I don't know what those words mean yet.
Okay.
Do you know what it means, Terrence?
Like how they could see this?
A bifoton.
Bi always meaning two, but they're examining two.
Someone got Michio Kaku on the phone.
Oh, no.
Did they smash them?
Are they smashing them together?
What's their process of looking at it?
That's a very good question.
And they're using the same interferometer that Michelson-Morley experiment,
which turned
out to be, it turned out that it actually proved there was an ether.
They just, there's a paper.
There's a way in which you're right about the ether, to be blunt.
That's what I've defined as the ether.
Listen to this statement in the beginning.
Look, you know, put the bong down and listen to this.
High dimensional bifoton states are promising resources for quantum
applications ranging from
high dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging.
Just that phrase, what fucking percentage of human beings breathing on earth
right now
have any idea what any of that means?
I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space, which is multi-particle.
So you've got something in the degree two level of a bosonic fox space where
the two photons
were created together.
And that's going to be where the entanglement comes from.
High dimensional, I don't know what it means because I know too many different,
I assume
it's a term of art in this area.
And what they're saying is if I can create something that is geographically
distributed, but also
linked at the point of creation, like if a photon decays into an electron positron
pair, those
two are going to be entangled.
And if you'd make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of
the entire
system.
And so what they're trying to say is if you want to get jiggy, people always
want to talk
about faster than light communications by taking an entangled pair and saying
that if
I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light cone.
So we can give meaning to these things and then you have to say, well, it doesn't
allow you to
create information transfer faster than the speed of light.
You have to be very careful and precise about it.
But if you just start getting jiggy, then you start thinking.
Unless you introduce the ether.
Thank you, sir.
So the ether, so, you know, in part when I've been here on previous versions of
Jerry, I
talked about vector bundles and in a certain sense, how do you have a wave
without a medium?
The medium was supposed to be this ether, but the medium is actually something
called a vector
bundle.
It's a little bit weird that you're a wave.
No, it's perfect because the vector bundle, go ahead.
You're a wave in a medium and you as a wave don't know that you're a wave and
you don't
know what medium you live in.
And it's funny that you go through life not understanding what you are.
No, but that medium, that luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of
his equations
off of, Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium.
The only reason that special relativity came along was because they couldn't,
they had misread
the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment because it did show a slight
change or a,
some drag, but they, from that point on, because Einstein's theory of
relativity was so easy
and it predicted all of the movements of things, it did, they allowed, they
abandoned.
They had a bad idea of what the ether was going to be and special relativity
said.
They thought it would be and what you were trying to say, the way I interpret
it, again, and
I don't know if I'm right if we don't do the work, is hey, the spiritual
successor to the
idea of the ether exists.
Yes.
And that thing has properties.
And if you say, if I put a vector bundle on top of a Lorentzian manifold, then
you don't
have a contradiction.
And if you call that the ether, that's more or less what we work with.
And then we do this weird thing where we say, well, they used to think the
ether existed
and it didn't, ha, ha, ha.
And that's not really.
Because that's when they said that space was a vacuum and they realized that
space is
not a vacuum.
It's not a vacuum.
It's not a vacuum.
Do you know how much is going on in that vacuum?
It's all going on.
Yes, all of this stuff.
I understand.
So this is the thing, which is if you step on this thing the wrong way,
everybody laughs
and says, ha, ha, ha.
He doesn't understand the Michelson-Mortley experiment.
He doesn't understand why there's no ether.
And then we secretly sneak it back in, in this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Joe.
Cheers.
Cheers, Joe.
Cheers.
These professional spherical cubes.
Yeah.
They're cool, right?
Brown ice cubes.
Now I can have a conversation.
Oh, yeah.
Now.
Ah.
Freedom.
Mental freedom in a glass.
So.
So.
Or in prison.
If you're careful about it, it makes sense.
If you're not careful about it, the whole thing blows up in your face.
And the reason that I speak about the ether, all of the wave conjugations, all
of my patents,
have been defining different aspects of the ether.
I believe that I've defined the electric side, the plasmid side, and I believe
that I've defined
the magnetic side, and the constitution between them.
I mean, that's what I want to show.
I want to get to that.
Let's go back to the flower.
Oh, but before you go from that other spot, if you look at that picture again
of those two
photons interacting, it looks like it's at the center of what would typically
be a whirlpool.
This is like the very center of a whirlpool.
So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vortices,
that natural vortices.
That's what they took the picture of.
They look directly down at something being at two lights moving a fluid.
And they described how they take the picture.
It's so complicated.
Jamie, go back to where it was where they were explaining what they use.
Here it is.
Here we introduce bifoton digital holography in analogy to off-axis digital
holography,
where we coincidence imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a
reference state is
used to perform quantum state tomography.
What the fuck?
See, but that's because of the uncertainty and Schrodinger, all of that.
But if you were able, because they started off trying to predict an electron
cloud and find
a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties
and probabilities
came out, but they were doing things on a two-dimensional basis.
That's what I believe that I've figured out with the wave conjugations, because
they talk about the hyper...
they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through
all these unnecessary steps to reach it.
I am just so happy that someone's doing something like this.
I'm so happy that we can talk about it.
I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on at the
highest levels of this kind of science,
because it's so damn fascinating.
These people are finding the very building blocks of the universe and studying
them.
It's fascinating.
But this is a bit up from that.
I mean, the tomography is like how we assemble a picture of you when we do an NMR
or a CAT scan.
We have this thing called the radon transform, where we send waves through your
body, and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body,
reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system
responds.
We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly.
It's going to, you know, that would take me 15 minutes with looking things up.
I was just going to say, it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can
actually look at these quantum entangled photons like that and just see it.
But we need to do a better job.
Look, right now we're in a crisis where no one knows what's true.
Nobody knows who's full of shit.
Nobody knows where they can trust, you know, what they can trust, who they can
trust.
One of the things that actually, you know, moved me to come and to reach out to
Joe is that by default, I think, you know, I've addressed the National Academy
of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them.
And so they wanted to know how much I knew about their lie.
It's weird to think that this little studio, in a weird way, is one of the
rivals of universities when we don't know what's going on at Harvard, as you
have recently seen, we don't kick out plagiarists, we don't check what's going
on at the National Institute of Health.
And so it's very strange that this table is one of the last things that is
trusted by many people.
And that's one of the reasons I'm here, which is people have a chance to see
people in conversation about things and, you know, you screw up, but the
conversations recorded and we all go on and people have a chance to see what's
coming out.
If we can go back to the flower of life, I can try to love that.
But like with the flower, all of these things I took, I went up to Oxford eight
years ago and tried to present them there to be examined.
They didn't want to take me seriously.
Because you keep coming at it in the way that you do it.
Because the one times one, when I said the one times one, but like I said, that
was a metaphor to say something's wrong, something's wrong, but they know
something's wrong with the math.
It's not adding up.
So you bring up renormalization theory.
Right.
Renormalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math
that's wrong, and on the other hand, we have a way of working with math that's
wrong, even though we know it's wrong.
If you have an error of a particular kind and you can find an expression with
the same error that's different in the denominator, sometimes you can cancel
the part that's wrong because you introduced it twice.
So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you
have the opportunity to have one problem kill another.
So is there a potential future where human beings, through whatever means,
develop a superior method of mathematics that doesn't have a problem with the
number two, that doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about?
Well, that's what I think I've done with my wave conjugations.
It solves all of those problems.
That's what I can't wait to talk about it.
Okay.
It solves all of those problems.
Let's crack.
So this is, like we said, we start with the tetrian now.
No, no, no.
We haven't gone to the tetrian.
Oh, you're just talking about the flower.
Look, you have a story.
Yes.
And by doing the Nantucket sleigh ride, you lose everybody like me because
nobody thinks it's real.
And what parts of it are real and what parts of it are wrong and what parts can
be improved and what parts should be improved and how important it is, is never
going to get adjudicated.
Beautiful.
So you start off with the flower of life.
It's a very coherent story that this thing is found all over the world.
I learned from this.
I didn't understand how widespread it was.
I didn't know that there was a mystery of it.
I know something about sacred geometry is a kind of spiritual geometric thing.
We can talk about it later.
Terence has a couple of ideas, maybe three.
One of which is maybe it's not about that flower of life because that's in a
two-dimensional plane.
Maybe that is a shadow cast by something in higher dimensions.
And it's a cryptic message from an advanced consciousness that will open its
secrets when we finally understand it.
Now, there was something, for example, called the Antikthyra Mechanism, which
is a bunch of gears found by this Greek island of Antikthyra.
And famously, it was just in the Athens Museum.
It predicts the constellations.
We didn't know that.
There were two cats who really focused on it.
One was named Derek de Sola Price and the other was Richard Feynman.
And they were obsessed with it.
And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how
much ancient wisdom and knowledge there was because this was a mechanical
calculator for understanding the positions of celestial objects far more
advanced than we had any idea was possible.
So, if you want an analogy, in part, I'm trying to steel man you, we have a
situation in which the Antikthyra Mechanism gives you a possible example of
what the flower of life might be.
It might be a cryptic instruction.
And a different version of this, the Kerala School of Astronomy, which was a
religious school in the south of India, in the west coast of India, more or
less worked out.
Look at that beautiful thing.
Well, that's a, that's a reconstruction.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That thing.
Yeah, that's the real one.
Yeah.
But, I mean, when you look at the actual reconstruction, what they think it
actually looked like.
Oh, and if we, fascinating.
Can we get the video for the reconstruction?
It's mind-blowing.
What year was this that they believe it was constructed?
2,000 years ago?
This is when they still believed in the Ptolemaic, you know, example of the
world.
But this doesn't seem to follow Ptolemaic equations, those 39 equations from
now.
Well, it's, you know, because of so many different factors, war, natural
disasters, there's been a lot of moments in history where shit got lost.
Just the, the pyramids are the best example of that, right?
Like, what the fuck did they do?
We don't really know.
You know, we don't really know how they did it.
Well, another, we're just talking about Werner Herzog.
Yes.
Werner Herzog created an entire film, Fitzgeraldo, just to test his theory
about how to move heavy objects over a mountain.
Right?
So he wrote, he wrote an entertainment to test an engineering theory.
And this idea about entertainers not being scientists or engineers is just
total bunk.
Like, Werner Herzog is an engineer.
And...
He's also an actor in a cheeseball movie.
He was in Reacher with Tom Cruise.
He was the bad guy.
Yeah, he gives that guy an opportunity to cut off his finger or something.
Hilarious.
It was hilarious.
He's good, though.
Hedy Lamarr, famous for spread spectrum technology.
Oh, yeah.
She did Wi-Fi, essentially.
That's one of the reasons I just, I believe that we listen to people who have,
have things to say.
So if we go back to the flower of life.
So Terence has a couple of ideas.
One of which is, this is the shadow.
Another of which is that, um, once you go into higher dimensions, you should be
thinking in, um, so you should be thinking, uh, of these curve linear
structures.
And then instead of focusing on the spheres, you should focus on the areas in
between the voids and in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial,
the interstitial voids.
Um, so there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse
Tyson, because he said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are
beautiful.
That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with.
So what Terence is doing here is he's saying, look, this, the circles are, are
cross sections of spheres and the spheres have to be placed in very precise
places to generate what Terence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations.
And he has different ways that spheres run into each other.
Then he says something very cryptic where he says, if you drop a pebble in the
center of a spherical lake, circular, circularly symmetric lake, the wave will
radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore, and then it will radiate back.
And so he's talking about this and he says wave conjugations and wave conjugation
didn't call up anything directly.
When I heard him say it, they would call it a phase conjugation or they would
talk about, you know, the conjugate wave coming back.
If you know, if you, if you do something, uh, like a garden hose, that's a fix
to the wall, the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something.
So what Terence is talking about is the idea, and you could do this where we
could drop like, let's say six stones in precise places in water.
And then, you know, using super slow-mo, watch what happens as these waves in
precisely placed places run into each other.
Because really what physics is, is waves in collision.
And they're going to create a particular cymatics, which is going to show the
harmonic points where matter and all of those things occur.
That's the predictability.
I'm not going there yet.
Okay.
So then what Terence does is he has in blender, um, some means of bringing up
platonic solids that are not the usual.
So I bought some of these platonic solids, uh, from Amazon and you see that
they're all, uh, extremely Cartesian.
They're made up of flat faces, our best attempt to do flat faces.
Terence says, I don't think that that has to be the case.
If you generate these things from this pattern, um, and he focuses on the tetrahedron
and an octahedral structure.
Can you go up, Jamie, please, so we can see it as, um, from that, that side
perspective of it.
Yeah.
Go around.
Okay.
So what that is, is a curve linear tetrahedron with spherical, and it's not
actually hyperbolic.
Those are going to be, um, positive curvature, not negative curvature.
This is negative curvature.
No, it's not, it's going to be positive curvature.
Compressing in.
Yeah.
I think it's positive curvature because those are going to be parts of spheres.
The spheres are interacting, pushing inside.
Yes, but negative curvature would be more like a Pringles trip, a chip, where
the principal axis of curvature went in different directions.
So I think it's not negative curvature.
So this isn't the negative space between four bubbles?
No, what you mean by negative space, negative curvature and negative space are
different concepts.
So the word negative is appearing twice, and that's why we're confused.
Again, you know, there are a million of these gotchas where you're not going to...
Can you, uh, describe the difference between the two?
Sure.
If I take the tip of my nose, that's going to be positive curvature because I've
got one, uh...
Extending out.
One curve going one direction.
The other is going in, they're curved in the same direction.
On the other hand, if you look at, like, the crease of my nose, um, that's
going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and
another that's going like that.
Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?
So that would be negatively curved, right?
Because you'd have, you'd have things going in opposite directions.
That looks like a cool seat.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That looked a little comfortable.
Okay.
So negative curvature is what...
I actually have a motto of that.
Yeah, so negative curvature would be what we would be talking about with, like,
um, hyperbolic space.
And spherical curvature would be what we're talking about with the inside of
those curved linear triangles on his...
So he's making, again, I don't see this as...
This isn't where I think it's worth, you know, saying he's wrong.
He's just doesn't know the language and doesn't know that there's a formalization
of it.
Now, if you take, um...
So the other structure that he keeps running across is an octahedral curved
linear, um, I don't know what...
It's not really a platonic solid because it's not flat.
If you go and push, you have to push on the, um, jewel on the side, Jamie, if
you go to the side of the thing, press on that jewel, and then go to the perp,
to that blue on that right.
That blue, yep.
And then you get where eight bubbles work.
So now what he's doing is he's saying, if I have eight bubbles, and these
bubbles, all, each face of this object, this octahedral object, um,
he's taking a, a sort of curve linear triangle on a sphere, and he's imagining
that these things are all sort of racing towards each other.
Um, and how would you generate, no, no, no, don't, if you put those two in, he's
going to go into a different world.
No, no, no.
So if we take the...
You can just tap on each one of those tetrians.
Just tap it, it'll go away.
Tap it, it'll go away.
Now, how would you generate, so Neil doesn't know where this comes from, right?
Now, the way in which, uh, you would do this, I believe, is that you would take
a, let me think about how you do this.
Um, you take the eight...
Petri, yeah.
Eight, no, no, no.
You take the eight vertices of a cube, and you'd put a sphere at each one, a
small sphere.
So imagine that you had a vertex, uh, at one, one, one, in three-dimensional
space, and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to
have either ones or negative ones.
So you have eight possibilities, so you could have negative one, one, one, one,
or one, negative one, negative one, et cetera.
You allow those spheres to increase to a size of square root of two radius, and
that will close off all of the means of escape, leaving a cavity in the center
of your cube.
And that cube will have an octahedral cavity that looks like this.
That's how I think you generated the sucker.
I actually generated this by putting eight of the pieces together.
I took eight of those triangular pieces together, and I put them together.
They basically became the basis of two tetrians.
Yeah.
You know, which this would be seen as a neutron, and the interesting thing
about this piece right here is nature always makes things in pairs, and they're
always balanced.
This doesn't exist.
This exists only as a result of a pressure condition, a higher pressure
condition.
Jamie, if you go to that last blue, tap that last blue on, yeah, pass, not the
last blue, go around one more time, that one right there.
That tetra, that hunting, only exists as a result of the four, of the eight
pressure conditions created.
Hold on, you'll appreciate this.
Tap, now tap on that tetra, the hunting in the middle.
No, no, no, not that one.
Damn, you got to start it again.
Yeah, you can, yeah, hit that one again, and then tap on the, on to, yeah, tap
that.
Make that go away.
That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians
interacting, and they create that other greater pressure condition.
That's the negative space that they generate, but it doesn't, it's a massless
area,
because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away, and the
energy generated disappears.
But it's a part of everything in the, in the, in my motto.
So you're, you're putting a lot of words, like, first of all, let's just admit
that this looks gorgeous.
Pretty cool.
It's incredibly cool.
Turn it around, Jamie, so they can see it, please.
So, you know, the problem, Terrence, is, is that you have a desire to go
immediately towards what this means, right?
And before you get to what it means, people don't even know what it is.
True.
Right?
So what I'm going to claim is I've got these eight rambutons here.
What's a rambuton?
It's like a gorilla testicle.
You ever had these?
No, what are they?
Is it fruit?
Yeah, it's like lychees.
Oh, lychees.
I've had lychees.
But this is, I think, rambut is the Indonesian word for hair.
Where'd you pick those up?
Ranch 99 Market.
It would have got you some flowers, but the light changed.
If I take eight of these suckers, and I arrange them in a cubicle formation,
there's going to
be one of Terrence's things in the center, except there are going to be six
holes for the sides
of the cube where you can get in.
Now, what Terrence is saying is, imagine that these are special magical rambutons.
I can't even hold this thing.
And that you allow them to grow a little bit bigger so that those holes close
off by moving
through each other.
Imagine that they're made of magical substances.
In the center, you're going to get one of his curved linear octahedral
structures, which
is the thing that he just subtracted off.
He calls it the hantian.
If you tap on the pink right there, you'll be back to that.
Oh, the next one next to it.
I don't, wow, I shouldn't have done that.
Okay.
So what's going on is that, for example, is that Neil can't figure out, well,
where did
this come from?
So what it is, is spheres of radius root two at the eight vertices of a cube
passing through
each other, but closing off an octahedral cavity with positively curved
triangles inside.
That's what I needed you for.
Well.
That's what I, just when I needed you most.
Thank you.
Pretty glamorous.
Okay.
Can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for
diving into this?
Like, what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as
a 3D structure
and the space inside of it?
They're going to call me crazy again, but when I was 42 and had been kicked out
of the world
as a result of the allegations, I had another dream.
And that same being woke me up and took me back to where I was when I was a
child.
And I saw the, I started putting the pieces together, the all shapes.
In your dream.
In the dream together.
And then I was like, oh, so it's where four forces meet that makes a difference.
So when I put four spheres, four circles, I cut four circles out and I made the
all shape.
And then when I started adding them together, then I saw the flower of life.
I didn't see the flower of life initially.
I saw that after when, well, I'll show you the pieces.
But the all shape is a different thing because in this case, in order to do
this, what he
did is he said, I'm going to make mathematical spheres.
They're going to start to intersect each other, right?
And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious
math material
until they close off the holes in the cubicle lattice structure, leaving octahedral
voids
with this kind of curvature.
To make what he calls the all shape, you do something very different.
You'd start off with the tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five
platonic solids
as being self-dual.
That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces.
And you can interchange faces with vertices.
And in fact, I don't know if you guys have these things.
You have this?
No.
What is it?
So this is an engineering feat.
So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Haberman figured out
how to
take the self-duality of a tetrahedron.
And you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up.
And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of
these, in between
them are four triangles.
And he figured out a mechanism.
We can cut one of these open.
There's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the public where you get
a dot.
You should hold that up so they could see it.
So the audience could see it.
So as you pull this thing apart, it can change colors.
Yeah.
You spin it ever so slightly, Joe.
Oh, wow.
Yeah?
All right.
That's for you guys.
It's cool, right?
Yeah.
That's very bizarre.
All right.
Now, my point is that one of the things that Terrence has going against him is
people are
saying, oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with
since antiquity.
There's nothing new.
And then I would say, well, then why did Charles Haberman create a mechanism
realizing the self-duality
of the tetrahedron?
Nobody even talks about it that way.
And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons and
Dragons they don't
really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and
you put
the tetrahedron in the middle and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron
and the
icosahedron off to the sides, there's a duality that interchanges the pairs
with the center being
self-dual.
In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices.
The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices.
The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices.
The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices.
Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides because the number of
vertices plus the
number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal two for anything that is
spherical
in nature.
Now, if all of my things, when they come together, if they create a natural dodecahedron
and
they create a natural icosahedron, what does that say?
They do and they don't.
They do?
No, I'm going to show you.
No, I'm saying you haven't seen yet.
I haven't shown you yet.
But they will when you see it.
So, Terry, why don't you show it to them right now?
We're on it right now.
Show it to them right now.
Shout out to all the homies right now trying to figure out what the fuck's
going on.
Shout out to all the homies.
Like, what are these guys talking about?
Holy shit.
Legalized schedule one.
So, we can't hear you, Terrence.
You're not on camera right now, unfortunately.
I'm speaking to myself right now.
Right.
You're speaking to myself right now.
The problem is it's in the middle of a podcast.
How's the family?
Everything's great, man.
How you doing?
I saw your dog.
I met Marshall for the first time.
Oh, that's right.
You've never met him before.
He's the best.
He's a lovable guy.
Him and Carl, they were getting after it.
Is Carl worn out?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, he's done.
Yeah, I wore Carl out.
Everybody wore Carl out.
So, here we are.
I'm going to first.
Terrence, no one can hear you.
I know you can.
I know, but we have a podcast going on right now.
Because we're about to put the headphones back on.
Okay, here we go.
I'll be right here next to it.
The problem is you were talking off in the distance.
I can't even hear you.
I'm right here.
So, this is where, if you'll go to where the 12 bubbles meet.
Yeah.
Can I finish my riff on those toys before we get to these toys?
Sure.
My point was that I call bullshit on the idea that because Terrence is playing
with stuff
that people have been playing with since antiquity, that you can't come up,
that there's nothing
new under the sun.
Because if there's nothing new under the sun, first of all, how did Charles Haberman
come
up with something so cool?
Second of all, that means that there's an object that hasn't been invented.
I give this to high school kids.
You should be able to throw one of these up as a cube and have it come back as
an octahedron.
You should come up with a gearing mechanism.
And you should be able to throw up a dodecahedron and have it come back in your
hand as a differently
colored icosahedron, and I've never seen those toys, just the way the Rubik's
Cube came out
of nowhere, or hungry, and that thing took over the world by storm.
So, to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up
with something
new, the Rubik's Cube, the Habermans switch pitch, these things prove that that's
not true.
I think it's a foolish thing almost always to pretend there's nothing new under
the sun.
You should always consider it.
It might not be correct, but there's only one way to find out.
Well, there's a difference between, you see, Terrence has much greater odds of
contributing
to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics.
I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt,
are very,
very small.
Even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this is novel?
I don't want to go there.
The patents do not speak to what you think that they speak to.
That's, okay.
Look, you can see into my heart.
I'm not trying to...
No.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
All right.
But we were talking, I told you that they produce a supersymmetrical structure
that...
When you say supersymmetry, I don't know that you know what a supersymmetry is.
What does supersymmetry mean to you, Terrence?
Supersymmetry means that all things come together, fit together, relate to each
other.
They come, they're self-referential, and they are from a fractal that comes
back to that same
fractal space.
That's supersymmetry.
So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up, but supersymmetry is a reserve
term that
means something hyper-particular.
And that's what this is.
Between bosons and fermions.
That's what this is.
This is the bosons, for the layman out there, the boson, the cloud, the whole
boson thing
is the force field or the energy field that the fermions is considered the
matter aspects
of it.
So if we can go into his...
He's got five of these patterns, one of which he calls the...
But what is wrong with the term supersymmetry?
Then I want to see an algebra, which is a linear vector space, which has an
object called a bracket.
And I want to see that that bracket obeys a super Jacoby identity.
And otherwise, there's no supersymmetry.
So it's a specifically used scientific term and he's using it incorrectly.
It's a reserved term of art.
Yeah, but it's...
Geometry is its own proof.
Supersymmetry and geometry allows you to visualize, like you look at the ocean
and you see the supersymmetry
associated with it.
I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the
term supersymmetry,
and he's saying that supersymmetry only applies to a very specific thing that's
been defined.
Because in their math...
That's been defined.
No, in their math, the platonic solids, like I said before, have a discrete
symmetry.
You can only line up the blocks and all of those things.
You can't put all of them together and tell a full story to where they fold
into each other.
I don't think he's disagreeing with you with that.
I think he's disagreeing that you're using a reserved term of art.
And you're using it incorrectly.
That's what he said.
And you're going to pay a penalty.
Okay, I don't want to pay no penalty.
This is a thing where, like if I'm watching an MMA fight and someone's doing
commentary and they call a kick wrong,
I'm like, why are you doing this?
You don't even know what that is.
Like you incorrectly reference something that's very specific that we've been
talking about for a long time.
If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's
not wearing any clothes,
is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind?
No.
A rear naked choke is a particular move.
Yes.
It doesn't have anything to do with what she did.
Unless she gets the hooks in.
Question.
In the world of physics, in the world of mathematics,
is there a supersymmetrical system, geometric system, ever been produced in
mathematics?
Yes.
In mathematics, yes.
We've never seen super Poincaré algebra.
Yeah, but that's on a plane.
That's not volumetrically.
That doesn't scale up.
Terrence, you have an entire way of thinking that is completely foreign to
everyone that I know.
And I've tried to understand what it is.
Oh, I'm sorry.
No, it's not a question.
No, I don't think he's saying this is a negative.
No, no, no, no.
I didn't see it as a negative.
What I'm trying to say is,
the reason that science works as well as it does
is that up until very recently, there were clear rules, cultures.
We agreed to leave certain things that are at the door, like our religious
beliefs.
We agreed to submit to certain sorts of things.
We were decent to each other.
And that system is in a process of collapse at the moment.
Now, well, Terrence comes from an earlier way of thinking.
When things were much more wide open,
you don't find many polymaths anywhere in a respectable position anymore.
Terrence is coming from a polymathic perspective.
He's all over the map in terms of the quality of his thinking.
As far as I understand, some of his stuff is really, really good.
Some of his stuff is offensive.
And it's everything in between.
Now, I'm not gunning for you.
No, no, no.
I don't take that offensively.
I take it in the fact that you're here.
But let's get back to what I was saying about having,
if my pieces naturally come together and form those same structure,
well, here we have...
How do they not, Eric?
Well, I'm going to show them.
Here's where 12 bubbles meet.
If you go to the yellow one right there,
Jamie, please tap on that.
This is where the negative space where 12 bubbles meet.
I call this the Arbrian.
I named it after my oldest daughter.
Okay.
You can take a look at it and how it behaves.
Here, Joe.
So you can have it and you...
You can have a larger one or a smaller one.
By the way, I would be honored to have...
I'm going to give you some of these pieces.
Anything that you make of this type in my home is very, very cool.
I'm about to...
So when I put 10 of them together, they look like this.
Yeah.
I put 20 of them together.
They make a natural icosahedron.
Yeah.
Without breaking any rules,
I'm saying that the...
I believe in this.
This I don't...
I don't disbelieve.
I haven't gone through the math,
but I don't disbelieve this.
I'm not...
I want to...
I said the same thing about one other thing.
So here's the light unit.
If you'll go back to the green,
Jamie, please.
This is the light unit.
Now we're going to get into some stuff
that's not going to be so much fun,
but it is going to be...
You are going to get what you want.
No, you're going to love this.
You're going to love this
because what I'm going to show you,
as I said...
Whoa.
And what you said concerning...
Here.
Now look at that.
That's pretty dope.
Put that down.
And it'll show you...
this is where 20...
where I've put 20 of them together
the same way I put 20 of these together,
and it makes a natural dodecahedron.
But what it's showing you
is where electricity
is being pushed into the center,
and you'll see these magnetic waves coming out.
It's showing you the magnetic field.
So these predict
and create a natural dodecahedron,
whereas these come together
and create a natural arcosahedron.
that's not something
that just happens by accident.
No, this isn't an accident.
This is...
I'll put it over there.
What's going on, Terrence, for me...
Can you connect all these together
in one big ball of fury?
Yes.
Yes, they just keep getting...
Because it's supersymmetry.
They all fit together.
I want to see these and these together.
It ain't supersymmetry,
but it's freaking cool.
Right.
I know what you're saying.
The problem is that term, right?
It keeps using that term.
Again, my point is
that you can run into all kinds of terms of art
in a field that you don't know well.
Right.
And Terrence is...
Like, I come on your show
and I do this thing,
which I've never really discussed why I do it.
I have this feeling that somehow
Sean Carroll, 15 years ago,
started talking about a suite of ideas
like entanglement, the multiverse,
these Boltzmann brains, whatever.
And people have been talking about them ever since
because it was a very successful tour.
Much of the coolest stuff in mathematics and physics
that's completely established,
that's non-speculative,
is not discussed.
And I don't know why.
And one of the things that I tried to do
is I tried to show you the hop vibration.
I tried to do the thing about the Dirac string trick.
Terrence is bringing cool stuff
from the world of geometry.
It's a proof, effectively,
that people don't know where it's coming from.
A lot of this is real as geometry.
He, if you look at the thing
that he calls the Tarrington, right?
The Tetrean, what?
The Tetrean is the...
The Tetrean.
The Tetrean is just the Tetrean.
So the Tetrean that is the thing
that is closest to us,
the black thing that is closest to us.
Yeah, tap, yeah.
So he then starts to make noises about it.
And he says things that I don't love,
which are that those faces
he associates with the electric field
and the vertices,
which sometimes he calls vortices
and sometimes...
I'm not quite sure.
He associates with the magnetic field.
Yes.
Now, I don't have a clue
why he says the next thing,
which is...
And because the number of magnetic
and the number of electric things
are balanced,
they cancel out
and therefore it's the weak force.
And to me,
it's just like super cool stuff
and then suddenly turns into horseshit.
But listen, why?
Here we have those two Tetreans on the end.
They share...
They both have equal poles,
four electric poles
and four magnetic poles,
according to how I see it,
where magnetism is spinning off of the tips,
the vortices,
because it's no longer able to maintain
that center space of spinning centripetly.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
What brought you to that conclusion?
With what?
The way you're describing the energy involved in this.
Well, anytime you look at electricity,
that was one of the things
that Victor Schauberger was talking about.
Electricity is...
It's when water starts to spin to the right,
it cools down.
That's the natural nature of electricity.
Electricity is colder.
It flows better in the coldest environment.
So those...
As it's cooling down,
as it's spinning down to a higher point,
trying to get to that higher point,
that's the highest point there.
It's looking for the highest density.
That's the north.
North is always the highest density.
South, no matter where you are,
south is always away from the higher point
when you're talking about universally,
not talking about geographically on the earth.
North is always seeking a higher position.
South is always seeking a lower position.
That's based upon stuff
that Walter Russell talked about,
based upon the stuff
that Victor Schauberger talked about.
But it's a problem
with the definition of the words, the terms.
Right, but your description of electromagnetic force
and magnetism,
like what is happening
that it's bringing you to this conclusion
that you're so specifically saying
that something that you literally can't even see
with the human eye
is happening very clearly.
I'm saying four magnetic fields
are pushing in on that area.
I don't see magnetic fields.
I see those spheres.
Would be magnetism,
what does magnetism do?
It expands out.
But what brings you to the conclusion
that electric...
Well, let's say radiative field.
Let me use the term radiative field.
Do you know what we think
electricity and magnetism are?
You think it's the same thing.
No.
Part of the same force
that you have them coupled together.
What do you think?
Jamie, could I ask you
to find a Faraday tensor?
Yeah, what I was trying to get
to the conclusion,
like magnetism and electricity,
like what brings you
to this definitive conclusion
that you can so clearly state
that this is what's happening there?
Well, based upon
any time there's an electric force
acting on something,
it causes a cavity.
Electricity is always pulling in
from the inside.
It's always trying to tighten the density.
And you assume this energy
exists in the flower of life.
Why?
Because that's where
all those circles,
the overlapping circles,
they represent the magnetic field.
They represent the radiative field
that's coming out and coming back.
Well, why does a bubble
take the shape of a ball?
Why not a square or a triangle?
Why does it expand into a sphere?
A sphere is an abstraction
that's going to be the solution
to many different problems.
If I ask you to give me
the maximum possible volume
with the minimum possible area,
I'm going to get a sphere.
If I ask you
what is the best thing
to launch out of an old-style canon
and to stack next to it,
you're going to say a sphere.
Then you have a question about
is that the same concept of a sphere?
You know,
if I take the three-dimensional sphere
of unit quaternions,
is that the same concept of a sphere?
You are in part freely associating,
repeatedly,
between things that remind you
of other things.
Now,
you have an incredible storehouse
of things between your ears
that you know to associate with.
And your brain is like,
I mean,
in part,
it's like,
if you think about
the totality of your brain,
it's like a Ferrari engine
and a Volkswagen.
The Volkswagen chassis
is not capable of supporting
something else
that you're doing really well.
And so what you're constantly doing,
as far as I can tell...
The chassis being education,
formal education.
It's not just that.
I mean,
it's in part...
People who see many connections
are often bad
at cleaning up their own stuff.
And people who don't see connections
are often very rigorous
and they don't do shit
for their entire life.
Right?
See,
that's why I like...
I love the geometry
because the geometry
demonstrates,
even though I've been autodidactic
and have learned these things
on my own,
the geometry
is its own proof.
Like,
even in showing
that these become...
that these create
an icosahedron,
if you'll move those
just for a second...
Eric,
you pulled this up,
though,
before we get any further
away from that.
Explain this, please.
Electromagnetic tensor.
What you see,
that F super mu nu
is an anti-symmetric
four-by-four matrix.
That is,
there are only six
independent components
because if you flip
that matrix
from the northwest
to the southeast
as the line
in which you flip over
with the zeros,
the things above the zeros
determine the things below.
So there are six
independent entries
in the top triangle.
Now,
the top three
are the electric components
in a Cartesian coordinate system
of the tensor,
and the B fields
are the magnetic.
Terence could say something
closer to what we understand
reality to be.
He could,
for example,
hold up a cube
and say,
you know,
the six faces
of the cube
remind me
of the six
independent entries
in the electromagnetic
field strength.
And then,
the idea is
there's a duality,
and the duality
relates the electric field
to the magnetic field.
And then he might
invent something
called
Olive-Montone
and electromagnetic duality.
Right?
So,
in other words,
if I took the top three,
if I hold the cube
up like this
and I put electric
above and magnetic below,
and then I did
a transformation
that took top faces
to bottom faces,
he would be doing
something
that might bring him
to recent research
on electromagnetic duality.
But instead,
what's happening
is that the spheres
are reminding him
of waves,
like wave fronts
that are expanding
spherically.
And he's got
super cool geometry
that the reason
that this is so cool
is that we haven't
seen much of it.
And it's not saying
that it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying
he's the inventor.
Well,
I am the inventor
because I own
the patents to it.
But you can find out
that there's prior art
later.
Look,
everybody's been hurt.
I would love
to see that.
Like I said,
though,
I think...
Terrence,
I have no desire
to take this away.
So far as I know,
you're the first person
to do this.
Now,
with that said,
you're taking something
where he's saying
real stuff
about geometrical
understanding
based on a
spiritual undertaking.
And it used to be
that spirituality
and science
were hand in hand.
That's what I was
trying to say
about the Kerala school
that figured out
almost got calculus
coming out of
religious verse,
like stuff that rhymed.
It's crazy.
Terrence is coming
from an older perspective
where he's drawing
tons of inspiration
from all these
different sources.
I can track it,
but good luck
finding people
who can track this
because the number
of people who can do
this is very,
very small.
But that's the problem.
Okay, go ahead.
Agreed.
Now,
then,
every time he steps
on a landmine,
my colleagues
just start laughing
and that makes me crazy
because they could
help him
figure out
what actually
he is trying to say.
So if we go back
back to his flower...
This electromagnetic
tensor,
how does this apply
to these patterns
and the void
between these patterns?
That thing,
we did not understand
until the mid-1970s.
Remember I tried
to tell you
to get Jim Simons
on this podcast
and then he just died?
Jim Simons
and Sien Yang
figured out,
and this is going to
figure into
what Terrence is saying,
that everything,
all forces are curvature.
It's not just gravity,
which we've known
has been curvature
since 1915,
actually 1913
for Einstein Grossman.
It's actually the case
that electromagnetism,
the weak force
and the strong force
are a different form
of curvature,
which might be called
Erismanian curvature
or fiber bundle curvature,
which is not necessarily
Ramanian intrinsic curvature.
This object
encodes the curvature,
encodes electromagnetism
as the components
of curvature.
to your point
about nothing is
a straight line.
But this is where
I have issues.
You're talking about
this is in Cartesian space
and in Cartesian space,
curvature is not allowed.
There's no curvature
that's allowed
in Cartesian space.
No, that's wrong.
Really?
Yeah, because what you have,
and by the way,
this is a super subtle thing.
We've only really known
this for 50 years,
thereabouts.
There is a weird,
mysterious circle
that none of us
can see
at every point
in space and time
that we can't derive
from space.
Okay?
You can have space-time
and something else
put a circle
at every point
that is obscured from us.
And that thing
has a curvature
even if space and time
is flat.
So we call it
idealization
of flat space-time
Minkowski space.
You can slap
a curvature tensor
of a circle
on top of it,
generate this,
and it wasn't until,
and this is mind-blowing.
Can we get the
Aronoff-Bohm effect
up here?
See, but that's where
my biggest issue
is why go through
all of those steps
to define curved space
with flat plane matrix
when you have
the definition of it
right in front of you?
That's why
when you get a chance,
I'd love for you
to lay these out
so you can see
it predicts
every distribution,
every waveform.
There's nothing
that this doesn't predict.
I want you to think
about,
you ever play blackjack?
I've never been good
at blackjack.
Okay.
Well, that's...
I've never been good.
Because you're sitting there...
I always overbett.
You're sitting...
I always overbett.
You're overbett.
Hit at 17.
And you're sitting there
on 19,
and you say,
hit me.
And all I hear
is,
hit me on 19,
and you keep going over.
Okay.
All right?
Now,
this thing here
is a proof.
This is a gift for you.
This says,
we did not understand
classical electromagnetism
until the late 1950s,
well after Mr. Maxwell.
Now,
what happened is
we thought electromagnetism
was that thing
with the electric magnetic
field components
that we just saw.
if you put
a wire
coming out
of the plane
of the screen
and you insulate it
where it says solenoid,
can we just isolate that?
Mm-hmm.
We can see it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now,
you have this crazy thing
which is like
you have a cathode ray tube
at A,
let's imagine,
and you shoot it
through a double slit
and you want to know
whether or not
there's current flowing
in this insulated thing
that you can't see.
Now,
you think that the insulation
is going to keep you
from being able to tell
whether there's current flowing.
It turns out
that the interference pattern
changes whether there's current
even though there's no E and B fields
outside of that insulated structure.
And that proves
that it cannot be
the electromagnetic field strength
that actually determines
electromagnetic phenomena.
What's really going on,
can we call up
the electromagnetic four potential?
So one of the things is
if you want to hang
with the cool kids
on any of this stuff,
you don't try to map
the electromagnetic fields
because it's the electromagnetic
four potential
that's got it going on.
Look at that thing.
That was cool as fuck.
I'm looking for something
that looks like
A equals
and then four components.
Well,
you hit that thing,
what you just had.
That's good.
That A,
where you see
partial derivative of A,
that thing is called
the gauge potential.
And the gauge potential,
it's the force potential.
The gauge potential
is really where
the electromagnetism
is happening.
This thing over here
on the right,
the Faraday tensor,
is a consequence
of the real star
of the show.
A is the thing
that matters.
And we thought
that A was
a convenience product
that constructed
the electromagnetic field strength
until the late 1950s.
I think one of these guys
who developed this,
his name is
Yakir Aronoff,
who's at Chapman University,
I think he's still alive.
So in other words,
we fooled ourselves
into thinking
we understood electromagnetism
until the late 1950s,
which is one of the reasons
that you listen
to your heterodox colleagues
as opposed to making fun
of them mercilessly
because you're not nearly
as smart as you think you are.
Now,
most of the time
what Neil says is,
oh yes,
one in 10,000
heterodox people
have a point.
And Neil bets
on the 9,999
who don't.
And so he doesn't listen.
This thing here
is a proof
that you can find
elementary omissions
very late in the game
that change everything.
And everybody
who pretends
that peer review works
and that we've known
this since antiquity,
all this stuff,
they need to understand
the exceptions
we've already found.
If Terence wants
to do good,
he would take that A
with the new
at the beginning
and he would say,
okay,
electromagnetism
isn't about the electric
and magnetic fields.
It's about four
of these suckers
rather than six of those.
On a simple level,
how would you describe
electricity?
Well,
I wouldn't know
how to do it simply.
Electricity is really,
electromagnetism
is really about
rock,
paper,
scissors.
In other words,
is rock better
than paper?
No,
it's worse.
Then you do it
around that thing.
The failure of these things
to knit together,
if I had...
Terence,
give me your hands.
I want to put my hand
over yours
and then you put...
Under,
go with your right hand
under,
it's like jujitsu.
Go right hand under,
under on your hand
and I'll grab his wrist.
There you go.
That thing,
who's on top?
All of us.
Okay,
the electromagnetic field strength,
so now make your hand
into like a plane,
measures the degree
of the Escher staircase.
The Escherness
in that Penrose staircase
is measured
by that E and B stuff.
Okay?
That A
basically measure
is the collection
of hands
that we had,
the planes.
Jamie,
show the Penrose staircase
just so people know
what the fuck
we're talking about
because it's a very bizarre
optical illusion.
There it is.
So the key point
is the Penrose staircase
is not just an optical illusion.
It's actually an effect
called holonomy
and those things
are called
horizontal subspaces
and the electromagnetic potential
which gives rise
to the photon
actually is a series
of stairs
that appears to be
in some kind
of a contradiction.
The curvature
that he keeps talking about
is the thing
that actually resolves
that contradiction
and in a weird way
the photon is a function,
sorry,
the photon is a derivative
and the electron
is its function
and you use that derivative
to differentiate
the function.
That's a crazy way
of saying it
but at its deepest level
that's really what we are.
We're in a geometry
in which those flat planes
say derivative equals zero
and you're trying
to take the derivative
of an electron
based on this stuff
and geometrically
this only got worked out
in Stony Brook, Massachusetts
in the mid-1970s
except for a guy
named Robert Herman
who nobody listened to
in Boston
who was off self-publish.
Well, let's consider
one of the things
that this is talking about
again, this is where
I have issues
because we're talking
about two-dimensional
or three-dimensional space
that does not exist.
We're still talking
about imaginary things
instead of talking
about real things
like math's departure
from where numbers started
representing actual things.
math departed from that
to where now math
doesn't represent
actual things.
The numbers don't represent
any true things
and so anything can happen
inside the mathematics
that they build from
but when you have
the actual stuff
like what I wanted you to do
if you could lay these out
just for...
I'm so worried
I'm going to break these things.
No, you're not.
I made these over
the last few days.
Just lay them out.
You have to move
those other things
so you can see
and what I'm talking about
the interesting thing...
Bro, I want to see
a YouTube video
of you and your lab
putting these things together.
If you shine a light
on these
they end up creating
all of the cymatics.
No, don't even stack them up.
I don't even want you
to stack them.
I just want you to
align them
like I'm saying
if you move this one
out of that
out of the way
and some of those.
This will continually
predict every harmonic node
every wave function
it will continue on
they overlap on each other
to where any size
any crystalline configuration
that somebody could hope for
occurs.
This is the supersymmetry
that I'm talking about
that defines
the entire wave field.
This is one part of...
This is the crystalline
electric wave field.
That's not even...
That's just one of the crystals.
How cool is this?
Pretty cool.
The problem that you're in
right now
is
everything that you touch
in this space
made of spheres
and platonic solids
and whatever.
You could spend
your entire life
and I've seen people do it
staring into this
and just finding
cool thing
after cool thing
thinking that you're
seeing Jesus.
I promise you.
Okay?
I want you to hold
this in your hand.
This is made by a woman
named Beth Sheba Grossman.
Pleasure to shout her out.
She is a mathematical artist
par excellence.
Shout out to Beth.
That is an eight dimensional
lattice called E8
projected into three dimensions
which is one of the craziest
sort of sphere packing gadgets.
This is ultimately
maybe the weirdest object
in the universe.
It comes from a 248 dimensional group.
Wow.
Let me show you this
in real life.
No, no, no.
You're going to
bob and riff
and all this stuff.
Hold on.
Let them keep going.
And what I'm trying to get at
is
look
I want you to think about this
legitimately as a drug.
Okay?
And if you're not very careful
with the mathematics
that you're playing with
you are going to get so high.
You are going to see
everything connect to everything.
And there's a reason
that this stuff takes place
in Islamic art.
There's a reason.
You know,
if I bring up
this is another version
of the
self-duality of the tetrahedron.
I believe in spiritual
and sacred geometry
they call this the Merkaba
which is like Hebrew
for chariot.
Everything connects
to everything else
in this unbelievably
beautiful way.
And the concern
that I have
Terrence
to be entirely honest
is
you have to get disciplined
about this as a drug
because otherwise
you're going to see
everything
in everything
all the time
and you're going to have
the same
repetitive conversation
where people don't
take you seriously
because you're going to
keep hitting on 19.
But do
if these
if light passing
through these
show the same
cymatics
that we look at
when we're looking
at natural occurrences
of individual frequencies
doesn't that become
its own
secondary proof
beyond the symmetry
of what it does?
You say geometry
is a proof
and one of the things
is you are at your weakest
when you have
when you have an equal sign.
No, no, no.
You're at your strongest
geometrically.
You're at your weakest
when you have an equal sign.
You say the dumbest stuff
about equalities
and you say the coolest
stuff about geometries
and I wonder
whether you mean something
like it took me
a long time
to figure out
what I think you mean
when you do this riff
on the square root of 2.
Jamie, could I trouble you
for that portal group
slash TH?
Okay.
If you do the square root
of 2 challenge, right?
You say Howard's
unbalanced equation.
You say,
okay, take the square root
of 2.
You cube it.
That's equal to 2 times
the square root of 2.
That is illogical.
It is unbalanced.
It is unnatural.
Now, at first,
I had no idea
what the hell you were doing.
So, I came up
with something
to prove to you
that I'm trying
to understand you
and I said,
take the number
of magi
at Jesus' birth.
He was born
in the 25th day
of the 12th month.
If I raise
the 12th root of 3
to the 25th power
and I take the fact
that Jesus died
in the 9th hour
according to the Bible,
I see the same trinity
rooted by the number
of apostles.
Now, that seems
to be like a profound
statement.
But the fact is,
all I really did
is I created
an equation
based on two numbers,
x and y,
and your version of it
I put in 1
and square root of 2
and in mine
I used 12 and 3
and the reason
I got 12, 25
was that 25
is just 2 times 12
plus 1.
So, in other words,
the danger of this stuff
is that when you start
to see patterns
and you start to see
stuff that looks crazy,
you don't realize
what you're actually doing.
What you're really saying
is you're coming
from a perspective
that is philosophical
before it's scientific
or mathematical
and you have a statement
which says
everything is in motion
and then you go
into a riff
about loops
and you say
take out your calculator,
turn it to the side,
take the square root of 2,
cube it,
take that
divided by 2
and you do this thing
where you happen
to know the large
decimal expansion
up to a point
which increases
people's confidence.
You've got to be worried
because that's like
the confidence
in con man too
but you make a point.
We have a name
for the thing
you call a loop.
We call it
a fixed point.
A fixed point.
A fixed point.
Now, a fixed point,
you have something
called a transformation.
The transformation,
let me see if,
Jamie,
if we can bring that back
so I'm just trying
to standardize your,
can we go below that?
Let me see.
Okay, Terrence loop.
You have a mapping
T for Terrence
from the real numbers
to the real numbers
given by x cubed
divided by 2.
If you take the polynomial
y cubed minus 2y equals 0,
that factors
as y minus square root of 2
times y plus square root of 2
times y minus 0.
You claim that there's
only one number
that satisfies
a fixed point relationship
according to that mapping,
which you call a loop.
There are actually three,
0, negative square root of 2,
and 2.
You make the correct point
that if you iterate that
for numbers above
the square root of 2,
it's going to go off
to infinity.
If you were to go below
numbers of square root of 2
but above 0,
it'll go towards 0.
0 will go to 0.
And then you have
the same thing
below negative square root of 2,
it'll go off
to negative infinity.
And above square root of 2
but below 0,
I think it'll go off
to 0.
Okay?
That thing
is studied
under fixed point theory.
And you can look up
the Lefschetz fixed point theorem,
the Kakutani fixed point theorem,
the Brouwer fixed point theorem.
All of these
are proofs
that you have
to have fixed points.
Now I thought,
why does he keep
doing this RIF?
And then I realized
that he's got a thing
about everything
is in motion.
So for him,
it's unnatural
and illogical,
you use both words,
that the square root of 2
would be fixed
under this iterated
experiment.
Now,
that is not unnatural.
There is something,
I hate to say it,
it's called
the Harry Ball theorem.
Can we bring up
the Harry Ball theorem?
Before you put
your hairy balls
on my pieces.
That was good.
Okay,
the Harry Ball theorem
says that you cannot
comb the hair
on a Rambutan
without creating
a colic.
So let's see
if we have any
cool images of it.
In other words,
if you have a map
of the wind
that is going along
the surface of a sphere,
there has to be
some point
which is perfectly still.
If you have a map
of a sphere
to a sphere,
there has to be
some point
that doesn't move.
In other words,
what you're saying
about things
can't be still
is not only incorrect,
it is impossible
to avoid stillness.
and this is in part
what John Nash
got his Nobel award
in economics for
because he took work
of von Neumann
and Morgenstern
on two-person games,
turned them into
multi-person games
with a higher
dimensional fixed-point theorem
and said a multi-person game
is more interesting
because that's a market,
therefore markets
have equilibria.
So you're saying
real stuff
in a way
that fundamentally
just doesn't,
we don't know
how to talk
your talk.
Then teach me.
Yeah, I know.
Teach me.
I'm learning right now.
But Jamie,
do me a favor.
Pull up the calculator.
I want you to
pull up the calculator.
We're going to look
at this loop
and you tell me
that this loop
isn't a contradiction
and says that the math
is gone here.
I want a scientific calculator.
There we go.
Yep.
Okay.
Yep, hit two.
Square root.
It'll be over one more.
I think that may be it.
Yeah.
Yep.
Cubit.
Hit X to the third.
No, no.
No, no.
Go back.
Go back.
Yep.
Hit two.
Two.
Square root.
Cubit.
Up, right up there.
Yep.
Now divide by two.
Divide by two.
Hit equal.
Cubit again.
X to the third.
Divide by two.
That is a loop.
Cubit again.
Hit X to the third.
That's an unnatural equation.
Talk to me about unnatural.
It's a loop.
It's a tuck inside of the matrix.
It does not allow for math to make sense because of the square, because of the
identity principle.
Okay.
Eric.
You're trying to say a something.
What you're saying is wrong.
What I'm seeing, no.
No, no, no, no, no.
You're saying, what you're saying is fine.
I agree that you have a transformation that I called T.
You can put those two steps together, which is cube and divide by two.
That thing is going to be dead still till the end of time.
That's your point.
And then you pass judgment on it.
And you say, that is not logical and it's irrational.
And I don't know what you mean.
Well, because here we're multiplying something basically three times and it's
coming up to the same value as if we multiplied it by two.
And you keep doing that.
Yeah.
Oh, I did that with the 12th root of three.
And I have a transform just like you.
But that 12th root of three, that hypothetical situation you put up there does
not affect the rest of mathematics.
Sure it does.
That loop right there.
Oh, is your point that there's something special about the square root of two?
I'm saying that the square root of two is a manufactured number because of the
identity principle.
If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem
with one times one equaling two.
Why are you offended by one times one equaling one?
Just because action and reaction.
The universe, it's the separation of math from science.
And math was supposed to define physical things.
So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense.
The rest of the audience don't understand.
They're like, wait a minute.
Well, okay.
Objects in motion tend to remain in motion, right?
That was his first law.
Well, what's what do objects at rest do?
There's no object at rest.
Ah, so you have a problem with Mr. Newton.
No, no, there are no objects at rest because everything is sitting on something
that's in motion.
Everything is in motion within itself.
So this is like there's no straight lines in nature.
So the idea is you're saying at some level that you don't believe.
That anything's steel.
At a subatomic level.
That nothing's steel because everything in the universe is connected.
So if you have one steel thing, then everything connected to it also has to be
steel.
If I understand what you're doing and I try to steel man it, you're trying to
say, look, first of all, the vacuum isn't a vacuum.
It's roiling with activity, right?
The void isn't a void.
Stuff is happening.
Virtual particles are coming in and out of existence.
There is no vacuum, right?
You're very much in tune with modern physics on that.
You really are, okay?
Then you have this idea of math is supposed to be about the physical world.
It's not supposed to be unto itself.
And if there is no vacuum, then there is nothing at rest because the vacuum is
going to be in constant quantum tumult.
And then you get to the point, which is something that is rest, therefore is unphysical,
therefore it is unnatural.
It took me a long time to figure out what the hell.
No, I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest
because everything is moving and communicating through vibration.
And vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion.
So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a
quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum in a
naive sense that the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people naively
think.
Therefore, any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or
whatever is invalid.
It's imaginary.
It's talking about an imaginary space.
Okay.
I don't know what to tell you about this because it's like if I say something
about a sphere, you might say, hey, Eric, what is the thickness of your sphere?
All the points unit distance away from the origin.
And I'd say, it has no thickness.
And you'd say, show me one thing in the universe that doesn't have thickness.
And then I'd say, well, wait a second.
I'm talking to you about a mathematical structure that exists as math.
You're like, I don't want it to hear about math that isn't immediately
referenced to physics.
First of all, that's not how this game goes.
When did physics, when did math separate from accounting for physical things?
Was the beginning of imaginary numbers?
The beginning of imagination.
I mean, you know, if I have a picture from AI of a woman that doesn't exist,
but you can't tell the fact that that was generated by an AI.
Are you going to say that that graphics file doesn't exist?
No, the graphics file exists.
Mathematics has a physically independent structure.
It is a system of logic.
Then you have this very weird thing, which is, you know, Eugene Wigner famously
talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and the physical
sciences.
But, you know, David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness
of physics and the mathematical sciences.
That's many of us have had that for the last 50 years since Simons and Yang.
And then there's also this thing which people associate with Max Tegmark, which
is older, which is the mathematical universe, that the math is the basis, that
there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our
friends in the psychedelic community.
Now, I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you, but what you were
doing when you were lecturing is terrible.
It's really, really bad because you have points.
And by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing, you are, in fact,
causing people to, who don't trust Tony Fauci, let's say, because Tony Fauci
shouldn't be trusted, to say, maybe we can't trust mathematics.
Now, I have a lot of competitors, enemies, people I really don't like.
I have stalkers who actually stalk my family and interfere in my personal life
who have PhDs, okay?
My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe and the
mathematical universe is essentially zero up to 1973.
We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think,
until the 1980s.
And why is that?
Well, money, money, power, money and power.
Ronald Reagan brought in a guy named Eric House to the NSF and the university
stopped expanding and they started playing games.
We had a thing called the Mansfield Amendment, which got the military out of
science, which was a disaster.
There's a lot of things that happened.
But imagine if science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of
relativity.
If in abandoning the ether and now they've walked down this road and now they
realize that it's a potential dead end, but instead of turning around and
saying, okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these
equations were built off of.
And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I
have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the etheric nature, the etheric
substance.
So, Jamie, if we could bring back the portal group page, I can sort of show
what Terrence is talking about, what his geometries, how he relates them to the
physical world.
So, if we could go up to Howard's unifications claim.
Okay.
So, you say you've come up with the grand unified field equation.
First of all, he's doing something very unusual.
He's saying grand unified, which actually is less than unified, because unified
would include gravity.
But he's also drawing from a group, I think, called the Electric Universe.
No.
Okay.
No, no, no.
I'm drawing from Lorentz and Heinz's work when they were deciding, they were
trying to prove that it was electricity and magnetism.
They could derive all of the effects of nature that we see from electricity and
magnetism.
All right.
So, if we go down here, hopefully, because we just prepared this.
By the way, shout out to Dr. Brooke Dallas, who put this together and just got
her PhD from Caltech.
Congratulations.
Yeah.
Congratulations.
All of this, these four things, are how the community that you're trying to unseat
thinks about nature at its deepest level.
Now, let me see.
Is there anything under there?
Maybe not.
So, go up to, let's do David Tong's, because you brought up David Tong.
Okay.
I think I understand this, and I'm able to talk to you about it.
Is this something, so this is my community and how it thinks of everything in
the world.
All right?
Right.
Do you have a way of relating what you think about in terms of what my
community has wrong?
Does this mean anything to you?
If you remove gravity outside of the equation, you take gravity out, because
gravity is affected, gravity is actually covered by that strong electrical
force.
Terrence, one second.
Without, this is not a gotcha, and it's not me.
No, no, I know.
I'm not, I'm just saying.
Do you know how to read this?
As best as, we're talking about I as imaginary.
Yeah.
You know, D to the four.
I don't know what the D represents.
So that's the volume element saying that you're in four-dimensional space, and
you're going to take an integral.
And why to a negative G?
Why to a negative gravity?
That's the determinant of the space-time metric with which you might have an
issue.
Okay, so in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers
look one way or the rulers look another way, according to Einstein, you have to
put more weight or less weight on a region of space.
Do you know what that R is?
That's the foreplay, and then in the parentheses is where the stuff gets crazy.
Explain it.
That's what's called the scalar curvature.
So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was
like Einstein scaling the sheer face of halftone.
Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later and said, you know, you can
derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the
world, which is the scalar curvature.
So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of
Einstein's pseudo-Romanian metric.
And then remember F.M.U. knew that's what we were just riffing on before?
That's saying we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff, so we're
going to do the stupidest thing possible, and we're going to figure out how big
it is and square that, and we're going to shove that into this thing to be
minimized, which means make this as small as possible.
So give me the configuration that gives me the least electromagnetic size.
Then, because of 1954, a guy named Tien Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't
do nearly as much afterwards, said, you know what?
The strong and the weak force are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism,
and we didn't know that.
So nature, in that first line, from the R to the W, takes curvature four times,
and three of those are doubled, like F, F, G, G, W, W, but one of them is singly
in there, and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility, not what
Ed Witten says about you can't quantize gravity.
That's not the discrepancy we've been lied to for a long time, in my opinion.
What it is, is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the
curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and
electromagnetism, occurs differently.
One is Ramanian, one is Erismanian.
The line below that, Dirac, in that term, psi bar d psi, is telling us the kinetics
and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's
in the line above.
And then the last three terms are the fudge factor due to Peter Higgs, because
when we found out in the late 50s, a gal named Madame Wu, the dragon lady of
physics, told us that if you put cobalt-60 and let it beta decay in a strong
magnetic field, all the particles come out spun one way.
And that left-right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a
standard way for the matter, which is showing up as psi.
So instead what we do is we have this thing, which is a field called the Higgs
boson.
Psi is the wave function?
Psi is the fermionic wave function of the matter.
That's the quarks, that's the electron, and that's all the neutrinos that are
penetrating us all the time.
That kinetic term, the D-H's, tells us how this Higgs field will move, but
mostly, you see, imagine that in this room it's 69 degrees Fahrenheit, okay?
You think that it's the same everywhere, but maybe where Joe is is actually
like 68.7, and over there it's 70.1.
There's a different frequency, a different space.
And so that H thing is said to have a VEV that varies slightly in the world,
vacuum expectation value, because the vacuum isn't boring.
Right.
Now that V of H, that is the potential term that you neglect every time you say
that all energy in the world comes from kinetics.
That's not true.
And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those FFGGWWs, which is pure
potential.
That last thing, which is not commented upon here, is called the Yukawa
coupling.
And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass to the
matter, which was prohibited from having a naked mass,
because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Li, which is the same Yang of
Yang and Mills.
That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is
the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level.
Right?
This thing right here, which might be called the partition function, is a Feynman
path integral of this.
And if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't
in what you're seeing.
It's a woe.
Can I get a woe?
Can I get...
I live for this.
Now, this is the difference between having, you know, this has been...
They've been working on this for damn near 60, 70 years.
But they don't have any physical models that represent any of these things.
And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force,
and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects
that we see,
then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through...
Terrence, you didn't do that.
I did do that.
Let me show you.
All right.
Let me show you.
All right.
Now it's time to show.
Okay.
Here we go.
I really want a YouTube video of him creating these things.
I would love that.
So...
Just you with an acetylene torch.
I want him in glass.
I want him in glass, brother.
Yeah, somebody needs to make these.
Yeah, well, I tried to do that before.
Well, you know, we have a community of mathematical artists I want to hook you
up.
I would love that.
So this tetrion, as I say, begins the entire dance.
It's the...
I would call that...
That would be plonk to me.
That would be the proton.
That would be the beginning of everything.
You map four different things to this.
You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial.
Wait, wait, one second.
Okay.
You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial.
Two, you say it's hydrogen.
It becomes...
Three, you say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic because
you associate
the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic.
You say, you go back to Walter Russell, who has this whole thing about exhaling
and inhaling,
expanding and contraction.
You know, it's a lot like Ecclesiastes.
There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven.
And then you say, because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak
force because
there's no net voodoo on it.
Okay.
Then when you get to your, if you can bring up what you call the Huntian.
Hold on.
Let me, let's stay on this one.
All right.
Okay.
I say that this right here, like nothing in the universe, the universe does
nothing for
a single motive.
Everything has multiple purposes and accomplishes multiple things.
This becoming the, the geometry of hydrogen or the very first visible element
is as a result
of all of those forces pushing on it.
But the first, um, no, yeah, I can use another here.
Yeah.
It's called explainer juice.
Yes.
All right.
Yeah.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank both of you.
So if we start with this as, as electricity, then we want to go to the very
first phase
from it.
The first thing that happens to it is it decays the first line of decay.
And that first line of decay is literally just putting on two magnetic fields.
If you'll hold that for a second, um, I've got to get something else out.
I got to say, I love these things.
They're really, they're really, they're really dope.
Yeah.
You need a shelf in your office.
Yeah.
Uh, for sure.
I put this in my house, but Taryn, I just don't see.
We're not done.
All right.
We're not done.
All right.
So when you put, didn't you see the box you came in with bro?
What kind of box?
That.
No.
Box of stuff.
So when you, now, when they line up, then they begin to create, and if you lay
it down
on your, um, thing, you can lay them down and you'll see them align.
If you can, I want to design a skate park around these, uh, sharp surfaces,
this is going to
get fucked up.
Any, anytime you're urinating, a man is urinating, he sees this pattern where
it's expanding and
contracting.
Expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting, that braiding behind the boat,
this describes
that motion from, from that.
But then let's add, let's go to the next stage of decay.
The next stage of decay would be, it would be four, four sides.
Now, what these are responsible for, boom, boom.
How you doing, Eric?
All right, Joe.
Yeah, here we go.
And this is...
This is the hard part for me.
This is the fun part.
Okay.
This is the part I've been waiting for.
This is the part I've been waiting for.
Now, let's put this...
This is an elaborate hoax.
Yes.
My whole life is an elaborate hoax.
Now, I should be putting the patterns up so that everybody isn't out there
saying, you
know, this isn't his shit, but...
So, when you get to this level of decay, they start to come together and they
create this
natural...
How gorgeous is that?
Look at that.
But, do me a favor, they also create these spaces, and if you lay them out, one
on top
of...
Well, I'm still riffing on this one.
Well, you're about to see that interact with the other side.
Like, we came to play today.
Boy, nothing like these conversations make me understand how different people's
brains
work.
There's just different humans out there.
Here we go.
So, all right.
Let's...
If I can move some of your stuff.
By the way, I just didn't know what I was...
Yeah.
I brought, like, some weird tools in case you were going to make weird points.
So, if you're laying these out, you're starting to see this pattern.
But, what's interesting, these have chirality.
These spin in opposite directions from each other.
But, they ultimately...
They ultimately reform together to make...
To fully tell that story.
So, this is why category theory is so powerful.
Because you're analogizing brain.
I mean, let's be honest.
I want everybody to form...
Without saying anything to each other.
What is this most similar to?
The DNA.
All right.
I was going to say the same.
All right.
And, if it was DNA, what would be the interstitial between these two things?
That would be the...
That ladder.
Each line, it would be the...
That would be the...
The ATCG.
The hydrogen.
That would be the hydrogen bond.
It would be...
Okay.
Phosphorus, phosphorus, oxygen, oxygen.
Now, if I was a protein scientist, what would I say this was?
You would say it's a ribosome.
I would say it's an alpha helix.
Oh.
Right?
I would say this was a secondary structure in protein.
So, my claim is, is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't
actually get to the double helix
is that she was a really good scientist.
And Watson and Crick were not good scientists.
She said, look, I can see right through you.
You just found out that Linus Pauling figured out the alpha helix in protein.
And you wannabes who don't know jack shit about biochemistry want an alpha helix.
And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the x-ray
crystallography of the Maltese cross.
You're going to try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling
all over again.
I don't want any part of it.
And the problem for her was, yeah, helices are ubiquitous at all different
levels.
Right?
So, in other words, Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix.
What happened is, is that a very common structure that's going to come up over
and over again,
it's going to come up in viruses, where you have helical viruses, you have it
in protein, you have it in nucleic acid.
That structure is because there's a platonic form, which you're finding here.
You're going to find helices over and over and over again because you can't
really have nature stop finding the structure.
It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system.
And so, everything is going to rhyme.
Now, your big problem is that everything rhymes to you because you know a lot
of stuff and you know a lot of similarities.
Your brain is very good at that.
And what your brain is not very good at is pruning the amount of rhymes that it
sees.
Well, what I'm, what I'm saying is this is defining all motion.
We just define the motion behind a boat.
We just define that other aspect.
And remember I was saying about the Tetris, about the Huntian being, being a
massless particle.
It only exists as a result of these four to eight Tetris pushing down because
of pressure.
The moment that these eight Tetris disappear, that interior space, it's no
longer there.
The moment that that disappears.
I don't know how to stop you from doing this.
I hate doing that.
I hate you stopping me from doing what I'm not supposed to be doing.
No, no, I don't.
Terry, I'm so far out over my skis.
I promise you what the internet is going to say the next day about me is ha-ha,
Eric Weinstein, blah, blah, blah.
Don't read the internet.
Stop reading the damage.
Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is you're taking all the good stuff that you're
doing and you get into 19 and you're saying hit me.
And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say don't do that.
Because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find some
structures like the ones you're talking about in wave fronts, right?
I think what you're doing is totally canonical and it's very, very natural.
And I think you're building models and you don't know how to do the algebra
probably and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all
that.
Fine, I can point you to books.
I can try to help you.
I'm a geometer.
I like doing geometry.
I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these
pieces and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or postulates
to be made from it.
That's what I wanted to do with Dr. Tyson.
Okay, but part of what you're doing is you're coming into another community.
Like what you said about David Tong is so unfair to David Tong.
What did I say?
David Tong.
Okay, first of all, do you know who David Tong is?
I know him on the internet.
I know, but I've watched a few of his things.
I was very impressed with it.
That's why I reached out to him.
He's, he's amazing.
And I have my difference.
He's an acquaintance of mine.
I haven't seen him since 2011.
Okay.
He's an amazing treasure because that guy has a gift for explanation in our
community.
And in a world where a lot of people in string theory have no, have lost
complete touch with reality.
Right?
This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with
razor sharp clarity.
So he's an absolute, he's a national treasure of the UK.
And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16
fields.
I said, I have the models for your 16 fields, which was-
You're teaching.
Yeah.
That's, okay.
If you want to say, I don't understand this, you get a positive reaction from
us.
If you say, I have something and I'm not quite sure what it is.
Can I get an evaluation because I think I might have something?
You should be able to get something from a guy like me.
And that's what I did.
I went to Oxford.
I know.
Didn't get that.
But I'm trying to say something.
I went to these guys.
Yes, okay.
Then you do this other thing, which is you teach.
And your teaching is not good.
You tell us stuff that's not true, that we can tell is not true.
And then we say, okay, I can throw out the entirety of what he's saying.
What did I say that wasn't true though?
That's what I'm, that's, that's, that's, I mean.
Well, one times one is not equal to two.
Let's start there.
That, in fact, I'm angry at Joe because Joe should have pushed back on that.
Joe is in awe.
The calculator says one times one doesn't equal one because of that square root
of two issue.
Can we pull the portal group back up?
There's a lot of wild shit I don't push back on if I'm not sure what the fuck
that person's saying.
I understand.
That's why.
But also because I know that people are going to eventually.
But Joe, right now we've got a crisis where nobody knows what to believe.
And unfortunately for you, you were in a bad spot because you wanted to have
fun.
You had a show and it got really big.
That's why you're a big daddy.
Okay, wait, wait.
I'm saying people have, can we go to the Terrence product, maybe below that?
I think you were, I think you were in the right place.
Yeah.
Okay.
Here's how we would do this in, in mathematics.
Assume you were a colleague, right?
And I wasn't trying to get rid of you and get you out of my office.
I'd say, okay, let, no, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not kidding.
I know you're interested in wanting to have further conversations, so go.
Okay.
The standard thing, what we would do is we'd say, okay, wait a second.
I don't really buy your claim that one times one equals two, but let's try to
evaluate what
you're saying.
Then I'd create something called the Terrence times binary operation star sub t.
And I'd say that provisionally, I define a star sub t times b to be equal to a
times one
plus b, because your rule says that you should add a to itself b number of
times.
So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as
times.
Then I come up with the Terrence root of c equaling d if d Terrence producted
with itself equals
c.
So now I have Terrence binary operation, Terrence root, and the Terrence square
operation.
And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object until you try to
blow away times or multiplication
in the normal sense.
Now what I've got is I've got a new operation and I want to know its properties.
Is it commutative?
No, a times, a Terrence times b is not b Terrence times a.
Those are two different numbers.
Then I ask, is it associative?
Yes, it is associative.
So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy ass shit that you say
when you
go to Oxford.
And this is how I would start to understand it.
I would say, Terrence, do we get anything new out of Terrence times, Terrence
root, Terrence
square?
And I would, I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring.
The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our effing asses
off and you
come in and you say, I've developed, like imagine if I got on this program and
I said, is John Jones
out there, he's a huge pussy, doesn't know how to fight.
I have a one touch technique and if I lay a pinky on John Jones, you're going
to see a quivering
little pout of butter.
Sean Strickland has no disciplines.
Guy, guy's a big fatty.
It's not going to go well.
No.
Okay.
So what I'm trying to get at is that's what you're doing to us.
I didn't mean to.
That's not what I meant to do.
But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that
there's
something very wrong with the math because math should not be done.
There's nothing wrong with the math.
I'm saying the math that we are doing is still based on linear projections,
even though we
are in a multidimensional space.
And if, and if the square root of two didn't have that problem.
Listen to me very carefully.
Assume you have the most beautiful curve linear object.
My wife.
Yeah.
Can we do a four?
I don't want to, I don't want to talk about, I don't want, I don't want my
words about, I saw what happened to Will Smith.
I want to keep my, your wife's name out of my mouth.
You'll meet my wife.
She's, she's very beautiful.
I'm sure she's dope.
Okay.
If you take the most beautiful ski slope you've ever been on and you imagine it
was perfectly
groomed so that there's just, all it is, is smooth.
You cannot create non-linear smoothness without giving rise to something called
the tangent
bundle.
And the tangent bundle has made up of linear objects.
The non-linear includes the linear.
And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an
action and a reaction.
The non-linear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the non-linearity.
So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you
could on Walter
Russell, you would not try to deny the linear.
You would say that the non-linear is part and parcel with the linear and that
creating the
non-linear requires creating the linear.
The differential operators at a point on a non-linear structure form a linear
space.
And that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside
of something
else, because you hear that the universe is expanding.
You say, well, what's it expanding into?
Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around
it, no ambient
space, by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear.
So we've got an entire language that you don't know about.
But let's unpack that.
Sure.
For something to be linear, something to be straight, that means that it is no
longer having to deal
with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything, because the
greater the
the greater the action, the greater the reaction, greater the reaction, greater
the resistance,
greater the resistance, greater the curvature.
Everything in this universe has the resistance, and that's where the curvature
come from.
So when they talk about, I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line, or
try and, but the
curvature of the universe is literally, is that phi at 1.618, that expansion
aspect of it, that's
the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe.
All right, if you take the concept of why is the cosmological constant almost
zero?
I have no idea.
Well, nobody really knows.
So you're, you're not alone.
I mean, and them saying that the cosmological constant is zero, which means,
what does that
mean?
Do you, do you know who Jim Gates is?
No.
Jim Gates is...
Can you explain what the cosmological constant means?
Can we bring up the Einstein field equations with cosmological constant?
Is that the, the, the, um...
The dark energy?
That's that dark, that, that, um, the, the, the quantum field that they, not
the quantum
field, the, what do they call it, the, um, the, the vacuum.
All right.
Is that the vacuum?
Yeah, let's pull that one.
No, no, no.
Yeah, I like that one.
Okay.
So that arm you knew is the Ricci curvature.
That is a sub, sub, sort of a sub packaging of the full curvature.
So you throw away a piece like filleting it of the, and you throw away the vile
curvature.
Plus a bi-vector?
Well, these are symmetric two tensors.
Sometimes people call bi-vector, I find that terminology confusing, but yeah,
you're in the
right neighborhood.
That lambda is what's called the cosmological constant.
And there's a raging controversy as to whether that thing is a number or
whether that thing
is like the temperature, which might vary subtly.
And this was this thing that where Einstein supposedly said his greatest blunder
was to
put this in.
He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the universe is
expanding.
And then very recently in the end of the millennium, they said, not only is it
expanding, but it's
expanding at an accelerating rate, and that's when this whole dark energy thing
really took
shape.
That thing, and where was I going with this?
Oh yeah.
Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African-American physicist we have,
brilliant, brilliant guy at
the University of Maryland College Park.
He's a strengthier, so he and I are naturally like Montagues and Capulets.
But he's a lovely guy, very, very brilliant.
He says, look, we need supersymmetry because that thing should blow up.
And it's almost zero.
And the only way that it's almost zero is because the bosons and the fermions,
if supersymmetry
is true, have to be balanced.
Right?
So imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door, and they're of exactly
equal strength.
The door doesn't move practically at all, not because they're not powerful, but
because
they're perfectly balanced, like unnaturally balanced.
And so what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object?
Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and
creating the
immovable object between them, to carry through the analogy.
So that thing has to do with a balancing between two incredibly powerful but
opposite structures.
And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have
perfectly balanced
things through fine-tuning issues.
Now, one of the fine-tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk
about them
in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is
before we had
DNA, there was a guy named Erwin Chargaff, and he gave Watson and Crick the
worst peer
review in human history.
He said that these are two idiots, that they were pitch men in search of a helix.
They didn't know anything about chemistry, and he totally dismissed them.
He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C,
and the amount
of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true is
because of hydrogen
bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side.
Hydrogen, cytosine, alanine, and thiamine.
And so the idea is that that was the fine-tuning solution. Why did you always
have equal amounts
of these things? Oh, because you didn't see that they'd been paired in a helix.
You just saw
it once it was broken. But the actual nucleotides had been paired, and so they're
always,
the hydrogen bond enforced that. One was a double bond, one was a triple bond.
This is like this. We're trying to figure out why lambda, we would understand
better if it
were zero, or we would understand better if it was enormous. The fact that it
is almost
zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff, to your point,
this is one
of the greatest reasons for, this is probably the greatest, I agree with Jim,
this is the reason
for supersymmetry. Without supersymmetry, we don't have an explanation for why
that thing doesn't
blow up.
So if you saw a geometric structure that defined and worked together completely,
would this qualify
as a supersymmetrical system? And we haven't even gotten to the magnetic field
yet, but you
see how these things fit together and what they might do in replacing...
So you have a metaphor, and you have a metaphorical mind. So you have this
thing that you call
the... what's the tetrahedron one?
The tetrahedron.
The tetrahedron. You got one called the huntian.
The huntian, that's my son.
Okay. And then you have a different one where the huntian is flanked by two tetrahedron,
which you call a transformer because it's a step down.
I call it a light unit. I call that a light unit.
Then you say it's a photon.
Yes, it's a step up and step down transformer.
And then here's how your unification scheme goes. You say, look, I don't need
gravity because
I simulated Saturn without gravity. By the way, electromagnetism looks very
similar to gravity,
which causes all older electrical engineers...
That's what I've been saying. Electricity is the cause of gravity.
Gravity is an effect. It's a draft. Like the thermos...
Like the thermos is a draft of radiation...
Well, you stop teaching, man. You've got to stop teaching because you're saying
interesting stuff
and then you just always go over it.
Okay.
Look, you want to know what the DMT of this stuff is? I'll hand you the stuff
that'll blow your mind.
Right now, where this is, is something called the double copy. The double copy
is a relation that was totally
unexpected between the amplitudes associated with gravity and the amplitudes
associated with the Yang-Mills stuff.
And I just met with a guy, Zvi Burn, at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought
us this double copy. And it's a great mystery. It's like looking directly into
the equimolar relations before you have the double helix. So there is a
relationship that is much deeper than the superficial relationship between, you
know... Can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation?
Yeah, and then let's do a bathroom break. Sure. We could do one right now. We
could do it right now. Do a bathroom break right now. Yeah. We'll be right back.
Yeah. You don't know who he is?
No, the last three weeks, all I've been doing is watching your shit. Bob Lazar.
Me?
I'm like, let me see what it is. Oh, man. Bob Lazar was a guy who cleaned.
I caught you on TMZ suddenly talking about me. It was like, what is my name
doing in Terrace's mouth?
That's hilarious. TMZ asked you a question at all? Yeah, and they said, do I
have anything going on? And I was like, yeah, man, I'm Eric Weinstein. I said
Weinstein.
Stein. I said Weinstein, because Brian Keaton said Weinstein. He said Weinstein
on the thing.
Yeah, Weinstein is Weinstein, not Weinstein. Yeah. Yeah. So it's Weinstein.
It's whatever Harvey is. Keating said Weinstein? Is that what you're saying?
He said Weinstein. No, he said Weinstein, so I thought I said Weinstein, but I
didn't know if that was just a joke or a play on things.
They got super sensitive after Harvey. Yeah.
Shoot, I don't know.
So what we were talking about was Bob Lazar, who was a guy who claimed to be
back engineering UFOs for the government back in the late 80s.
That's what we were just talking about.
I did see something about him.
Yeah. He was on the podcast many years ago. It's a fascinating story that I
hope is real.
And that's what we were discussing, like whether or not Eric could make sense
of it.
So that's what we were talking about. We walked in here.
What were we talking about right before we went for our bathroom break?
We went. He threw up an equation.
Not threw up.
The Newtonian. And then what was after that?
We were about to do the analogy between electromagnetism and gravitation.
The Newtonian gravitational force law.
So we have these inverse square laws.
And because of the similarity, can we do the electromagnetic force law?
With two charges separated by a distance of R.
Joe, who has smoked weed in this while we're waiting for it?
Okay.
Nobody.
Okay. Just Elon. He's the only one who...
Okay. So if you look at... Let's do the electromagnetic...
The Fe equals KQQ over R squared.
This one?
Yeah.
Okay. So fix that in your mind and imagine that I turn the Q1 and the Q2 into
masses and the R is the distance between them and that K becomes a different
constant.
So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.
Okay.
You can go above.
Yeah. Let's do the one with the two big spheres right there.
So you see that it's like very, very similar formally.
Right?
There's a constant in front.
There are two different objects and there's a distance.
So one of the reasons that I wasn't...
I have the same feeling you do about that Saturn hexagon.
Like, what the hell is that?
It's unexpected.
And I've never understood this great red spot on Jupiter being a...
If it's a gas giant, it's just so stable for millennia.
The whole thing doesn't super make sense to me.
It's going to give birth to a moon.
Okay.
So partially what happens when electrical engineers get older, they start to
have this idea about electricity and gravitation.
And you get the stuff about electric gravitics.
Sometimes people call it gravited dynamics.
And the formal similarities between these things appeal to people and they want
to see one as the other.
And, of course, the Kaluza-Klein theory tried to connect gravitation and
electromagnetism super early on.
So part of what happens is that Terence tries to say, look, I keep coming up
with these ideas of somehow wave fronts.
The wave fronts create these shapes that are related to the platonic solids but
curved linear versions of them.
He associates the tetrahedron with the weak force.
He associates the octahedron with the strong force.
He associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron all curved linear on
opposite faces with the photon, i.e. electromagnetism.
He replaces gravitation.
Then he says, weirdly, that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't
have gravity, so he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity.
And then he's got these shapes and the disconnect is between the shapes and invoking
forces.
In other words, there's a moment in the story in which it's just this massive
leap.
From the shapes creating force?
Well, it was the issue in which I tried to show you the Lagrangian inside of a
partition function for encoding everything.
And in order to unseat, let me just give an advertisement for the establishment.
The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying
this further, Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic
fields meet up into where there's almost a balance.
Same cat, different issue.
Okay.
Like when ZZ Top is singing about Lagrange.
Well, no, that's what I'm saying.
When most people hear Lagrangian, that's what they're thinking is Lagrangian,
but I'm sure you're thinking about something else.
No, I'm thinking about an objective function.
I'm thinking about something to be minimized.
In effect, normal human beings think about physics and equations, like Einstein's
equation or the Schrodinger equation or all this kind of stuff.
Physicists don't think in that way.
And if you permit me an analogy, imagine you have four forces and the four
forces are analogized to the four different configurations of the Beatles.
When Ringo is singing Octopus's Garden, he's in front, everybody else is
supporting, right?
So when it's, well, my guitar gently weeps, George is out front, Penny Lane is
going to be Paul and Strawberry Fields is going to be John.
Those four different configurations of the Beatles are all the Beatles, but
they're different configurations, right?
Yes.
And the equations are like the different configurations of one person in front
and everybody else supporting that person.
But the Beatles is like the Lagrangian, right?
Okay.
So the Lagrangian is a machine for creating those four configurations.
Now, in the case of physics, right, you have these different equations for the
different fields.
The gravitational field equation has gravity in the metric out front.
The Yang-Mills equation has the photon, the gluons, the WZ particles out front.
The Dirac equation has the matter out front.
And the Klein-Gordon equation with potential has the Higgs field out front.
And those are the basic fields of reality so far as we understand it.
But the Higgs field is responsible for like 1% of the force applied upon them,
right?
It's so that I understand the Higgs field.
The Higgs field has to do with the fact like none of us are zipping off at the
speed of light, yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the
weak force.
If the weak force was not around, we would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs
field, rather, the Higgs field to generate an as-if mass.
But because of the asymmetry built into the weak force, which is the only thing
that has this left-right asymmetry, we can't have normal mass.
There's a place to put a normal mass in the equation that's forbidden if the
universe is left-right asymmetric.
This has to do with this thing called the tau-theta puzzle from the 1950s.
We were freaked out.
Can we get a picture of Cindy Crawford?
That's a good transition.
No, no, it's important.
I like it.
So, by the way, I'm dating myself because, okay.
How old are you?
What?
How old are you?
58.
Okay, you got me by three years.
Well, you said you were a young man.
I was flattered to hear it.
I'm 55, so we're good.
Now, let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric,
right?
And the asymmetry has to do with a mole that she didn't remove from her face.
So, we can tell when you have an image of her, like if she wasn't holding a can
of Pepsi and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell
but for the mole whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her
down the center line.
So, Marilyn Monroe, Sidney Crawford have this left-right asymmetry to them.
That thing is like the weak force.
It's the only thing that can detect this difference between left and right.
And the weak force is the thing that prohibits a normal mass that forces us
into a Higgs mass through something called a Yukawa coupling.
So, that's the whole reason that it's in that thing is it's a crazy Hail Mary
to save all of physics because normally if the world were left-right asymmetric
due to beta decay, the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and
emit an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process, that process is
the thing that denies us mass.
And we would be at the speed of light and we would all zip off in opposite
directions but for the Higgs field.
And that process is the radiative process.
That's the process I call magnetism that tears apart, that rarefies that which
was concentrically drawn together through electricity.
That weak force is an equal force to electricity.
Terrence, let me ask you a question.
That's what I feel.
I'm taller than Joe.
Right.
Imagine I challenge Joe to a fight.
What do you think happens next?
I get my ass kicked.
Well, Joe knows some shit that you don't know.
Joe knows some serious shit.
I have an advantage on it in terms of weight.
I have an advantage on it in terms of height.
He's in great condition.
The guy knows how to fight and he's got a spinning back kick to die for.
Okay?
What happens is I get my ass kicked.
You do not know when you're going to get your ass kicked.
And it's a big problem that you're going to keep courting because I watch you.
You keep finding the space where we could come together and you insist on
teaching into it.
And it's like, I'm trying to be nice as pie because I'm inspired by what you're
trying to do.
But you have no idea like when you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last
name and a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't recognize.
You just, you've got to stop.
Yeah, and I see the metaphor in it.
Can I ask you, before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is
incorrect and there's something else that accounts for all of the effects that
we call gravity.
Yes, I feel that gravity is the draft left behind from the electric force.
As the electricity moves through, there's a draft that's generated because it
creates whirlpools.
Each of those whirlpools is the gravity or the cosmic foam or, I forget, there's
another term that they were using for this foam.
But it's a flowing in the same way that thermals are effective by magnetism or
radiation creates these thermals that you're able to fly on.
The opposite of those thermals, I believe that gravity is the opposite of those
thermals in the electric force.
It's the pulling down the same way the thermals push up.
What do you think about that?
I didn't even want to touch it.
Because I'm going to get into the same thing.
I'm trying to say to you.
I know, I'm just saying, and I could be wrong, because based upon what I am
putting together is taking commonsensical geometries and taking definitions of
words and putting them together in a manner by which the layman sees it.
Because the whole point is for everyone to understand science.
But you're teaching repeatedly.
And that is going to be your downfall.
No, I'm listening.
Right now, I'm a student.
Right now, I swear to you, right now, I am a student.
But I'm also a student.
I don't know how you generate all that stuff.
I've tried to understand your mind.
I try to do this.
By the way, this isn't peculiar to you.
So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's
theory of the universe, Garrett Lisi's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's
theory of the universe, your theory of the universe.
My colleagues don't do this.
See, I thought I was special.
No, no, no.
You just made me feel not special anymore.
Brother, you are certainly special.
That's not what I'm trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is that physics and science is broken down.
I will steel man you.
I will try to put your best foot forward.
I'm not out to get you.
Where we are right now is that the Brian Greens of the universe will not look
at anything that isn't string theory.
They're really like that.
So whether it's Ed Witten or Sean Carroll or Neil deGrasse Tyson, this
generosity of spirit, spirit of collegiality, it's dead.
And what you get is gotcha artists.
Right.
And that's all they do.
They're just trying.
There's also something called gripe and swipe where they try to find any flaw
in what you do so that they can throw you aside and then they can take every
right thing that you did and put it under their own name.
That's why I patented.
That's why I patented everything before doing it, because I thought that might
be the case because I went to somebody at MIT and I showed him the wave conjugations.
I can't remember his name.
Because it's a small community.
We all know each other.
I will remember his name by the time I'm done.
But he said, oh, I've seen these before.
And I was like, no, you wouldn't.
No, you haven't.
Because if you had seen them, I wouldn't have the patents.
So this is part of the problem.
This is a very important digression.
You need help from the community.
Yes.
But the community also sees you as a 17-year-old blonde girl from Minnesota
getting off the bus in the Sunset Strip having no idea where she is.
Even though I've got the 97 patents and all of that stuff, it doesn't matter.
Does not matter.
Because first of all, you cannot patent science.
They took away our ability to earn a living from doing science, right?
You can do technology and patent it, but you cannot patent fundamental
mathematics and physics.
Well, see, that's what I'm hoping.
I'm hoping that they ultimately take the patents from me because they become
basic, general.
Let me tell you something.
It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something
than you fooled some patent examiner who has no idea what the hell is going on
and can't actually earn a living the way he dreamed of being an engineer.
And so, you know, at some level.
The most important thing that you've done is weirdly based on an error, so far
as I can tell.
So can you bring us a linchpin?
Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing.
Okay.
And, Jamie, could I trouble you for bringing up that same page over and over
again?
I'm sorry about that, brother.
Just bring one.
No, no, no.
Okay.
Can't wait.
But we're dead air here.
Okay.
Okay.
Howard's linchpin.
Howard's extraordinary claims for the linchpin appear to mirror Green's
extraordinary claims for the string.
So let's look at Terrence Howard.
Filling up the dead air here.
Talking about the linchpin.
Okay.
The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter, either seen or
unseen.
The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus.
The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter.
It is the true currency of the universal flow because it is the common factor
of all things.
It is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quanta, the smallest
reflection, ultimately in collective potential of all things, which equals the
multiverse, blah, blah, blah.
Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green do the same thing.
It's a great expression of Brian's face.
String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is
something else.
So if I take a little cork and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's
nothing inside, but string theory says I'll find a little tiny filament.
A little filament of energy, a little string like filament, and just like the
string on a violin, I pluck it and it vibrates, creates a little musical note
that I can hear.
The little strings in string theory, when they vibrate, they don't produce
musical notes.
They produce the particles themselves, so a cork is nothing but a string
vibrating in one pattern.
An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern.
A neutrino, nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still.
So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these
ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right,
deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter, there's nothing but a
dancing, vibrating, cosmic symphony of strings.
Okay, now if you take what he just said, this is entirely respectable.
This is a Columbia professor lecturing me for 40 fucking years about what they're
going to do one day when they grow up.
That everything is just a string, and just the way a violin can vibrate in
different modes.
All of the particles come from the excitation of the string.
That's exactly how you sound with the linchpin.
Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially.
It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else
has happened for 40 years.
They've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there
are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues.
And so, in part, you're going to incur an emotional penalty from me with the linchpin,
which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool.
So, the same basic pattern, which is one thing explains it all, has a terrible
kind of cadence.
Because I'm about to get you.
No.
I'm about to get you.
I got some.
I'm about to get you.
I got some.
But my point is, this thing that you created is based on an error.
And it's a beautiful error.
And I think people are just not going to grasp it.
What's the error?
The error is, is that the arc cosine of minus one-third is not equal to three-fifths
pie.
Garlic makes my feet stink.
Okay.
That was perfect.
Okay.
Terence with the timing today.
I didn't...
I'm sorry.
It may be the whiskey.
It is the whiskey.
It's certainly helping.
No, but I'm not mad about it at all.
All right.
No, it's hilarious.
What I mean is, is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly,
I've got these
vectors that point out towards the vertices.
And between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six
edges.
Right.
What's the angle between those two vertices as measured from the center of mass
inside of a tetrahedron?
Still be at 120 degrees.
No, it's the arc cosine of minus one-third.
That's what you're talking about.
That's what I'm talking about.
Okay.
Now, you say this is an undiscovered geometry.
Now, why is that an undiscovered geometry?
Well, because they gave me the patents.
No, no, no.
You've got to stop that with the patents.
I don't give a shit about these patents.
No, no.
I did the patents because they...
I have watched so many people come and take somebody's work.
No, no, no.
So it was just...
It was a protection.
Okay.
We've covered the patents.
My claim is that what you discovered is a little bit like even temperament.
Now, even temperament is a lie.
Right.
Do you know about even temperament?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
You can...
Keep retucking it back together.
They keep...
It's an attempt to modulate or keep everything start right back at the
beginning and avoid the
Pythagorean comma.
Avoid the necessary expansion.
Okay.
Now we're talking the Pythagorean comma.
The difference...
All right.
Jamie.
Can we get...
Can we get the 12th root of 2 raised to the 19th power?
Good luck with that, Jamie.
Come on, Jamie.
No way.
Show it on a calculator.
I'm going to do this Terrence Howard.
I don't know what you want to see on a calculator.
I'm going to do this Terrence Howard style.
I'm going to do this Terrence Howard style.
There's a flaw in all of mathematics and all of music.
Take out your calculators.
They won't...
They won't allow me to project it.
I don't know.
So if we take the scientific calculator, turn it on its side.
Take the number 2.
Okay.
2.
Now, we have an X root Y.
Can we find...
No, root...
Right below that.
Yeah.
Try it again.
2.
Okay.
And then do 12.
Just type in 12.
Hold on.
Sorry.
I was going to show it.
I'm not going to show it.
Okay.
And now raise that to the 19th power.
That's this one, right?
Yeah.
Oh, shit.
It's almost 3.
The speed of light.
It's almost 3.
It's 2.9966.
That is...
If we take the national anthem...
Can you sing?
I think you can.
Give me...
Oh, say.
Oh, say.
Okay.
Now take from say and get me to land of the free.
To the land of the free.
Okay.
That is supposed to be the ratio of 3.
But if we did it on a harmonica, and the harmonica was probably tuned...
Sorry.
That's not going to be 3.
It's going to be 2.9966.
Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts...
Is that we couldn't figure out how to get 3 to be perfect because...
What you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of.
By the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on the show.
We call it the Procustrian fifth because when you...
Even like when I put these together...
Yeah.
You'll see that there's points where they will not connect because everything
is expanding by fee.
Okay.
And that expansion...
You've got a Pythagorean comma in the middle of your linchpin.
Yes, I do.
Yeah.
With 109.
109.
4.7.
Yeah.
Rather than 108.
Yes.
You bastard.
Yes.
Yeah, so I caught you.
Okay.
Well, you didn't catch me.
I just used a little thing that they don't know about.
No, I know about the reason.
But...
Wait, wait, wait.
I ain't going...
Terrence, come back.
Come back here, Terrence.
I ain't coming back.
I'm about to bring you something.
We're talking about...
Terrence.
I'm coming.
I'm coming.
I'm coming.
I promise you.
I'm coming right over to you.
I just want to have these so when it's time to...
Terrence, I don't think you understand the dead air principle at the JRE.
Dead air principle?
I'm here.
As long as I'm here, everything is well and alive.
Terrence, okay.
So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you
figured out something that
is analogous to even temperament, which is if you shove a pentagon, which
should have three
radians distributed around five angles.
In degree terms, that's 108.
But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is one of 9.47 and change.
And so effectively the same game that we played and people like Bach started
playing with even
temperament is where do you pay for even temperament?
Well, you end up paying for it in the expansion of the song.
It does not follow a natural extension.
That's true.
There's no circle of fifths.
There's what?
A spiral of fifths.
There's a phi.
And you know what the worst note is?
The worst note?
C and B and E and F hitting at the same time.
No, no, no.
You're saying something different.
You're saying that in the Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, Do.
Right?
Do to me is an abomination.
Right?
Can we do a, do I can turn?
Yes.
Left a good job in the city.
Let's go.
Left a good job in the city.
Okay.
Okay.
Working for a man every night and day.
But I never lost a minute of sleep.
Thinking about the way things might have been.
Don't know the big wheels.
Keep on turning.
Keep on turning.
Rob, Mary, keep on burning.
Keep on burning now.
Rolling.
Oh, Lord.
Rolling.
Oh, Lord.
Rolling on the river.
Rolling on the river.
Okay.
It's basically Mary had a little lamb, right?
But it's much cooler.
Now, left a good job in the city.
City is going to be the third.
And that third is wildly sharp to the Pythagorean third.
That's the penalty we pay for dividing the perfect octave.
Right?
Can you give me somewhere over the rainbow?
Somewhere over the rainbow, birds fly way up high.
Mm-hmm.
Let me see what it would be.
I feel like I'm in a boxcar.
I feel like I'm on the launching pad where the UFO lands on Close Encounters.
Somewhere is a doubling of frequency, right?
Right.
The doubling is perfect.
The fifth is a lie, but it's a good lie.
The third is an abomination.
It's not until you get to 53 notes, which the Turks use, that you get a better
fifth and a better third.
You get a better fifth of 29 notes per scale.
Yes.
And you get a worse third.
So there's no reason to do that.
It's a 12th, the 29th, 53rd.
Yeah.
Now, my claim is, is that you pulled off the same thing by finding a cheat
inside of the linchpin, which is why it's genius.
And I don't even think you know how genius this thing is, is my guess.
I'm about to show you noble gas and I'm going to show you matter.
I'm going to fuck the whole thing up.
Listen to me.
The number of edges in a tetrahedron is what?
And a tetrahedron is six.
And that's why you have six pentagons.
But these six pentagons are not, either they're not perfect or they're not
joined perfectly.
You put six motors in these things with propellers and you have six degrees of
freedom.
There you go.
You have an object.
So we talk about pitch, roll, and yaw.
But those are basically, if I understand correctly, the basis vectors for the
Lie algebra of SO3 or spin 3 or SU2.
What's the Lie algebra?
Well, so the idea is I have a rotation group of symmetries of this object about
its central vertex.
Right.
And that's one of the things.
You can put one of these things up and with three degrees of freedom I can spin
it, right, like a full-on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that
nothing else can move.
Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four
motors.
This is unlimited.
Okay.
Oh, but it's going to distract this.
Let's get to that in one second because it's super cool.
Okay.
By the way, that's a CGI.
Yes, that's a CGI.
I'm going to show you the real world.
But I've actually seen a guy actually flying this around, so I don't want to do
this.
We've got like 19 of them that's actually.
So what's going on with this is that you have three degrees of freedom, which
is the rotations that I need here.
But you've got three extra degrees of freedom to move in different places.
Now there's something called the affine group, which is the semi-direct product
of SO3 with the R3 group of translations.
And SO3 has eight, it introduces the chromatic aspect of.
Don't go chromatic.
Don't go chromatic.
You've got something brilliant.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm listening.
I'm just trying to understand.
The best thing that I've seen out of Terrence Howard that I will, I will tell
people, this is why you never throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And again, I don't know that you invented it.
I think you did.
I did invent it.
I promise you, I think you did.
No, I didn't invent it.
It was given to me.
An angel gave that to me and I'm sorry that everybody.
Terrence, I'm sorry to say this.
There's a way in which we all feel pressure to give away the genius stuff that
we do to some higher power.
This is why if you ask like Khabib Nurmagomedov, like, how do you do such great
things?
He'll say.
Masha Allah or.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Because Islam is very good about you always give away the compliment because
you don't, you can't hold it because it'll cause you an ego distortion.
This thing here has six degrees of freedom based on the relative speeds of the
motors that you put into it.
Plus, there's an affine group called SO3 semidirect product R3, which has six
Lie algebra elements.
That means that this thing can potentially span the Lie algebra.
And if you have a track ball over here as a controller and you put like three
theremins so that you could control in three dimensional space, you potentially
have a drone that can rotate itself in three dimensions and get anywhere based
on these six objects.
Now I could be wrong about that.
No, you're right.
We've actually done that.
Okay.
So my claim is if the only thing you'd done, forget the art, forget the science,
forget the this, forget the that.
If the only thing you did was to introduce an error, which is 109.47 is not
exactly 108.
But 108 is that key of a, which is, you won't stop.
I'm not stopping.
I'm just, I'm working with you.
I know.
Keep going.
Keep going.
All right.
All right.
You talk.
That is a really cool grade a idea until I hear that somebody else did it or
that when you machine this, because this is the thing.
Now this is when you put four of them together.
Now the thing is, it's very cool.
If you take what Intel does with drones, where they sort of synchronize these
swarms, this thing comes together and it forms a stable structure.
Now, if you look at it, the tolerances that you've built into this thing,
because these pentagons do not exactly come together.
109.47.
It's not 108.
That thing within, within engineering is like even temperament.
Even temperament is a lie.
It's a fraud, but oh my God, all the most beautiful music in the world is built
on even temperament.
But look at what it generates.
That's what I'm talking about.
You put four, now four of these come together and make this.
Four of these come together and they make this larger structure that is the
same exact thing.
So that's not a lie.
It is a lie.
You're trying to build the whole universe off of the lynching.
I'm defining something new.
You are.
To the best of my knowledge.
By the way, I looked at this years ago.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, hold on.
No, no, no.
Before you go there.
The other side of it.
Yeah.
This is, this is what, what is, what's very interesting.
Like these, they'll come together and meet.
You can see where they meet up.
Yeah.
Their natural meeting up.
Yeah.
Now this one looks exactly like this one, but they don't have the same mixture.
So what this is creating, this is actually showing, this is the equal and
opposite.
This is, this is matter.
This becomes the anti-matter.
I can't stop you doing that.
You can't stop me.
I know.
I'm sorry.
I'm my own worst enemy and my own best friend.
You know what?
That, that was a beautiful statement.
But that I, what I'm trying to say is the fact that they keep, and these four
will keep,
this is just the magnetic, what I consider the magnetic field.
You see, you stopped yourself.
I consider, I consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding
at the center
and magnetism to, in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater.
And you know, when you just said in my language.
In my language.
That's what I just did with the Terrence product.
In other words.
You said in your language.
I'm trying to get you to stop pissing my community off.
I don't want to piss them off.
I know.
I want friends.
I need friends.
Terrence, that's why we're here.
Right?
But when you have, and these will keep bonding with greater ones and keep
making the same
structure.
The point is, it's good enough within engineering tolerances to be a dodecahedron.
This dodecahedron's are, I'm not going to teach.
Now, if, if, if, Jamie, can we bring up T4 bacteriophage capsid?
Because I think, do you know about what a capsomere is?
No.
All right.
I know what a pap smear is.
It's the second time you did that.
Just had one last week.
What?
Okay.
I think you got a bad doctor.
Okay.
Now, let's do the one below the cartoon.
So you see where it says collard and sheath.
Let's do, yeah.
Oh, these run, those are these quick things that run along.
They're moved so very quickly along.
No, you're talking about something else.
You're talking about a transport thing.
This is a virus.
Oh, this is a virus.
It looks like the transport thing.
This is phage lambda.
And what this thing is, that thing is an icosahedral capsid.
So all of the nucleic acid is upstairs in that compartment, but it's not a
perfect icosahedron
because it has the elongation of some triangles and the truncation of others.
Now, this thing is an example of imperfection in nature.
Right?
So nature wanted to do something very rigid to protect the nucleic acid by
coming up with
an icosahedron, but she didn't do a perfect one.
Can we find any other that, like you see above that one?
That's way too perfect.
It's not true.
That's a good one.
So in some sense, what you find often enough is that nature actually chooses
imperfect perfection.
Nested.
Yeah.
They're just nesting instead of...
Now, the way this works, can we look up capsomere?
Again, I'm way out of my element.
C-A-P-O...
That's something different.
C-A-P-S-O capsomere.
Yeah.
And then images.
So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your
drone units,
your linchpins, that come together to form capsids.
So when you...
Can you hold up one that encases a dodecahedron?
Oh, um...
Like right here, right here.
Yeah.
So that is like a capsid made from capsomeres.
So I want you to spend some time on the protein data bank.
Maybe let's go to the protein PDB capsomere.
And you'll get an understanding of all the ways in which nature has been doing
this engineering
that we've been learning from.
Maybe actually just go to the site PDB.
Yeah.
Let's try that.
Herpes.
Basically what these are are little nature's version of linchpins that come
together to
form platonic solids, which are the triangular platonic solids are valued
because the triangle
is a stable structure.
If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily.
So they're not very, you know, engineers will use triangles over squares.
Um, what you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out the Eternal One's
understanding
of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability
that actually
use the imperfections just the way you were using the imperfections.
And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because
108 wasn't
equal to 109.47.
Right.
It's close.
And the fact that you're willing to deal with something doped with imperfection
is what
actually is the genius akin to even temperament.
Well, it's like, how do you walk?
You don't walk by a perfect gait.
Yeah.
You walk by moving past the point of equilibrium and catching yourself.
It's the catchment.
I don't know how to think like that.
I think perfectly, not imperfectly, and it's to my detriment in many situations.
Well, you've got an incredible mind.
As do you, sir.
Can we go back to the main page?
Because another thing that I see you taking a lot of guff for is the periodic
table.
Now, I don't like your periodic table, but you are also the only person I know
who's
pushing into the public consciousness, the understanding.
Okay.
So, first of all, do you know Stanley Jordan?
Not by name.
All right.
He smoked wheat.
Stanley Jordan is one of the...
I don't even want to call him a guitarist.
He's an alien intelligence from another universe.
But if you go up and you click that, people have been saying that Terence
Howard is making
up this thing about the periodic table and the sound of the elements.
And I want you to hear what he calls sonification.
The ionization energies of the elements as represented here in a periodic table.
And we are going to produce tones representing those energies.
The way that this app works is each one of these elements in the table is
actually a push
button, and I can play tones with these push buttons.
The settings in this control panel here will determine how those energies will
be converted
into tones that we can hear.
First of all, we're just going to look at a few of the controls for now.
See, we have transposed frequency.
The frequencies corresponding to these ionization energies are extremely high.
So we have to transpose them down to arrange them.
As you said.
So here we're going to transpose it down.
In this case, 42 octaves.
Negative 42.
So let's start with hydrogen.
If I transpose it 43 octaves down, I get that tone.
Or I can go 44 octaves down.
I can also transpose it chromatically.
As you can see here, I can go up and up again and up again.
But normally I set that at zero and just leave it there.
And I only change the octave.
Let's go back to 42.
And I'm going to show you some of the other controls that we have here.
The duration is in seconds.
So here we go, one second long.
Or we could go longer, let's say two seconds.
And the damping factor controls how quickly the tone decays.
Three is kind of like a nice...
So what he's doing is he's preparing you for the fact that he's going to play
the periodic table.
And by the way, I just want to say this thing.
Stanley Jordan is a frigging mega genius.
I see that now.
And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago.
And what he was going to do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the
elements.
And also go beyond that for molecules.
See, I tried to do the same thing.
And I asked, I called...
People treat you like you're nuts.
I called UCLA asking for the prime resonant frequency of the elements and they
wouldn't give them to me.
Nobody would give them to me.
Well, because in part...
Wait, listen to this.
Boron.
Carbon.
Nitrogen.
Oxygen.
Fluorine.
Neon.
Neon.
Now, what happens is, as you start listening to these, you start to notice
patterns.
That's knee sharp.
Let me go and go through this second row again, but I won't say them, I'll just
go ahead and play through them.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Beep.
Kind of a beautiful melody, isn't it?
Now, these pitches that we're hearing are determined straight from a
calculation based on the actual energy of the element.
So, we are getting tones that you couldn't necessarily play on a piano, a lot
of them would fall in between the keys.
So, they don't fit our conventional...
Their sense sharp or sense flat.
Their pitch system.
But if you want it to fit, we can enable this, it says quantize pitch.
So, all these pitches are slid to the nearest note in the chromatic scale.
So, when you say key of E.
The chromatic scale just means all of the notes that we could play on a piano.
And I'm talking about 432 when I'm talking about the key of E on it.
Well, you make an error again.
So, you say this thing about hydrogen, 40.5?
Well, no, I wasn't saying...
Wait, wait, wait a second.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
But I wasn't saying that hydrogen is 40.5.
I was saying that the key of E is 40.5 hertz and doubles to 162.
Those things...
Yeah, but you said it in a very authoritative way.
And the 40.5 is not 40.5 hertz.
It's 40.5 megahertz associated not with hydrogen but with mercury.
But you have to keep...
Once you keep doubling that...
But wait a second, Terrence.
You'll get to the...
You activated a bunch of chemists who said, I don't know this frequency.
Because they're looking at 440.
They're looking at...
No, 440 is an irrelevancy, Terrence.
440 is concert A in a time when we've decided that that is concert A.
If you were to use the Indian, the Hindustani system, let's say, instead of do,
re, mi, fa, sola, ti, do...
It was ut, re, mi, fa, sola.
No, they do...
Sa, re, ga, ma, pa...
Sa, re, ga, pa, da, pa, ga, sa, re, ga, ga, re, sa, re.
They use a different...
I did the suffolgian.
I did the suffolgian skill.
I know.
That's what I did.
But I'm saying this is that for North India, right?
It's an irrelevancy because everybody's allowed to tune their sa to a different
tone.
They don't have to tune their sa around A440 because there's only three
instruments.
There's a tabla, which doesn't have...
That tone is an important part.
There's a tanpura, which is tuned to the soloist, and the soloist determines
what their sa should be.
So can we do sa, re, ga?
So in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter because you can tune it to
whatever you want to tune it.
You're not trying to come up with an orchestra.
It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament
that forces us all to listen to the concertmaster as to what A440 is, right?
Okay.
Joseph Goebbels pushed that around the world.
Okay.
Let's not do Joseph Goebbels.
Let's just keep drinking whiskey.
What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the
periodic table except for a tiny number of people.
Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go back below that, the
Sound of Hydrogen from WSU.
So this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure
out how to play these things.
And this is the sonification.
Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think, but you need to know about a
guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University,
which is trying to do some wild radical stuff.
They are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on
frequency of the valence electrons and that particles that vibrate the same way
smell the same, even if the shapes are different.
And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations are very different,
they don't smell the same.
So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Scent about the academic, like
all the people who try to push you down.
They're trying to push Luca Turin down as if he doesn't know what's going on.
He's written the Bible of perfume.
I don't know if you like scent.
I do.
He, uh, he understands the vibratory quality of scent.
And so trying to sort of synesthese these things by saying that everything that
has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms as a small
freak community of very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing.
The only problem is you gave us, you know, people ask me for an analogy.
What do you think of Terrence Howard?
Terrence Howard.
That's all I got for like a week.
Can we pull up the, the, um, Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan experience?
Yeah.
No, no, no.
We're having that right now that Janet, it'll, it'll come up as Janet left step
periodic table.
What you did to the periodic table was by the way, what a gift that I hate the
periodic table.
Can't stand it.
The problem is I had to analogize.
When I said, when people asked me what I thought of you, let's click on that
thing.
That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables.
That's much more in favor with people who are mathematically minded.
Like you are rather than the Walter Russell periodic table, because what this
does is it uses the quantum mechanics, uh, to stop with those exceptions.
Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard
periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the
rule.
This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical
harmonics, uh, where you're looking at complex valued functions on the two
dimensional sphere.
And this sort of alpha principle, imagine that there was only a Coulomb
potential centered at the origin in, in the hydrogen situation.
You would go along and say hydrogen first, helium, then lithium, then beryllium,
then boron, carbon, nitrogen, et cetera.
And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the
electrons in which the, um, you have this principal quantum number, which is
basically the energy level.
But then the L quantum number is what we would call a highest weight for a
highest weight representation of SU two or spin three, which is the double
cover of SO three.
Um, that first one is one dimensional, um, but it's spin up and spin down.
So you get two elements.
The next one is going to be three dimensional, but you're going to get six
elements and then you're going to get five dimensional because spin, uh, it's
SO three that determines the representation theory.
So this thing is what I wish you had given us rather than the Walter Russell
thing, which is sort of a historical artifact.
Now, no offense, but the big problem is, is that if you are trying to talk
about like hydrogen and then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is
what you said.
Doubling the frequency.
What is that thing below hydrogen?
And you say, no, no, no, it's, it's too dense to be perceived like bullshit.
But there is ultra low frequencies, even though we cannot hear it.
Yes, but there's ultra low frequencies.
And that's what I'm saying.
That's where your analogy broke down.
No, because hydrogen sits in the same exact position as carbon does when you're
looking at it.
No, it doesn't.
It, it doesn't come off at the same coloration.
It doesn't have the same tone.
Terrence, you're talking about a periodic table from like 1926, something like
that.
And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly.
Now look at all this shit that you're doing and look at the fact that he's
locked in 1926.
Dirac is not going to come up with the Dirac equation to supersede the Schrodinger
equation
for another two years.
Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born.
The neutron isn't going to be discovered until the early thirties.
And you're taking the wrong fight.
You're saying when David Tong, here's what I really didn't appreciate about
what you did.
David Tong said, this is all a lie.
And you took the wrong meaning from that.
What David Tong was saying was different.
David Tong was saying, we teach hard little ball theory, right?
There's an up quark and two down quarks in every neutron and two up quarks and
one down quark.
And they're all little hard little balls stuck together by rubber bands.
And then we've got one electron going crazy around it.
And he's like, that's not what's true.
And what did he say?
It wasn't a lie in the sense that...
He said, that's the best knowledge that we have.
He said, I don't know how to say the word field to a seven year old.
They're fields.
They're not hard little balls.
But that was my problem with David Tong because here I showed him...
You don't have a problem with that.
No, no.
The problem that I had was with his response to me was here I was showing him.
These are the way fields that your particles sit within.
Every time you teach, you incur a penalty.
But see, that's the problem.
How do you not teach when you have something new?
I'll tell you how to do it.
Okay?
First thing is you try to figure out who's ethical and who isn't.
I'm not kidding around with this.
You've got to be Jesus Christ to figure that out.
Because most people, they have a good face.
Terrence, let me ask you a question.
Have I been fair to you this time?
You've been amazingly fair.
Okay.
Have I been very kind?
Have I been uniformly...
No, I haven't been uniformly kind.
You have.
You've been honest.
Well, you're talking to me about...
My heart is open to you, right?
No, you've actually talked about the things that I've talked about.
That's right.
You've given me criticism on things where I've made mistakes.
You've told me where I've offended people.
Okay, this is not available as a service in academics.
I know.
In academics, basically, it's a closed little world.
And if you don't come with protection, we stab you in the eye.
This idea that Neil said about why doesn't he just submit to peer review?
Oh, I did.
It's the biggest bunch of shit I've ever heard in my life.
We've got two papers.
The geometry of the proton.
Did you get to see that?
Did you get to see that?
Can we pull up the Neil stuff that I prepared on that page?
Because I cannot believe how disingenuous this is.
He calls you the worst insult in academics, which is...
There was a study called...
The Dunning-Kroger effect.
The Dunning-Kroger effect.
It's both an effect that is studied and the ultimate insult.
It's basically your mama, right?
Let's just click on that and see what happens.
I spent a lot of time on it.
And I thought, out of respect for him,
what I should do is give him my most informed critical analysis that I can.
In my field, we call that a peer review.
You come up with an idea.
You present it either at a conference or you first write it up,
and you send it to your colleagues.
It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided
or wrong,
or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out,
or the logic doesn't comport.
That's their job.
Not all ideas will turn out to be correct.
Most won't be.
But to get to that point, you need to know things like,
what has everyone else said about this same subject?
Am I repeating someone else's work?
Is this a new insight that no one else has had,
but has foundations that are authentic or legitimate or objectively true?
Am I making a false assumption?
Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false?
All of this goes on, on the frontier of science.
Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds
trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe.
It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier.
What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's
call it,
it's possible to know enough about that subject to think you're right,
but not enough about that subject to know that you're wrong.
And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence.
This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge, you over assess how much
of that subject you actually know.
And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I
thought I did.
So then there's a sort of a lull there.
And then when you learn even more, you come back up.
Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong.
To become an expert means you spend all this time.
It doesn't happen overnight.
You can't just sit in an armchair and say, I'm now an expert.
It requires years and years of study, especially looking through journals
where new ideas are published and contested.
That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that
which is objectively true.
Or determining that which is objectively false.
Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the
universe.
I'm going to read you just my opening line here.
It's titled one times one equals two.
Okay.
So I lead off.
So that was the, that was, now if we go below that, what do we have?
Is there, is that, let's try that.
Hi.
Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental
evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Which by the way, was published in a peer reviewed journal.
Crazy idea.
The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media.
It is not Joe Rogan.
It is not my podcast.
It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end
of the day offers no higher respect for your energy and intellect than by
declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or worthy of publication
or not.
I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with
his treaties, but you got the sense of it.
Thanks for listening.
Okay.
Um, I want to be very careful about my words.
Is there anything below that that we've put together?
This is, uh, let's go, let's go above.
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Uh, just so you don't feel bad about yourself.
Talking about me and my theories based on a question and ask me anything.
Will you be able to talk about to Eric Weinstein about the new theory of
geometric unity?
This is from 2013.
We are all wondering about that.
Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary.
In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for
an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science
documentaries that came afterwards.
So the answer is no.
Let me explain where you are.
Neil is not unaware that you are never going to get your hearing at a peer
reviewed, peer reviewed journey.
Your ideas are going to come through.
You're a self-taught autodidact polymath.
You haven't been cleaned up.
You haven't been taught how to speak properly.
You don't know.
You don't know the fact that when you say lube, we know fixed point.
I know how to do all this stuff, right?
You're not getting a peer review from me.
I know a lot more than you do about a lot of this stuff.
You're getting an elite review.
And my elite review says that a lot of this is bathwater, but a small amount of
this is baby.
And that's not available anywhere.
It's not available in a university.
It's not available in a journey in a journal that's available on the Joe Rogan
experience.
And, you know, Neil's right.
If what you want is peer review, you should go to a journal and they will laugh
you out.
They will take one look at your email address.
And if it doesn't end in .edu, I promise you, you're not going to get hurt.
Do me a favor, Jamie.
Can you pull up?
Wait, wait.
Let him finish.
Hold on.
Let him finish, because this is a sustained thought.
Let's go below where we just were, Jamie.
I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review.
This is Google n-grams, and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus
of English
language books published in the world.
Peer review basically begins in the mid-1960s.
Now, there were various forms of review.
Editors, in particular, were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to
not peer review
things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who
should be not.
Can we bring that back up?
Okay.
More or less, from what I can piece together, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, who
started Pergamon
Press, destroyed-
Jeffrey Epstein's Ghislaine Maxwell?
Correct.
He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune, by blowing out the
number of journals, and forcing
every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to
publish, because
to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission that you had an
incomplete library.
So, he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals.
This was a group, a very informal, high-quality enterprise.
Now, most of the destruction of science, in terms of how high-quality it used
to be, has
taken place relatively recently, post-Robert Maxwell.
Because now we have an enormous number of journals, staffed by people who can't
spot publication
cartels, where we agree to cite each other's work, and we agree to publish
stuff, you know,
pay for play.
All of the nonsense that you see with irreproducible research comes after this
peer-review thing.
The peer-review thing got woven in so that people think that the scientific
method and peer-review
are effectively the same thing, where one is an unwanted infection from the
biological, biomedical
universe, which had peer-review much longer than everything else.
Neil is giving you a very cursory back-of-the-hand brush-off.
Okay?
I felt it.
All right.
I'm here because I love this man, and this is a higher-quality environment.
We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci and the origin of COVID.
I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything
that you were
saying at a level where he did say, "Look, I can't evaluate this."
He was letting you have your peace.
Joe has established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose.
He can call on all sorts of amazing people.
He called on you.
Well, he has lapses in judgment, but he has his good quality.
My point being that this is actually what science was supposed to be.
We were supposed to listen to each other, not go after each other with an ice
pick to the eye.
We were supposed to try to figure out the best version.
Remember at the beginning of this where I was trying to say, "Look, I want to
do the best version of your idea and build it up."
So what you're saying, though, can I just summarize this?
Sure.
What you're saying is that Neil deGrasse's understanding of peer review is
flawed.
Sure.
It is not really available to someone like Terrence.
It really isn't.
He knows that.
You see, peer review is not one thing.
One thing peer review is the ability to get rid of the axe murderer who's just
wandered into your office with a manuscript and red crayon.
Well, while you guys are talking, I've got to run to the bathroom.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Just this alone.
It's an important point.
Yeah.
Okay.
So what Joe and I were just talking about...
Yeah, we're back from the bathroom break.
...is what is peer review actually and why is it controversial?
So imagine that you have four types of people, right?
You've got two establishment figures, one of whom is screwing up the field, who's
in a very powerful position and should be removed from the impediment, being
the impediment to progress that they are.
Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it.
They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment.
The establishment has recognized how valuable that person is.
Now you've got two other figures.
You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of
the universe and anybody who doesn't understand them is a horrible person.
Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about
and can overturn the established order, which is where you get a revolution.
So peer review just sees establishment versus non-establishment.
It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years and it will stop somebody coming
from outside.
It will reapportion credit.
So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I
said about gripe and swipe.
We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've
produced away from you and we publish it under our own name.
I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have
confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues,
particularly younger colleagues.
And to simply say peer review, it works, bitches.
Holy cow.
How, how can this be?
I thought I was upset with some things that you had said and done.
No, no, no.
They're dwarfed.
They're dwarfed by this.
This is so disingenuous.
Basically, this is saying, please submit your stuff from a gmail.com address.
We'll take one look and say, it doesn't look like .edu to me.
And we'll throw whatever you do in the trash heap and we'll say, well, you've
got the benefit of my peer review.
Now you look at what Neil said about your stuff.
And by the way, he's right about one times one equaling one.
You're wrong about that.
That was your opener.
You picked a terrible move.
On the other hand, you heard what I said about the linchpin.
It was a combination of bath water and baby.
I do not have any economic or authoritative interest in taking anything that
you've done, putting it under my own name.
I am simply here to help you.
And when we talked about the angle and all this stuff, I can tell you that that's
a great idea.
It may have been had by somebody else because I don't know, but I assume it
comes from you.
It may not work in practice.
I think it's pretty promising.
And I think if you don't do anything else and you create one drone that just
does that really cool thing, it'll all have been worth it.
No, we've got tons of those.
You've already created this.
You're obviously doing cool stuff.
What I'm trying to say is we in science have lost the ability to talk to people
who do flawed stuff from outside.
All we want to do is get rid of you.
And it's because we have this fake openness.
We have a fake scientific method.
Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method.
We got along fine without it.
Peer review isn't even peer review.
It's something called peer injunction, where your peers can stop you without
shorting you.
I'm happy to bet against you and all sorts of things that you're doing.
And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience.
But if I block you and I won't short you, that's saying that I think you're
dangerous because it's too dangerous to say to go short.
And the idea that we're handing old people and established people and very
politically savvy people the ability to block you without shorting you is unforgivable.
So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer.
I'm like, I'm not pretending to be your peer.
I know a lot more than you do.
I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome.
And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that
supposedly got handed to you does.
So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is in my field that I
care about.
For 40 years, we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory
people are doing real work and everybody else isn't.
And it's total hogwash.
And there's no way we can get out from under these people.
In the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya, I was just with Jay Bhattacharya
in Italy, you have this guy who has a PhD in economics and he's a doctor and he's
a professor and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some
bureaucrat was probably in control of the bioweapons portfolio.
You know, because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s, the Geneva
Convention and the Bioweapons Convention.
He and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe
epidemiologist.
And it's like, no, we're going to have a mutiny.
And the mutiny is going to be based here because this is a place that you'd
invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya.
Oh, for sure.
Yeah.
We could do any of that.
I'd bring garlic.
Yeah.
We could have Michio Kaku in here.
And some crosses on the wall.
Let's have Michio Kaku and Brian Greene.
Let's have a discussion about string theory.
Let's fundamentally discuss neoclassical economics.
Shall we discuss whether or not random mutation is the true engine of neo-Darwinism?
Is that reasonable?
Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is, but random
mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins?
Because stability is too difficult?
The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility.
And even though you think of it as, I just like having conversations with
people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have
any other place.
We can't go to the National Academy of Science that's too politicized.
We can't go to Harvard.
You saw what just happened with Claudine Gay who's still a professor.
We've lost everything.
And podcasts, as dippy and shitty and as variable in quality as they are, Jerry
very much included, is this is all that's left.
And my claim is, is that I'll challenge Neil.
I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the
hook.
And by the way, some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong.
The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind
what I'm talking about.
When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasmic field, I've
got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be
reviewed.
I will show you.
I would love that.
I would love that.
I'll take some of your money.
I would love that.
I would love that.
I would love that.
But I'll also try to help make them better.
But it's having the proof.
And then, mind you, like Jamie, if you pull up the...
But Terrence, you know what he's saying about not being an expert in teaching
and then coming from the outside and that it's like...
It's insulting.
Yeah, it's insulting.
It's a bad way to approach a concept because the people that have been studying
these concepts for so long instantaneously are told that they don't know but
you know.
And that's offensive to people that are actual experts in a thing.
I think the same ideas could be portrayed in a way that does not do that.
I have to learn that nomenclature.
It's just you're so much smarter than most of the people you're talking to.
That's what the problem is.
And this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector.
In other words, you believe what you're saying.
And you're obviously very, very smart.
And you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to.
Like, how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and Geometric Algebra and
Clifford Algebra?
I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do
that, right?
When I saw you mention Clifford Algebra, I was like, okay, there's a commonality.
Right?
Now, Sean Carroll for sure knows what a Clifford Algebra.
I'm not sure whether Neil deGrasse Tyson does.
Brian Greene certainly does.
But in general, this stuff doesn't get introduced in places like this.
And then, and you'll watch this in yourself.
I'll try to put a circuit in your mind so you'll know exactly the point where
you start pissing my community off.
Can we bring up the cruel tutelage of Paime?
What's that?
I'm, I, I love chick flicks and I think the ultimate chick flick.
Joe?
It sounds like my ex-wife.
I'm seeing you there watching Legally Blonde.
I'm seeing you right now with your socks on.
Let's go, let's, let's go earlier than this.
Is that from Kill Bill?
Yeah.
Oh.
Oh, okay.
I can't show this.
That's why we can't.
Yeah.
You gotta be more specific.
I can't show this stuff on YouTube.
I'm on top of these stairs.
Okay.
And Paime asks her, what do you know?
And she says something like, I am acquainted with such and such so and so and I'm
more than proficient in the fine art of Japanese whatever.
And Paime completely kicks her ass because she doesn't understand where she is.
And my claim is, is that you need your ass kicked and you need to apprentice to
some of us who know more than you.
And believe me, let me just tell you this.
I've had my ass kicked and I will get my ass kicked more because you need some
kind of humility.
You're coming across wrong.
By the way, never pick a fight with Jamie Foxx.
Holy shit.
Is that good at everything?
I learned, I learned that the hard way.
Jamie, if you're out there, I totally love you.
And what you did in Ray is just unbelievable.
He does in every movie.
He's just, he's so damn good.
Yeah.
He's an insanely talented person.
He's insanely talented person.
He's one of the most intelligent people I've met.
I was sitting on the set of, of, um, Ali with him and I'm playing chess with
him and I'm playing a serious game of chess.
He's having a conversation with two other people while he's playing chess with
me as if it's nothing as if it's nothing.
Yeah.
And I play chess.
Well, so for, I was, I've never been more impressed with somebody who can
compartmentalize and he's an organizational genius.
He's, he's, he's, whatever he is, he is.
But you know what?
I had my guy.
My guy was named Noam Elkies.
I don't know if, uh, Noam Elkies.
You never heard of Noam Elkies.
Noam Elkies.
I entered Harvard at 19 with a master's degree.
Noam was 18.
He didn't have a master's degree.
So we were sort of in a weird way, neck and neck and everything that I thought
I was good at.
Noam was better.
Noam.
I played a little piano.
Noam could compose anything.
I mean, this guy's just like super genius beyond genius.
Right.
And he was, he wasn't a bad guy at all, but he was so powerful in his mind that,
uh, like
he composed, I think an 11 by 11 crossword with no black squares and stuff that
just can't
be done.
Um, and I thought, geez, there's just no point in competing with Noam Elkies.
And one Christmas party, the professor named Raoul Bott, um, heard me playing,
trying to play
boogie woogie piano.
And Noam sat down and like, Raoul said, well, why didn't you play us some boogie
woogie?
And Noam started playing what he thought was boogie woogie, but it was like
Rachmaninoff.
And Raoul would say, no, no, no.
And Noam would go into Chopin and then he'd go into Liszt.
He was playing ever more brilliant things.
And finally his brain just blew.
Cause he couldn't think through boogie woogie.
But Noam then became the youngest professor in the history of Harvard
university.
And I realized that I had accidentally entered in a year in which a Noam Elkies
was present.
And by having my ass kicked repeatedly by this guy, I had to ask myself the
question, well,
what am I doing on this planet?
What do I have to contribute?
And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like
this, right?
There's a creative spark and a spirit in you that I really see and appreciate.
And it comes from an older era.
And we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere.
We used to, we used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields.
And right now what we've got is a specialization epidemic.
And as far as I can tell, what you need is some discipline.
And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot
more than you,
who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those
things.
And not just shut them down.
Well, that's the thing.
And the epidemic we have is assassins.
We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system, all they do is
see things in terms of like Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger.
The funny part about it is that that's the midwits endpoint is that they see
heterodox thinkers and they can't figure out how to place them.
And so they just say, if I can find one error, I can reject everything.
And you keep triggering that.
And that's why you are where you are.
With the one times one.
But that's why I keep saying the one times one is more of a metaphor.
It's not a metaphor to us.
It is life and death.
You try to sneak one times one through airport security.
It's like, it's just the Glock 19.
I understand that.
But it was really to gain the attention.
To never do it.
To gain the attention of something that's wrong.
Listen, you didn't know and now you know.
It's that simple.
There's one more that's going to keep us from ever getting you through this
thing.
Can we pull up my page again?
We're going to wrap it up with this one.
Well, I want to do this.
It'll be a little bit...
We're four and a half hours then.
But we didn't even do a lynch man.
Terrence.
Terrence, we're so far down the road.
If we...
This is four and a half hours?
Okay.
I want you to take a look at the chemical engineering PhD.
Because if we don't do that, I can't actually help you.
Oh, that right there.
Let me...
Talk to me.
Let me explain that.
Here, I took over to...
What was the name of the university?
South Carolina University.
Yeah.
I was working with Apollo Diamonds.
We were growing diamonds.
And I had developed a way in which to grow diamonds larger than the two carat
diamonds.
I went over to South Carolina University and I talked to them about introducing
the diamond process, you know, into their university.
They were going to give me an honorary degree.
Okay.
Now, I'm thinking they're giving me an honorary degree in chemical engineering
because of what I'm doing.
And it's just an honorary degree in humanities that they gave me.
And so I went on the show and I was like, yeah, well, I got an honorary degree
from them.
But that ended up coming across as if I got an honorary degree in chemical
engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering.
Assume you did.
Assume you did.
An honorary degree...
Is worthless.
Is worthless.
It's like, would you take...
If your child needed brain surgery, would you go to Dr. Dre?
No.
No.
Okay.
Here, I want you to hold this.
As a guy who was 19 with a master's degree, Harvard University and I got into a
fight.
And it took me seven years to get that away from them.
And they would have been happy to bury me without it.
Okay?
That is blood, sweat, and tears.
And the work that I actually started doing ended up in somebody else's name
because Harvard University in part credited with them with it.
That's the peanut person?
When you screw around with a PhD, like this Claudine Gay, this woman needs to
be fired.
Okay?
Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking
names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill.
Enough with the antisemitism.
Enough with the woke.
Enough with the DEI.
Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics.
You're getting absolutely treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've
done.
You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff.
That thing about the PhD, it's basically fraud.
What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit.
Merit is merit.
If I can catch you in a fraud, if I can catch you in a lie, I can catch you in
an error.
I don't care.
My question is, what did you do?
What was the cool stuff you did do?
I'm not an assassin.
I don't care if you, in part, exaggerated your achievements.
I know what it feels like to be shat on.
I know that you have no ability to fight what's being said to you from on high.
Okay?
What I'm saying is, the only thing that matters is what you contribute in the
end.
And imagine that there was fraud.
Imagine that there were lies.
Imagine that there were errors.
And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines
everything
because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six
dimensions in the semi-direct product of SO3 with R3.
Whatever.
It doesn't matter.
It's that cool.
Gregor Mendel probably faked his Peapod experiments.
And there's a guy named David E. Kaplan at Johns Hopkins University who said to
me something.
It's so beautiful I can't reproduce it.
He said, "Physics is based on everything.
It's the backstabbing.
It's the frauds.
It's the geniuses.
It's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done.
The experimentalists who toil on papers with a thousand people."
And this community of all of these people have come together to produce
something which is something close to the source code of the universe.
And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the
baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help.
There's a lot of work to do it.
It happens that I had done a lot of the work over my life so I didn't have to
put an infinite amount of energy into this.
But what happened is, is that you created a mass delusion.
And it was a mass delusion in part because we're not aware of what mass delusions
actually are.
They start with a nub of truth.
They start with creative sparks of genius.
So we're on the lookout for people who are just frauds, who have nothing that
they actually can contribute.
And what we don't realize is that you have these things about kayfabe, which
are these melanges of reality and fakery.
Right?
And they're interwoven.
What you've produced is something that is part bullshit and part real
contribution.
And we don't have a system to pull it apart and we don't have any experience
for how to sense when that's what's going on.
But they consider the bullshit to be the one times one equaling two and the 97
patents, the supersymmetry.
It's not the 97 patents, it's not the supersymmetry.
It's simply the residue, the reduction of when we get rid of all the stuff that
wasn't supposed to be here.
Because you're a self-taught polymath.
You're obviously incredibly intelligent.
You're obviously not taught by the system.
And you can't do that work all on your own.
No.
So you've got to come in and you've got to find somebody who's not looking to
kill you.
And that's been the entire dance.
What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and
mathematical community
so that they can advance past the platonic solids.
The platonic solids I still see in a two or three dimensional position.
And since we are living in hyperspace and hyperbolic reality,
then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space so we don't have
to go through Lorenz transformations
and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space.
I think that the real story Terence is going to be whether you can stop
teaching long enough to accept some help.
I'm here to accept the help.
And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something.
The linchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know.
And to the extent that I did know it, I threw it away.
And I think it's a great idea.
And I think that the art and I think that some of the higher dimensional stuff.
And I think that a lot of this stuff has a kind of beauty that if John Horton
Conway were still alive and hadn't been killed by COVID, I'd know where to send
you.
There's a guy, you know, there are sphere packing people.
They're accommodators.
They're all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm.
But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is, is that when you get on a
program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion.
I've got a Fauci mass delusion.
I've got a string theory mass delusion.
I've got a Biden is fine mass delusion.
I've got a Trump is not a problem mass delusion.
All I have morning, noon and night is mass delusion on mass delusion.
But people don't understand that the reason that these mass delusions get
started is that there's a nub of truth in them.
QAnon is not, can't be total bullshit because it's got some core in it.
That's right.
And some craziness.
If you think about Dianetics and Scientology, the first thing that they teach
you about is the reactive mind.
That's not a terrible theory.
And then before you know it, it's Xenu and volcanoes, right?
So what's going on is, is that people are not aware of how kayfabe works, right?
Wrestling is, is one of the most dangerous, demanding sports of a certain kind.
Now it happens to be theatrical and pre-programmed, but if you've ever dealt
with anybody, like the wrestling community suffers a death rate unlike any
other sport in the world.
What you have to understand is, is that kayfabe, and I highly recommend you
look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality
intermingle.
And that's what you did on the last time that you were here.
And I can talk to you about the fantasy.
I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies.
But I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius and the
insight.
And what I want the world to learn is, you're getting sucked into mass delusions
that you're not properly imagining.
There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't
acknowledge.
And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in,
because in some sense the mainstream is our official cult.
And then all of the rest of us produce these other cults.
And in my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep
conversation about GU, geometric unity, with my own community.
Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are
both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you
has dwindling to fewer than 10.
It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you.
Thanks for being a decent guy.
I know that not all of this has been welcome.
This has all been welcomed.
Any truth.
And like I said, I take you up on, on explaining and exploring these into the
areas.
Because like I said, these are tools.
I just want to offer a new set of tools to that community so that they can now
advance past the points where we are.
Try not offering because the first thing you need to do, the first thing you
need to do is not necessarily be a student.
It's not a higher versus lower, but just recognize that you're bringing gifts
and you're bringing problems.
And it's very expensive to help you, but it doesn't mean it's impossible.
And one of the great things about this program is that if there is anybody out
there, they can hear it.
Now, I'll be honest with you.
I've been on this program maybe six times before.
I am often astounded that I can reach all of planet Earth and there isn't a
single soul who can hear me.
And I think that one of the things you're going to have to reckon with is you're
saying certain things and you may get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of
responses and there won't be a single meaningful response among them.
And I don't know what to do about that.
Stay off Twitter.
I did my best to give you whatever response I could.
All I really want is if you saw some benefit in the things that I've displayed
and shared with you.
I want them in my house.
Then let's have a conversation.
I've got a set for you as a gift.
We got it.
We're all connected now.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
It was a lot of fun.
Thank you guys.
It was very interesting, very informative.
Thank you, Jamie.
Thank you, Jamie.
Thank you very, very much.
All right.
Bye, everybody.
Thank you.