Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Terrence Howard & Eric Weinstein Drop Bombshells on Joe Rogan Experience: Part 1

Episode Date: July 4, 2024

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN! Does 1x1 equal 3? Is gravity actually a form of electricity? And is the periodic table based on... sound?  These are just some of the outrageous claims made by Terrence Howard on the Joe Rogan Experience. As a professor, I cannot let such claims stand, especially when they are broadcast on a platform as large as the Joe Rogan Experience. That’s why today, I will systematically debunk every single one of them and explain the importance of checking your sources.  Tune in.  Key Takeaways: 00:00 Intro 00:44 Always check your sources! 01:28 Terrence’s claims on Joe Rogan 04:47 What is the spiral periodic table?  16:03 1x1=3?  22:17 Is gravity electricity?  33:34 Does Terrence really have 97 patents? 38:11 Conclusion and outro — Additional resources: 📝 Get one month of Snipd Premium for free with this link: https://get.snipd.com/Cx7S/brianSnipd Snipd lets you take Smart Notes 🧠 with AI 💡 — it’s my favorite podcast player 😀 ! ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1  📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list  ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/  🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the pod bay doors, Hal. I know you're here to find out if Terrence Howard is legitimate. If you've seen even a clip from his most recent interview with Joe Rogan, I know you'll be fascinated. And I want to take a sober and deep dive into what he said and debunk where appropriate. 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. I'm the Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics at UC San Diego. I only tell you that because it's important, as we'll see, to check your sources. Now, of course, experts can be wrong. As Richard Feynman said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, not the faith in their intelligence. But just because someone has a PhD like me or is a professor like me, that doesn't necessarily mean that you should doubt them.

Now, it doesn't mean you should trust them either. Look at their track record. You might want to look up what patents do I have, maybe what articles I've written. But I've also gone on many different popular science programs, including Lex Friedman, Jordan Peterson, and, of course, the Joe Rogan experience. So I'm familiar with the difficulties of communicating science to a mass audience of lay people. Welcome to a special episode. we're going to take a deep dive into Terrence Howard and his claims that he made on the Joe Rogan

experience in preparation for another, a part two episode with my friend Eric Weinstein, who actually encountered Terrence on the Joe Rogan experience and went through one by one. But Eric can sometimes talk in terms that even I find challenging to grasp. So I'm going to break it down for a general audience. What are the claims that Terrence made? What did Eric Weinstein say in refutation of those claims or in agreement with those claims? As you'll see, he agrees with a lot of what Terran says, but the importance is lie in what claims Terrence made that aren't true and need to be debunked, if you will. Now, War Machine, Terrence Howard, made some incredible claims on the Joe Rogan experience.

But instead of discussing his acting career and Iron Man and all the wonderful films he had been, he delved into an area claiming expertise in the field of science, mathematics, and other phenomena that left many listeners, including me utterly bewildered. In fact, I did a Twitter or X space with Eric Weinstein last month and I recorded it and put it on this channel. We'll put a link to it right here so you can find it by clicking here. But you don't necessarily need to listen to that episode in order to follow along with the analysis of Eric Weinstein's appearance with Joe Rogan and Terrence Howard. And I'll put a link to my reaction video to that at the end of this video. And that will appear up here as well. Okay. So the Terence Howard hypothesis is plural.

he has many outrageously intriguing claims, such as the fact that one times one equals two, or that the periodic table that we know and love is completely incorrect, or that gravity is about to be debunked, and that his patents have changed the way that we look at subjects ranging from virtual reality to the theory of everything. He began in the podcast with Joe Rogan with a new periodic table based on what he calls Terriology, a system that organizes elements not by their atomic number, but by musical tones and octaves. He then boldly claimed that one times one equals two, contradicting fundamental principles of the rational numbers and arithmetic. Most audaciously, he claims to have 97 patents. His

intention among some of them is to, quote unquote, kill gravity. Whoa, let's not get carried away right there, war machine. Let's find out if what he's saying has any merit. to it whatsoever, or if these are the praved ravings of a rambling lunatic. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Terence's claims delivered with an unwavering sense of conviction have sparked a firestorm of controversy and debate. Some have hailed him as a visionary genius, a modern-day Galileo, my hero, the first human being to use the telescope to construct scientific experiments. Others have claimed he's delusional, and he's a prime example of the Dunning-Krooger effect, where a little bit of knowledge leads to an overabundance of confidence.

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. In fact, I'm one of the world's experts in the Dunning Kruger effect. Okay. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless.

My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. Let's fact check the science fiction actor. Let's start with Terrence Howard's claims about the periodic table.

The periodic table they have now. Let's see a periodic table. It looks like a box. It looks like a straight box. Mm-hmm. And they don't show the relationship that between every element, there's between every, there's two no. Right, here's the periodic table. You'll see hydrogen sitting all the way over there by itself, but they don't show that hydrogen has the same tone as carbon.

What do you mean by tone? Same tone. Same key of E. Same key of E. 40.5 hertz. The next one would be like 81 hertz. You go to silicon. It will double up and would be 162 hertz. You'll go to cobalt and it'll be 324 hertz. It's, you know, in that base, if you were to take the angles of incidents or the tones that they create, you know, their color.

Like you can turn color back into sound. based upon it's the same wavelength, it's just twice as long, or much longer. So all you have to do is keep dividing light by two. You keep dividing light by two, and you'll ultimately get back to the audible sound of it, because there was a relationship between light and color, sound and tone, matter and shape. What is he talking about? Tones and elements? What's wrong with his model? Well, he's actually discussing a very old model.

Walter Russell's periodic table model, sometimes called a spiral model. And I should say there are other models of the periodic table, as Eric Weinstein and Terrence Howard discussed on Jorgon experience that you'll be linked to at the end of this podcast. That Janet, 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 it. There are many different types of periodic tables, depending on how you organize them, what properties you choose to organize the elements.

And there are other periodic tables, according to what classification scheme, you seek to organize the elements that do appear on Mendeleve's famous periodic table shown above. As a scientist, I feel it's my duty to approach these claims with great skepticism and rigor. And I'm not the only one. Neil deGrasse Tyson did a great take-down. you might say, or analysis of a 36-page manifesto that Terrence sent to Neil deGrasse Tyson some 10 years ago. And although Neil approached it with a great deal of collegiality and comity, taking some of it seriously, he could not refrain from attacking some of the main claims that are made in Terrence Howard's

manifesto. Now, I don't have access to that manifesto. Terrence didn't send me one. I'm open to it. You can subscribe to my mailing list, Brian Keating.com slash list, Terrence. And you'll all I'll even send you a chunk of space dust, a famous meteorite that I send out to all of my guests on The Into the Impossible podcast. But Neil didn't do as deep a dive as I want to do in the main claims that were made on the Georgian experience. He was mainly taking issue with some of the not-so-collegial statements that Terrence made about Neil, calling him names and not being very friendly to him when he talked to Joe Rogan, who couldn't fact-check in. I reached out to Neil de Grossey Tyson, Neil deGrasse Tyson. I saw him at an event up front, you know, at Fox. And he was like, hey, man, yeah, I'd love for you to come on my show, do my radio, do my TV thing.

I would love that. I was like, yeah, but let me, I've got something I want to introduce to you. And it was only 36 pages. It was a treatise. And I told him it was controversial, and I sent him over that the 36-page thing that had the wave conjugations in it. but I started it off with one times one equaling two. And he went in on my treaties, wrote, redlined everything.

He attacked that I had immediate, that I talked about, Walter Russell and Victor Shawberger and John Keely and Tesla as the people that I looked up to. He attacked them. But then he started attacking, you know, the one times one equaling two. Okay, what is the spiral periodic table, the teriology periodic table?

Well, let's get into what it's not and where it falls short. It has, of course, the ability to predict the existence of elements that we know about. But the challenge for Russell and all those who believe in him is that there are so many flaws in his periodic table. This is almost 100 years old. And a fun fact about Russell, he was born and died on the exact same day. He lived to be about 92. So whatever he was doing back then for his health, we should all strive to emulate it.

Russell's periodic table included many elements that don't exist with fanciful names and scientific-sounding names, but none of them seem to exist. He did predict some unknown elements that we now know as Deuterium and Neptunium and plutonium, but it also includes many, many more incorrect predictions. In fact, Deuterium was discovered by one of the professors that were right here at UC San Diego, Harold Uri, in the early 1930s. And what is Deuterium? Well, it's a heavy cousin of hydrogen. It's a hydrogen atom with an extra neutron tacked onto it. So while he predicted the existence of a heavy form of hydrogen, he made no predictions

about its properties, just merely that it would be in sort of this resonance, this octave, where you double the atomic mass of something. He did so by doubling the mass of the single proton by adding it. a neutron to it, which is curious and interesting. But even back then, there were many, many trans-uranium elements known. Marie Curie had discovered those in the late 1800s, as a matter fact, long before Russell's spiral periodic table. Russell's table also have wasted space compared to the standard periodic table, making it inefficient, difficult to read, and almost impossible for practicing scientists to use as a functional tool. The standard table is much more

concise, organized, and presents usable information in much less space. It also allows us to make predictions about other elements that we have discovered in the years since Mendeleev came up with this in the late 1800s. Russell and Terry, Terence, reject the existence of electrons while acknowledging the existence of atoms. And that is a view that is so far from modern atomic theory that it's almost laughable. His atomic model depicts atoms as vortices of energy. They differ from the planetary model of Niels Bohr, which was accepted at the time. Now, we don't believe that the the atom is really like a miniature planetary system, but we believe that electrons certainly exist. They operate according to the Schroederger equation. And the Schrodinger equation has specific

properties that make predictions about what different elements, including hydrogen and Deuterium, how they'll behave when they are subjected by external observations. You can't observe an atom without using light or radiation. And when you do that, there's an interaction between the electrons in that atom and the light waves or radiation that you're emitting onto it. That can be used to very precisely test the properties of what is called the atomic spectra. Now nowhere do the predictions of Russell and Terrence match anything to do with this spectroscopy that not only have scientists done here on Earth, but we use to measure red shifts of distant galaxies literally billions of light years away. That's only possible due to the exacting and precise predictions of the

Schrodinger equation applied to the electrons, which they believe don't exist, in the hydrogen atom. So this is only possible. The advances in technology ranging from computer technology, transistors, all the way out to measuring the most distant objects in the universe and even the Big Bang itself. They deny the existence of all those things because there's no place for that in the vortex model of Russell and Howard. Now they arrange relationships in their model by tonal relationships of some atomic number

leading to some unusual groupings of elements that are far apart an atomic number. This tonal theory is complete discredited by mainstream. science. There's no 55 hertz or 110 hertz frequency associated with hydrogen. There are exquisitely measured frequencies, say the 21 centimeter radiation, is the most precisely known number in all of science. We know it's at 14 decimal places or so. Here it is right now. 1.42045751-768 with an uncertainty of one digit in the last digit, which is two. So we call that 1.42 gigahertz. This doesn't doesn't exist in the audible range of frequencies. This is a microwave frequency.

This is in the domain of radio frequency. It has nothing to do with oral tones or things that you could hear. Certainly there's no bisexual tones that Terence hints at. And for us to take these very seriously, not only requires we reject the standard atomic model of the Schrodinger equation and even the relativistic Schrodinger equation, which we call the Dirac equation, we'll get to that later, but it requires that we accept things that are completely fanciful, have no bearing in reality, and have never been measured. No new testable predictions. Just seemingly pleasant things, interesting things, curious things that should not be taken seriously. But Joe Rogan, as he often does, says, I'm just a comedian, I'm just a host of fear factor. Why are you taking me serious? He even calls himself a moron. Joe's not a moron. But the question is, why take Terrence seriously if he's wrong about all this stuff? Maybe his ideas about the periodic table and his writings on science topics shouldn't be taken seriously. But what about his investigation of other topics? His interview with Joe Rogan covered many, many,

different claims. Again, science is based on ideas that should be falsifiable. It's something that you could prove them wrong. That's at least one criteria that we can use to appraise whether or not something is part of the scientific method. And if it's not part of the scientific method, what is he doing? Why is he making patents? Why is he playing along in the game of science, but then trying to maybe assail science for not taking his unorthodox methods and theories seriously. He wants to have it both ways. So he positions himself as an outsider whose ideas are often dismissed, he compares himself to Tesla and even other great scientific luminaries. But just because those people were dismissed as not being serious or not taken seriously,

doesn't necessarily mean that you too are doing good science just because you are also not taken seriously. Again, if you don't want to trust experts, that's fine. But he's claiming to be an expert in some new, insightful, unsubstantiated predictions in the scientific process. So you have to ask, does there any credibility or is there any practicality, a usefulness compared to the standard Peerarch table. Howard and Russell's unconventional Peerock table led to no new discoveries, no new breakthroughs, and no new foundational predictions

that could be falsified that weren't already falsified. The existence of these weird elements that I show on the Spiral Paralarch table, those have been thoroughly debunked. There's nothing associated with them in reality. So maybe Terrence is just a little bit off when it comes to his understanding of chemistry. But does that mean we shouldn't take any of his idea seriously?

should we completely ignore his incredibly outrageous, perhaps fundamentally changing mathematical axiom of mathematics, that one multiplied by one equals two? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no, we shouldn't take it seriously. 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. I don't want to be accused of just ignoring him and saying that what he's saying is pure quackery, although some claim it is. But I want to go through why mathematicians and scientists believe that there's no truth to what he's claiming, and that we have countless proof that not only does one times one not equal to, but it's one of the most fundamental axioms of all of mathematics,

that one times one equals one. And I want to show you two different ways that we can demonstrate that Terence is wrong. First, I want to show you that if it were true, that one times one equals, equals two, it would mean that two, the square root of two is a rational number, and that's a classic proof that goes back to Euclid, it's a beautiful, elegant proof that even someone with a elementary school notion of what science and math are can prove to be true. And then secondly, I don't want to just show that the square root of two is not rational. I also want to show that it's irrational. In other words, the first proof by Euclid proves that it's not irrational, But it's also important to prove that it is irrational.

And I hope the two of these methods will convince you that Terrence is completely wrong. We prove that it's not rational by assuming it is rational and then going through and showing we get logical contradictions. Let's do that now. Let's oppose square root of 2 is a rational number. Then we can write the square root of 2 as a ratio, that's what rational numbers are, A divided by B. And where A and B are both whole numbers, ordinary integer number. From the equality that we're assuming now, again, this is going to be shown to be wrong. be wrong. Let's assume that it's right. That square of two is a ratio of A over B. It follows

that 2, the number 2, is equal to the square of A divided by the square of B, or that A squared equals twice B squared. So the square of A is an even number, since it's two times something. From this, we know that A itself is also an even number. Why? Because it can't be odd. If A itself were odd, then A times A would be odd two. Odd number times an odd number is always an odd number. If A by itself is an even number, then A is two times some other whole number. In symbols, we write that as A equals 2 times K. So just call it K. Soon comes the contradiction I hinted to above. If we substitute A equals 2 times k into the original equation, 2 equals A squared divided by B squared, then we get the following. We get that 2 equals the quantity 2K

squared divided by b. We can simplify this down to 2 times b squared equals 4K squared. And we can simplify that, just divide by 2, to b squared equals 2 times k squared, which means that b squared is even, from which follows, again, that B itself is even, and that is a contradiction, because we assumed the whole process starting that A and B were such that the ratio, dividing A by B, was simplified to the lowest common terms. And now it turns out that both A and B would both be even, and that is a contradiction. Thus, our original assumption that the square root of two is rational has been disproven. Can we do it the other way around?

Can we prove that it is irrational? Yes, we can do that too. And these are fundamental tenets of mathematics that Terrence rejects wholeheartedly, proposing strange new properties of the numbers. For what reason, I don't know. So the ancient Greeks were fascinated with numbers. They wanted to explain what square root of two was, but they only were able to, as Euclid showed, and as I just proved, that square root of two was not rational, but proving that it's irrational

is what the mathematicians really wanted to do as well. So again, an irrational number is a number that can't be represented as a ratio between two integers or normal numbers. These things can repeat like seven divided by nine, but they have a respective pattern that will come out to be representative of a ratio of two whole numbers. Now, the square root of two, on the other hand, also goes on to infinity, but it doesn't repeat in any predictable pattern. You can can compute it, but what scientists, a mathematician named Dedekin described was a way to prove that they're irrational. He formed what's called a Dedikin cut. And he said that irrational numbers can be defined as the objects between two sets of rational numbers. For square root of two,

the first set is all the rational numbers whose squares are less than two. And then there's a second cut, which is the set of all rational numbers, whose squares are greater than the square root of two. And the square root of two itself divides between those. numbers. It is the data can cut. So there's only one number, one number only that can be plugged in between the numbers that are rational below square root of two and those that are rational above the square root of two, and that's the square root of two. So that is how mathematicians prove this idea. You can pin down the missing irrational numbers, not by describing them, but describing the gap in which they have to be filling. This work led another mathematician, George Cantor,

to also think about irrational numbers, and they were able to define how numbers could converge from being rational to irrational. Again, Howard is off, not just by a tiny amount. These are the fundamental principles of numbers. And if one times one word equal two, I challenge Terry. If he wants $20 million for his next movie, I challenge a studio to just offer him $10 million and then say, well, you could just square $10 million. Math is what keeps us grounded in reality. We abandon fundamental mathematical loss, and we believe that almost anything that we can suggest can be eliminated. We're ignoring centuries of scientific inquiry and understanding. Okay, so we've proven that his ideas about chemistry have no basis in fact, they are not reproducible, they have no predictive power, and in fact they are falsified, and not just falsifiable.

We prove that his mathematical ideas, if taken seriously, lead to contradictions that would not only affect him in his pocketbook where they're true, but they also underpin all of the physical sciences and mathematics. And for those to be wrong, takes more than just an appearance on the Joe Rogan experience. Terence Howard... You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost.

Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay.

Hilton for the stay. It had even more outlandish ideas about gravity during his appearance on the Joe Rogan experience as well, including disparaging a renowned scientist by the name of David Tong. David has one of the most popular videos in the Royal Institution about quantum fields and what they actually are. He's a theoretical physicist in the UK, and he's a brilliant scientific communicator. And for Terrence to assail and attack, David Tong is particularly galling to me as a professor and also someone who communicates science and has been to the Royal Institution.

It's one of the most esteemed institutions on Earth. It's, in fact, one of the oldest places on Earth where science was actually done. And the old days, they didn't have journals and publications. So scientists like me or Terrence Howard would show up there with their apparatus, with their orgone water, whatever Walter Russell has proposed. And then they would take this new substance

and they would demonstrate in front of a jury of their peers, so to speak. And it's where the great Michael Faraday, who is Tesla's, one of Tesla's hero. and mine as well. He demonstrated the existence of electromagnetic fields, a so-called Faraday cages, all sorts of wonderful things. Goes back 200 years. I had the honor of lecturing there a year ago, and it was one of the highlights of my life to be in this theater in the round. Again, it's an ancient scientific tradition. There's nothing stopping someone like Terrence, who is the money and the wherewithal and the attention from replicating and doing the types of experiments

that he claims to have done. But he doesn't do it. He goes on and attacks people like David Tongue. And so some people accuse me of being too harsh on Terrence, but Terrence is quite hard of my colleagues. And I didn't like that. And I do appreciate the fact that Eric, when Eric Weinstein appeared with Terrence, he took him to task. And as you'll see, he was relatively merciless with him. Terrence is coming from an older perspective where he's drawing tons of inspiration from all these different sources. I can track it, but like 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 Agreed. Then every time he steps on a landmine, my colleagues just start laughing.

And at the end, Eric told me that Terrence thanked him for his candor. But let's go into what does he actually say. Well, he doesn't say much. He says he's going to kill gravity. I don't know what that means. Gravity underpins everything, including the pilots that flew Terrence in his private jet to Austin to get there. They need to use GPS. GPS relies on the timing of global positioning satellites. The clocks that are on the GPS satellites, aren't based on Walter Russell's elements like coronium. Have you ever had any of those or hydrinos or nebulunium and other transuranic elements that don't exist? They're not based on at all. They're based on cesium. And they have a prediction and a precision that allows GPS to

target and triangulate your position using mathematics that relies on the Pythagorean theorem, which is underpinned by the irrationality of the squarehood of two. All these things are necessary for GPS to work for his pilots to navigate him to Austin and his private jet in order to get there safely because a tiny error of just one nanosecond would accumulate over the many, many thousands of seconds as he gets there to be off by tens of miles or more. And he wouldn't get there at all, perhaps. So Howard's theory of gravity, in his words, which is going to destroy David Tong and others, presumably me, he could suggest that gravity is actually a form of electricity, implying that's not a fundamental force of nature as currently understood by mainstream physics.

It would not have a relativistic format and it would not have be subject to the precision test that we've done in everything from the behavior of deflection of starlight around the sun and sun is electrically neutral. Therefore, electricity plays no role in the deflection of starlight or gravitational waves detected by Ligo and many other instruments, including nanograb, etc. If these were true, the universe would have to be electrically charged, and there would be some net electric charge. Now, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. It is true that Maxwell's equations predict a fundamental propagation speed for electromagnetic radiation. We call it the speed of light symbolized by C.

And it is also true that Einstein's field equations for gravity predict traveling waves of gravity, called gravitational waves, which travel at that exact same speed. But that's where the similarities end. There are other effects called gravido-magnetic effects. That's the effect of the magnetic energy, the stress energy, what we call the stress energy and the stress energy tensor T-Munu, which in equations of general relativity is equal to the Einstein tensor, G-Munu. There are effects that can add to the T-Munu side, provide energy, which then affects and causes a type of gravity.

In other words, if you have a gigantic magnet of a given mass, it will have a slightly different gravitational field, especially if it's rotating, then will just a state of block of lead with the exact same mass but no magnetic field. So while Terence Howard claims that humanity is on the verge of killing gravity, which he equates to, quote, killing their God, it's quite astounding. There's no new predictions or testable hypotheses that we get from such statements. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Terence covers topics that he claims he discovered during time in his mother's womb. He described other issues and discussions with his fellow co-star in Ironman, Robert Denny Jr. And many, many other implications of his gravitational ideas are related to things that have been

thoroughly discredited, debunked, and challenged by scientific principles and scientific instrumentation, the kind of which my colleagues and I built. For example, he challenged the notion of an event horizon, which has been detected by past guest Shep Dolman and for which Sir Roger Penrose many-time guest won the 2020 Nobel Prize. He says that there must be an alternative interpretation, which he claims is based on, quote, waves and curves. Again, you can't imagine what implications of these are. So he continues to express a belief that gravity, chemistry, mathematics are not what mainstream science says, that he is an expert and how it emerges from electricity,

rather than being fundamental attribute of warp space related to Einstein's equivalence principle, and that any sense of the word, we have no evidence that our theory of gravity will be overturned. Now, if he is, again, I want to be charitable. If he's talking about a theory of quantum gravity, he could, of course, be right. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, as we've discussed many times on this podcast. We don't have a unified field theory for how gravity interacts with the other three forces. We also don't have a unified field theory for the three higher energy forces of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism.

We don't have a unified theory of those, so-called grand unified theory or gut. I often joke that we always put the gut behind the toe. We're always looking for the theory of everything. We still have not had a chance to unify the three stronger forces of nature, let alone unify all four together in a single equation that. As past guest, Mitch O'Coccu said, would be one inch long and fit on a T-shirt and be the God equation. We don't have that, but we have great progress and extremely precision science on its quantum field theory that unites phenomena that consider to be completely different, like a refrigerator magnet from a neutrino.

Those turn out to be intimately related thanks to the work of people like past gas guard at Hooft and Stephen Weinberg and past guest Sheldon Glashow. their work with Adda Salam and others unified our understanding of how the weak nuclear force is unified with the force of electricity and magnetism. It's quite astounding. So maybe Terrence, to give him credit, maybe he's talking about that, but he does doubt the existence of things that we know from classical general relativity. General relativity is formulated by Einstein is a classical field theory. There's no quantum mechanics involved whatsoever. And he's saying that he's going to kill concepts intimately related to the Schwartzfield solution, which we have made not only retradicted things like the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. That was 1914, 1915, but gravitational

lensing, 191919, the expanding universe, 1929, and event horizons in black holes, understood by Sir Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking dating back to the 1960s. And they've only gotten more and more precisely tested in the time since. Along with precision test of gravitational radiation, from the binary pulsar system of Hulse and Taylor, and of course the many hundreds of black hole in spirals and neutron star in spirals detected by the LIGO experiment. Those are all classical test of general relativity, which is a classical gravitational field theory,

which has zero to do with electricity and magnetism. Now that we've led to an analysis of whether or not Terence Howard's ideas are disconnected from reality, I think I want to substantiate that. I don't want to attack him, I want to be gracious in a sense and invite him to talk about these things more. I just don't think it's appropriate to have him on, say, my podcast. I think it is my responsibility to avoid what's called polluting the intellectual landscape.

In other words, corporations aren't allowed to just dump mercury or spray pollution out just to make an extra dollar or two. And I view myself as a curator of intellectual ideas in the space of science, technology, engineering, and math. Sometimes I get into cultural things. But I believe when you put out so many false statements that it risks a danger of succumbing to something as simple as your own personal cognitive biases. And in particular, the Dunning-Kroger effect may be at play here. Terence is obviously a very smart person. He's one of the most talented actors of our generation. But there's a bias here where people that have a limited knowledge in a particular field or competency

overestimate their abilities in other fields. It's also related to something called the Halo Effect. You know, I'm a great physicist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be a great baseball player. In Howard's case, his lack of formal scientific training and mathematical training have led him to believe that he stumbled upon groundbreaking discoveries that will revolutionary science and have eluded the scientific community for 2,000 years. It's not just making aspersions on David Tong or Eric Weinstein or Brian Keating or Sir Roger Penrose. That would be bad, but not as bad as saying Euclid was wrong.

Okay, that's a huge, huge mistake. So let's be rigorous. Let's look at this episode with Terrence Howard. This is part one. We're going to do part two where Terrence. I analyzed Terrence and Eric Weinstein and Joe Rogan's, the Joe Rogan experience where they're all together. That'll be coming very soon.

We'll put a link to it if you're watching it afterwards up here. But his claims highlight a broader issue, the distrust in scientific experts. Now, of course, a lot of that came about due to the pandemic. If I say the name of the pandemic, sometimes YouTube will, do things to this video to suppress its reach, so I won't say that, and the thing that rhymes with lax scene. So there are, of course, many, many claims that were made by experts, people we should trust from Fauci to Hotez to other people, like global warming. But just because an expert is wrong in one field doesn't mean that all experts are wrong. You should do your own research

and keep an open mind, but don't leave it so open your brains fall out. And I actually have reason to suspect that Howard isn't intellectually honest. Not entirely at least. He claims to have, to his name, 90 plus patents. He bragged about it on the Joe Rogan experience. 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. 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 patent. Some of them are quite outlandish and relate to Africa and places like Uganda, which don't appear to have any relevancy or reality.

But let's do a deep dive. I'm a scientist, so I want to do a background check. He can check out my scientific papers on Google Scholar. You'll see my H index, how many papers I've had, how many citations, and how they've changed over the years, how many total papers I have. Let's look at his patents and what he claims to be these novel inventions. look at what they claim to do and how they've been used and how they've been enforced and the fundamental question of whether or not they're even a patent. Okay, so I have to say something. When

you see something that says patent pending, that means that an application has been filed. Anybody could do that for any possible invention. You can invent a perpetual motion machine, send it off to the patent office. I've been through this twice. I have two patents to my name, one for a wide bandwidth polarization modulator and one for superconducting tunnel junctions that act is micro refrigerators. They're really fun to get, but ultimately they don't prove to be very valuable. Even for inventions that actually work and were implemented in scientific experiments. In fact, Elon Musk claims that patents are basically lawyer bait. That when you put out a patent, the only person that gets rich from it are lawyers. So he makes his patents for Tesla and other

things open source. He doesn't actually patent them. What Terrence, his primary claim to technological fame is for augmented and virtual reality technology. I'll put the citation there. You could find it on Google, and many people are convinced that this proves that he has these patents. But again, my toddler can write a letter to the U.S. Patent and Technology Office and submit some drawings for a perpetual motion machine, and that will list as patent pending. Okay? That means nothing. There's no scientific bearing in something that's patent pending.

It has to be approved, and the patent number has to be issued. So in Terrence's case, he applied for it in 2010 and has a number. you can find it on Google of the patent application. But then it shows it as abandoned in the year 2013. So he was not granted a actual patent number for his technology. So he also claimed to have patent applications for other inventions. But in a simple search to see if any of these applications have actually been granted, none show up as issued patents with patent numbers. I have patent certificates with the two patents that I have. And again, I'm nothing. I have a friend who's got 200 patents. He works for Qualcomm. And he's got all these patents and they apply to things

like 5G, 6G technology. And maybe he makes a dollar off, or he sells it to the company. And oftentimes you go and you do sell your patents to other companies. And he claims that this 2010 patent application was used by companies like Sony and Microsoft. And they do cite it in some of their actually granted patents that they have for augmented reality. But that's sometimes done just legalistically as a prophylactic, it doesn't actually indicate that Terrence's inventions have any application, any novelty, or any merit. So the fact that he abandoned his most prolific or most important patent in 2010 for virtual reality and augmented reality, after he received this non-final rejection from the patent examiner suggests that he even himself deemed it wasn't patentable

over what's called prior art. So prior art is the following. You can invent a pencil with no eraser, That could already have been invented. Then someone could have invented the eraser, and those are two separate patents. And then you put them together, that's a new patent. But this patent search comes up completely empty with nothing that I could find that indicates he has an issued U.S. patent with a patent number. I know a lot of people have been reacting to my original reaction. What about his patents? Again, if he doesn't have any, does that give you more or less confidence in the other claims he makes about revolutionizing mathematics, chemistry,

physics, gravity, and tremendous technology on the verge of destruction of our closely held notions of physical reality. I just don't think there's any evidence to that fact. So guys, let's celebrate the real scientist. I'm not doing this for me, okay? But I want to celebrate the real scientists, the people I interview on this channel, dedicate their lives to unraveling the mysteries of the universe, who do so in open, they encourage debate and dialogue, they don't demonstrate it purely on Joe Rogan or other places.

Let's remember that all ideas are not created equal. Some are grounded in fact and reason. Some, while fanciful, are only that. Flights of intellectual and scientific fancy. Thank you for joining me on this strange journey into the bewildering world of celebrity science. And remember to stay tuned to my analysis, my reaction video, as the kids say,

of Eric Weinstein and Terrence Howard on the Joe Rogan Experience. It's a four-hour episode that will need a lot of interpretation, even for experts like myself. Let's leave the theorizing to anybody who's curious. But trust in those that have a proven track record and have dedicated their lives to understanding its complexities. They've earned higher degrees. They've done work in the lab.

People like David Tong and Dmitri Mendelev and even good old Euclid. So stay tuned for Part 2, my series, which could have come out soon. You can find it up here for watching. Thank you for watching and click here for a playlist of my episodes with Eric Weinstein. Don't forget to subscribe. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th,

the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavatheater.com. at Yama Vahua Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. U-N. Must be 21 to enter.