Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - The Truth About Terrence Howard's Patents: Part 2

Episode Date: August 15, 2024

Getting it right is the hallmark of any great scientist. And when we don’t, we should be able to say we were wrong. In part 2 of debunking all the claims Terrence Howard made on the Joe Rogan Experience, I start by first apologizing for misrepresenting the number of patents Howard has. Even though he doesn’t have the 97 patents he claimed to have, he does hold quite a few, contrary to my earlier assertions.  But this episode is not all sunshine and rainbows. I actually go through 17 different newfound complaints about that conversation. This video will go through each one of those points, and we'll even take a deep dive into one of Eric Weinstein's favorite hobby horses, peer review. Tune in! — Key Takeaways:  00:00 Intro 00:46 Apology for errors about Howard's patents 01:48 Overview of Howard's actual patent portfolio 06:48 Importance of precise scientific communication 14:37 Is there north and south in space? 15:28 Penrose stairs, scientific collaboration, quantum entanglement 19:36 The role of patents in science  22:44 The relationship between photons and electrons  25:45 Critique of Howard's scientific claims 31:04 Defense of peer review in science 43:32 Potential innovations in scientific publishing — Additional resources:  ➡️ Part 1: https://youtu.be/Et5Ripimfs8 ➡️ Find the full list of Terrence Howard’s patents here: https://briankeating.com/th/ ➡️ 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 follow/subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I was wrong about Terence Howard, and this video is my apology to that great actor. Based on a conversation he and I have had since his appearance alongside Eric Weinstein on the Joe Rogan Experience. But this video is not all sunshine and rainbows. I actually go through 17 different newfound complaints about that otherwise monumental four-hour conversation. This video will go through each one of those points and will even take a deep dive at one of Eric Weinstein's favorite hobby horses, which is peer review. You won't want to miss it. That's coming up at the end. Let's go. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Open the pod bay doors, hell. Before we get to the groveling and pleas for forgiveness, I want to make sure that you've either seen the entire conversation with Eric, Joe, and Terence, or you watch my Part 1 analysis of it. Part 1 took issue with four different aspects of Terence's claims, including the fact that 1 times 1 equals 2, that gravity needs to be destroyed, that the Piroc table is not what we think it is, and most importantly that he has 97 patents to his name. And that's where my error lies. After my part one video, which you can find up here, Terrence reached out through Eric to correct my errors.

He actually showed me that I had made many mistakes about his patent repertoire. And I want to analyze those as well, because I think getting it right is the most important hallmark of a scientist. and a scientist should be able to say when he or she is wrong. And that includes amateurs like Terrence. But it also applies to the dangerous rise in anti-science sentiment that's being promulgated by figures in the culture, like Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson, and many more. We won't talk about those characters today.

Let's start with the apology. In my last video, I said, in Terence's case, he applied for it in 2010 and has a number, you can find it on Google, the patent application. But then it shows it as a band. in the year 2013. So he was not granted an actual patent number for his technology. So that segment was about the 97 patents Terence claims he has. Now it's certainly true he has nowhere near 97 granted patents. He might not even have 97 patent applications, including

those that have been abandoned, rejected, or granted. Immediately after part one, I got a message from Terence via Eric. And we've been communicating. ever since. He sent me a link to all of his patents. While it's true that he had abandoned the patent for virtual reality, as shown in 2013, as I indicated, there are several patents issued not just in America, but in other countries. Again, nowhere near 97, and I think it's important for Terrence, if you're listening, and I hope you are, out there to always be accurate. And if you make a mistake, as I'm doing now, admit when you make a mistake. It's not so painful. I've made many blunders, and you're not in bad company either.

Galileo made blunders and even the great Albert Einstein. So I went through a list and I linked the list of Terrence's patents on my website. You can find at Brian Keating.com slash TH. You can find all of his patent portfolio, his repertoire of patents. It's incredibly extensive. What I'm going to do now is summarize these patents and their patent publications. There's a difference again between a granted patent, a patent application, patent pending, utility patent, design patent. These are all incredibly important things, but you can easily access

these in my conversation in part one. Many of his patents focus on aesthetic functionality rather than technical innovation. But the smaller subset that I'm interested in and describing today involve the structural frameworks of an unconventional propulsion system. There's also a novel invention which he has patented, which has an actual patent number involving an electric arc device where these concepts, although they're not necessarily implemented right now, it is interesting to stimulate the imagination and to stake out future intellectual property claims. Again, people like Elon Musk claim they don't even patent stuff anymore because it's basically lawyer bait. It just attracts attention, legal attention.

Of Terrence's many granted patents, nowhere near 97, they appear in a name Terrence Dashen Howard or T. Howard or T. Dashen Howard. There are about 50 publications or so, and they date back to 2013. You can find them also on a website called Justica, but there are effectively 11 of those that are patent applications. Those aren't granted, and even if they're shown patent pending, they're not recognized officially at any jurisdiction. 23 are design patents that primarily relate to representing shapes, as he's indicated in the video with Eric and Joe and in his solo. episode with Joe as well. 11 are granted patents that aren't designed patents. So those are potentially of monetary and technical usage.

Two of these are for a gun where the explosion doesn't come from gunpowder or chemical ignition, but come from an electric spark, an arc that causes a chemical gas expansion. And there are others for geometric structures, such as the famous linchpin, which Terence devises as a framework for building a drone, a hexacopter, or many bladed drawings. own, and some of them are through the functional building blocks, different shapes, materials that could be made from, but to my knowledge, these haven't been ever employed in actual devices. That's fine. Again, I was wrong.

I said he didn't have any granted granted patent. These are granted official patents. Again, there's at least 11 of them in the document that I've linked in this video and description below, but also in the correspondence that Terrence and I have had. Now, since that time, we've communicated that we've had a mutual desire to get together and discuss his technology and also show him my two patents and how they work and why they didn't bring me a single cent of remuneration. But that's not a reason to not go through with patents in the first place. So again, Terence mea culpa, I think it's important to acknowledge when

you get something wrong, but it's also important to be accurate. So in our conversations, I hope we'll discuss the different ways that we can both improve how we communicate the importance of patents in the intellectual landscape that surrounds us. It's important for our us all to do our due diligence. Okay, now on to the rest of the episode. This episode was fascinating. In part because it was a conversation that it seemed that all three of them wanted to have, Joe, as much as Eric and Terrence.

Joe at the very beginning points out that it should all be about ideas. And in fact, he echoed a very famous sentiment by none of the Nobel laureate, Marie Curie, when he said the following. If they think they 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's 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. Marie Curie said that now is the time to be focused on ideas rather than people. When you focus on people, there's a tendency to, make ad hominem attacks and get sidetracked by the personalities and personal attacks that you may want to make or you may feel and perceive being made and Joe points this out very effectively. This can ensure a respectful dialogue and I think this has been incredibly helpful. Something like 20 or 30 million people have seen Terence and Terence and Joe and Eric having conversations just in the last month. It's really captivated the landscape. I even had a conversation with Pierce Morgan along with Tom Bill Yu and my friend Eric Weinstein.

That video got over a million views in just one day. So people are really interested in this. Now is the time to be less curious about people and more curious about ideas. Now this is not always easy as a scientist because sometimes you have to balance your anger and frustration with a narrative that's getting out, perhaps when I'm making a debunking video or making a video critical of some conspiracy theory. That's hard to keep that balance between ideas and avoiding an hominem attacks, especially since sometimes the ideas that I'm criticizing come from people themselves that are accusing me or my colleagues of committing intellectual malfeasance. So that's really hard to reconcile. But I'll try my best

and continue to endeavor to do better. The second topic today is about math and the complex relationship between the number zero, which Terence has a great deal of difficulty. The boys discussed logarithms, exponential functions, and it highlights how this property that Terence seems to ascribe to the number one or the number two or the square root of it as I hopefully have deemed. bunked thoroughly in part one. This concept that number two is a rational number I went through in two different ways explaining how number two, the square root of two rather, is a irrational, but it's also not rational. So I proved it from both directions. Not myself originally, but showing you how it's done in the literature, dating back to the time of Euclid. So equally interesting

is the number zero. And as Eric points out, he goes through what's called set theory, a naive set theory, Paul Haumos's great book. We talks about the fact that all zeros are equivalent. The number of bananas buried underneath the South Pole is equal to the number of fruit flies that are currently on Jupiter's moon iso. These are both zero. And so all things that are zero can be identified, which means that there's only one number zero. There's only one set of zero elements, which then allows you to get the number one, right? There's only one set of all things that have zero elements. So now you have the number one, you have the number zero, now you can start adding them together and get the properties of the number system that we know and love,

the integers. Once you have the integers, you can say what are quotions or rational numbers. Once you have the rational numbers, you can say what are not rational numbers. You can build up all of mathematics. So zero is incredibly important. 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. No, what I'm saying that there, to say zero, zero is supposed to represent 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. That's the difference. Right? So there is a zero. But to multiply something by the nothing, to multiply something by 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? So the empty set is an incredibly interesting topic.

And let me know in the comments if you'd like me to do a deep dive into pure mathematics. Set theory is the foundation of all of mathematical logic, which then provides the tree of knowledge at which all of physics will grow out of, and then from physics comes chemistry, biology, political science, and everything else. So understanding zero and its vital role is essential for grasping any mathematical theories from the most elementary to the most advanced. The gentleman then discussed dimensional equality and multiplication. This they have great tension over.

So what is the importance of dimensional compatibility? So when you've heard you can't compare apples and oranges, what we're really saying is that units must match. But when you multiply integers, there aren't no units. So units have no place in the multiplication of the integers or any numbers. In fact, you can't exponentiate a number with units. You can't take the logarithm of a number with units. So it's nonsensical to multiply unrelated dimensions as Terrance then goes into.

And he talks about, well, you know, you take a dollar and you multiply by a dollar. And then he starts talking about the need for dimensional coherence, which then segues into fiat money, and then sideways into Bitcoin and other things that can't be printed. This is a real distraction. Terrence, you're just wrong about one times one equaling two. There's no way around it. All of mathematics is based on it. Your paycheck for your wonderful acting gets based upon this. It's totally something you should really give up. It really doesn't have relevance and it doesn't have any application to anything to do with your technology, your patents,

or anything more that you may be considering that Eric seems to think has great, great applicability potentially, such as things like the linch pit, which I don't fully understand. And I'm looking forward to you explaining it to me when we get together in person. The boys then get into the ether, the lumenaphrus ether, This is incredibly important to me because the ether was effectively disproven. It was a concept believed in the 1800s by Maxwell and others to support electromagnetic waves in vacuum. They couldn't understand how that was possible. All waves go through media like water or air. How could it be possible that light a wave that Maxwell proved could go through a vacuum without some substance underneath it?

So they proposed the ether. This was then invalidated at my alma mater, Case Western Reserve University. The Michelson Morley experiment. It proved that you never got an additive speed of light due to the Earth's motion with respect to the stationary ether, which would have to be in order to be compatible with supporting electromagnetic waves that Maxwell himself had discovered. So Maxwell was incredibly right and he was a genius. But he was wrong that you needed to have a wave supporting medium like the ether. This was thoroughly disproven. It's a foundation of relativity and it's a foundation of Lorentz invariance violation,

which is a key cornerstone of my research in the cosmic macroa background. more about that in a future video. Point five, the necessity of clear scientific definitions. The boys then get into a stressful conversation about the precise meaning of scientific discourse and being accurate in your words and saying things like supersymmetry as Terrence does and that Eric corrects him and what that meaning is as a term of art.

Making analogies between things, say, an MMA commentary that Joe did, I thought that was brilliant. Now I actually had a similar concept of how to explain things when I talked to Joe back in August of 2023. But the clarity is so important to get things right. If we don't have a common lexicon, if we don't have a common language, and it's not just semantics. When you try to co-op the name of something, you're actually trying to subvert the ideas

for which it was originally conveyed. And I think that that's important again, turns. If you're watching, I hope you are. Please try to get it right. Use the right terminology. Only in that way can we have a conversation which isn't muddled and weighed down by imprecision in our language. 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 Google Fi 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.

The guys then get into a discussion about North and South and the highest density in the lowest density in the north always seeking a higher position the south is always this is absolutely incorrect there's nothing accurate about this there's no north and south in space if you went into space and turned your head upside down there's no north or south it's a convention i've been to the south pole i bet terence hasn't been there yet it would be fun for him to visit there someday uh but uh you go to the north and south it doesn't feel any different than going to the north pole or being in the northern hemisphere there's nothing intrinsic about north and south other magnets or in the retainer of planets. There are some planets that don't even orbit the same way the Earth does. So we, again,

have to be careful not to mix up things that comport with our biases of being, say, in the Northern Hemisphere. They then get into a description of science and geometry, talking about Terence's intriguing geometrical interpretations. They talk about the Penrose staircase and Rogers been on this show many times Nobel laureates, Roger Penrose, describing things like the Penrose staircase and Holonomy, which is an advanced mathematical subject, don't have time to get into, but handedness, chirality, which play a huge role in physics as well as mathematics. So understanding our complicated scientific laws, sometimes these artwork, these pieces of art, and perhaps that's what Eric's saying is the underlying importance of the lynchpin,

is that like the Penrose staircase, nobody goes out and builds a Penrose staircase. You can't build a Penrose staircase, in fact, in three dimensions. But it's important to explore perhaps the influence of artistic ideas on mathematical structures and how they may then perhaps prove if nothing else useful for fruitful scientific analogies. The boys get into scientific collaboration, talking about how you cooperate a scientist, having mutual respect for one another. I thought those was quite beautiful.

TMZ asked you a question. Yeah, they said, do I have anything going on? And I was like, yeah, me and I'm Eric Weinstein. I said Weinstein. I said Weinstein. Because Brian Keaton said Weinstein. He said Weinstein on a thing. He was being.

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. Here, the guys are talking about holography. Joe brings up this two photon state of tangled photons. And I wanted to take you through this cool little experiment. Although I didn't quite see the relevance to the conversation.

It's important to bring it to your attention because I think it's such a cool, interesting experiment that was recently published in Nature magazine, which is what the boys were talking about. It's about an interesting effect called quantum entanglement, and it involves a cool new way to take pictures of light particles, which we call photons. And I want to break it down for you in relatively simple terms. It's a very complex paper, obviously, published in nature under peer review, and that's signposting for later. We're going to get into peer review and how important it is for working scientists like me. And what Eric thinks is all the pitfalls and downfalls that peer review has brought to our understanding of science.

So scientists in the Nature paper are using pairs of entangled photons that can be used for secure communications and other types of precise measurements. You've undoubtedly heard about cryptography and quantum computing. Well, there's a type of quantum computing doesn't use ultra-cold qubits that uses entangled photons in room temperature environments, which is much more convenient that cooling things down to a few millicelvin as we do in our lab for our quantum cosmology sensors. The problem is it's usually very hard and slow to figure out exactly what these pairs look like when they're entangled and explain how they behave.

So what these researchers did is come up with a clever new method called bi-photon digital holography to effectively take pictures, if you will, of these photon pairs much faster and more accurately than before, interrogating their state without destroying them, maintaining their entanglement. Now, holography, you've seen holograms under credit cards. It basically gives the illusion of a three-dimensional volume from just a two-dimensional surface. The credit card's two-dimensional, but it looks like the eagles flying in three dimensions. So that's the principle of holography, and it applies in black

holes as well, where you get all the information about the information contained within the volume of the black hole from just its two-dimensional surface. The researchers use a special camera that could detect single photons and look at how the photon pairs interfere with each other, kind of like the way that water waves make patterns when they interfere and they meet. They tested their method by creating different shapes of light, like swirls and using the new technique to take pictures of the photon pairs created by this light. This new way of taking quantum pictures can help scientists do better quantum experiments and maybe even lead to new types of imaging that use quantum light properties. So by inventing a super-fast, accurate camera, they

took pictures of things so weird and small we couldn't see them before. Now, I'm not sure why Joe Rogan brought this up on the conversation, except that it's really cool. It wasn't relevant to Terrence Howard or Eric Weinstein. It's one of the cool things that Joe likes to show, as I experienced when I was on this podcast. Okay, now we get to the good stuff. The role of patents in science. Eric got extremely mad every time Terrence would bring up his patents,

as you see here. Even though I've got the 97 patents and all of that, that doesn't matter. 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. So let's explore the complicated relationship between science and patents and examine how patents can protect innovation while sometimes stifling openness and collaboration.

Ultimately, the recognition within the scientific community often outweighs the protective values of patents. As I said, Elon Musk calls patents lawyer-bate. Now, why is that an undiscovered job? 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. So it was just it was a protection. Okay, we've covered the patents. Okay. My claim is that what you discovered is a little bit like even temperament. Now, even temperament is a lie. Do you know about even temper? Yes, yes.

Going up to 440 instead of 432. Well, no, no, no, no, no. Keep retucking it back together. They keep, it's an attention. attempt to modulate or keep everything, start right back at the beginning and avoid the Pythagorean comma. Avoid the necessary expansion. Now we're talking to Pythagorean comma.

They clear up misunderstandings about confusion between ideas in the scientific community. They emphasize the need for precise communication and a willingness to understand different perspectives to maintain scientific integrity and progress. However, we have to hold people that are amateurs like Terrence to the same high standards as ordinary practicing scientists like me. And I think that's something that's lacking from the exuberance that Eric and Terrence show for novel ideas. So when we reflect on past things like the ether and other things, they did influence

modern physics, even though they were wrong. God forbid Twitter was around when Maxwell invented the laws of electromagnetics. He wouldn't have had any following after he tweeted out. The luminaferous ether is comprised of gears and pulleys and world pools. So sometimes you have to reevaluate the history of physics, but it's important not to follow the mistakes of the past. So Marilyn Monroe, Sydney 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 Yucawa coupling. So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing. It's a crazy Hail Mary to save all of physics. Because normally, if the world were left-right asymmetric to a debatered decadent. the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and emit an electron and 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 it magnetism that tears apart, that rareifies that which was concentrically drawn together

through electricity. Here they explore the relationship between photons and electrons. The lesson talks about how derivatives and functions integrate. Nobody really thinks about electrons the way that Eric talks about them at square roots of different objects. They are in the Dirac operators, which we can show on the screen in Dirac matrices, and the Dirac equation, which is relativistic quantum mechanics, which was the first to really explore how it was possible for us to use a version of the Schrodinger equation of a quantum mechanical equation. with a planks constant within it, to describe relativity in a self-consistent way,

so that particles couldn't move fast in the speed of light, such that the objects were contained in the mass shell of ordinary electrons, and that also led inevitably to the invention of what are called Dirac spinners. So Dirac showed that in contrast to the complex vector of the Schrodinger equation, he had to actually make a four by four complex matrix,

or he had to actually have multiple matrices, but the matrices are all four by four matrices. where the bottom two elements of the column vector were reserved for the positron, a form of antimatter, which, by the way, Dirac originally thought the antiparticle of the electron was the proton. He couldn't obviously be more wrong. He soon realized that was incorrect, and then soon after Carl Anderson found the positron actually existed. So that was antimatter. It comes effectively from the adoption of these matrices, which do have a, obviously, a square root type character,

which if Terrence were right, we wouldn't have their right properties. It doesn't take the square root of two, and it's equal to one. These wouldn't be able to maintain the properties of antimatter. So there are lots of consequences of Terrence's mathematical ideas, none of which are borne out in reality and experimental physics, or in this segment where Eric talks about how to think about integrals, derivatives, electrons, and positrons. 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 geometry of hydrogen or the very first visible element is as a result of all of those forces pushing on it. But the first, no, yeah, I can use another here. It's called explainer juice. Yes. Yeah. So, thank you.

Thank you. think both of you. So if we start with this 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. They get back to talking about hydrogen and the first line of decay and angles of incidents and things like that. And these are just, again, concepts that have no applicability in monitoring.

physics or even ancient physics. There's no lines of decay. These things don't make any sense to me as a physicist. And so talking about things in terms of using protected language as Eric talks about supersymmetry, as Terrence did, and he came down on it, is like using the wrong terminology for reverse chokehold in MMA that shows familiar with. But again, these aren't really mainstream things. And I think it's also quite, you know, misleading to show that these things of line of decay and so forth, we have very well-tested objects in particle physics, we understand beta decay, we understand the weak nuclear force, we understand the quark model, which explains also the predictions of proton stability. These are all things that I don't understand where Terrence is coming from.

Another attack that came about was Terrence's attack on David Tong. And effectively what he was doing, and even with Neil deGrasse Tyson, when he sent him his manifesto, he was giving him an homework assignment. I get this all the time. Here's a 30-page email. Here's my theory of everything. Professor Keating, I'll share the Nobel Prize with you, just go through. That's assigning me, a tenured professor, a homework assignment. And if I did that for every single person, I wouldn't be able to do the job that I'm paid to do, which is to teach physics to undergraduates and to do research in cosmology.

Not to say that there couldn't be some possible breakthrough, but there's no track record. It's very hard to assess. Just imagine if a six-year-old just kept getting emails and kept getting handed 30 pages of homework assignments from six-year-olds about different topics that's in your field. You're a lawyer. You're a doctor. You're an artist. You work as a countertop installer. And you got something from all these people that have new ideas and saying that you're completely wrong. What you're doing is wrong. You're selling cars the wrong way, Joe. You need to fix the way you sell cars. Here's a 30-page amount. If you did that all the time, you wouldn't have time to actually do your job. So you often use a shortcut, which is to look at people's track record. What's their pedigree? Where did they come from? What's their education? Are they purely self-taught? You would definitely take that into account. If you went to a a drywall installer and they come to you and say I'm fully self-taught I've never done it before I've got a new idea of doing drywall would you let them work on your house guarantee you you wouldn't so why should it be any different when people come to me with scientific proposals manifestos and theories of everything should I spend that time or should I do the job that I'm actually paid to do okay you have to balance that and

it's very hard to do but especially with people like Terrans who get so much attention from their fame it's hard to ignore them and then they get even more attention when they say that that people are excluding them like David Tong or like Neil deGrasse Tyson. And we'll come back to Neil deGrasse Tyson and his sort of polite blowoff of Terrence in just a bit. So 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. All these things about patents, well, I don't think it's something that you can really ignore. If you say that his credibility is doubtful because he claims he has 97 patents, when he, in fact, has about 11, as far as I can tell, I see a person struggling for answers where there might not be any and to get credibility and to give false hope,

rather than maybe condemning the ideas and dismissing them. Eric talks about there being some babies in the bathwater that Terrence is talking about. I can't find those babies. Not to say they don't exist. And maybe when I talk to Terrence, I'll understand it. I know Eric and Terrence have spent a lot of time together. But again, when you keep hearing about things, the influence of patents, the influence of these outlandish ideas like the Walter Russell Pyrrhic Table, which has elements that don't

exist, like coronium and leptanium and all sorts of things. It really shows the self-educated nature of people like Terrence. But this is all to be praised in comparison, at least to people like Candace Owens. We'll say things like science is pagan or NASA is pagan because she doesn't believe that the dinosaurs are killed by a giant meteor. It's just nuts. So there's a huge difference between Candace Owens and Terrence Howard. And we discussed that on the Pierce Morgan show, which we'll have a link to, the conversation that I have with Pierce Morgan and Tom Billion and Eric Weinstein. Again, when they get into the Walter Russell, the harmonica, tones with you, and we talked about that already in part one.

not going to go through it again, except to address the need for clear and precise communication. We really need to use the right terminology. You can disagree with the findings or the data or the methodology, but you can't like go back to re-coop the names of different items. And even maybe it is the case that Terrence means something different by multiplication. For him, multiplication means addition. I mean, if you did that, fine, then one times one in his language does mean two. And in fact, in ring algebra, you can actually obtain that with a multiplication-like operator that is called addition, but again, is that fruitful? Should we redefine things like addition?

The number is zero, the number infinity. It's all sort of a big intellectual waste of time. 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. Now I come to the good stuff. Where do I disagree with Eric?

Well, it has to do with peer review. And Eric makes a distinction between peer review and expert review. Let's go through a couple different things. Peer review, expert review, proposal refereeing. All these things should be encouraging. innovation, testing, replication. There's other types of analysis that can be used to assess the validity of scientific claims. Open review, transparent review, all have different pluses and minuses. Let's go through them. Eric clearly is against what we call peer review, and he has a great deal

of information to back that up. But I claim what his, and will go through that information, but I claim what he's doing is sometimes very harmful to physicists like me that he's seeking to gain more attention. Remember, he's saying that we deserve more money, more security, less bureaucracy, less DEI. So he's harming in some sense the people that he's often trying to help. So I pointed out in a tweet response to him that there's many, many journals in his field of physics, which is what he's operating in now. He's most known right now on the intellectual landscape for his geometric unity theory, which hasn't been submitted for peer review, and that's important, obviously. I listed a bunch of journals from the reviews of modern physics to nature

physics to physics reports, annual review of astronomy and astrophysics, all these journals have huge impact factors, the impact factor being the average number of times, typical number of times that a paper in those journals get cited. Now, for many authors, they might get a paper cited once or twice. Eric and others have claimed that, you know, citations are just a way to curry academic favor, to get tenure and get funding. That's really not the case, not my experience. As a professional physicist, again, Eric's not a professional physicist. He's a mathematician working in the field of finance and other things. He's not publishing.

He's not in a university. He's not a tenure track faculty. It's fine to do what he's doing. The practical impacts of publishing in these journals, all of which I've either published in or refereed for, along with the proposal referee process and other things in academia that we have to do to give recommendations for things like awards, promotions, tenure, those require experts and referees. They're usually supposed to be external.

You don't want my PhD advisor to give me a letter of recommendation for a proposal or for a grant request. That's just not fair to other people. And in fact, a lot of times the proposal review now is done blindly. You don't even know who's applying. And the people that submit the proposals, they don't know who's refereeing it. So it's double-blind. Think about the bias there. How are you actually going to penalize someone if you don't know who wrote the journal or you didn't know who wrote the grant application?

So let's go through some of the claims that Eric makes and trace the history. and peer review, from its origins to its current role. And this discussion examines how peer review has influenced the quality and progression of scientific research and its limitations and the challenges it faces in the era of modern science. Eric and I did battle about this on Pierce Morgan. You can find that link above again. And I made an analogy that, you know, to say that you criticize a professor who doesn't understand the history of peer review, which I do understand the history of peer review,

but Eric claiming I don't and claiming others certainly don't, I don't think it's actually relevant to how any modern science is done. I don't think any of my graduate students who are brilliant or work in fields related to what I do or Eric does have any idea the history of it and yet they're churning out some of the highest quality papers and results that I claim Eric and I can't even match. Peer review doesn't really begin in physics and in the sciences really until the 60s and much more the 70s. The whole idea of peer review is to keep the laity, the people who don't do something, the

science for a living or medicine for a living out of the review process. Eric, I'm sorry to say, my academic genealogy goes back 17 generations. Every single one of those people, including my students, I'm now in my third generation. I have graduate students that have their own graduate students. They've all been through peer review. We didn't have Pergammon Press and Robert Maxwell. That is true. Einstein published almost all of his famous papers. They were done by peer review. So I'm trying to be humble here, and I think Eric should be too. So to say that they are not really doing science because they don't understand the history of peer review. I think that's quite frankly nonsense. But peers were always used in some sense to judge scientific replication. When Copernicus came up

with the revolutions of the heavenly spheres, he was using observations, which then he published. Actually, he published on the day he died. Galileo used that information. Kepler used that information. Eventually Galileo's final book, the discourse, would be published by Elsevier in the Netherlands. Now, that would later be the same journal house, publishing house, that would purchase Pergamon press. The same press that Eric quite accurately points out was owned by Robert Maxwell, the father of Galane Maxwell, the disgraced partner in crime of Jeffrey Epstein. I did actually, again, post this on Twitter about how some of the greatest publications in modern history were peer-reviewed, including some of the titanic contributions of Richard Feynman with his co-advisor John Archibald Wheeler and reviews of modern physics in 1945. This outlined Feynman's path integral method, hugely influential and also in part responsible for Feynman diagrams or how they're actually applied, and later responsible for his Nobel Prize. Einstein's papers, which had it not been peer reviewed, would have caused him some great pain because it was the claim that he had made originally in 1936 in a paper that he submitted.

It was rejected because he claimed that gravitational waves were completely non-real phenomena that could never be detected. and the referees pointed out, be the experts or editors, and asked to do it, they were still refereed. And it wasn't allowed to be published until he revised it. And when he revised it,

he showed that he was wrong. He also was wrong in his original theory of generality in the prediction of the deflection of starlight by the sun. These things were improved upon correspondence and consultation with peers and other experts.

There's many, many examples of this. All the journals nowadays are peer-reviewed. A lot of them are blind peer-reviewed. Again, I'm sticking to physics because that's my field of expertise, but it's also a field where I've done reviews. I've done reviews for these articles, and I've submitted over 200 articles, have my name on it, as either author, primary author in some cases or contributing author, in terms of also millions of dollars of funding that my colleagues and I have obtained, thanks to the expert referee review system, which is a form of peer review. So it started informally back in the 17th century, beginning of the scientific revolution, the very first journals. They're very different than we have now, but they share some common DNA.

The Royal Society of London was founded in 1660, and it played a pivotal role in developing modern scientific journals with its philosophical transactions, which started in 1665. That journal is considered the first scientific journal, but peer review wasn't really part of the process. But in fact, also, it wasn't only the way that you would get recognition by publishing something written, although most books, obviously the books by Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus,

Those are publications. They did get edited. They did get review in some cases and establishing the claims of priority and scientific claims like that of Galileo showing the moons of Jupiter, the craters on the moon as he observed them through his telescope. And even things that were cryptically explained, Galileo did not believe that what he could see with his eyes through a telescope when he looked at the planet Saturn. So he made a cryptic, almost puzzle. He would say things like the highest planet is threefold to establish priority in his claim without actually coming out and saying what the truth was that planet Saturn had these rings around it. He actually couldn't resolve the rings. But he wanted to get some credit just in case he turned out to be right, that it was a threefold planet, which it's not. By the 20th century, the peer review process became quite formalized. Physical review, the primary journal in my field, became very much the standard in the mid-1900. But even before that, you would get articles reviewed by a couple of friends of the editor typically. Again, that's a form of peer review. It's to say that it has no history in science. is just outright wrong.

But after World War II in the 1940s and 50s, the rapid expansion of scientific research and the increase in the number of publications necessitated a more rigorous evaluation process. Peer review evolves to ensure the quality integrity of scientific literature, which is a core part of science. You can't say that science can be done without replication. If you can't reproduce it, it's just nonsense. And there's a lot of science that Eric and others point out is not reproducible because it makes no predictions or it makes predictions that can't be tested now.

Now, it is true as Eric asserts that Robert Maxwell, a British media mogul, played a huge and controversial role in the development of scientific publishing. But it's not quite as big as Eric makes it out to be, and it does dovetail nicely into certain theories about Maxwell and Epstein and how he got his money and all the evil things that he did. In the 1950s and 60s, Maxwell founded Pergammon Press, which published numerous scientific journals back then. It doesn't publish things now.

Maxwell's business acumen and aggressive marketing strategies significantly. expanded the reach of the scientific journals. He didn't invent peer review, but his influence did help the publishing industry standardize it. Now, is that a bad thing to have peer review standardized? Yes, sometimes bad people can do good. I actually don't know much about Maxwell. I'm sure you guys can correct me in the comments down below and how ignorant I am. But the peer review process was a longstanding before. Now, Eric points out there was a huge influx of money, interest, and perhaps scientific standards being instrumentalized by the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Now, the NIH is almost 150 years old, and it's the key funding agency for biomedical research.

I have no familiarity with NIH grants. I've never had one. I don't work in that field. But in getting grants for NIH from NIH Medical Biomedical, it revised heavily on peer review, both in the fact that many, many journal articles have to be peer reviewed. but also the proposals were peer-reviewed or peer-referreed by other biomedical scientists, doctors, et cetera. And of course, there's been a huge problem in the late 20th century and early 21st century,

things like the replication crisis, p-hacking, stories like 90% of all scientific papers are wrong. A lot of that comes from biomedical science, which is not Eric's field and it's not my field. And so I think it is a little bit of a red herring. It's true that in the 1960s, government agencies began to provide substantial funding for scientific research, And that required a new and robust peer review system to allocate resources effectively. And peer review became a critical component of the funding, ensuring that taxpayer money was spent on high-quality, impactful research. Now, of course, you'll say, well, there was money sent to the Wuhan Institute of Irology, and that was government funding, and that was sent by people within the NIH system like Collins and facts.

Okay, so that's all true. So do you want your research into the drug that you're giving your daughter? Do you want that to be completely tested in a bias, conflicted, and perhaps, non-transparent opaque system, or do you want there to be at least some guardrails on the system that allocates money, which then become scientific papers, research, and eventually technology, and eventually drugs and technology that you use in your body? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world that doesn't have peer review or referee review or external review. In 1965, the NIH made a significant change to the peer review process. This was intended to standardize how grants

were evaluated, and these were meant really in reaction to the large increase in volume and complexity of those grant proposals. Now, Eric claims the Pergamon press established a scenario where you had to get all these journals or else you had an incomplete library, et cetera, again, completely irrelevant for fields like astronomy and physics, which is the field that he is now part of, as I am I. In other words, there's three, four journals, as I mentioned, their top 10 impact factor ones of all refereed or submitted journals to them. They weren't part of Maxwell's journal. They weren't part of Pergam Press. They weren't even in the biomedical sciences. So let's separate those two. But it is true they had a more systematic and structured peer review process.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Remember, Eric is saying that peer review is effectively destroying science and was intentionally done so, as he said, verbatim in the conversation with Joe Rogan. The peer review thing got woven in so that people think that the scientific method in 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. either it was his intention or that's been its result. I just don't agree. The scoring proposals

then had sections that were based on scientific merit, innovation, and potential impact. There were some problems that came about in the 1990s and 2000s where then you had a broader impact statements, even in my field like physics. And they brought in things like sociology into the National Science Foundation. And we've talked about that and I have a good conversation with John Scrantney coming up on the podcast as well, discussing how that came about. in order to kind of glom on to the STEM revolution. There are also things like advisory councils, which considered broader issues such as public health, which Eric claims is not science, again.

The two-tier system helped to ensure that both scientific excellence and societal needs were considered. Again, you can debate whether this is the best way to do it, but should the public not have its voice heard and have its kind of best interest recognized by other stakeholders? It is a stakeholder, it's funding these agencies, and are they responsible? and by what means do you rank and assess? You have two applications from two different people. Let's say they're both blind submitted.

How do you appraise them? You just ask a single editor. Eric claims that having expert reviewers like him, and he goes through. He says, I'm not your peer, Terrence. I'm an expert. I'm giving you an elite review. That's impractical for most cases

to have Eric Weinstein review every single NIH grant or NSF grant or publication in nature or science. It's just not practical. So we have peers, and it's actually part of our educational system. I teach my students my students, my postdocs, how do you referee a paper? How do you take things into account?

What's fair to say? What's not fair to say? How do you do it dispassionately? How do you avoid conflicts of interest? Siding your own research, scooping them, stealing their information, and implying for another proposal under your own name after rejecting that. We'll get to that. Those things have happened. So the feedback helps researchers understand the strengths and weaknesses of their proposals and the proposals of people who's worked their refereeing as well. It's part of our educational process. To say it has no place or it's or it's damaging or it's destructive to science is just not true and it's not fair to colleagues that I work with, my students, and even myself, quite frankly.

These NIH reforms had a huge impact on how government grants were awarded and it does impact science in the United States. Again, it's not relevant to physics that Eric and Terrence and I are discussing. So to bring it up, I know it's one of the things that Eric loves to talk about, but again, knowing this history of the NIH and how it caused created different standards for funded research and formalized peer review, does that lead you to suspect in any way that peer review is damaging or dangerous? Or do you believe that it's actually crucial for a scientist, a physicist, to understand the role

of Pergamian Press, the NIH-1965 Welfare Act, that these things are important for a physicist working on gauge theories or working on Lorentzine variance violation, or trying to ensure the objectivity in their own research to not know the history? It's like the old joke about how scientists need historians of science the way that birds need ornithologists. It's, of course, interesting. And if you're a Renaissance person like Eric, it's something of great interest and an import. But to the actual workaday scientist, he or she doesn't need to necessarily know that in order to create research and write a publication that can be followed, methodically followed. That's transparent and accountable when he or she submits it to either their dissertation committee or to a journal for publication,

so that another competitor team can challenge them and go through their methodology and hopefully replicate it. And if not, then we have a big problem and that should be retracted. And I agree we should have a budget. I've actually claimed this in my first book, losing a Nobel Prize, get it here in the link below, that we should reserve some amount of funding, maybe 10% of the budget, for retracting claims that we make that turn out to be wrong. Because to this day, I get people that come up to me and say, oh, you invented bicell. Well, that was the experiment that discovered inflationary gravitational waves.

We were disproven. We made an incorrect claim. We're still trying to do that great result. But it was wrong. But it was on the front page of the New York Times. We made the announcement. And then when the retraction came, it came six months later on page B-17 of the Saturday edition that nobody reads. So it's important to reserve some of your budget, some of your attention for scientific ethics to be promulgated. We do need to reserve some budget for ascertaining and correcting ourselves when we're wrong. As I did at the beginning of this video, I was wrong about Terrence Howard. having no patents, he has at least 11 and nowhere near 97, but at least 11, and I was wrong. Mayacolpa, that's part of science.

Peer review certainly has a role to play. They're now an explosion of journals that would make Robert Maxwell roll in his grave or in hell or I don't know where he is right now. But open access journals, which made the articles freely available to the public, has been a game changer for science, allowing scientists in Nigeria to access work we do in San Diego. Having double-blind, single-blind, and open-access journals are huge innovations. Now, they're not perfect. I always say peer review is the worst system except for all the others.

And yes, there are predatory journals and pay-to-play journals, journals that have published things that are obviously put out by chat GPT. In fact, it says, I'm a large language model. And it says that in the abstract of the journal I saw. And some of those have percolated up to journals that sound kind of similar to very high-quality journals. You know, the astrological journal. Sounds a lot like the astronomical journal. But these situations do.

highlight the ethical concerns that scientists usually do ignore. Now, there have been notable examples where scientists effectively were either harmed by the peer review process, manipulated by it, and most famously, two gentlemen Gallo and Montagnier with the HIV virus, the human immunodeficiency virus, in the early 80s, Robert Gallo and Luke Montagnier, both claimed the discovery of the HIV virus, the virus responsible for the disease aids. Now, Montenia's paper was submitted to science. It was delayed and criticized in review. After a long time, Gallo published his own findings, leading to a higher profile paper that he had and a huge dispute over the originality and priority of their discovery. The information had some time to leak out. There's questions

of Gallo and discovered first, who discovered it first. They eventually both shared the credit, but the controversy highlighted the potential ethical issues due to the timeliness or lack thereof of peer review in the publication process. One thing that I've thought about a lot lately is peer review using things like blockchain technology where you could publish something like Galileo instead of publishing the highest planet is threefold. He could publish it on a blockchain with some wallet that each scientist would get and then he doesn't have to necessarily expose it to public review or peer review even or competition until he's fully mined the data of its content. So finally we come to the question of whether or not Terence

Howard's ideas were blown off by Neil deGrasse Tyson. They talk about this at the end. when Eric talks about the elite review versus the peer review. And it's true that if you don't have a dot edu email address or actually that's not fully true. Dot com. A lot of the biomedical innovations come from corporations. They can get published quite easily. Peer review hasn't destroyed science. It's better than ever.

The main journals at Eric's field have never been diluted and are stronger than ever. Physical review. The journal nature, the journal science, astrophysical journal, and many other top quality publications where we go to get our credit because, this is what we do. Eric, again, is saying, physicists need more money. Now he wants to take away not only the fact that we have very little compensation financially, but that the main mechanism of granting credit to a scientist and that we derive our stature from is from citations, H indices. That's the way of the world. Okay, just like a batting average for a baseball player

is one way to judge them. It's not holistic. They may be a great fielder. They may be a great spark in the clubhouse, but that's one of the ways that we use. And to use it and say it's basically affecting the science aesthetic aesthetics is actually not fair to scientists. Again, we have to look holistically on what is best for science as a whole. And I know I'm not an expert in any other field other than physics, astronomy, and the type of engineering work that I do. So to say that it needs to be abolished or because it's causing such great damage, I think is overstating the claim. So I hope you've enjoyed this conversation where I went through the scientific process, the claims that Terence made, apologize for errors when I've made them in the past. I think

that's part about being a good scientist. And I've always tried to exemplify to young scientists that I know of my huge amount of my audience are scientists, young and all, about why these things are important. The stakes in this discussion are extremely high. The credibility of science is at state. And I think discussing things like that aren't quite frankly very frequently discussed, such as peer review, its history, the importance of knowing peer reviews history, how referees work, how proposal review works. These are incredibly important topics that are usually glossed under the rug. And I'm sure this video won't get as many views as I would have. I said, you know, Terrence Howard's bat, whatever.

And Conahoff, as other people have done and criticized him, I don't think that's fair. And I do hope to engage with him in person sometime later this year. So let's stay critical and informed and the complexities of all these topics, of patents, of peer review, of revolutionary discoveries and claims of co-opting language and being precise in our language, but also having comity and having worthwhile discussions with respect, admiration, and not just assaulting people's characters with ad hominem attacks. Let's advocate for transparency, fair and thorough evaluation processes. In science, it's spending your money, people, if you're paying taxes, which I assume you all are because you're all law-abiding citizens. So it's your money. You have a

responsibility for it. And we scientists have responsibility to explain things in terms you can understand and hold us to those standards. Please stay tuned to the channel for more. I'm done with Terence Howard, Joe Rogan, and Eric Weinstein for now, until we meet up at my Ironman like laboratory layer or his layer. And I do hope to continue to provide you the deepest dives into these topics. They're not just esoteric, boring things of no importance. They actually are critical to the underpinning of society. Without a robust scientific process, without a scientific method, without publications, without a community of replication and transparency, society is at stake.

So, let me know below. What did you think of this video? What sorts of topics, societal and otherwise, do you want me to take on next? And click here for a link to a playlist of the greatest hits of Eric Weinstein into the impossible. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.