The Joe Rogan Experience - #2171 - Eric Weinstein & Terrence Howard

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Eric Weinstein holds a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard University and is a member of the Galileo Project research team.  www.ericweinstein.org www.geometricunity.org Terrence Howard is an actor of stage and screen, musician, and researcher in the fields of logic and engineering. www.terryslynchpins.com www.tcotlc.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Joe Rogan Experience. Showing by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. Gentlemen, here we go. Terrence, thank you for coming back. It was a lot of fun having you on the first time. Obviously, a lot of people wanted to talk to you after they heard all these ideas of yours. And then my friend Eric reached out and he said he would love to do it. Eric, one of my most brilliant friends. Tell everybody your background, like your academic background so people understand

what you... Sure. So I'm a PhD in mathematics specifically in mathematical physics. I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, Oxford, and I'm a podcaster in part of- Very good podcaster. Do you bring it back to Portal? You have a lot to do with all of these things This is my fit my one of my favorite episodes of any podcast was your interview with Werner Herzog Oh, man, that was a great episode. Have you had him in here?

I have not but I would love to because it seems to me like that's the conversation I want to listen I would like you corner him because I believe the grizzly man was a secret comedy I really do there's some about the way he edited grizzly Man. I'm like, this motherfucker is being funny on purpose. I know he is. I know he's like editing these like short clips. So the guy's so ridiculous that you start laughing. I didn't see it. You haven't seen Grizzly Man?

We have different tastes. How dare you? By the way, I need to also just say that I was not, Terrence, I think, I heard him on TM say that I was not Terrence. I think you know, I heard him on TMZ The I am NOT I was not looking for a debate I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel manned So that anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit gave a chance to put his best foot forward before he got like reviewed and

I didn't ask to come on. You asked to have me on. I'm happy to do it because a friend of the show. But I'm just- Well, you reached out about the episode specifically. And I felt like if anybody could talk to Terrence and actually understand what they're talking about, it'd be- Yeah, and after I watched the interview with you

and Brian Keating, I realized that you weren't trying to eviscerate me or anything like that. You actually wanted to hear a Well put together argument concerning these things So I appreciated you taking the time to come and examine these things and love to hear yourself but I wanted to say thank you to you Joe and For putting me on the show initially and for your audience and for putting me on the show initially and for your audience for how they responded and you know the support and the people that were against it because it raises the idea of critical thinking because that's what we're supposed to be doing at this crucial time is the critical

thinking so I thank all the haters and I thank all the supporters and I thank the people that's on the fence and I'm hoping that today we can move people over to one side or the other. Well at least we can better inform people and Terrence it's been really cool to meet you because I'd heard about you and you're you're an exceptional human being you really are very very unusual. For a guy to be that good of an actor I almost always dismiss them as being a moron. Or at least crazy, or at least crazy. You know, but in a different kind of crazy. Like you're super friendly and your recall's insane.

But I wanted you to talk to someone who's had a deep education in it. And let's see what he believes about these ideas and maybe you guys can collaborate. Or just like, let's start from Eric. Like, what out of the podcast that I did with Terrence really stood out with you, or something that you wanted to?

Well, what I thought is, I have to be honest, I've been listening, I was not so happy with certain things that happened in the podcast, and then I started hearing the response to it. And I was much more infuriated by the response than anything I heard in the podcast because I thought that a lot of people Just used their position of greater formal education in some of these areas to be jerks and to be really dismissive and pretend that they couldn't understand things that you were saying and I think this thing goes out to millions of people and

Whatever let me just say something else positive about Terrence. What he just did was very big. He said, thank you to the haters. I haven't gotten to that plane of existence yet. You gotta stay offline. They keep telling you. Some people just shouldn't be reading the comments.

It's not the online stuff. It's the academic stuff. The academic stuff is really psychical. It's vicious stuff. Yes. And it's always with like a pretend smile on the face so it's the worst. And what I thought I would do is I can't critique a man if I haven't built a model of what he's actually saying in my own mind that he agrees with. Like in other words if I start coming after Terrence and saying I think this stuff

here is bullshit and he's like I didn say that. That's what you inferred from what I wrote. Then I've just basically insulted a person incorrectly. And so if I praise something, I don't know whether I built that in my mind or he built it. So the first thing I thought we would do is I would try to recapitulate what I understand of Terrence's sort of grand arc and see whether or not I can steel man it and then Terrence can say yes and then I can evaluate it but until we do that I don't know whether I'm actually reacting to the real man. I think that's really important and what you said about the viciousness of academics I think that's just a human thing that exists at the highest levels

where people are doing something very difficult and there's a lot of stress and anxiety involved. And you attack even your peers because your biggest fear is your peers attacking you. And usually, generally, it happens with people that are getting more recognition than someone who thinks they should be getting more think deserve. Like someone thinks they should be getting more recognition, they see someone getting recognition, especially for something that perhaps could be controversial, and then they start attacking them viciously. But it's generally people that wish they got more

attention. It's part of the thing. Sure, if you think about it though, if you think about the number of people in podcasting who sort of have tried to lift each other up, it's pretty good, right? Like you, Lex, Sam Harris, all sorts of people have been good to each other. And one of the reasons that is is that there's enough money in it. What happened in academics is that it went into a contractive state in which you killed or you died, right? And so basically, the ethics of academics plummeted after the early 70s. It was always very competitive. But really what it is is it's the Hunger Games.

And in acting, for example, if there's money among the elite set, people have trouble with each other. Same thing in tech. They kind of fight each other, but they all get rich together and then they bury hatchets and things like that. You don't see that as much in academics because it's kill or be killed. And so we've had an implosion ethically. And so one of the things that I wanted to do was to try to just begin by steel manning because I've been really disappointed in a lot of the scientists that attacked, most of them was upset that I got into their

lane and climbed into their lane talking about science, but here they're not inside a lab somewhere. They're not in Cambridge or Oxford somewhere. They're on social media. They're on the entertainment world, and I've never sat up and said, oh, you're full of this because you have no business doing this, but they got upset that I'm talking about the foundational problems associated with mathematics

that's held us back. But I think if we think we 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 wanna be taken seriously. It fucks the whole thing up. Cause like either you're correct or you're incorrect. Tell me what you think is right,

and then you tell me what you think is right. Let's work this out. But this personal attack shit, if you're talking about something as complex as the things that you discussed on this podcast, there's no room for bullshit. There's no room for bullshit There's no room for bullshit. You're dealing with such highly complex And to his credit, you know, I found that interview you were doing with that woman where you're wearing

I was doing the move. I was in the middle of And they had a shooting I had to do the interview in between shots. It's amazing. It's an amazing interview with the wig on. It's amazing. Well, I remember that line from High Hills. Put that wig head on. But bro, you can pull that wig off. You can just start speaking in Oxford with that wig on. Fuck it.

But anyway, so Terrence was there, wigged out, and he was saying this thing. Wigged out, literally. Literally wigged out. And he was saying this thing. He said, look, all I care about is the truth. And that freed me up to come on, right? Because the spectrum of Terrence, from the best to the

worst, is a broad spectrum. And he seriously wants to improve what he's doing. He cares about it. And if I can play a part in that, I think he's... Yeah, I love you. I want to offer it to you you I want to be able to show you the things that I tried to show Neil deGrasse Tyson That he would not even really take a look at in this scene, but no he did take a look at it, right? He responded in a long video recently. Yeah, but his response was disingenuous guys may make a recommendation Let's start with the ideas. I think we all care about those. Yes, for sure. But hold please because this is an important thing that just came out. He was so disingenuous because I sent him a long email after he sent me back the Red Line thing, thanking him for reviewing it and saying, look forward to when we can discuss these things,

because I sent it the treaties to him so we could discuss that on the show. His whole point was, I'm going to bring you on my show and we're going to talk. So here's the stuff that we're going to talk about that I would like to talk about. He never followed up from that point forward, just sent one line emails, any other thing you got, you got to go to somebody else. So he's pretended like, oh, I was trying to be very helpful, but that's not what the email trails show. So he did make this one very large response though, right? He did. He did go over the treatise very, like all the Redmond stuff. He only has so much time, you know? He might be in a position to defend him, that he might be in a position where he's like,

look, I just said what I said about all this stuff, good luck. I don't have the time to like sit here and discuss these things in depth and that's great That's great, but it's like you invited me to come and do your show I put this stuff together to come and talk to you on your show and then there's no follow-up with the show. Got it I know where's the beer. I understand it. I mean, I understand your perspective for sure. It's like come on man Yeah, I got to the point where it's like a like if a thing where he thinks it's ridiculous And he doesn't want to engage it and ridiculous amen and I believe that but if you got 9798 patents and four supersymmetrical systems that you're claiming you have and all you need is someone to review

I don't want to do it. That'd be great someone to review. I'm gonna have to jump in. I don't wanna do it this way. That'd be great. Listen, we're just having a conversation. This isn't about Tyson. What's the problem? This is a colleague of mine.

Yeah, this isn't about Tyson, and I love him. I grew up watching him, and I appreciated him. But what is the problem? We're defending him. I certainly am. Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is that there's a problem in general which we scientists do

not behave honestly with respect to certain things. We'll make these claims, but science is about communication and challenging ideas and all these things. And everybody can be a scientist and all these sorts of things that we say. Science is interesting. Science is fun. Well, very often it's not interesting. Very often it's not fun.

Very often you can't really say that everybody can do science because it's super demanding. We don't welcome people, you know, you're a mathematician too. We'll say that to kids and then the kid will say something and then we'll say, be quiet. And so this is not about, this is not peculiar to Neil. it's like science in general has portrayed itself as a place where everyone's welcome, we debate out the ideas, we have the scientific method to tell us what's true and what isn't, and that's disingenuous. It's not really how the game works and this is going to involve peer review, it's going to involve people who are dual in terms of both doing

research and being public figures, people who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really doing much research, people who are, you know, pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition that their colleagues don't think much of what they're doing. I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terrence has walked into. And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they hear things, what they will say. And so I am in part speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking to a thousand people who are seeing this at a different level.

But just for the record, like I said, I grew up watching Neil and having someone that was light skinned, that looked like me, up there making these grand steps towards helping people to understand. I admire him and I still would like the opportunity to sit down and show him these things and have that beer because I think that he will be pleased once he sees the supersymmetry associated with it and understand where all of the passion came from. And I hope that other scientists will take a look at it, but that's the whole point of us doing that. I don't know how serious he is about that beer.

No. Right? Because I saw him say that, right? And you know, that was a very complicated thing that he did. And it had many layers as to whether or not you took it on the surface, you took the hidden meaning, and you took the meaning below that. And so plunging right into that from the beginning, in my opinion, is not served very well by having the three of us here. Because the first thing is, what is the nature of Terrence's idea? I don't think Neil actually understood

some of your ideas to be entirely honest. No and what he forgot is when I say one times one equals two that's a metaphor for challenging the status quo. Despite the fact that the square root of two has all of its issues when you cube it or you multiply it by 2, which creates a contradiction despite the fact that the square root of 2 has a problem with the prime numbers, the fact that they call number 2 a prime number when it's clearly a composite number. Any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you subtract from

another prime number, you always get a composite number except with the situation of the number 2 and there's so many people that and that's why the prime numbers are unpredictable because of that problem associated so there's been a problem with 2 for so long. 2 is different I mean you will find that mathematicians will often talk about Proving something for characteristic not equal to two. So they'll single out two is being just very very different So look that up when you when we're done. Why but why what they do because in part of what you're saying the prime two two it does belong as a prime but it is also special and

to it does belong as a prime, but it is also special and In other words, I have the opportunity to straw man you if I want to because what you just said sounded crazy And I also have the prop possibility to steal menu So all the algebraic topologists just heard, you know for characteristic that equals to two they're like saying yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair And so in part by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the benefit of putting your best foot forward because if you say one times one equals two, everybody knows that that's crazy. But what you actually may mean,

and the fact that you don't use certain terms or the fact that you use certain pronunciations that communicate to me something very positive, which is that you taught yourself, you learned the stuff from reading about it because nobody taught you or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them. True. Yeah. So, you know, in part, you always have the ability to make fun of somebody who pronounces a word the way it's read on the page. And then you also have the opportunity to say,

holy cow, that guy actually taught himself. That's more impressive. Right. And so, in part, what I want to do is I want to start by giving you your best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into this whole flower of life riff that becomes your larger theory. And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped it. Because you know, I also had to spend some time, I didn't spend a ton of time, but you know,

my time is valuable, your time is valuable, so let's do this thing. Yeah, so I'll follow your lead. What's going on with the number two? The CIA is in charge of the number two. What's up with two? Two's different, because of what he said. Right.

The fact that the even odd distinction. Isn't that odd though? That two is different? What a strange thing. The problem that's associated with the number two is because of the identity principle, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics. That A times one, you go, I know, you don't want to go into it yet. It's okay.

No, no, no, let's get into it. Just as a base. Just as a base. You're going right into his neighborhood. Just as a base. A times when he's I know you know Just as a base you're going right into his neighborhood Mathematical hood right now trying to keep a black man down. No, you got you have you you have Marie von France who argued about the the problems associated with the identity principle You got go Kurt Godel who talked about it. You got Wells. All of them said it made everything incommensurable just because they gave that identity principle to the number one.

And that has been the stumbling block for mathematicians because it's what's held everybody behind because they keep trying to make that work. Am I wrong? Yeah, you're wrong if we do it that way I mean in other words, I can take We do what is anything that he's saying, correct? He's terrence Terrence has several influences which again, I don't think it's clear to me

I have to ask him questions to find out whether i'm even right Look one of the problems is is I may be wrong about my model of Terrence. This is the first time I'm meeting him. I didn't know who he was before the podcast. And I just, I need to know whether or not I'm even building the right model of Terrence, because otherwise it's just silly to have me here and I'm going to critique what I built in my own mind from Terrence's words. Right.

What I would love, what I was hoping is that you would be able to explain your geometric unity model. That's a different day. This is about you. Okay, then, all right, then. You guys can definitely get it. That could be a whole other podcast. But what about what he was saying is incorrect just now?

He's saying things that are often at a level that are allegorical and you could make them... so Terrence sometimes mentioned something called category theory, right? And there's a weird way in which category theory can take something that seems to be an analogy and make it precise and powerful, right? So you can have two systems that don't look the same and you spot an analogy between them and then you say, holy cow, there's an exact mapping of one system on to another in which

it was unexpected that those are the same structure. So for example, we're gonna get into something about multiplication where Terrence has an issue with multiplication, but to the best of my knowledge, you don't have an issue with addition. I don't have an issue with multiplication either. Well then what, one times one is what? One times one should equal two,

and action times and action, if you can show me one place in the universe. But you just shifted frames. No, no, you can show me one place in the universe. But you just shifted the frames. No, no, no. Show me one place in the universe, one natural observable phenomenon where one times one equals one, where an action times an action doesn't have a reaction.

So then you just went into some, there's a concept called logomachy, which is arguing over words. And what you want is not to be caught. If I can beat you in a word game or you can beat me in a word game. I didn't go to MIT. You can beat me in a word game. I heard, by the way, I heard you with B.B. King, where he was having trouble improv-ing on the spot.

And your mind just rescued him with a partial run. I really appreciate that because he's one of my favorites. Yeah, he invited me to do his show. That was a big deal. I got to play with him. I was scared to play guitar, though, with him. I should have put off the guitar. But I was scared.

I was scared to get on the stage and play with him. It's B.B. King, man. I sang with him. Yeah, it's B.B. King. Thank you for appreciating that. So let's get to this flower of life, because that's sort of the beginning of this exploration. Also, can you correct what he said about one time,

what is like, what about an action and a reaction? So I was trying to get to something. Do you have a problem with the way we do addition? I understand. The addition is the subtraction, and division is all right. The only problems I have is dividing by, you can't

divide by zero, but you can multiply by zero. And if division is the inverse operation of multiplication, then you should be able to divide by, but if you divide by zero, you end up with an infinity. And there was a great system put together by Marco Rodin, the vortexual basedbased math system, where they remove the zero, but it's able to predict all the things necessary. It was 100% precise as a model, but it's been abandoned or it's been relegated to the outskirts.

Don't know that. We do do things where sometimes we can divide by zero. We have concepts like the point at infinity, where you can complete a structure that the original structure can't accommodate a problem, an operation, but you can complete it to a larger system in which that thing does become sensible. So as an example of the one times one, assume that Terrence doesn't have a big problem with addition because addition doesn't have the division by zero problem. It is the case that if you take any two numbers a and b, two real numbers right, make them

positive, and take the natural logs of those two numbers and add those together. Then you take the exponent of that. So we haven't done a times operation at all. Right. Right. The exponential of the Ln of A plus Ln of B. That is equal to the A to A times B. In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic, or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing. So in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you allow me because you like waves, so with waves you need exponentials and you need natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and accepting the

law of addition because they're the same system. The multiplication should initially started as exaggerated addition. That was the whole point of it. Well, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under multiplication, with the identity element being the multiplicative identity being 1 are isomorphic to the total real numbers under addition with the additive identity being 0. And the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect the two with one being the other's inverse. So by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part

gonna freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability. And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak one contradiction through TSA, the entire airport collapses. Everything that we do just is destroyed. And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and the physical sciences is extraordinary

for outside ideas because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it. If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing with with the principle of explosion. And that's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years. For years, Norman J. Wildberger talks about it. It is what's, because you have to cancel conservation of energy

and you have to cancel the action and reactionary laws in order for one times one. Now I understand you're seeing one, one time, but because of the associative law, the associative law that says if A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself in multiplication, A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B. Hang on there, if I change the word itself to the word zero, which you're gonna 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 is that there, to say zero, zero is supposed to represent no thing, nothing whatsoever, but they have zero as a number, set up as a number. But to say no thing, your brain creates a chemical structure even in saying nothing. So there is what I'm saying Philosophically, there's a difference between the empty set and empty set. That's the difference. Right? So if I say to you Terrence What what is the collection of kittens that you have sold to North Korea to be used for spare parts? You would say It's the empty set. I've never I've never sold a kitten. I say, hey, Terrence, what is the number of kittens that you've sold for the internal organs to North Korea? You would say zero. So zero is the

– I would say none, yes. That's right. So there is a zero. But to multiply something by the nothing to multiply something by nothing Don't they have to be dimensionally equal to in order to multiply like you can't multiply a human by an ant Because they're not dimensionally equal. Well, if if there was a thing called a human ant No, that was your point about dollars, right? What dollar time the dollar times the dollar that was a problem the dollars, right? What dollar times a dollar, that was a problem that people-

That's a Dewey Decimal system. That's a Dewey Decimal. No, the problem comes up with the Dewey Decimal system why a dollar times a dollar can be different values based on different currencies. That was the point of that. I was pointing out, hey, the Dewey Decimal system is wack. Terrence makes a correct point that we say one times one equals one, but if you say a dollar times a dollar is not a sensible thing, unless a dollar squared is a unit that you can interpret. Right? That was your point about dimensionality.

Right. Now in the moment, what is a dollar squared? What does a dollar squared become? But since the dollar is no longer based on a hard asset, it's no longer gold. It's just an integer It's just an integer in a computer being multiplied unit of account It's a unit of account, but it's an integer that's still a now you're able to multiply it under different currencies States are not allowed to print dollars, but states are allowed to print as much change So who's to say that the state isn't saying, okay, we're going to make, we're going to print. We can get into senior age, which is the concept of theft that occurs when either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing, increasing the unit. The number

of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit. But my claim is, you're gonna do a series of things. Like I've watched how you deal with people in interaction. You've created an incredible effect. Rick Rubin, the hip hop producer. Yeah, he did my album. He, he. Okay, well that makes some sense.

Because the first thing that happens is I'm awakened by a message from Rick Rubin He's like how come you can't explain physics the way Terrence Howard explains That's not a way to get on my good side at 8 o'clock. Yeah, but he's probably baiting you what? He's always he's the best. He's the best. I'm trying to explain physics the way you explain it Well, okay, I'm looking for a partnership at the end of this That's what I'm hoping to to win you over as a process I'm that's part of your information does that there's at least one area that you have won me over in which I'm very excited about

But I'd like to get back The lynchpin we'll get to it. Yeah, but you can't leave us hanging. Well, I'm trying to get back Look, I'm trying to do a service to this Let me let you talk. I just can't talk stop trying to control everything you're not He's got a plan Can I get an ayahuasca, you know Actually, is there a way to bring the temperature Yeah, we can lower the temperature in here because I'm cuz I'm schvitzing but you are wearing a jacket

Well, because I'm trying to be professional that's hilarious. Isn't that adorable? Like I like how you dress man I do pictures that beautiful geometric pattern on your hoodie looks much more comfortable this thing you're doing everybody does that Smart as you are you can wear a fucking dirty Nirvana t-shirt does that. Smart as you are, you can wear a fucking dirty Nirvana t-shirt. You don't need this nonsense suit. Although I do enjoy a good suit. But most of the stuff that I've been pointing out... Don't try to control everything. The stuff I've been pointing out has been the blaring inconsistencies that they shove down until you just accept. And if I hadn't had, if I didn't come up with a separate cosmogony,

I didn't come up with it. If a separate cosmogony hadn't been handed to me, given to me, that's why I explain that thing. Okay, I'm going to be quiet. Let's start with the flower of life. You're wearing it on your shirt. I'm wearing some aberration of the flower. That's right. So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing, because it's confusing, right? And the one thing I can't go with you on is I can't go on the Nantucket sleigh ride

where we're talking about the Bose Einstein condensate and then we're talking about the period. Oh, I'm gonna show you that. We can do that. I'm gonna show you the thing. But he wants to stick to specific topics one at a time. Because otherwise it's just, I'll be chasing after you and you'll get nothing.

Yeah, that was part of the plan today. Yeah. I just wanted to kind of let some of it play out. So you want to start with the flower of life. Jamie, can you pull that up please from my book? It's on page 121, 34, T-C-O-T-L-C dot com, or it should be in the regular thing.

And also that blender thing is very cool. Yeah, which for rebuilding of Saturn? No, the one that you were talking to this other guy where he's asking you questions about the five forms and you have... Jeff Menze. I found that through Sleutery on the internet where it was doable.

And because it's, you know, in particular, when you do them opaque, it's very hard to see. Sometimes when you let it become translucent, it's easier to see. Well, that's why while he's getting that, I'm going to... Got it. No, no, no, I don't. On your website, I don't know exactly

where the book would be. Is it one of these links? Just go down. I think it'll be a little more, square root of two. No, no, no, no, no, no. I think it'll be a little more square root of 2. No, no, no, no, no. That's fine. Yeah, if you'll just type into my book, TCO.

That's on, where is the book? It's... Or you could also Google OTOET. OTOET will take you to that? Yeah, 1 times 1 equals two is the acronym. If you go to, just go to tcotlc.com and that'll be a pull up. T-C-O-T-L-C dot com, yep, right below there.

Terrence Howard, yep. Teflon, yep. Flour of Life. Let's see if you just open up the book. You gotta open it though. Download, yeah. Right there? I don't know if that's what downloads the book.

Let's see, open. I'm clicking that and that just takes me to this and then it's not doing anything. It's not doing it. Let's try searching Google O-T and then several all right so if you go and then put in Howard. No. Put in PDF. Hmm. Should be able to pick yeah okay that's probably right yeah there you go okay and then go to page 134 on the right hand side you do have several additions yeah I didn't even that other one somebody else set up there to probably

distract and keep people from being able to find it it's probably the government yeah we're gonna do that later you're're going to love that. Mm-hmm. They're coming. Just tap on that jewel right there. OK. OK. So this is. And we can rotate that with the cursor and get a.

What's great about this, I'll be able to pull pieces out of it. Yeah, so just tap onto that drill. Brilliant. So we can start with this. So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything. So we can start with this. We can start with that. So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything. I've seen this pattern before,

didn't know its history. I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a mathematical thing about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments. But what these overlapping circles are is a question. And the way in which I got to understand how Terence sees the world is he says,

look, there's this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world, and there isn't a great explanation for why it's found in so many different places, at least as far as I'm aware and part of your point. And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet that this thing is hiding a secret, and that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic. There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface. And then you said something that's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is that maybe this is like a shadow on a flat wall and that those two things are exploitable. And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface

is first of all suspicious to you because of that curved linear triangle that you see in black. And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say as above so below, but what if you said as below so above and you imagine that there was a three-dimensional structure floating above this that actually projects down to this and distorts down to this so that's the first idea first idea is it's not this it's the thing that projected

to this and that's what you mean when you say opening the flower because the flower of when I was researching where the platonic solids came from, this is the oldest version that I got from all the all the all of antiquity. It came back to them. Well there are no there are no platonic solids because you're in the dimension two except for what you built which is the thing above in black. But what they did years ago, 6,000 years ago, was draw straight lines where the circles overlapped. And I thought, in what I was reasoning with regard to all

energy being expressed in motion, all motion being expressed in waves, all waves being curved, and that there were no straight lines in the universe. So I was like. There's several errors in what you just said. If I stop there, we'll get off track again. Yeah but you should correct those errors while we're there. Okay.

It is not true that all energy is expressed in motion. What energy is not expressed in motion? Potential energy is not expressed in motion. If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't know this, but most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a spring. So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of all physics, even the most theoretical physics. It's a very strange thing, Hooke's law.

When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, energy is conserved. Now at the top and at the bottom that weight is not moving because all of the energy is in the potential of the spring. It's in the stress of the crystallization that has occurred within that system. And then you will say something like... But that energy is still being held together. There is still energy there. And it's still moving at a microscopic level. It's still spinning centripetals.

So we have to get into what, you will make a point, for example. But is that true? What he's saying is that it's still in motion. It's just in motion in a lower frequency? No. There's nothing moving. Let me show you what goes wrong in the interaction.

Terrence says, show me in nature a single straight line. Okay. And I liked your point about Euclidean women. That was awesome. That was from Alan Watts. So if I show this to Terrence, because I just bought this from the end of the 7th ray. A lot of straight lines. A lot of straight lines.

Now Terrence is going to say... Or what you would think is a straight line. But when you look at it under an electron microscope, you're going to see the crystalline structure. So again, this configuration is an illusion. You're just saying it's not perfect. It's an optical illusion because crystals form in symmetrical... Yeah, very often... But a lot of straight lines like a lot of straight lines a lot of straight lines perceived straight lines but right but every atom is filled

with empty space I mean we could take this down to that like there is no matter that is we could get crazy so we're about well you've seen that Mexican cave that's the best example ever the Mexican caves amazing it's insane the best example I've ever seen of crystals yeah where you've seen it no oh my god it's insane just for a little side track let's take a look at it because this Mexican cave is probably one of the most spectacular things that exists on earth by the way the spaceship behind you is supposed to be a mushroom Joe no it's a spaceship that That's the classic UFO ship.

And that's me with the headphones. Look at that. How insane is that this was created on Earth just by nature? It's so different than anything else we see that it makes our mind go, what the fuck? Like, those are crystals how how what happened okay wild so in this straight line beautiful thing I would say a lot of straight lines but I've also studied Terrence enough to know that he's gonna say perfectly straight they're not straight at all the moment you look at them through electron microscopes this is part of where we get into right so they're not precisely straight is your point.

And in fact, let's imagine that I... But the Earth isn't precisely circular, right? No. No. It's a five mile... Very far away. We use this thing called the geoid, which is not circular either, but at least it's smooth.

Right. We have many different geois. Let's not get... It does seem odd though, that the Earth isn't round, totally. No, it's, well the earth is aging. It's being it's on its way out It's on its way out. It used to be Drink you we're falling apart. We need some Botox Botox you want a drink we could drink

Not this early early. What does that mean in the American man? You should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. God damn it. I'm in Sweden. You're in Texas You're American man in Texas. This is this is a free state sir What do you have? We have whiskey. Oh, I would love that's what we need. We need whiskey Yeah, get some whiskey and some ice. Yes, and then we're gonna get into the wave I want to show you something and I wanted to ask your opinion before I forget there was a Recently why recently founded online of these two photons that were entangled and it looks like a yin and yang Have you seen this? No, yes. No, it's not true. I have seen it out of the corner

My I did not study what caused this I had to run it by you because you're probably the only one that I know other than maybe Terrence it could understand What the fuck they're saying? So what are they saying how did they see this like this bi-photon digital holography can someone explain that I Maybe but I don't know what those words mean. Yeah, okay. Do you know what it means Terrence like how they could see this a bi photon By always meaning to but someone got Mitchell Are they smashing them together

What's their process of looking at I that's a very good question They're using the same interferometer that that Michael said morally And they're using the same interferometer that that Michael said morally Experiment which turned out to be it turned out that it actually proved there was an ether they just There's a way in which you're right about the ether to be blunt. That's just what I've listened to this statement in the beginning look You know put the bong down and listen to this high dimensionaloton states are promising resources for quantum applications ranging from high dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging. Just that phrase, what fucking percentage of human beings breathing on earth right now have any idea what any of that means?

I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space which is multi-particle. So you've got something in the degree two level of a bosonic fox space where the two photons were created together and that's going to be where the entanglement comes from. High dimensional I don't know what it means because I know too many different I assume it's a term of art in this area. And what they're saying is if I can create something that is geographically distributed, but also linked at the point of creation, like if a photon decays into an electron positron pair, those two are going to be entangled. And if you'd make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of the entire system. And so what they're trying to say is,

if you want to get jiggy, people always want to talk about faster-than-light communications by taking an entangled pair and saying that if I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light cone. So we can give meaning to these things then you have to say well it doesn't allow you to create information transfer faster than the speed of light you have to be very careful and precise about it. But if you just start getting jiggy then you start thinking you introduce the ether. Thanks sir. So the ether so you know in part when I've been here on previous versions of GRE, I talked about vector bundles.

And in a certain sense, how do you have a wave without a medium? The medium was supposed to be this ether, but the medium is actually something called a vector bundle. It's a little bit weird that you're a wave. No, it's perfect because the vector bundles. Go ahead.

You're a wave in a medium, and you as a wave don't know that you're a wave and you don't know what medium you live in. And it's funny that you go through life not understanding what you are. No, but that medium, that luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of his equations off of, Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium. The only reason that special relativity came along was because they had misread the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment because it did show a slight change or some drag. But from that point on, because Einstein's theory of relativity was so easy and it predicted all of the movements of things it did they allow they abandoned a bad idea of

what the ether was going to be and special relatively yeah in a certain sense and what you are trying to say the way I interpret it again and I don't know what if I'm right if we don't do the work, is, hey, the spiritual successor to the idea of the ether exists. And that thing has properties. And if you say, if I put a vector bundle on top of a Lorentzian manifold, then you don't have a contradiction. And if you call that the ether, that's more or less what we work with. And then we do this weird thing where we say, well, they used to think the ether existed and it didn't. Ha ha ha. And that's not really... No, because that's when they said that space was a vacuum and they realized that space

is not a vacuum. It's not a vacuum. It's not a vacuum. You know how much is going on in that vacuum? It's all going on. Yes, all of this stuff. I understand. So this is the thing, which is if you step on this thing the wrong way Everybody laughs and says ha ha ha. He doesn't understand the Michelson-Morty experiment He doesn't understand why there's no ether and then we secretly sneak it back in in this. Thank you. Thank you Joe Cheers cheers Look at these professional

Spherical cubes. Yeah, they're cool, right? Now I can have a conversation oh, yeah now So mental freedom in a glass so so or If you're careful about it It makes sense If you're not careful about it the whole thing blows up in your face and the reason that I speak about the ether

all of the wave conjugations, all of my patents have been defining different aspects of the ether. I believe that I've defined the electric side, the plasmid side, and I believe that I've defined the magnetic side and the constitution between them. I mean, that's what I want to show. I want to get to that. Let's go back to the flower. Oh, but before you go from that other spot, if you look at that picture again of those two photons interacting, it looks like it's at the center of what would typically be a whirlpool. This is like the very center of a whirlpool.

So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vorticity, that natural vorticity. That natural vortices, that's what they took the picture of. They looked directly down at something being at two lights moving a fluid. And they described how they take the picture, it's so complicated. Jamie, go back to where it was where they were explaining what they use. Here it is. we introduce by photon digital holography in and in analogy to off access digital holography where we coincide coincidence imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography

what the fuck see but that's because that's because of the uncertainty and Schrodinger right all of that but if you were able, because they started off trying to predict an electron cloud and find a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties and probabilities came out. But they were doing things on a two-dimensional basis. That's what I believe that I've figured out

with the wave conjugations because they talk about the hyperbolic, they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through all these unnecessary steps to reach it. I am just so happy that someone's doing something like this. I'm so happy that we can talk about it. I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on at the highest levels of this kind of science because it's so damn fascinating these people are finding the very building blocks of the universe and studying them it's fascinating but this is a bit up from that I mean the tomography is like how we assemble a

picture of you and we do a an NMR or a CAT scan. We have this thing called the radon transform where we send you know waves through your body and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system responds. We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly. It's going to, you know, that would take me 15 minutes with looking things up. See, and the thing that I wanted... I was just going to say, it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can actually look

at these quantum entangled photons like that. We just see it. But we need to do a better job. Look, right now we're in a crisis where no one knows what's true. Nobody knows who's full of shit. Nobody knows where they can trust, you know, what they can trust, who they can trust. And one of the things that actually, you know, moved me to come and to reach out to Joe is that by default,

I think, you know, I've addressed the National Academy of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them. And so they wanted to know how much I knew about their lie. It's weird to think that this little studio, in weird way is one of the rivals of universities when we don't know what's going on at Harvard as you recently seen. We don't kick out plagiarists. We don't check what's going on at the National Institute of Health. And so it's very strange that this table is one of the last things that is trusted by many people. And that's one of the reasons I'm here, which is people have a chance to see people in conversation about things. And, you know, you screw up, but the conversation is recorded and we all go on and people have a chance to see

what's coming out. If we can go back to the flower of life, I can try to... Yeah, I would love that. But like, with the flower, all of these things, I took, I went up to But like with the flower all of these things I took I went up to Oxford eight years ago and try to present them there to be examined They didn't want to take me seriously because you keep coming because the way that you do one when I said the one times one But like I said, that was a metaphor to say something's wrong. Something's wrong, but they know something's wrong with the math It's not it's not adding up. You bring up renormalization theory, Eleanor. Right.

Renormalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math that's wrong, and on the other hand, we have a way of working with math that's wrong, even though we know it's wrong. If you have an error of a particular kind, and you can find an expression with the same error that's different in the denominator. Sometimes you can cancel the part that's wrong because you introduced it twice. So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you have the opportunity to have one problem kill another.

So in this case- Is there a potential future where human beings through whatever means develop a superior method of mathematics It doesn't have a problem with the number two that doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about Well, that's what I think I've done with my wave conjugations. It solves all of those problems That's what I can't wait to talk about it. Okay, it's all Let's go. This is like we said we start with the Tetria now. I believe no no, we haven't gotten to the Tetra Well, you're just talking about we're look you have a story

Yes and by doing the Nantucket sleigh ride you lose everybody like me because nobody nobody thinks it's real and What parts of it are real what parts of it are wrong? What parts can be improved and what parts should be improved and how important it is, is never going to get adjudicated. Pete Slauson Beautiful. David Hickman So, you start off with the flower of life. It's a very coherent story that this thing is found all over the world.

I learned from this, I didn't understand how widespread it was. I didn't know that there was a mystery of it. I know something about sacred geometry is a kind of spiritual geometric thing. We can talk about it later. Terence has a couple of ideas, maybe three, one of which is maybe it's not about that flower of life because that's in a two-dimensional plane. Maybe that is a shadow cast by something in higher dimensions, and it's a cryptic message from an advanced consciousness that will open its secrets when we finally understand

it. Now there was something, for example, called the Antik-thera mechanism, which is a bunch of gears found by this Greek island of Antik-thera. And famously, it was just in the Athens Museum. It predicts the constellations. We didn't know that. There were two cats who really focused on it. One was named Derek DeSola Price and the other was Richard Feynman. And they were obsessed with it. And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how much ancient

wisdom and knowledge there was because this was a mechanical calculator for understanding the positions of celestial objects far more advanced than we had any idea was possible. So if you want an analogy, in part, I'm trying to steel man you, we have a situation in which the Antik theorem mechanism gives you a possible example of what the flower of life might be. It might be a cryptic instruction, a different version of this, the Kerala School of Astronomy, which was a religious school in the south of India, in the west coast of India, more or less worked out.

Look at that beautiful thing. Well, that's a reconstruction. Yeah. Yeah. That thing. Yeah, that's the real one. Yeah. But I mean, when you look at the actual reconstruction, what they think it actually looks like.

Oh, and if we... Fascinating. Can we get the video for the reconstructed mind? What year was this that they believe it was constructed two thousand years ago? This is when they feel believed in their Ptolemaic You know example of the world, but this doesn't seem to follow Ptolemaic Equations those 39 equations from well, it you know, because of so many different factors, war, natural disasters, there's been a lot of moments in history where shit got lost.

Just the pyramids are the best example of that, right? Like, what the fuck did they do? We don't really know. You know, we don't really know how they did it. Well, another, we were just talking about Werner Herzog. Yes. Werner Herzog. Werner Herzog created an entire film, Fitzgerald though, just to test his theory about how to move

heavy objects over a mountain. Right? So he wrote an entertainment to test an engineering theory. And this idea about entertainers not being scientists or engineers is just total bunk. Like, Werner Herzog is an engineer. And- He's also an actor in a cheeseball movie. He was in Reacher with Tom Cruise. He was the bad guy.

That's right. It was- It gives that guy an opportunity to cut off his finger or something. It's hilarious. He's good though. Hedy Lamarr, famous for spread spectrum technology. So I don't find it. That's one

of the reasons I just, I believe that we listen to people who have things to say. So if we go back to the flower of life. So Terrence has a couple of ideas, one of which is this is the shadow. Another of which is that once you go into higher dimensions, you should be thinking in, so you should be thinking of these curve linear structures, and then instead of focusing on the spheres, you should focus on the areas in between the voids. And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids. And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids. So there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he

said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are beautiful. That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with. So what Terence is doing here is he's saying, look, the circles are cross sections of spheres, and the spheres have to be placed in very precise places to generate what Terence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations. And he has different ways that spheres run into each other. Then he says something very cryptic where he says, if you drop a pebble in the center of a spherical lake, circularly symmetric lake, the wave will radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore,

and then it will radiate back. And so he's talking about this, and he says wave conjugations. And wave conjugation didn't call up anything directly when I heard him say it. They would call it a phase conjugation. Well, or they would talk about, you know, the conjugate wave coming back. If, you know, if you do something, uh, like a garden hose that's affixed to the wall, the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something. So what Terrence is talking about is the idea, and you could do this, where we could drop

like let's say six stones in precise places in water and then, you know, using super slow mo watch what happens as these waves in precisely placed places run into each other because really what physics is is waves in precisely placed places run into each other because really what physics is is waves in collision. And they're going to create a particular cymatics which is going to show the harmonic points where matter and all of those things occur. That's the predictability. I'm not going there yet.

Okay. So then what Terence does is he has in blender some means of bringing up platonic solids that are not the usual. So I bought some of these platonic solids from Amazon and you see that they're all extremely Cartesian. They're made up of flat faces or best attempt to do flat faces. Taron says, I don't think that that has to be the case if you generate these things from this pattern. And he focuses on the tetrahedron and an octahedral structure. Can you go up Jamie please so we can see it as from that that side perspective of it. Yeah, go around. Okay, so what that is is a curve linear

tetrahedron with spherical and it's not actually hyperbolic. Those are going to be positive curvature, not negative. No, it's like that's gonna be positive curvature. Compressing it. Yeah, I think it's positive curvature because those are going to be certain parts of spheres. The spheres are interacting. Yes, negative curvature would be more like a Pringles trip, a chip where the principal axis of curvature went in different directions. So I think it's not negative curvature. So this isn't the negative space between four bubbles. No, what you mean by negative space, negative curvature and negative space are different concepts.

So the word negative is appearing twice curvature and negative space are different concepts. So the word negative is appearing twice and that's why we're confused. Again, you know, there are a million of these gotchas where you're not going to... Can you describe the difference between the two? Sure. If I take the tip of my nose, that's going to be positive curvature because I've got one... Extending out.

One curve going one direction, the other is going in, they're curved in the same direction. On the other hand, if you look at like the crease of my nose, that's going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and another that's going like that. Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle? So that would be negatively curved, right? Because you'd have things going in opposite directions. That looks like a cool seat. Yeah.

That looked a little comfortable. Okay, so negative curvature is what we're talking about with hyperbolic space and spherical curvature would be what we're talking about with the inside of those curve linear triangles on his. So he's making again, I don't see this as this isn't where I think it's worth, you know, saying he's wrong. He's just doesn't know the language and doesn't know that there's a formalization of it. Now if you take, so the other structure that he keeps running across is an octahedral curve linear, I don't know what it's not really a platonic solid because it's not flat. You have to push on the jewel on the side Jamie, if you go to the side of

the thing press on that jewel and then go to the perp to that blue on that right that blue yep and then you get where okay so now what he's doing is he's saying if I have eight bubbles and these bubbles all each face of this object this this octahedral object, he's taking a sort of curved linear triangle on a sphere, and he's imagining that these things are all sort of racing towards each other. And how would you generate, no, no, no,

if you put those two in, he's gonna go into a different world. So if we take it. You can just tap on each one of those Tetrians. Just tap it, it'll go away. Tap it, it'll go away. Now, how would you generate? So Neil doesn't know where this comes from, right?

Now, the way in which you would do this, I believe, is that you would take a let me think about how you do this you take the eight eight no no you take the eight vertices of a cube and you'd put a sphere at each one, a small sphere. So imagine that you had a vertex at one, one, one in three-dimensional space and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to have either ones or negative ones. So you have eight possibilities. So you could have negative one, one, one or one, negative one, negative one, etc. You allow those spheres to increase to a size of square root of two radius, and that will close off all of the means of escape, leaving a cavity

in the center of your cube. And that cube will have an octahedral cavity that looks like this. That's how I think you generated the sucker. I actually generated this by putting eight of the pieces together. I took eight of those triangular pieces together and I put them together. They basically became the basis of two Tetrians. Yeah. You know, which this would be seen as a neutron. And the interesting thing about this piece right here

is nature always makes things in pairs and they're always balanced. This doesn't exist. This exists only as a result of a pressure condition, a higher pressure condition. Jamie, if you go to that last blue tap tap that last blue on yeah past that not the last blue go around one more time that one right there that Tetra that Hunty in only exists as a result of the four of the eight pressure conditions created for a whole new you'll

appreciate this tap now tap on that touch the hunting in the middle. Now not that one damn it got it started again. You can hit that one again and then tap on them on to make that go away. That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians interacting and they create that other greater pressure condition. That's the negative space that they generate, but it doesn't, it's a massless area because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away and the energy generated disappears. But it's a part of everything in my model.

You're putting a lot of words, like first of all, let's just admit that this looks gorgeous. Pretty cool. It's incredibly cool. Turn it around, Jamie, so they can see it, please. So you know, the problem, Terrence, is that you have a desire to go immediately towards what this means, right? And before you get to what it means, people don't even know what it is. True. Right?

So what I'm going to claim is I've got these eight rambutans here. What's a rambutan? It's like a gorilla testicle. You ever had these? No, what other? Is it fruit? Yeah, it's like l yes. Oh leachies I'm at least you but this is I think rambut is the Indonesian word for hair. Where'd you pick those up? Ranch 99 market it would have got you some flowers, but the light changed If I take eight of these suckers, okay, and I arrange them in a cubical formation, there's going

to be one of Terrence's things in the center, except there are going to be six holes for the sides of the cube where you can get in. Now what Terrence is saying is, imagine that these are special magical rambutans, I can't even hold this thing, and that you allow them to grow a little bit bigger so that those holes Close off by moving through each other imagine that they're made of magical substances in the center You're gonna get one of his curved linear Octahedral structures, which is the thing that he just subtracted off If you tap on the pink right there,

you'll be back to that. Oh, the next one next to it. Wow, I shouldn't have done that. OK. So what's going on is that, for example, is that Neil can't figure out, well, where did this come from? So what it is is spheres of radius root 2 at the eight vertices of a cube passing through each other but closing

off an octahedral cavity with positively curved triangles inside. That's what I needed you for. Well, that's what I, just what I needed you most. Thank you. That's just when I needed you most. Thank you. Pretty glamorous. Okay. Can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for diving into this? Like what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as a 3D structure

and the space inside of it? They're going to call me crazy again, but when I was 42 and had been kicked out of the world as a result of the allegations I had another dream and that same being woke me up and Took me back to where I was when I when I was a child and I saw the I Started putting the pieces together the all shapes in your dream in in the pieces together, the all shapes. In your dream. In the dream together. And then I was like, oh, so it's where four forces meet that makes a difference.

So when I put four spheres, four circles, I cut four circles out, and I made the all shape. And then when I started adding them together, then I saw the flower of life. I didn't see the flower of life initially. I saw that after when, well, I'll show you the piece. But the all shape is a different thing. Because in this case, in order to do this, what he

did is he said, I'm going to make mathematical spheres, they're going to start to intersect each other, right? And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material, until they close off the holes in the cubical lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature. To make what he calls the all-shape, you do something very different. You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self-dual. That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces, and you can interchange faces with vertices.

And in fact, I don't know if you guys have these things. You have this? No. What is it? So this is an engineering feat. So if you think Platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Habermann figured out how to take the self-duality of a tetrahedron

and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up. And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, in between them are four triangles. And he figured out a mechanism. We can cut one of these open. In between them are four triangles and He figured out a mechanism we can cut one of these open there's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the public Where you get a dog that up so they could see it so the audience could see it

So as you pull this thing apart it can change colors Yeah, you spin it spin it ever so slightly, Joe. Oh, wow. Yeah? All right. That's for you guys. It's cool, right? Yeah.

That's very bizarre. All right, now my point is that one of the things that Terrence has going against him is people are saying, oh, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity. There's nothing new. And then I would say, well, and then why did Charles Haberman create a mechanism realizing the self-duality of the tetrahedron? Nobody even talks about it that way. And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons

and Dragons they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and you put the tetrahedron in the middle, and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides, there's a duality that interchanges the pairs with the center being self-dual. In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices. The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices.

The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices. The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices. Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides, because the number of sides because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal to for anything that is Spherical in nature now if all of my things when they come together if they create a natural Dodecahedron and they create a natural icosahedron What is that they do and they don't they doosahedron. What does that say?

They do and they don't. They do, no, I'm gonna show you. No, I'm saying you haven't seen yet. I haven't shown you yet. But they will when you see it. So, Terry, why don't you show it to them right now? We're on it right now, show it to them right now. Shout out to all the homies right now trying to figure out what the fuck's going on.

Like what are these guys talking about? Holy shit. Legalize schedule one. So we can't hear you Terrencerence you're not on camera right now unfortunately Right The problem is it's the middle of a podcast How's the family everything's great man, how you doing? So your dog liked I've met Marshall for the first Oh, that's right. You'd never met him before he's the best is a lovable guy him and Carl they were getting after it It's Carl worn out. Oh, he's the best is a lovable guy. Him and Carl, they were getting after it. Is Carl worn out? Oh, he's done. Everybody wore Carl out.

So, Terrence, no one can hear you. I know, but we have a podcast going on right now. We're about to put the headphones back. Okay, here we go. Right here next to it. The problem is you were talking off in the distance. I can't even hear you. I'm right here. So this is where, is you were talking off in the distance I can't even hear you. I'm right here. So this is

Where if you'll go to where the 12 bubbles meet? Yeah on the thing so these Okay, can I finish my may I finish my riff on those choice before we get these toys sure my point was that I cry I call bullshit on the idea that because Terrence is playing with stuff that people have been playing with since antiquity that you can't come up that there's nothing new under the sun right because if there's nothing new under sun first of all how did Charles Haberman come up with something so cool second of all that means that there's an object that hasn't been invented I give this to high school kids you should be able to throw one of these up as a cube and have it come back as an octahedron.

You should come up with a gearing mechanism. And you should be able to throw up a dodecahedron and have it come back in your hand as a differently colored icosahedron. And I've never seen those toys. Just the way the Rubik's Cube came out of nowhere, or Hungary, and that thing took over the world by storm. So to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up with something new, the Rubik's

Cube, the Habermann's switch pitch, these things prove that that's not true. I think it's a foolish thing almost always to pretend there's nothing new under the sun. You should always consider it. You might not be correct to pretend there's nothing new under the Sun. Well always consider it Well, you might not be correct, but there's only one way to find out there's a difference between you see Terrence has much greater odds Of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics I mean the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics I'll be blunt are very very small even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this is novel?

I don't want to go there. The patents do not speak to what you think that they speak to. That's OK. Look, you can see into my heart. I'm not trying to. No, no, no, no, no, no. All right. But we were talking.

I told you that they produce a supersymmetrical structure. When you say supersymmetry, I don't know that you know what a supersymmetry is. What does supersymmetry mean to you Terrence? Supersymmetry means that all things come together, fit together, relate to each other. They come, they're self-referential and they are from a fractal that comes back to that same fractal space. That's supersymmetry. So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up, but supersymmetry is a reserved term that means something hyper-particular. And that's what this is.

Between bosons and fermions. That's what this is. This is the bosons, for the laymen out there, the boson, the cloud, the whole boson thing is the force field or the energy field that the fermions is considered the matter aspects of it so if we can go into his he's got five of these patterns one of which he calls the what is wrong with the term supersymmetry then I want to see an algebra which is a linear vector space which has an object called a

bracket and I want to see that that bracket obeys a super Jacobi identity and otherwise there's no supersymmetry. So it's a specifically used scientific term and he's using it incorrectly. It's a reserved term of art. Yeah, but it's geometry is its own proof. Supersymmetry and geometry allows you to visualize, like you look at the ocean and you see the supersymmetry associated with it. I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the term supersymmetry,

and he's saying that supersymmetry only applies to a very specific thing. Because in their math, no, in their math, the platonic solids, like I said before, have a discrete symmetry. You can only line up the blocks and all of those things. You can't put all of them together and tell a full story to where they fold into each other. I don't think he's disagreeing with you with that. I think he's disagreeing that you're using a I think he's disagreeing the term that you're using.

You're using a reserved term of art. And you're using it incorrectly. That's what he said. And you're gonna pay a penalty in which. Okay, I don't wanna pay no penalty. This is a thing where, like if I'm watching an MMA fight and someone's doing commentary and they call a kick wrong, I'm like, why are you doing this?

You don't even know what that is. Like you incorrectly reference something that's very specific that we've been talking about for a long time. If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's not wearing any clothes, is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind? No, a rear naked choke is a particular move. Yes, very particular.

It doesn't have anything to do with what she did. Right, unless she gets the hooks in. Question, in the world of physics, in the world of mathematics, is there a supersymmetrical system, geometric system, ever been produced in mathematics? Yes. In mathematics, yes. We've never seen super-Ponker algebra. In mathematics, yes. We've never seen super-Ponkeret algebra. Yeah, but that's not, that's on the plane. That's not, that doesn't, that's not volumetrically, that doesn't scale up. Terrence, you have an entire way of thinking that is completely foreign to everyone that

I know. And I've tried to understand what it is. Oh, I'm sorry. No, it's not a question. No, it's not. I don't think he's saying this is a negative. No, no, no, no, I didn't see it as a negative. But what I'm trying to say is,

the reason that science works as well as it does is that up until very recently, there were clear rules, cultures. We agreed to leave certain things that are at the door, like our religious beliefs. We agreed to submit to certain sorts are at the door, like our religious beliefs. We agreed to submit to certain sorts of things. We were decent to each other. And that system is in a process of collapse at the moment. All right? Now, Terence comes from an earlier way of thinking. When things were much more wide open, you don't find many polymaths

anywhere in a respectable position anymore. Terrence is coming from a polymathic perspective. He's all over the map in terms of the quality of his thinking. As far as I understand, some of his stuff is really, really good, some of his stuff is offensive, and it's everything in between. Now, I'm not gunning for you. No, no, no, I don't take that offensively. I take it in the fact that you're here. But let's get back to what I was saying about having, if my pieces naturally come together

and form those same structures. They do and they don't. Well, here we have. How do they not, Eric? Here's, well, I'm gonna show them. Here's where 12 bubbles meet. If you go to the yellow one right there, Jamie, please tap on that.

This is where the negative space where 12 bubbles meet. I call this the arbree, and I named it after my oldest daughter. Okay. You can take a look at it, at how it behaves. Here, Joe. Okay. So you can have it. And you can have a larger one or a smaller one.

By the way, I would be honored to have I'm gonna give you some of these. anything that you make of this type in my home. I'm very, very cool. I'm about to, so when I put 10 of them together, they look like this. Yeah. I put 20 of them together.

They make a natural icosahedron. Yeah. I put 20 of them together. They make a natural icosahedron. Yeah. Without breaking any rules. I'm saying that the icosahedron. I believe in this. This I don't disbelieve. I haven't gone through the math, but I don't disbelieve this.

I said the same thing about one other thing. So here's the light unit. If you'll go back to the green Jamie, please This is the light unit now. We're gonna get into some stuff That's not gonna be so much fun, but it is going to be you are gonna get what you want No, you're gonna love this And what you said concerning, here.

Now look at that. That's pretty dope. Put that down, and it'll show you, this is where I've put 20 of them together. The same way I put 20 of these together, and it makes a natural dodecahedron, but what it's showing you is where electricity is being pushed into the center and you'll see these magnetic waves coming out, it's showing you the

magnetic field. So these predict and create a natural dodecahedron, whereas these come together and create a natural icosahedron. That's not something that just happens by accident. No, this isn't an accident. This is... I'll put it over there. What's going on, Terrence, for me? Can you connect all these together in one big ball of fury? Yes, they just keep getting...

Because it's supersymmetry. They all fit together. I want to see these and these together. It ain't supersymmetry, but it's freaking cool. Right. I know what you're saying. The problem is that term, right? Well, again, my point is that you can run into all kinds of terms of art in a field

that you don't know well. Right. And Terrence is like, I come on your show and I do this thing, which I've never really discussed why I do it. I have this feeling that somehow Sean Carroll 15 15 years ago, started talking about a suite of ideas like entanglement, the multiverse, these Boltzmann brains, whatever, and people have been talking about them ever since because it was a very successful tour. Much of the coolest

stuff in mathematics and physics that's completely established, that's non-speculative, is not discussed, and I don't know why. And one of the things I tried to do was I tried to show you the hop vibration, I tried to do the thing about the Dirac string trick. Terrence is bringing cool stuff from the world of geometry. It's a proof effectively that people don't know where it's coming from. A lot of this is real as geometry. He, if you look at the thing that he calls the Tarrantin... The Tetrian. The Tetrian. The Tetrian. The Tetrian that is the thing that is closest to us, the black thing that is

closest to us. Yeah, tap, yeah. So he then starts to make noises about it. And he says things that I don't love, which are that those faces he associates with the electric field and the vertices, which sometimes he calls vortices and sometimes, I'm not quite sure, he associates with the magnetic field.

Yes. sometimes I'm not quite sure, he associates with the magnetic field. Now, I don't have a clue why he says the next thing, which is, and because the number of magnetic and the number of electric things are balanced, they cancel out and therefore it's the weak force. And to me, it's just like super cool stuff, and then suddenly turns into horseshit. But listen why. Here we have those two Tetrians on the end. They share, they both have equal poles, four electric poles and four magnetic poles according to how I see it. Where magnetism is spinning off of the tips, the vortices, because it's no longer able to maintain that center space of spinning centripetally.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What brought you to that conclusion? With what? The way you're describing the energy involved in this. Well, anytime you look at electricity, that was one of the things that Victor Schauberger was talking about. Electricity is when water starts to spin to the right, it cools down.

That's the natural nature of electricity. Electricity is colder. It flows better in the coldest environment. So as it's cooling down, as it's cooling down, as it's spinning down to a higher point, trying to get to that higher point, that's the highest point there. It's looking for the highest density.

That's the north. North is always the highest density. South, no matter where you are, south is always away from the higher point. When you're talking about universally, not talking about universally, not talking about geographically on the earth. North is always seeking a higher position.

South is always seeking a lower position. That's based upon stuff that Walter Russell talked about, based upon the stuff that Victor Scharberger talked about. But it's a problem with the definition of the words, the terms. Right, but your description of electromagnetic force and magnetism, like what is happening, that it's bringing you to this conclusion, that you're so specifically saying that something that you literally can't even see with the human eye

is happening very clearly. I'm saying four magnetic fields are pushing in on that area. I don't see magnetic fields. I see those spheres. What does magnetism do? It expands out. What brings you to the conclusion that electricity... Well, let's say radiative field.

Let me use the term radiative field. Do you know what we think electricity and magnetism are? You think it's the same thing? No part of the same force. What do you think? Jamie could I ask you to find a Faraday tensor? Yeah, what I was trying to get to the conclusion like Magnetism and electricity what brings you to this definitive conclusion that you can so clearly state that this is what's happening there? Well, based upon any time there's an electric force acting on something, it causes a cavity.

Electricity is always pulling in from the inside. It's always trying to tighten the density. And you assume this energy exists in the flower of life, why? Because that's where all those circles, the overlapping circles, they represent the magnetic field, they represent the radiated field that's coming out and coming back. Well, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball? Why not a square or a triangle? What's the part, why does it expand into a sphere? A sphere is an abstraction that is going to be the solution to many different problems.

If I ask you to give me the maximum possible volume with the minimum possible area, I'm going to get a sphere. If I ask you what is the best thing to launch out of an old style cannon and to stack next to it, you're going to say a sphere. Then you have a question about is that the same concept of a sphere? You know if I take the three-dimensional sphere of unit quaternions is is that the same concept of a sphere? You are in part freely associated repeatedly between things that remind you of other things. Now you have an incredible storehouse of things between your ears that you know to associate with.

And your brain is like, I mean in part, it's like if you think about the totality of your brain, it's like a Ferrari engine and a Volkswagen. The Volkswagen chassis is not capable of supporting something else that you're doing really well. And so what you're constantly doing, as far as I can tell. So the chassis being education, formal education. It's not just that.

I mean, it's in part, people who see many connections are often bad at cleaning up their own stuff. And people who don't see connections are often very rigorous and they don't do shit for their entire life. Right? See that's why I like I love the geometry because the geometry demonstrates even though I've been autodidactic and have learned these things on my own the geometry is its own proof like even in showing that these become the decade that these create an icosahedron let if you'll move those just for a second.

Eric, you pulled this up though before we get any further away from that. Explain this please. Yes. Electromagnetic tensor. What you see that F super mu nu is an anti-symmetric four by four matrix. That is there are only six independent components because if you flip that matrix from the northwest to the southeast as the line which you flip over with the zeros, the things above the zeros determine the things below.

So there are six independent entries in the top triangle. Now the top three are the electric components in a Cartesian coordinate system of the tensor, and the B fields are the magnetic, okay? Terrence could say something closer to what we understand reality to be. He could, for example, hold up a cube and say, you know, the six faces of the cube remind me of the six independent entries in the electromagnetic field strength and then the idea is there's a duality and the duality relates the electric field to the magnetic field and then you might invent something called all of Montona and electromagnetic duality

right so in other words if I took the top three, if I hold the cube up like this and I put the electric above and magnetic below, and then I did a transformation that took top faces to bottom faces, he would be doing something that might bring him to recent research on electromagnetic duality. But instead what's happening is that the spheres are reminding him of waves,

like, you know, wave fronts that are expanding spherically. And he's got super cool geometry that... The reason that this is so cool is that we haven't seen much of it. It's not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's the inventor. Well, I am the inventor because I own the patents. Okay, but you can find out that there's prior art later. Look, everybody, everybody's been loved to see that. Okay. Like I said, though, I think I have no desire to take this way. So far as I know, you're the first person to do this. Okay. Now, with that said, you're taking something where he's saying real stuff about

geometrical understanding based on a spiritual undertaking. And it used to be that spirituality and science were hand in hand. That's what I was trying to say about the Carolist School that figured out almost got calculus coming out of religious verse, like stuff that rhymed. It's crazy. Terence 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 it is very, very small. But that's the problem. I agree. Now, then every time he steps on a landmine, my colleagues just start laughing.

And that makes me crazy. Because they could help him figure out what actually he is trying to say. So if we go back to his- This electromagnetic tensor, how does this apply to these patterns in the void between these patterns? That thing we did not understand until the mid-1970s. Remember I tried to tell you to get Jim Simons on this podcast and then he just died? Jim Simons and CN Yang figured out, and this is going to figure into what Terrence is saying, that everything, all forces

are curvature. It's not just gravity, which we've known has been curvature since 1915, actually 1913 for Einstein Grossman. It's actually the case that electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force are a different form of curvature, which might be called Erismanian curvature or fiber bundle curvature, which is not necessarily Riemann Romanian intrinsic curvature. This object encodes the curvature, encodes electromagnetism as the components

of curvature. To your point about nothing is a straight line. But this is where I have issues. You're talking about this is in Cartesian space, and in Cartesian space, curvature is not allowed. There's no curvature that's allowed in Cartesian space, curvature is not allowed. There's no curvature that's allowed in Cartesian space. That's wrong. Really? Yeah, because what you have, and by the way, this is a super subtle thing. We've only really known this for 50 years, thereabouts. There is a weird mysterious circle that none of us can see at every point in space and time that we can't derive from space.

You can have space-time and something else put a circle at every point that is obscured from us. And that thing has a curvature even if space and time is flat. We call it idealization of flat spacetime Minkowski space. You can slap a curvature tensor of a circle on top of it, generate this, and it wasn't until, and this is mind-blowing. Can we get the Aronoff-Bohm effect up here? See, but that's where my biggest issue is why go through all of those steps to define curved space with flat plane matrix when you have the definition of it right in front of you? That's why when you get a chance, I'd love for you to lay these out so you can see it predicts every distribution, every wave form.

There's nothing that this doesn't predict. I want you to think about, you ever play blackjack? I've never been good at blackjack. Okay. Well blackjack. I've never been good at blackjack. Okay. Well, that's never been because you're sitting there. He's overbearing. You're sitting over there and you're sitting there on 19 and you say hit me and all I hear is hit me on 19 and you keep going over.

Okay. All right. Now this thing here is a proof. This is a gift for you. This says we did not understand classical electromagnetism until the late 1950s, well after Mr. Maxwell. Now, what happened is we thought electromagnetism was that thing with the electromagnetic field components that we just saw. If you put a wire coming out of this plane of the screen

and you insulate it where it says solenoid, can we just isolate that? We can see it. Yeah, okay. Now you have this crazy thing, which is like you have a cathode ray tube at A, let's imagine, and you shoot it through a double slit and you want to know whether or not there's current flowing in this insulated thing that you can't see.

Now you think that the insulation is going to keep you from being able to tell whether there's current flowing. Turns out that the interference pattern changes whether there's current even though there's no E and B fields outside of that insulated structure. And that proves that it cannot be the electromagnetic field strength that actually determines electromagnetic phenomena. What's really going on, can we call up the electromagnetic for potential? So one of the things is if you want to if you want to hang with the cool kids on any of this stuff You don't try to map the electromagnetic fields because it's the electromagnetic for people for potential that's got it going on let's

Talk cool For something that looks like A equals and then four components. Well, let's hit that thing, what you just had. That's good. That A, where you see partial derivative of A, that thing is called the gauge potential. And the gauge potential- This is the force potential. The gauge potential is really where the electromagnetism is happening.

This thing over here on the right, the Faraday tensor, is a consequence of the real star of the show. A is the thing that matters. And we thought that A was a convenience product that constructed the electromagnetic field strength until the late 1950s. I think one of these guys who developed this, his name is Yakir Aronoff, who's at Chapman University. I think he's still alive. So in other words, we fooled ourselves into thinking we understood electromagnetism until the late 1950s, which is one of the reasons that you listen to your heterodox colleagues as opposed to making

fun of them mercilessly, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Now most of the time what Neil says is, oh yes, one in 10,000 heterodox people have a point and Neil bets on the 9,999 who don't and so he doesn't listen. This thing here is a proof that you can find elementary omissions very late in the game that change everything and Everybody who pretends that peer review works and that we've known this since antiquity all this stuff They need to understand the exceptions. We've already found if Terrence wants to do good. He would take that a with the new At the beginning and he would say, okay, electromagnetism isn't about the electric and magnetic fields.

It's about four of these suckers rather than six of those. On a simple level, how would you describe electricity? Well, I wouldn't know how to do it simply. Electricity is really, electromagnetism is really about rock paper scissors. In other words, is rock better than paper? No, it's worse. Then you do it around that thing. The failure of these things to knit together, if I had, Terrence give me your hands. I want to put my hand over yours and then you put... Under, go your right hand under, it's like jujitsu.

Go right hand under, under, on your hand and now grab his wrist. There you go. That thing, who's on top? All of us. Okay, the electromagnetic field strength, so now make your hand into like a plane, measures the degree of the Escher staircase. The Escher-ness in that Penrose staircase is measured by that E and B stuff. Okay?

That A basically measure is the collection of hands that we had, the planes. Right, show, Jamie show the Penrose staircase just so people know what the fuck we're talking about because it's a very bizarre optical illusion. All right, so the key point is the Penrose staircase is not just an optical illusion, it's actually an effect called holonomy and those things are called horizontal subspaces and the electromagnetic potential which gives rise to the photon actually is a series of stairs that appears to be in some kind of a contradiction. The curvature that he keeps talking about is the thing that actually resolves that contradiction and in a weird way the photon is a derivative and the electron is its function and you use that derivative to differentiate the function.

That's a crazy way of saying it, but at its deepest level that's really what we are. We're in a geometry in which those flat planes say derivative equals zero and you're trying to take the derivative of an electron based on this stuff and geometrically this only got worked out in Stony Brook, Massachusetts in the mid 1970s except for a guy named Robert Herman who nobody listened to in Boston who was off self-published Well Let's consider one of the things that this is talking about, again, this is where I have issues because we're talking about two-dimensional or three-dimensional space that does not exist. We're still talking about imaginary things instead of talking about real things like

math departure from where numbers started representing actual things. Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things. Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things. The numbers don't represent any true things and so anything can happen inside the mathematics that they build from but when you have the actual stuff like when like what I wanted you to do if you could lay these out just for... I'm so worried I'm gonna break these things. No you're not. I made these over the last few days just lay them out if you have to move those other things so you could lay these out just for it. I'm so worried I'm gonna break these. No you're not. I made these over the last few days. Just lay them out.

You have to move those other things so you can see. And what I'm talking about, the interesting thing. I wanna see a YouTube video of you in your lab putting these things together. If you shine a light on these, they end up creating all of the cymatics. No, don't even stack them up. I don't even want you to stack them.

I just want you to align them. I'm gonna put a light through. Like I'm saying, if you move this one out of that, out of the way, and some of those. This will continually predict every harmonic node, every wave function. It will continue on. They overlap on each other to where any size, any crystalline configuration that somebody could hope for occurs.

This is the supersymmetry that I'm talking about that Defines the entire wave field. This is one part of this is the crystalline electric wave field. That's not even okay That's just one of the cool is this pretty cool the problem that you're in right now is Everything that you touch in this space made of spheres and platonic solids and whatever you could spend your entire life And I've seen people do it Staring into this and just finding cool thing after cool thing thinking that you're seeing Jesus. I promise you okay, I Want you to hold this in your hand. It's made by a woman named Beth Sheba Grossman Pleasure to shout her out out she is a mathematical artist par

excellence that is not the best that is an eight dimensional lattice called e8 projected into three dimensions which is one of the craziest sort of sphere packing gadgets this is ultimately maybe the weirdest object in the universe it's a it comes from a 248 dimensional group. Wow. Let me show you this in real life. No, no, no. You're going to bob and riff and all this stuff. Hold on. Let him keep going. And what I'm trying to get at is, look, I want you to think about this legitimately

as a drug. Okay? And if you're not very careful with the mathematics that you're playing with, you are gonna get so high. You are gonna see everything connect to everything. And there's a reason that this stuff takes place in Islamic art. There's a reason, you know, if I bring up... This is another version of the self-duality of the tetrahedron. I believe in spiritual and sacred geometry. They call this the Merkabah, which is like

Hebrew for chariot. Everything connects to everything else in this unbelievably beautiful way. And the concern that I have Terrence to be entirely honest is You have to get disciplined about this as a drug because otherwise you're gonna see everything in Everything all the time and you're gonna have the same Repetitive conversation where people don't take you seriously because you're gonna keep hitting on 19 But do if these if the if light passing through these show the same cymatics that we look at when we're looking at natural occurrences of individual frequencies doesn't that become its own secondary

proof beyond the symmetry that of what it does. You say geometry is a proof and one of the things is you are at your weakest When you have when I say when you have an equal sign. No, no, you're your strongest geometrically You're at your weakest when you have an equal sign. You say the dumbest stuff about equalities and you say the coolest stuff about geometries and I Wonder whether you mean something like it took me a long time to figure out what I think you mean when you do this riff on the square root of two.

Jamie, could I trouble you for that portal group slash th? Okay. If you do the square root of two challenge, right, you say, Howard's unbalanced equation, you say, okay, take the square root of two. You cube it. That's equal to two times the square root of two. That is illogical. It is unbalanced. It is unnatural. Now, at first, I had no idea what the hell you were doing. So I came up with something to prove to you that I'm trying to understand you. And I said, take the number of Magi at Jesus' birth. He was born on the 25th day of the 12th month.

If I raise the 12th root of three to the 25th power, and I take the fact that Jesus died in the ninth hour according to the Bible, I see the same Trinity rooted by the number of apostles. Now that seems to be like a profound statement, but the fact is, all I really did is I created an equation based on two numbers, x and y, and your version of it I put in one and square root of two, and in mine I used 12 and 3 and the reason I got 1225 was is that 25 is just 2 times 12 plus 1. So in other words the danger of this stuff right is is that when you start to see patterns and you start to see stuff that looks crazy you don't realize what you're actually doing. What you're really

saying is you're coming from a perspective that is philosophical before it's scientific or mathematical and you have a statement which says everything is in motion and then you go into a riff about loops and you say take out your calculator turn it to the side take the square root of 2 cube it take that divided by 2 then you do this thing where you happen to know the large decimal expansion up to a point which is Increases people's confidence. You've got to be worried because that's like the confidence in con man, too But you make a point we have a name for the thing you call a loop. We call it a fixed point

Fixed point fixed point now fixed point you have something called a transformation the transformation. Let me see if if Jamie if we can bring that back. So I'm just trying to standardize your, can we go below that? Let me see. Okay, Terence loop. You have a mapping T for Terence from the real numbers to the real numbers given by x cubed divided by two. If you take the polynomial y cubed minus 2y equals 0, that factors as y minus square root of 2 times y plus square root of 2 times y minus 0. You claim that there's only one number that satisfies a fixed point relationship according to that mapping, which you call a loop. They're actually 3, zero, negative square root of two, and two. You make the correct point that if you iterate that for numbers above the square root of

two, it's going to go off to infinity. If you were to go below numbers of square root of two but above zero, it'll go towards zero. Zero will go to zero, and then you have the same thing below negative square root of two, it'll go off to negative infinity. And above square root of two but below zero. I think it'll go off to zero. Okay, that thing is Studied under fixed point theory and you can look up the left shets fixed point theorem the Kakutani fixed point theorem the Brouwer fixed point theorem

all of these are Proofs that you have to have fixed points now I thought why does he keep doing this riff? And then I realized that he's got a thing about everything is in motion. So for him, it's unnatural and illogical, you use both words, that the square root of two would be fixed under this iterated experiment.

Now, that is not unnatural. There's something, I hate to say it, it's called the hairy ball theorem. Can we bring up the hairy ball theorem? Before you put your hairy balls on my pieces. That was good. Okay, the hairy ball theorem says that you cannot comb the hair on a rambutan without creating a colic. So let's see if we have any cool images of it. In other words, if you have a map of the wind that is going along the surface of a sphere, there has to be some point which is perfectly still.

If you have a map of a sphere to a sphere, there has to be some point that doesn't move. In other words, what you're saying about things can't be still is not only incorrect, it is impossible to avoid stillness. And this is in part what John Nash got his Nobel Award in economics for because he took work of von Neumann and Morgenstern on two-person games, turned them into multi-person games with a higher dimensional fixed point theorem and said a multi-person game is more interesting because that's a market, therefore markets have equilibria. So you're saying real stuff in a way that fundamentally just doesn't... We don't know how to talk your talk.

Then teach me. Yeah, I know. Teach me. I'm learning. What are we doing? I'm learning right now. But Jamie, do me a favor. Pull up the calculator. I want you to pull up the calculator. We're going to look at this loop.

And you tell me that this loop isn't a contradiction. And says that the math is... Go ahead. I want a scientific calculator. There we go. Yep. Okay. Yep.

Hit two. Square root. It'll be over one more. I think that may be it. Yeah. Yep. Cube it. Hit x to the third.

No, no. No, no. Go back. Go back go back yeah hit two square root cube it up right up there yep now divide by two hit equal cube it again X to the third, divide by two, that is a loop. Cube it again, hit x to the third. That's an unnatural equation. Talk to me about unnatural. It's a loop. It's a tuck inside of the matrix. It does not allow for math to make sense because of the square, because of the identity principle. Okay, Eric.

You're trying to say something. What you're saying is wrong. What I'm seeing, no. No, no, no, no, no. What you're saying is fine. I agree that you have a transformation that I called T. You can put those two steps together, which is cube and divide by two.

That thing is gonna be dead still till the end of time. That's your point. And then you pass judgment on it, and you say that is not logical and it's irrational. And I don't know what you mean. Well, because here we're multiplying something basically three times, and it's coming up to the same value as if we multiplied it by two and you keep doing that. Yeah, well I did that with the 12th root of three and I have a transform just like you. But that 12th root of three, that hypothetical situation you put up there does not affect the rest of mathematics.

Sure it does. That loop right there. Oh, is your point that there's something special about the square root of 2? I'm saying that the square root of 2 is a manufactured number because of the identity principle. If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with 1 times 1 equaling 2 or 8. principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with one times one equaling two or... Why are you offended by one times one equaling two? Just because

action and reaction, the universe, it's the separation of math from science when math was supposed to define physical things. So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense. The rest of the audience don't understand. They're like, wait a minute, well, well. Okay, objects in motion tend to remain in motion, right? That was his first law. Well, what's, what do objects at rest do?

There's no object at rest. Ah, so you have a problem with Mr. Newton. There, no, no, there are no objects at rest because everything is sitting on something that's in motion. Everything is in motion within itself. So this is like there's no straight lines in nature. So the idea is you're saying at some level that you don't believe. That anything's still.

At a subatomic level. Nothing's still because everything in the universe is connected. So if you have one still thing, then everything connected to it also has to be still. If I understand what you're doing, and I try to steel man it, you're trying to say, look, first of all, the vacuum isn't a vacuum, it's roiling with activity, right? The void isn't a void, stuff is happening,

virtual particles are coming in and out of existence, there is no vacuum, right? You're very much in tune with modern physics on that. You really are, okay? Then you have this idea of math is supposed to be about the physical world It's not supposed to be unto itself and if there is no vacuum then there is nothing at rest Because the vacuum is going to be in constant quantum tumult and

Then you get to the point which is something that is rest, therefore is unphysical, therefore it is unnatural. It took me a long time. I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest because everything is moving and communicating through vibration, and vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion. So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum in a naive sense that the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people

naively think, therefore any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or whatever is invalid. Is imaginary. It's talking about an imaginary space. Okay. I don't know what to tell you about this because if it's like if I say something about a sphere You might say hey Eric What is the thickness of your sphere all the points unit distance away from the origin and I'd say it has no thickness and you'd say Show me one thing in the universe that doesn't have thickness

And then I'd say well wait a second. I'm talking to you about a mathematical structure that exists as math. I don't want it to hear about math that isn't immediately referenced to physics. First of all, that's not how this game goes. When did math separate from accounting for physical things? Was the beginning of imaginary numbers trying? Beginning of imagination.

I mean, if I have a picture from AI of a woman that doesn't exist but no you can't tell the fact that that was generated by an AI are you going to say that that graphics file doesn't exist no the graphics file exists mathematics has it a physically independent structure it is a system of logic. Then you have this very weird thing, which is, you know, Eugene Wigner famously talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and the physical sciences. But, you know, David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of physics and the mathematical sciences. That's many of us have had that for the last 50 years since

Simon's and Yang and then there's also this thing which people associate with Mac Tecmark Max Tecmark, which is older Which is the mathematical universe that the math is the basis that there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community Now I can hear you I can understand you I can track you map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community. Now I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you, but what you were doing when you were lecturing is terrible. It's really, really bad because you have points and by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing You are in fact causing people to who don't trust Tony Fauci. Let's say because Tony Fauci Shouldn't be trusted

To say maybe we can't trust mathematics now. I have a lot of Competitors enemies people. I really don't like I have stalkers who actually stalk my family and interfere in my personal life who have PhDs. Okay? My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe and the mathematical universe is essentially zero up to 1973. We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think, until the 1980s. And why is that? Well, money.

Money. And power. Money and power. Ronald Reagan brought in a guy named Eric House to the NSF, and the university stopped expanding and they started playing games. We had a thing called the Mansfield Amendment, which got the military out of science, which was a disaster. There's a lot of things that happened.

But imagine if science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of relativity, if in abandoning the ether, and now they've walked down this road and now they realize that it's a potential dead end, but instead of turning around and saying, okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these equations were built off of. And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the etheric nature, the etheric substance. So that's what I want to, we got to walk through the pieces. Jamie, if we could bring back the portal group page, I can sort of show what Terrence is talking about, what his geometries, how he relates them to the physical world. So if we could go up to Howard's unification's claim.

Okay. So you say you've come up with the grand unified field equation. First of all, he's doing something very unusual. He's saying grand unified, which actually is less than unified, because unified would include gravity. But he's also drawing from a group, I think, called the Electric Universe. No. Okay. No, no, no. I'm drawing from Lorentz and Hines' work when they were deciding they were trying

to prove that it was electricity and magnetism. They could derive all of the effects of nature that we see from electricity and magnetism. All right. So if we go down here, hopefully, because we just prepared this, by the way, shout out to Dr. Brooke Dallas, who put this together and just got her PhD from Caltech. Congratulations. Yeah. Congratulations, Brooke. Okay. So all of this, these four things are how the community that you're trying to unseat thinks about nature at its deepest level.

Now, let me see if is there anything under there? Maybe not. So go up to let's do David Tong's because you brought up David Tong. OK. I think I understand this and I'm able to talk to you about it. Is this something, so this is my community and how it thinks of everything in the world, all right? Right. Do you have a way of relating what you think about in terms of what my community has wrong? Does this mean anything to you? If you remove gravity outside of the equation, you take gravity out because gravity is affected, the gravity is

actually covered by that strong electrical force. Terrence, one second. This is not a gotcha and it's not me. No, I know. I'm just saying. Do you know how to read this? As best as, we're talking about, I as imaginary, you know, D to the four, I don't know what the D represents. That's the volume element saying that you're in four-dimensional space, you're gonna take an integral. And Y to a negative G, Y to a negative gravity.

That's the determinant of the space-time metric with which you might have an issue. Okay? So, in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers look one way or the rulers look another way according to Einstein, you have to put more weight or less weight on a region of space. Do you know what that R is? That's the foreplay.

And then in the parentheses is where the stuff gets crazy. Explain it. That's what's called the scalar curvature. So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was like Einstein scaling the sheer face of half-dome. Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later and said, you know, you can derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the world, which is the scalar curvature.

So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of Einstein's pseudo-Romanian metric. And then, remember F mu nu? That's what we were just riffing on before. That's saying we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff, so we're going to do the stupidest thing possible, and we're going to figure out how big it is and square that and we're going to shove that into this thing to be minimized which means make this as small as possible. So give me the configuration that gives me the least

electromagnetic size. Then because of 1954 guy named CN Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't do nearly as much afterwards, said you know what the strong and the weak force are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism and we didn't know that. So nature in that first line from the R to the W takes curvature four times and three of those are doubled like ff gg ww but one of them is singly in there and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility not what Ed Whitten says about you can't quantize gravity that's not the discrepancy we've been lied to for a long time in my opinion. What it is is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and electromagnetism,

occurs differently. One is Romanian, one is Erismanian. The line below that, Dirac in that term, psi bar d psi, is in that term, psi bar d psi, is telling us the kinetics and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's in the line above. And then the last three terms are the fudge factor

due to Peter Higgs because we found out in the late 50s, a gal named Madame Wu, the dragon lady of physics, told us that if you put cobalt-60 and let it beta decay in a strong magnetic field, all the particles come out spun one way. And that left-right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a standard way for the matter which is showing up as psi. So instead what we do is we have this thing which is a field called the Higgs boson.

Psi is the wave function. Psi is the fermionic wave function of the matter. That's the quarks, that's the electron, and that's all the neutrinos that are penetrating us all the time. That kinetic term, the dh's, tells us how this Higgs field will move, but mostly, you see, in this, imagine that in this room it's 69 degrees Fahrenheit, okay? You think that it's the same everywhere, but maybe where Joe is is actually like 68.7, and over there it's 70.1. There's a different frequency, a different space. And so that H thing is said to have a VEV that varies slightly in the world.

Vacuum expectation value because the vacuum isn't boring. Now that V of H, that is the potential term that you neglect every time you say that all energy in the world comes from kinetics. That's not true. And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those FFGGWWs, which is pure potential. That last thing, which is not comment upon here, is called the Yukawa coupling. And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass to the matter, which was prohibited from having a naked mass

because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Li, which is the same Yang of Yang and Mills. That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level, right? This thing right here, which might be called the partition function,

is a Feynman path integral of this. And if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't in what you're seeing. It's a whoa. Can I get a whoa? Whoa. Can I get? I live for this.

Now, this is the difference between having, you know, this has been, they've been working on this for damn near 60, 70 years. But they don't have any physical models that represent any of these things. And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects that we see, then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through.

Terrence, you didn't do that. I did do that. Let me show you. All right. Let me show you. Show them. Now it's time to show. Okay, here we go.

I really want a YouTube video of him creating these things. I would love that. Just you with an acetylene torch. I really want a YouTube video of him creating these things Just you with an acetylene torch I want to make glass I want him a glass brother. Yeah, somebody needs to make yeah Well, I tried to do that before well, you know, it was like someone we have a community of mathematical artists I want to hook you up. I would love that so this Tetrian as I say begins the entire dance It's the I would call that that would be plonk to me. That would be the proton. That would be the beginning of everything. You map four different things to this.

You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial. Wait, wait one second. You say, one, it's dark matter because it's interstitial. Two, you say it's hydrogen. It becomes, it takes you. Three, you say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic, because you associate the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic. You say, you go back to Walter Russell, who has this whole thing about exhaling and inhaling, expanding and contraction. You know, it's a lot like Ecclesiastes. There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven. And then you say,

because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak force because there's no net voodoo on it. Okay? Then when you get to your, if you can bring up what you call the huntian. Hold on, let me, let's stay on this one. 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 hand. Yeah. It's called explainer juice. Yes.

Yeah. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank both of you. Thank you. Thank 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. If you'll hold that for a second. I've got to get something else out. I gotta say, I love these things. They're really dope. Yeah, you need a shelf in your office. Yeah, for sure I put this in my house, but Tarrant, I just don't see. We're not done. Alright. We're not done. All right. We're not done. All right. So when you put, didn't you see the box it came in with, bro? What kind of box?

That, no. Box stuff. So when you, now, when they line up, Yeah. then they begin to create, and if you lay it down on your thing, you can lay them down yeah and you'll see them align if you can I want to design a skate park around these sharp

surfaces what's gonna get fucked up any yeah anytime you're urinating a man is urinating he sees this pattern where it's expanding and contracting, expanding, contracting, that braiding behind the boat. This describes that motion from that. But then let's add, let's go to the next stage of decay. The next stage of decay would be, it would be four four sides now what these are responsible for how you doing eric all right joe yeah here we go and this is this is the hard part for me that's the fun part okay this is the part i've been waiting for this is the part I've been waiting for. Now let's put this in. This is an elaborate hoax.

Yes. My whole life's been an elaborate hoax. Now I should be putting the patterns up so that everybody isn't out there saying, you know, this isn't his shit. But so when you get to this level of decay, they start to come together and they create this natural curvature. How gorgeous is that? Look at that. But do me a favor, they also create these spaces, and if you lay them out, one on top of... Well, I'm still riffing on this one.

Well, you're about to see that interact with the other side. Like, we came to play today. Boy, nothing like these conversations make me understand how different people's brains work. There's just different humans out there. Here we go. So, alright, let's, if I can move some of your stuff. By the way, I just didn't know what I was getting.

Yeah. I brought like some weird tools in case you were going to make weird points. So, if you're laying these out, you're starting to see this pattern. But what's interesting, these have chirality. These spin in opposite directions from each other, but they ultimately reform together to make, to fully tell that story. So this is why category theory is so powerful because you're analogizing brain.

I mean, let's be honest. I want everybody to form without saying anything to each other. What is this most similar to? The DNA. All right, most similar to? The DNA. I was gonna say the same. And if it was DNA, what would be the interstitial between these two things? That would be the that ladder. Each line it would be the ATCG, the hydrogen. That would be the hydrogen. It would be phosphorus, phosphorus, oxygen, oxygen.

Now if I was a protein scientist, what would I say this was? You would say it's a ribosome. I would say it's an alpha helix. Oh. Right, I would say this was secondary structure in protein. So my claim is, is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't actually get

to the double helix, is that she was a really good scientist and Watson and Crick were not good scientists. She said, look, I can see right through you. You just found out that Linus Pauling figured out the alpha helix in protein. And you wannabes who don't know jack shit about biochemistry want an alpha helix. And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the x-ray crystallography of the Maltese cross you're gonna try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling all over again I don't

want any part of it and the problem for her was yeah helices are ubiquitous at all different levels right so in other words Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix. What happened is, is that a very common structure that's gonna come up over and over again, it's gonna come up in viruses, where you have helical viruses, you have it in protein, you have it in nucleic acid. That structure is because there's a platonic form,

which you're finding here. You're gonna find helices over and over and over again because you can't really have nature stop finding the structure. It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system. And so everything is going to rhyme. Now your big problem is that everything rhymes to you because you know a lot of stuff and you know a lot of similarities. Your brain's very good at that and what your brain is not very good at is pruning the amount of rhymes that it sees. Well what I'm what I'm saying is this is defining

all motion. We just define the motion behind a boat. We just define that other aspect and remember I was saying about the tetri- about the huntian being a massless particle. It only exists as a result of these four to eight Tetrians pushing down because of pressure. The moment that these eight Tetrians disappear, that interior space, it's no longer there. The moment that that disappears.

I don't know how to stop you from doing this. I hate doing that. Well, I hate you stopping how to stop you from doing this because I hate doing that Well, I know you're stopping me from doing what I'm not supposed to be doing So far over my skis I promise you what the internet is gonna say the next day about me is ha ha Eric Weinstein's don't read the Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is You're taking all the good stuff that you're doing and you get into 19 and you're saying hit me. And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say don't do that.

Because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find some structures like the ones you're talking about in wave fronts, right? I think what you're doing is totally canonical and it's very, very natural. And I think you're building models and you don't know how to do the algebra probably, and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all that. Fine, I can point you to books, I can try to help you. I'm a geometer. I like doing geometry. I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these pieces and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or postulates to be made for it. That's what I wanted to do with Dr. Tyson.

Okay, but part of what you're doing is you're coming into another community. Like what you said about David Tong is so unfair to David Tong. What did I say? David Tong. Okay, first of all, do you know who David Tong is? I know him on the internet. I know, but I've watched a few of his things. I was very impressed with it. That's why I reached out to him. He's amazing. And I have my difference. He's an acquaintance of mine. I haven't seen him since 2011. Okay He's an amazing treasure Because that guy has a gift for explanation in our community and in a world where a lot of people in string theory Have no have lost complete touch with reality, right?

This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with razor sharp clarity. So, he's an absolute, he's a national treasure of the UK. And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16 fields? I said, I have the models for your 16 fields, which was in- You're teaching. Yeah. That's, okay. If you want to say, I don't understand this, you was in... You're teaching. Yeah. That's...

Okay, if you want to say, I don't understand this, you get a positive reaction from us. If you say, I have something, and I'm not quite sure what it is, can I get an evaluation, because I think I might have something? You should be able to get something from a guy like me.

And that's what I did. I went to Oxford. I know. Didn't get that. But I'm trying to say something. Yes then you do this other thing which is you teach And your teaching is not good You tell us stuff that's not true That we can tell is not true and then we say

Okay, I can throw out the entirety of what he's saying. What did I say? That wasn't true though? That's what I'm that's that's that's Well one times one is not equal to Two let's start there you that in fact I'm all angry at Joe because Joe should have pushed back on that Joe is in awe the calculator says one times one doesn't equal One because of that square root to me pull the portal group back up There's a lot of wild shit. I don't push back on from not sure. No, I fuck that person sign I understand that's why but also because I know that people are going to eventually but John do it right now We've got a crisis where nobody knows what to believe in unfortunately for you

You're in a bad spot because you wanted to have fun. You had a show and it got really big Okay, I, wait. I'm saying people have. Can we go to the Terrence product, maybe below that? I think you were in the right place. Yeah, okay, here's how we would do this in mathematics. Assume you were a colleague, right? And I wasn't trying to get rid of you

and get you out of my office. I'd say, okay, no, I'm not kidding not, I'm not kidding. That's what we- I know you're interested in wanna have further conversations. So go ahead. Okay. Standard thing what we would do is we say, okay, wait a second. I don't really buy your claim that one times one equals two, but let's try to evaluate what you're saying. Then I'd create something called the Terrence times binary operations star sub t. And I'd say that provisionally, I define A star sub t times B to be equal to A times one plus B because your rule says

that you should add A to itself B number of times. So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times. So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times. Then I come up with the Terence root of C equaling D if D Terence producted with itself equals C. So now I have Terence binary operation, Terence root and the Terence square operation. And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object. Until you try to blow away times or multiplication in the normal sense, now what I've got is I've got a new

operation and I want to know its properties. Is it commutative? No. A Terence times B is not b Terence times a. Those are two different numbers. Then I ask is it associative? Yes, it's associative. So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy-ass shit that you say when you go to Oxford and this is how I would start to understand it. I would say Terence, do we get anything new out of Terence times Terence root Terence square? And I would, I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring. The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our effing asses off and you come in and you say,

I've developed, like imagine if I got on this program and I said, is John Jones out there? He's a huge pussy, doesn't know how to fight. I have a one-touch technique. If I lay a pinky on John Jones, you're gonna see a quivering little powder butter. Shawn Strickland has no discipline. The guy's a big fatty. It's not gonna go well.

No. Okay, so what I'm trying to get at is, that's what you're doing to us. I didn't mean to, that's not what I meant to do. But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that there's something very wrong with the math because math should not be done. There's nothing wrong with the math. I'm saying the math that we are doing is still based on linear projections, even though we are in a

still based on linear projections, even though we are in a multi-dimensional space. And if the square root of two didn't have that problem. Listen to me very carefully. Assume you have the most beautiful curved linear object. My wife. Yeah. Can we do a four? Timing.

I don't wanna talk about, I don't want my words, but, I saw what happened to Will Smith. I want to keep your wife's name out of my mouth. No, no, no, no, no, no. You'll meet my wife, she's very beautiful. I'm sure she's dope. Okay, if you take the most beautiful ski slope

you've ever been on and you imagine it was perfectly groomed so that there's just, all it is is smooth. You cannot create nonlinear smoothness without giving rise to something called the tangent bundle. And the tangent bundle has made up of linear objects. The nonlinear includes the linear. And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an action and a reaction. The nonlinear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the nonlinearity. So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you could on Walter Russell,

you would not try to deny the linear. You would say that the nonlinear is part and parcel with the linear, and that creating the nonlinear requires creating the linear. The differential operators at a point on a nonlinear structure form a linear space and that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside of something else because you hear that the universe is expanding, you say, well, what's it expanding into? Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around it, no ambient space by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear.

So we've got an entire language that you don't know about. But let's unpack that. Sure. For something to be linear, something to be straight. That means that it is no longer having to deal with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything because the greater the action, the greater the reaction, greater the reaction, greater the resistance, greater the resistance, greater the curvature. Everything in this universe has the resistance,

and that's where the curvature come from. So when they talk about, I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line, or try and, but the curvature of the universe is literally, is that phi at 1.618, that expansion aspect of it, that's the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe alright, if you take

the concept of Why is the cosmological constant almost zero? I? Have no idea well nobody really knows so you're not a mean and I'm saying that the cosmological constant is Zero, which means do you know what is that? No, Jim Gates explain what the cosmological constant means. Can we bring up the Einstein field equations with cosmological constant? Is that the the The dark energy that's that dark that that the quantum field that they, not the quantum field, the what do they call it, the vacuum. All right. Is that the vacuum? Yeah, let's pull

that one. No, no, no. Yeah, I like that one. Okay. So that arm you knew is the Ricci curvature. That is a sub sort of apackaging of the full curvature. So you throw away a piece like filleting it, and you throw away the vile curvature. Plus a bivector. Well, these are symmetric two tensors. Sometimes people call bivector. I find that terminology confusing.

But yeah, you're in the right neighborhood. That lambda is what's called the cosmological constant, and there's a raging controversy as to whether that thing is a number or whether that thing is like the temperature which might vary subtly. And this was this thing that where Einstein supposedly said his greatest blunder was to put this in. He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the

universe is expanding and then very recently in the end of the millennium they said not only is it expanding but it's expanding at an accelerating rate and that's when this whole dark energy thing really took shape. That thing and where was I going with this? Oh yeah, Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African-American physicist we have, brilliant, brilliant guy at the University of Maryland College Park. He's a string theorist, so he and I are naturally like Montagues and Capulets, but he's a lovely guy, very, very brilliant. He says, look, we need supersymmetry because that thing should blow up and it's almost zero and

the only way that it's almost zero is because the bosons and the fermions if supersymmetry is true have to be balanced right so imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door and they're of exactly equal strength the door doesn't move practically at all not not because they're not powerful, but because they're perfectly balanced, like unnaturally balanced. And so what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object? Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and creating the immovable object between them, to carry through the analogy. So that thing has to do with a balancing between two incredibly powerful but opposite structures.

And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have perfectly balanced things through fine-tuning issues. Now one of the fine-tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk about them in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is before we had DNA there was a guy named Erwin Chargaff and He gave Watson and Crick the worst peer review in human history He said that these are two idiots that they were pitchmen in search of a helix They didn't know anything about chemistry and he totally dismissed them

They didn't know anything about chemistry and he totally dismissed them. He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C and the amount of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true is because of hydrogen bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side. That's right. And so the idea is that that was the fine-tuning solution. Why did you always have equal amounts of these things? Oh, because you didn't see that they'd been paired in a helix. You just saw it once it was broken. But the actual nucleotides

had been paired. And so they're always the hydrogen bond enforced that one was a double bond one was a triple bond. This is like this. We're trying to figure out why lambda, we would understand better if it were zero or we would understand better if it was enormous. The fact that it is almost zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff to your point. This is one of the greatest reasons for,

it's probably the greatest, I agree with Jim, this is the reason for supersymmetry. Without supersymmetry we don't have an explanation for why that thing doesn't blow up. So if you have, if you saw a geometric structure that defined and worked together completely, would that be, would this qualify as a supersymmetrical system? Well, and we haven't even gotten to the magnetic field yet, but you see how these things fit together and what they might do and replace it. So you have a metaphor and you have a metaphorical mind. So you have this thing that you call the, what's the tetrahedron one? The tetratarian. Tetratarian. You've got one called the huntian.

The huntian, that's my son. Okay. And then you have a different one where the huntian is flanked by two tetratarian, which you call a transformer because it's a step down. I call it a light unit. I call it a light unit. Then you say it's a photon. Yes, it's a step up and a step down transformer.

So then, and then, and then here's how your unification scheme goes. You say, look, I don't need gravity because I simulated Saturn without gravity. By the way, electromagnetism looks very similar to gravity, which causes all older electrical engineering. That's what I've been saying. Electricity is the cause of gravity. Gravity is an effect.

It's a draft, like the thermos. Like the thermos is a draft of radiation. Will you stop teaching, man. I'm sorry. You gotta stop teaching because you're saying interesting stuff and then you just always go over. Look, you wanna know what the DMT of this stuff is?

I'll hand you the stuff that'll blow your mind. Right now, where this is, is something called the double copy. The double copy is a relation that was totally unexpected between the amplitudes associated with gravity and the amplitudes associated with the Yang-Mills stuff. And I just met with a guy, Zvi Bern, at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought us this double copy. And it's a great mystery. It's like looking directly into the equimolar relations before you have the double helix. So there is a relationship that is much deeper

than the superficial relationship between, you know, can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation? Yeah, and then let's do a bathroom break. Sure, we could do one right now. We could do it right now. Do a bathroom break right now. Yeah. We'll be right back. We do right now do a bathroom break right now. Yeah, we're at back You don't know who he is not the last three weeks all I've been doing is watching your shit Bob

I'm like let me see Bob Lazar was a guy Suddenly talking about me. It was like what is my name doing? TMZ asked you a question about him? Yeah, and they said, do I have anything going on? And I was like, yeah, me and Eric Weinstein. I said Weinstein. Stein.

I said Weinstein, because Brian Keaton said Weinstein. He said Weinstein on the thing. Yeah, Weinstein is Weinstein, not Weinstein. Yeah. Yeah. So it's Weinstein. So I said Eric Weinstein. Keating said Weinstein?

Is that what you're saying? Yeah, he said Weinstein. No, he said Weinstein, so I thought I said Weinstein, but I said Eric Weinstein. So whatever Harvey is. Keating said Weinstein? Is that what you're saying? Keating said it wrong? No, he said Weinstein. So I thought I said Weinstein, but I didn't know if that was just a joke or a play on things. They got super sensitive after Harvey. Yeah. Sure, Adam.

So what we were talking about was Bob Lazar, who's a guy who claimed to be back engineering UFOs for the government back in the late 80s. That's what we were just talking about. I did see something about him. Yeah, he was on the podcast many years ago. It's a fascinating story that I hope is real. And that's where disgusting like whether or not Eric could make sense of it. So that's what we're talking about. We walked in here. What were we talking about right before we went for our bathroom break? We went, he threw up an equation. Not threw up. The Newtonian, and then what was after that? We're about to do the analogy between electromagnetism

and gravitation. Newtonian gravitation law. Force law. so we have these inverse square laws and Because of the similarity can we do the electromagnetic force law? With two charges separated by distance of R Joe who has smoked weed in this while we're waiting for it? Nobody. Okay, just Elon. He's the only one who... Okay. So if you look at...

Let's do the electromagnetic. The Fe equals kQq over r squared. Yeah. Okay. So fix that in your mind and imagine that I turn the q1 and the q2 into masses, and the r is the distance between them. And that k becomes a different constant. So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.

OK. You go above? Yeah, let's do the one with the two big spheres right there. So you see that it's like very, very similar, formally, right? There's a constant in front, there are two different objects, and there's a distance. So one of the reasons that I wasn't, I have the same feeling you do about that Saturn hexagon, like what the hell is that? That's unexpected.

And I've never understood this great red Spot on Jupiter being if it's a gas giant. It just it's so stable for Millennia the whole thing doesn't super make sense to me. It's gonna give birth to a moon. Okay so Partially what happens with when electrical engineers get older they start to have this idea about electricity and gravitation. And you get this stuff about electric gravitics, sometimes people call it gravita dynamics, and the formal similarities between these things appeal to people and they want to see one as the other, right? And of course the Calusa-Kline theory tried to connect

gravitation and electromagnetism super early on. So part of what happens is that Terence tries to say, look, I keep coming up with these ideas of some wave fronts. The wave fronts create these shapes that are related to the platonic solids but curved linear versions of them. He associates the tetrahedron with the weak force. He associates the octahedron with the strong force. He associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron on curved linear on opposite faces with the photon, i.e. electromagnetism. He replaces gravitation. Then he says, weirdly, that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't have gravity,

so he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity. And then he's got these shapes. And the disconnect is between the shapes and invoking forces. Right? In other words, there's a moment in the story in which it's just this massive leap.

From the shapes it create creating force? Well it was it was the issue in which I tried to show you the Lagrangian inside of a partition function for encoding everything. And in order to unseat, like let me just give an advertisement for the establishment. The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying this for the Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic fields meet up

into where there's a feel almost a balance. Same cat, different issue. OK. Like when ZZ Top is singing about Lagrange. Well, no, that's what I was saying. When most people hear Lagrangian, that's what they're thinking is Lagrangian. But I'm sure you're thinking about something else.

No. I'm thinking about an objective function. I'm thinking about something to be minimized. In effect, normal human beings think about physics and equations, like Einstein's equation or the Schrodinger equation or all this kind of stuff. Physicists don't think in that way. And if you permit me an analogy, imagine you have four forces, and the four forces are analogized to the four different configurations of the Beatles. When Ringo is singing Oct octopus's garden,

he's in front, everybody else is supporting, right? So when it's, when my guitar gently weeps, George is out front, Penny Lane is gonna be, Paul and Strawberry Field's gonna be John. Those four different configurations of the Beatles are all the Beatles, but they're different configurations, right? Yes.

And the equations are like the different configurations of one person in front and everybody else supporting that person. But the Beatles is like the Lagrangian, right? Okay. So the Lagrangian is a machine for creating those four configurations. Now, in the case of physics, right, you have these different equations for the different fields. The gravitational field equation has gravity in the metric out front. The Yang-Mills equation has the photon, the gluons, the WZ particles out front. The Dirac equation has the matter out front, and the Klein-Gordon equation with potential has the Higgs field out front. And those are the basic fields of reality, so far as we understand it.

But the Higgs field is responsible for like 1% of the force applied upon them, right? It's so that I understand the Higgs field. The Higgs field has to do with the fact like none of us are zipping off at the speed of light yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the weak force. If the weak force was not around, we would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs field rather the Higgs field to generate an as-if mass but because of the asymmetry built into the weak force which is the only thing that has this left-right asymmetry we can't have normal mass there's a place to put a normal mass in the

equation that's forbidden if the universe is left-right asymmetric this has to do with this thing called the Tau Theta Puzzle from the 1950s. We were freaked out. Can we get a picture of Cindy Crawford? That's a good transition. No, no, it's important. So by the way, I'm dating myself because, okay.

How old are you? What? How old are you? What? 58 okay, you got me by three. Well, you said you were a young man. I was flattered to hear Now let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric Right and the asymmetry has to do with a mole that she didn't remove from her face so we can tell when you have an image of her, like if, if she wasn't holding a can of Pepsi and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell, but for the mole, whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her down the center line. So Marilyn Monroe, Sydney,

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 Yukawa coupling. So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing is is it's a crazy Hail Mary to save all of physics because normally if the world were left right asymmetric due to beta decay the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and emit an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process that process is the thing that denies us mass and we would be at the speed of light and we

would all zip off in opposite directions but for the Higgs field. And that process is the radiative process. That's the process I call magnetism that tears apart that rarefies that which was concentrically drawn together through electricity. That weak force is an equal force to electricity. Terrence, let me ask you a question. That's what I feel. I'm taller than Joe. Imagine I challenge Joe to a fight.

What do you think happens next? I get my ass kicked. Well, Joe knows some shit that you don't know. Joe knows some serious shit. I have an advantage on it in terms of weight. I have an advantage on it in terms. I have an advantage in terms of height. He's in great condition. The guy knows how to fight,

and he's got a spinning back kick to die for, okay? What happens is I get my ass kicked. You do not know when you're gonna get your ass kicked. And it's a big problem that you're gonna keep courting, because I watch you. You keep finding the space where we could come together and you insist on teaching into it. And it's like, I'm trying to be nice as pie

because I'm inspired by what you're trying to do. But you have no idea, like, when you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last name and a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't recognize, you just, you gotta stop. Yeah, and I see the metaphor in it. Can I ask you, before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is incorrect and there's something else that accounts for all of the

effects that we call gravity. Yes. And what do you think that is? I feel that's electricity. I feel that gravity is the draft left behind from the electric force. As the electricity moves through, there's a draft that's generated because it creates whirlpools. Each of those whirlpools is the gravity or the cosmic foam or, I forget, there's another

term that they were using for this foam, but it's a flowing. It's the same way that thermals are effective by magnetism or radiation creates these thermals that you're able to fly on. The opposite of those thermals, I believe that gravity is the opposite of those thermals in the electric force. It's the pulling down the same way the thermals push up. What do you think about that? I didn't even want to touch it.

Because I'm going to get into the same thing. I'm trying to say to you. No, I'm just saying, and I could be wrong, because based upon what I am putting together is taking commonsensical geometries and taking definitions of words and putting them together in a manner by which the layman sees it. Because the whole point is for everyone to understand science. But you're teaching repeatedly. And that is going to be your downfall.

No, I'm listening right now. I'm a student. Right now. I swear to you right now. I am a student. I don't know how to you right now I'm a student. I don't know how you generate all that stuff. Like I've tried to understand your mind. I try to do this, by the way, this isn't peculiar to you. So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's theory of the universe, Garrett Lisey's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's theory of the universe, your theory of the universe. My colleagues don't do this. See, I thought I was special. You just made me feel not special anymore. Brother, you were certainly special. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that physics and science is broken down. I will steelman

you. I will try to put your best foot forward. I'm not out to get you. Where we are right now is that the Brian Greens of the universe will not look at anything that isn't string theory. They're really like that. So whether it's Ed Whitten or Sean Carroll or Neil deGrasse Tyson, this generosity of spirit, spirit of collegiality, it's dead, okay? And what you get is gotcha artists, right? And that's all they do. They're just trying, there's also something called gripe and swipe, where they try to find any flaw in what you do so that they can throw you aside

and then they can take every right thing that you did and put it under their own name. That's why I patented 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 haven't. Because if you had seen them, I wouldn't have the patents. So this is part of the problem is that what you need, this is a very important digression. You need help from the community.

Yes. But the community also sees you as a 17-year-old blonde girl from Minnesota getting off the bus in the Sunset Strip having no idea where she is. Even though I've got the 97 patents and all that. It does not 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 Well, see that's what I'm hoping I'm hoping that they ultimately take your answer from me because they become basic General let me tell you something It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something then you fooled some patent Examiner who has no idea what the hell's going on and can't actually earn a living The way he dreamed of being an engineer and so, you know at some level that the most important thing that you've done

Is weirdly based on an error So far as I can tell so Can you bring us a linchpin? Bing bing bing bing. Okay And Jamie could I trouble you you for bringing up that same page over and over again? I'm sorry about that, brother. Just bring one. Okay. But we're dead air here. Okay. Okay, Howard's linchpin. Howard's extraordinary

claims for the linchpin appear to mirror Green's extraordinary claims for the string. So let's look at Terrence Howard filling up the dead air here talking about the linchpin. Okay. The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter either seen or unseen. The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus. The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter. It is the true currency of the universal flow because it is the common factor of all things. It is the small, it is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quanta, the smallest reflection ultimately in collective potential of all things which equals the multiverse, blah blah blah. Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green

do the same thing. It's a great expression on Brian's face. String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is something else. So if I take a little quark and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's nothing inside but string theory says I'll find a little tiny filament, a little filament of energy, a little string-like filament. And just like the string on a violin,

I pluck it and it vibrates, creates a little musical note that I can hear. The little strings in string theory, when they vibrate, they don't produce musical notes, they produce the particles themselves. So a cork is nothing but a string vibrating in one pattern. An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern.

A neutrino, nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still. So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right, deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter, there's nothing but a dancing, vibrating cosmic symphony of strings. Okay, now if you like take what he just said this is entirely respectable. This is a Columbia professor Lecturing me for 40 fucking years about what they're gonna do one day when they grow up That everything is just a string and it just the way a violin can vibrate in different modes all of the particles come from This exact excitation string. That's exactly how you sound with the linchpin.

Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially. It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else has happened for 40 years and they've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues and So in part you're gonna incur an emotional penalty from me with the linchpin Which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool

So the same basic pattern, which is one thing explains it all Has a terrible kind of I'm about to get you, I got you, I got you. My point is, this thing that you created is based on an error. And it's a beautiful error. And I think people are just not gonna grasp it. What's the error? The error is that the arc cosine of minus 1 3rd

is not equal to three fifths pi. Garlic makes my feet stink. Okay. That was perfect. Okay. Terrence with the timing today. I'm sorry. It may be the whiskey. It is the whiskey.

But no, but I'm not mad about it at all. So what's going on is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly, I've got these vectors that point out towards the vertices, and between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six edges. Right. What's the angle between those two vertices as measured from the center of mass inside of a tetrahedron? Still be at 120 degrees. No, it's the arc cosine of minus one third.

That's what you're talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Now, you say this is an undiscovered geometry. Now, why is that an undiscovered geometry? Well, because they gave me the patents to do it. 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 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. Right.

Do you know about even temperament? Yes, yes. Okay. They're going up to 440 instead of 432. Well, no, no, no, no, no, no. Keep retucking it back together. It's an 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 the Pythagorean comma. The difference, all right, Jamie, can we get, can we get the 12th root of two raised to the 19th power? Good luck with that, Jamie. Come on, Jamie. In one way.

Show it on a calculator. I'm gonna do this Terrence Howard style. There's a flaw in all of mathematics and all of music. Take out your calculators. They won't allow me to project it right off. So if we take the scientific calculator, turn it on its side. Take the number two.

Okay. Two. Now, we have an x root y. Can we find, no, root, right below that. Yeah. Try it again. Two. Okay, two, x root y. No root the right below that Yeah, chart again to Okay to X root Y and then do 12 Just type in 12

Okay, and now raise that to the 19th power yeah, oh Now raise that to the 19th power. That's this one, right? Yeah. Oh shit. It's almost three. The speed of light. It's almost three. It's 2.9966.

That is, if we take the national anthem, can you sing, I think you can. Give me, oh say. Whoa, say. Whoa, say. OK, now take from say and get me to land of the free. To the land of the free. OK, that is supposed to be the ratio of three. But if we did it on a harmonica, and the harmonica was probably tuned, sorry. That's not going to be three, it's going to be 2.966.

Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts is that we couldn't figure out how to get three to be perfect because what you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of. By the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on this show. We call it the Procrastarian fifth because when you, even like when I put these together, you'll see that there's points where they will not connect because everything is expanding by feet and that expansion you've got a Pythagorean comma in the middle of your lynchpin yes I do yeah you with 109 point one on our seven yeah rather than 108 yeah you bastard yes yeah so I caught you okay well you didn't catch

me I just I just used a little thing that they don't know about. No, I know about the reason. But wait, wait, wait. I ain't going. Terrence, come back here, Terrence. I'm coming back. I'm about to bring you something. We're talking about this. Terrence.

I'm coming. I'm coming. I promise you. I'm coming right over to you. I just want to have these so when it's time to talk about this. Terrence, I don't think you understand the dead air principle at the JRE. Dead air principle? the JRE. Terrence, okay. So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you

figured out something that is analogous to even temperament, which is if you shove a pentagon, which should have three radians distributed around five angles, in degree terms that's 108. But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is one of 9.47 and change. Yeah,.47. And so effectively the same game that we played and people like Bach started playing with even temperament is where do you pay for even temperament? Well you end up paying for it in the expansion of the song.

It does not follow a natural expansion. That's true. There's no circle of fifths. There's what? A spiral of fifths. There's a phi. And you know what the worst note is? The worst note. See in between it's C and B and E and F hitting at the same time. No, no, no. You're saying something different. I mean that in the

do re mi fa so la ti do, right? Do to me is an abomination. Right? Can we do, do I can turn? Yes. Left a good job in the city. Let's go. Left a good job in the city. Okay.

Working for a man every night and day. But I never lost a minute of sleep thinking about the way things might have been. The wheels keep on turning, keep on turning. I'm every keep on burning, keep on burning now. Rolling, rolling, rolling on the river. It's basically Mary had a little lamb, right? But it's much cooler. Now, left a good job in the Sitte.

Sitte is going to be the third, and that third is wildly sharp to the Pythagorean third. That's the penalty we pay for dividing the perfect octave, right? Can you give me Somewhere Over the Rainbow? Somewhere over the rainbow, birds fly way up high. Let me see, what would it be? Let me see what it would be. I feel like I'm in a boxcar. I feel like I'm on the launching pad where the UFO lands on close encounters. Alright, somewhere is a doubling of frequency, right?

The doubling is perfect. The fifth is a lie, but it's a good lie. The third is an abomination. It's not until you get to 53 notes, which the Turks use, that you get a better fifth and a better third. You get a better fifth, the 29th notes per scale. Yes. And you get a worse third.

So there's no reason to do that. It's the 12th, the 29th, per scale. Yes. And you get a worse third. So there's no reason to do that. It's the 12th, the 29th, the 53rd. Yeah. Now my claim is, is that you pulled off the same thing by finding a cheat inside of the linchpin, which is why it's genius. And I don't even think you know how genius this thing is, is my guess. I'm about to show you noble gas and I'm going to show you matter. I'm going to fuck the whole thing up.

Listen to me. The number of edges in a tetrahedron is what? And a tetrahedron is six. And that's why you have six pentagons. But these six pentagons are not, either they're not perfect or they're not joined perfectly. You put six motors in these things with propellers and you have six degrees of freedom. You have an object well so we talk about pitch roll and yaw but those are basically if I understand correctly the basis vectors for the Lie algebra of SO3 or spin 3 or SU2. What's on Lie algebra?

Well so the idea is I have a rotation group of symmetries of this object about its central vertex. Right. And that's one of the things you can put one of these things up and with three degrees of freedom I can spin it right like a like a full-on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that nothing else can move. Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four motors. This is unlimited. Okay, well, but it's gonna distract us.

Let's get to that in one second, because it's super cool. By the way, that's a CGI. Yes, that's a CGI. I've seen Guy actually flying this around, so I don't wanna do this. Well, we've got like 19 of them, that's actually. So what's going on with this is that you have

three degrees of freedom, which is the rotations that I need here, but you've got three extra degrees of freedom to move in different places. Now there's something called the affine group, which is the semi-direct product of SO3 with the R3 group of translations. And SO3 has eight, it introduces the chromatic aspect of... Don't go chromatic.

Just... Don't go chromatic. You've got something brilliant. Okay. Okay, listen, I'm just trying to understand. The best thing that I've seen out of Terrence Howard, I will tell people, this is why you never throw the baby out with the bath water. And again, I

don't know that you invented it. I think you did. I did invent it. I promise you, I think you did. No, I didn't invent it. It was given to me. An angel gave that to me. And I'm sorry that everybody's, I'm sorry to say this. There's a way in which we all feel pressure to give away the genius stuff that we do to some higher power. This is why if you ask like Khabib Nurmagomedov, like how do you do such great things? He'll say, mashaAllah or istafrullah, right? Alhamdulillah, right? Because Islam is very good about,

you always give away the compliment because you don't, you can't hold it because it'll cause you an ego distortion. This thing here has six degrees of freedom based on the relative speeds of the motors that you put into it. Plus there's an affine group called SO3 semi-direct product R3 which has six Lie algebra elements. That means that this thing can potentially span the Lie algebra. And if you have a track ball over here as a controller, and you put like three theremins so that you could control

in three-dimensional space, you potentially have a drone that can rotate itself in three dimensions and get anywhere based on these six objects. Now, I could be wrong about that. No, you're right. We've actually done that. Okay, so my claim is, if the only thing you've done, forget the art, forget the science,

forget the this, forget the that, if the only thing you did was to introduce an error, which is 109.47 is not exactly 108. But 108 is that key of A, which is- God damn it, you won't stop. I'm not stopping, I'm just, I'm working with you. I know. Keep going, keep going. All right, all right, you talk. That is a really cool grade A idea until I hear that somebody else did it or that when you machine this because this is the thing. Now this is when you put four of them together. Now the thing is,

it's very cool if you take what Intel does with drones where they sort of synchronize these swarms, this thing comes together and it forms a stable structure. Now if you look at it, the tolerances that you've built into this thing because these pentagons do not exactly come together. 109.47. He's not 108. That a thing. Within engineering is like even temperament. Even temperament is a lie.

It's a fraud. But oh my God, all the most beautiful music in the world is built on even temperament. But look at what it generates. That's what I'm talking about. You put four, now four of these come together and make this. Four of these come together and they make this larger

structure that is the same exact thing. So that's not a lie. It is a lie. This right here is- You're trying to build the whole universe off of the lynchpin. I'm defining something new. You are. To the best of my

knowledge, by the way, I looked at this years ago. Hold on, hold on, no, no, no, before you go there. This is the other side of it. This is what's very interesting. Like these, they'll come together and meet. You can see where they meet up. They're natural meeting up. Now this one looks exactly like this one, but they don't have the same mixture. So what this is creating, this is actually showing, this is the equal and opposite. This is matter, this becomes the anti-matter of it.

I can't stop you doing that. You can't stop me, I'm so sorry. I'm my own worst enemy and my own best friend. You know what, that was a beautiful statement But that's what I'm trying to say is the fact that they keep and these four will keep this is just the magnetic What I consider the magnetic field you see you stop yourself I can say I really consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding at the center and magnetism to in my language expanding at the center and magnetism to, in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater.

And you know what you just said, in my language? In my language. That's what I just did with the Terrence product. In other words, I'm trying to get you to stop pissing my community off. I don't wanna piss them off. I want friends, I need friends. Terrence, that's why we're here, right?

But this right here, when you have, and these will keep bonding with greater ones and keep making the same structure. The point is it's good enough within engineering tolerances to be a dodecahedron. This dodecahedrons are, I'm not gonna teach. Now, if, Jamie, can we bring up T4 bacteriophage capsid? Because I think, do you know what a capsamere is?

No. All right. I know what a pap smear is. That's the second time you did that. Just had one last week. I had to join both of them. What? Okay. I think you got a bad doctor.

Okay. Now let's do the one below the cartoon. So you see where it says collar and sheath. The one below the cartoon. So you see where it says collard and sheath, let's do, yeah. Oh, those are those quick things that run along, they move so very quickly along. No, you're talking about something else. You're talking about a transport thing. This is a virus.

Oh, this is a virus. It looks like the transport thing that just run along. This is phage lambda. And what this thing is, that thing is an icosahedral capsid. So all of the nucleic acid is upstairs in that compartment, but it's not a perfect icosahedron because it has the elongation of some triangles and the truncation of others.

Now this thing is an example of imperfection in nature. So nature wanted to do something very rigid to protect the nucleic acid by coming up with a nicosahedron, but she didn't do a perfect one. Can we find any other that, like, you see above that one, that's way too perfect. It's not true. That's a good one. So in some sense, what you find often enough is that nature actually chooses imperfect perfection. Nested. Yeah, they're just nesting instead of now what the way this works. Can we look up caps? So mere? Again, I'm way out of my element.

CAPO, CAPSO, CAPSOMIR, yeah. And then images. So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your drone units, your linchpins, that come together to form capsids. So can you hold up one that encases a dodecahedron? Like right here, right here. So that is like a capsid made from capsameres. So I want you to spend some time on the protein data bank.

Maybe let's go to the protein PDB capsamere and you'll get an understanding of all the ways in which nature has been doing this engineering that we've been learning from. Maybe actually just go to the site PDB. Yeah let's try that. Yeah, let's try that. Herpes. Basically what these are are little nature's version of lynchpins that come together to form platonic solids, which are the triangular platonic solids are valued because the triangle is a stable structure.

If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily. So they're not very, you know, engineers will use triangles over squares. What you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out the eternal one's understanding of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability that actually use the imperfections just the way you were using the imperfections. And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because 108 wasn't equal to 109.47. It's close. And the fact that you're willing to deal with something doped with imperfection is what actually is the genius akin to even temperament. Well, it's like how do you walk?

You don't walk by a perfect gape. You walk by moving past the point of equilibrium and catching yourself. Well said. It's the catching. I don't know how to think like that. I think perfectly, not imperfectly, and it's to my detriment in many situations. Well, you've got an incredible mind. Can we go back to the main page?

Because another thing that I see you taking a lot of guff for is the periodic table. Now I don't like your periodic table, but you are also the only person I know who's pushing into the public consciousness, the understanding, okay. So first of all, do you know Stanley Jordan? Not by name. He smoked weed. Stanley Jordan is one of the,

I don't even wanna call him a guitarist. He's an alien intelligence from another universe. But if you go up and you click that, people have been saying that Terence Howard is making up this thing about the periodic table and the sound of the elements. And I want you to hear what he calls sonification. The ionization energies of the elements as represented here in a periodic table, and we are going to produce tones representing those energies. The way that this app works is each one of these elements

in the table is actually a push button, and I can play tones with these push buttons. The settings in this control panel here will determine how those energies will be converted into tones that we can hear. First of all, we're just gonna look at a few of the controls for now. See, we have transposed frequency. The frequencies corresponding to these ionization

energies are extremely high, so we have to transpose them down to a range that we can't. As you said. So here we're going to transpose it down, in this case, 42 octaves, negative 42. So let's start with hydrogen. If I transpose it 43 octaves, negative 42. So let's start with hydrogen. If I transpose it 43 octaves down, I get that tone, or I can go 44 octaves down. I can also transpose it chromatically. As you can see here, I can go up and up again, and up again.

But normally I set that at zero and just leave it there. And I only change the octave. Let's go back to 42. And I'm going to show you some of the other controls that we have here. The duration is in seconds. So here we go one second long Or we could go longer. Let's say two seconds and The damping factor controls how quickly the tone decays

Three is kind of like a nice so what he's doing is he's preparing you for the fact that he's gonna play the Periodic table and by the way, I just want to say this thing Stanley Jordan is a friggin' mega genius. I see that now. And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago, and what he was gonna do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the elements and also go beyond that for molecules.

See, I tried to do the same thing and I asked I caught... People treat you like you're nuts. I called UCLA asking for the prime resonant frequency of the elements and they wouldn't give them to me. Nobody would give them to me. Well because in part... wait listen to this. Boron, carbon,, Oxygen, Fluorine, Neon. Now what happens is, as you start listening to these, you start to notice patterns. Let me go and go through this second row again, but I won't say them. I'll just go ahead and play through them. Kind of a beautiful melody, isn't it? Now, these pitches that we're hearing are determined straight

from a calculation based on the actual energy of the element. So, we are getting tones that you couldn't necessarily play on a piano, a lot of them would fall in between the the keys So they don't fit our conventional your sense sharper sense System, but if you want it to fit we can enable this it says quantize pitch So all these pitches are slid to the nearest know when you say ki of e Means all of the notes that we could play on a I'm talking about 432 when I'm talking about the key of E. The chromatic scale just means all of the notes that we could play on a piano. And I'm talking about 432 when I'm talking about the key of E on it. Well you make an error again. So you say this thing about hydrogen 40.5? Well no I wasn't saying, wait a second,

wait a second. But I wasn't saying that hydrogen is 40.5. I was saying that the key of E is 40.5 hertz and doubles to 162. Those things, if I do move. Yeah, but you said it in a very authoritative way. And the 40.5 is not 40.5 hertz. It's 40.5 megahertz associated not with hydrogen, but with mercury. But you have to keep, once you keep doubling that.

But wait a second, Terrence. You activated a bunch of chemists who said, But you have to keep once you keep doubling that but ways that get tears that you Activated a bunch of chemists who said I don't know this frequency because they're looking at 440 They're looking at their 440 is no relevance 440 is concert a In a time when we've decided that that is concert a if you were to use the Indian the Hindustani system, let's say Instead of do re mi fa sola teed do. It was ut re mi fa so la. No, they do sorry gama pad, sorry gama pad, da pa ga sorry gaga re sorry. They use a different. I did the Sefalgian skill. I know. That's what I'm saying. This is that for North India, right? It's an irrelevancy because everybody's allowed to tune their sa to a different tone.

They don't have to tune their ta around A440 because there's only three instruments. There's a tabla which doesn't have that tone as an important part. There's a tanpura which is tuned to the soloist and the soloist determines what their sa should be. So can we do sarai ga? So in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter because you can tune it to whatever you want to tune it. You're not trying to come up with an orchestra. It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament that forces us all to listen to the concert master as to what A440 is, right? Okay.

Joseph Gerbos pushed that around the world. Okay, not do Joseph Gerbos. Just keep drinking whiskey. What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the periodic table, except for a tiny number of people. Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go back below that.

The Sound of Hydrogen from WSU, so this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure out how to play these things. And this is the sonification. Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think, but you need to know about a guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University, which is trying to do some wild radical stuff, they are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on frequency of the valence electrons, and that particles that vibrate the same way smell the same, even if the shapes are different. And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations

are very different, they don't smell the same. So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Scent about the academic, like all the people who try to push you down, they're trying to push Lucaturin down as if he doesn't know what's going on. He's written the Bible of Perfume. I don't know if you like scent. I do. He understands the vibratory quality of scent. And so trying to sort of synesthetize these things

by saying that everything that has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms as a small freak community of very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing. Only problem is, you gave us, people ask me for an analogy. What do you think of Terrence Howard? That's all I got for like a week. Can we pull up the, um,

Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan experience. Yeah, no, no, the, the, the, we're, we're having that right now. The 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 ask me what I thought of you, let's click on that thing. That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables that's much more in favor with people

who are mathematically minded like you are, rather than the Walter Russell periodic table. Because what this does is it uses the quantum mechanics to stop with those exceptions. Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the rule? This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical harmonics where

you're looking at complex valued functions on the two-dimensional sphere. And the sort of Aufbau principle, imagine that there was only a Coulomb potential centered at the origin in the hydrogen situation. You would go along and say hydrogen first, helium, then lithium, then beryllium, then boron, carbon, nitrogen, etc. And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the electrons in which the, you have this principle quantum number which is basically the energy level. But then the L quantum number is what we would call

highest weight for a highest weight representation of SU2 or spin three, which is the double cover of SO3. That first one is one dimensional, but it's spin up and spin down, so you get two elements. The next one is going to be three-dimensional, but you're going to get six elements. And then you're going to get five-dimensional because spin, it's SO3 that determines the representation theory. This thing is what I wish you had given us rather than the Walter Russell thing which is sort of a historical artifact. Now no offense, but the big problem is is that if you are trying to talk about like hydrogen and then you

imagine carbon is an octave above I think is what you said. And then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is what you said. Doubling the frequency. What is that thing below hydrogen? And you say, no, no, no, it's too dense to be perceived. Like bullshit. But there is ultra low frequencies, even though we cannot hear it. Yes, but there's ultra low frequencies. And that's what I'm saying.

My problem is- That's where your analogy broke down, Terrence. No, because hydrogen sits in the same exact position as carbon does when you're looking at it. No, it doesn't. It doesn't come off at the same coloration. It doesn't have that same tone. Terrence, you're talking about a periodic table

from like 1926, something like that. And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly. Now look at all this shit that you're doing. And look at the fact that he's locked in 1926. Dirac is not gonna come up with the Dirac equation to supersede the Schrödinger equation for another two years.

Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born. The neutron isn't gonna be discovered until the early 30s. And you're taking the wrong fight. You're saying when David Tong, here's what I really didn't appreciate about what you did. David Tong said, this is all a lie. And you took the wrong meaning from that. What David Tong was saying was different.

David Tong was saying, we teach hard little ball theory. Right? There's an up quark and two down quarks in every neutron and two up quarks and one down quark. And they're all little hard little balls stuck together by rubber bands. And then we've got one electron going crazy around it. He's like, that's not what's true. And what did he say? It wasn't a lie in the sense that he said, that's the best knowledge that we said. I don't know how to say the word field to a seven year old. They're fields. They're not hard little balls. But that was my problem with David Tong, because here I showed him you don't have a problem with that. No, no. The problem that I had was with his response

to me was here I was showing him these are the wave fields that your particles sit within. Every time you teach, you incur a penalty. But see, that's the problem. How do you not teach when you have something new? I'll tell you how to do it. Okay? First thing is, you try to figure out who's ethical and who isn't.

I'm not kidding around with this guy. You've got to be Jesus Christ to figure out who's ethical and who isn't. I'm not kidding around with this guy. You've got to be Jesus Christ to figure that out. Because most people, they have a good faith. Terrence, let me ask you a question. Have I been fair to you this time? You've been amazingly fair. You've been very kind. Okay, have I been uniformly?

No, I haven't been uniformly kind. You have. You've been honest. Well, you're talking to me about my heart is open to you, right? You've actually talked about the things that I've talked about You've given me criticism on things where I've made mistakes. You've told me where this is not available as a service in academics I know academics basically it's a closed little world and If you don't come with protection we stab you in the eye

This idea that Neil said about why doesn't he just submit to peer review? Oh, I did. It's the biggest bunch of shit I've ever heard in my life. We've got two papers, the geometry of the proton. Did you get to see that? Can we pull up the Neil stuff that I prepared on that page? Because I cannot believe how disingenuous this is. He calls you the worst insult in academics, which is...

There was a study called... The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Dunning-Kruger Effect is both an effect that is studied and the ultimate insult. It's basically your mama, right? Let's just click on that and see what happens. I spent a lot of time on it and I thought out of respect for him, what I should do is give him my most informed critical analysis that I can. In my field we call that a peer review. You come up with an idea, you present it either at a conference or you first write it up and

you send it to your colleagues. It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided or wrong or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out or the logic doesn't comport. That's their job. Not all ideas will turn out to be correct. Most won't be. But to get to that point, you need to know things like, what has everyone else said about this same subject? Am I repeating someone else's work? Is this a new insight that no one else has had, but has foundations that are authentic, or legitimate, or objectively true? Am I making a false assumption? Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false? All of this goes on, on the frontier of science.

Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe. It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier. What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's call it, it's possible to know enough about that subject to think you're right, but not enough about that subject to know that you're wrong.

And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence. This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge, you over-assess how much of that subject you actually know. And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I thought I did.

So then there's a sort of a lull there. And then when you learn even more, you come back up. Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong. To become an expert means you spend all this time. It doesn't happen overnight. You can't just sit in an armchair and say, I'm now an expert.

It requires years and years of study, especially looking through journals where new ideas are published and contested. That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that which is objectively true or determining that which is objectively false. Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the universe. I'm going to read you just my opening line here It's titled one times one equals two. Okay, so I lead off so that was the that was now if we go below that

What do we have is there is that let's try that Hi, sir, Arthur Eddington an astrophysicist provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which by the way, was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Crazy idea. The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media. It is not Joe Rogan. It is not Joe Rogan. It is not my podcast.

It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end of the day offers no higher respect for your energy and intellect than by declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or worthy of publication or not. I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with his treaties, but you got the sense of it.

Thanks for listening. Okay. I wanna be very careful about my words. Is there anything below that that we've put together? This is, let's go above. This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, just so you don't feel bad about yourself, talking about me and my theories based on a question in Ask Me Anything. Will you be able to talk about Tarek Weinstein about the new theory of geometric unity? This is from 2013. We

are all wondering about that. Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary. In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science documentaries that came afterwards. So the answer is no. Let me explain where you are. Neil is not unaware that you are never gonna get your hearing in a peer-reviewed journal. Your ideas are gonna come through. You're a self-taught autodidact polymath.

You haven't been cleaned up. You haven't been taught how to speak properly. You don't know the fact that when you say lube we know fixed point. I know how to do all this stuff, right? You're not getting a peer review from me. I know a lot more than you do about a lot of this stuff. You're getting an elite review. And my elite review says that a lot of this is bath water, but a small amount of this is baby. And that's not available anywhere. It's not available in a university. It's not available in a journey, in a journal. That's available on the Joe Rogan Experience.

And you know, Neil's right. If what you want is peer review, you should go to a journal and they will laugh you out. They will take one look at your email address and if it doesn't end in.edu, I promise you you're not going to get hurt. Do me a favor, Jamie. Can you pull up? Wait, wait, wait. Hold on.

Let him finish because this is a sustained thought. Let's go below where we just were, Jamie. I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review. This is Google Ngrams, and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus of English language books published in the world. Peer review basically begins in the mid-1960s. in the mid-1960s. Now there were various forms of review. Editors in particular were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to not peer review things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who should be not. Can we bring that back up? More or less from what I can piece together, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, who started Pergamon Press,

destroyed- You mean Jeffrey Epstein's Ghislaine Maxwell? Correct, correct. He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune by blowing out the number of journals and forcing every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to publish, because to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission

that you had an incomplete library. So he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals. This was a group, a very informal high-quality enterprise. Now, most of the destruction of science in terms of how high quality it used to be has taken place relatively recently, post Robert Maxwell, because now we have an enormous number of journals staffed by people who can't spot publication cartels where we agree to cite each other's work and we agree to publish stuff you know pay for play all of the nonsense that you see with irreducible irreproducible research comes after this peer review

thing 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. Neil is giving you a very cursory back of the hand brush off. Okay. I felt it. All right. I'm here because I love this man. And this is a higher quality environment. We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci and the origin of COVID. I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything that you were saying, at a level where he did say,

like, I can't evaluate this. He was letting you have your piece. Joe has established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose. He can call on all sorts of amazing people. He called on you. Well, he has lapses in judgment, but he has his good qualities. My point being that this is actually

what science was supposed to be. We were supposed to listen to each other, not go after each other with an ice pick to the eye. We were supposed to try to figure out the best version. Remember at the beginning of this where I was trying to say, look, I wanna do the best version of your idea and build it up. So what you're saying though,

can I just summarize this? What you're saying is that Neil deGrasse's understanding of peer review is flawed. and that it is not really Available to someone like Terrence. It really isn't he knows that you see peer review is not one thing One thing peer review is the ability to get rid of the axe murderer Who's just wandered into your office with a manuscript and read crayon? Well, why you guys are talking this I've got to run to the bathroom. Go ahead.

Just this alone. It's an important point. Yeah. OK. So what Joe and I were just talking about. Yeah, we're back from the bathroom break. Is what is peer review actually, and why is it controversial? So imagine that you have four types of people.

You've got two establishment figures, one of whom is screwing up the field, who's in a very powerful position and should be removed from the impediment, being the impediment to progress that they are. Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it. They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment. The establishment has recognized how valuable that person is. Now you've got two other figures. You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of the universe

and anybody who doesn't understand them is a horrible person. Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about and can overturn the established order which is where you get a revolution. Peer review just sees establishment versus non-establishment. It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years and it will stop somebody coming from outside. It will reapportion credit. So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I said about gripe and swipe. We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've produced away from you and we publish it under our own name.

I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues, particularly younger colleagues. And to simply say peer review, it works, bitches. Holy cow. How can this be? I thought I was upset with some things that you had said and done. No, no, no, they're dwarfed.

They're dwarfed by this. This is so disingenuous. Basically, this is saying, please submit your stuff from a gmail.com address. We'll take one look and say, doesn't look like.edu to me. And we'll throw whatever you do in the trash heap and we'll say, well, you got the benefit of my peer review.

Now you look at what Neil said about your stuff, and by the way, he's right about one times one equaling one. You're wrong about that. That was your opener. You picked a terrible move. On the other hand, you heard what I said about the linchpin. It was a combination of bath water and baby.

I do not have any economic or authoritative interest in taking anything that you've done, putting it under my own name. I am simply here to help you. And when we talked about the angle and all this stuff, I can tell you that that's a great idea. It may have been had by somebody else because I don't know, but I assume it comes from you.

It may not work in practice. I think it's pretty promising. And I think if you don't do anything else and you create one drone that just does that really cool thing It'll all have been worth it. No, we've got no no no I know You already created this you're obviously doing cool stuff What I'm trying to say is we in science have lost the ability to talk to people who do flawed stuff from outside All we want to do is get rid of you.

And it's because we have this fake openness. We have a fake scientific method. Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method. We got along fine without it. Peer review isn't even peer review. It's something called peer injunction, where your peers can stop you without shorting you. I'm happy to bet against you in all sorts of things

that you're doing. And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience. But if I block you and I won't short you, that's saying that I think you're dangerous because it's too dangerous to go short. And the idea that we're handing old people and established people and very politically savvy people the ability to block you without

shorting you is unforgivable so what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer I'm like I'm not pretending to be your peer I know a lot more than you do I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome. And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that supposedly got handed to you does. So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is in my field that I care about, for 40 years we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory people are doing real work and everybody else isn't and it's total hogwash and there's no way we can get

out from under these people. In the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya, I was just with Jay Bhattacharya in Italy, you have this guy who has a PhD in economics and he's a doctor and he's a professor and he's a doctor, and he's a professor, and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some bureaucrat who's probably in control of the bioweapons portfolio, you know, because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s, the Geneva Convention and the Bioweapons Convention, he and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe epidemiologist. It's like, no, we're going to have a mutiny.

And the mutiny is going to be based here, because this is a place that you'd invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya. Oh, for sure. Yeah. We can do any of that. I'd bring garlic. Yeah. We could have Michio Kaku in here.

And some crosses on the wall. Let's have Michio Kaku and Brian Greene. Let's have a discussion about string theory. Let's fundamentally discuss neoclassical economics. Shall we discuss whether or not random mutation is the true engine of neo-Darwinism? Is that reasonable? Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is, but random mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins

because stability is too difficult? The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility. And even though you think of it as, I just like having conversations with people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have any other place. We can't go to the National Academy of Sciences to politicize We can't go to Harvard. You saw what just happened with Claudine Gaye who's still a professor we've lost everything and

Podcasts as dippy and shitty and as variable in quality as they are Jerry very much included. This is all that's left and my claim is that I'll challenge Neil. I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the hook and by the way some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong. The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind what I'm talking about. When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasmic field, I've got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be

reviewed. I will show you. I would love that. I would love that. I'll take some of your money. I would love that. I would love that. I would I would I would love that but also try to help make them better but it's having the proof and then mind you like Jamie if you pull up the But Terrence, you know what he's saying about like not being an expert in teaching and then coming from the outside and that it's insult It's like it's insult. Yeah, it's insulting. It's a bad way to approach a concept Because the people that have been studying these concepts for so long instantaneously are told that they don't know but you know.

And that's offensive to people that are actual experts in a thing. I think the same ideas could be portrayed in a way that does not do that. I have to learn that nomenclature. It's just you're so much smarter than most of the people you're talking to. That's what the problem is. And this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector.

In other words, you believe what you're saying, and you're obviously very, very smart, and you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to. Like, how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and geometric algebra and Clifford Algebra? I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do that, right?

When I saw you mention Clifford Algebra, I was like, okay, there's a commonality. Right, now Sean Carroll for sure knows what a Clifford Algebra is. I'm not sure whether Neil deGrasse Tyson does. Brian Greene certainly does, but in general, this stuff doesn't get introduced in places like this. And you'll watch this in yourself.

I'll try to put a circuit in your mind so you'll know exactly the point where you start pissing my community off. Can we bring up the cruel tutelage of PyMay? What's that? I love chick flicks and I think the ultimate chick flick. Joe? Be sensitive. It sounds like my ex-wife. I'm seeing you there chick flicks and I think the ultimate chick flick Joe Let's go Let's go earlier than this

Is that from Kill Bill? Yeah. Oh Can't show this that's why we can't yeah Well, the bride goes up to the top of these stairs Oh, okay. I can't show this. That's why we can't. You gotta be more specific. I can't show this stuff on YouTube. Well, the bride goes up to the top of these stairs. And Pai Mei asks her, what do you know? And she says something like, I am acquainted with such and such so and so and I am more than proficient in the fine art of Japanese whatever and Pai Mei completely kicks her ass because she doesn't understand where she is and

my claim is is that you need your ass kicked and you need to apprentice to some of us who know more than you and believe me let me just tell you this I've had my ass kicked. I will get my ass kicked more because you need some kind of humility You're coming across wrong by the way, never pick a fight with Jamie Foxx. Holy shit. Is that good at everything? I learned I learned that the hard way Jimmy if you're out there, I totally love you and what you did in Ray is just

unbelievable. He's just he's so damn good. Yeah he's an insanely talented person. He's insanely talented person. He's one of the most intelligent people I've met. I was sitting on the set of Ali with him and I'm playing chess with him and I'm playing a serious game of chess chess He's having a conversation with two other people while he's playing chess with me If it's nothing as if it's nothing yeah, and I play chess well So for I was never been more impressed with somebody who can compartmentalize and he's an organizational genius. He's, he's, he's, whatever he is, he is.

But you know what? I had my guy, my guy was named Noam Elkes. I don't know if, uh, you never heard of Noam Elkes. Noam Elkes, I entered Harvard at 19 with a master's degree. Noam was 18. He didn't have a master's degree. So we were sort of in a weird way neck and neck and everything that I I was good at, Noam was better. Noam, I played a little piano, Noam could compose anything. I mean, this guy's just like super genius

beyond genius, right? And he wasn't a bad guy at all, but he was so powerful in his mind that, like he composed, I think, an 11 by 11 crossword with no black squares. I don't know, stuff that just can't be done. Um, and I thought, geez, there's just no point in competing with Noam Alkes. And one Christmas party, a professor named Raoul Bott, um, heard me playing, trying to play boogie-woogie piano. And Noam sat down, and, like, Raoul said, well, why don't you play us some boogie-woogie piano. And Noam sat down and like, Raoul said,

well, why don't you play us some boogie-woogie? And Noam started playing what he thought was boogie-woogie, but it was like Rachmaninoff. And Raoul would say, no, no, no. And Noam would go into Chopin and then he'd go into Liszt. He was playing ever more brilliant things. And finally his brain just blew because he couldn't think through boogie-woogie.

But Noam then became the youngest professor in the history of Harvard University. I realized that I had accidentally entered in a year in which Noam Elkies was president. And by having my ass kicked repeatedly by this guy, I had to ask myself the question, well, what am I doing on this planet? What do I have to contribute? And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like this, right?

There's a creative spark and a spirit in you that I really see and appreciate. It comes from an older era, and we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere. We used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields. And right now what we've got is a specialization epidemic. And as far as I

can tell, what you need is some discipline. And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot more than you, who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those things. And not just shut them down. And the epidemic we have is assassins. We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system, all they do is see things in terms of like Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger. The funny part about it is that that's the midwits endpoint,

is that they see heterodox thinkers and they can't figure out how to place them and so they just say if I can find one error I can reject everything and you keep triggering that and that's why you are one but that's why I keep saying the one times one is more of a metaphor to us it is life and death you try to sneak one times one through airport security it's like it's just a Glock 19. I understand that but it was really to get to gain the attention never do it to gain the attention. Listen you didn't know and now you know. Well okay there's one more that's gonna keep us from ever getting you through this

thing. Can we pull up that my page again? We're gonna wrap it up with this one. Yeah I wanted well I want to do this it'd be a little bit. We didn gonna wrap it up with this one. Yeah, I wanted, well I wanna do this, it'd be a little bit more. We're four and a half hours in it. But we didn't even do the lynch man. Terrence, Terrence. Terrence, we're so far down the road. If we, this is four and a half hours?

Okay, I want you to take a look at the chemical engineering PhD, because if we don't do that, I can't actually help you. No, that right there. Let me. Talk to me. Let me explain that. Yeah. Here I took over to, what was the name of the university? South Carolina University.

I was working with Apollo diamonds. We were growing diamonds. And I developed a way in which to grow diamonds larger than the two-carat diamonds. I went over to South Carolina University and I talked to them about introducing the diamond process into their university. They were going to give me an honorary degree. Now I'm thinking they're giving me an honorary degree in chemical engineering because of

what I'm doing. And it's just an honorary degree in humanities that they gave me. And so I went on the show and I was like, yeah, well, I got the I got an honorary degree from them. But that ended up coming across as if I got an honorary degree in chemical engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering. I assume you did.

An honorary degree. Is worthless. It's like, if your child needed brain surgery, would you go to Dr. Dre? No. OK. Here, I want you to hold this. As a guy who was 19 with a master's degree, Harvard University and I got into a fight

and it took me seven years to get that away from them. And they would have been happy to bury me without it. That is blood, sweat, and tears. And the work that I actually started doing ended up in somebody else's name because Harvard University in part credited with them with it. That's the person? When you screw around with a PhD, like this Claudine Gay, this woman needs to be fired, okay?

Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill. Enough with the anti-Semitism, enough with the woke, enough with the DEI. Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics. You're getting absolutely treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've done. You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff. That thing about the PhD, it's basically fraud. What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit. Merit is merit. If I can catch you in a fraud, if I can

catch you in a lie, I can catch you in an error, I don't care. My question is what did you do? What was the cool stuff you did do? I'm not an assassin. I don't care if you in part exaggerated your achievements. I know how it feels like to be shat on. I know that you have no ability to fight what's being said to you from on high. Okay? What I'm saying is, the only thing that matters is what you contribute in the end. And imagine that there was fraud,

imagine that there were lies, imagine that there were errors. And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines everything because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six dimensions in the semi-direct product of SO3 with R3, whatever. It doesn't matter. It's that cool. Gregor Mendel probably faked his peapod experiments. And there's a guy named David E. Kaplan at Johns Hopkins

University who said to me something, it's so beautiful I can't reproduce it, he said physics is based on everything. It's the backstabbing, it's the frauds, it's the geniuses, it's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done, the experimentalists who toil on papers with a thousand people. And this community of all of these people have come together to produce something which is something close to the source code of the universe. And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help.

There's a lot of work to do it. It happens that I had done a lot of the work over my life so I didn't have to put an infinite amount of energy into this. But what happened is that you created a mass delusion. And it was a mass delusion in part because we're not aware of what mass delusions actually are. They start with a nub of truth. They start with creative sparks of genius.

So we're on the lookout for people who are just frauds, who have nothing that they actually can contribute. And what we don't realize is that you have these things about kayfabe which are these melanges of reality and fakery, right? And they're interwoven. What you've produced is something that is part bullshit and part real contribution. And we don't have a system to pull it apart and we don't have any experience for how to sense when that's what's going on. But they consider the bullshit to be the one times one equaling two and the 97

patents the supersymmetry. It's not the 97 patents it's not the supersymmetry. It's simply the residue the reduction of when we get rid of all the stuff that wasn't supposed to be here because you're a self-taught polymath. You're obviously incredibly intelligent. You're obviously not taught by the system and you can't do that work all on your own. No. So you've got to come in and you've got to find somebody who's not looking to kill you. And that's been the entire dance. What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and mathematical community so that they can advance past the platonic solids.

The platonic solids I still see in a two or three dimensional position. And since we are living in hyper space and hyperbolic reality, then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space so we don't have to go through Lorenz transformations and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space.

I think that the real story, Terrence, is going to be whether you can stop teaching long enough to accept some help. I'm here to accept the help. And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something, the linchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know, and to the extent that I did know it, I threw it away, and I think it's a great idea and I think that the art and I think that some of the higher dimensional stuff and I think that a lot of this stuff has a kind of beauty that if if if if John Horton Conway were still

alive and hadn't been killed by COVID I know I'd know where to send you there's a guy you know there are sphere packing people, there are combinatorialists, there are all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm. But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is, is that when you get on a program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion. I've got a Fauci mass delusion. I've got a string theory mass delusion. I've got a Biden is fine mass delusion. I've got a Trump is not a problem mass delusion. All I have morning, noon, and night is mass delusion on mass delusion. But people don't understand that the reason that these mass delusions get started is that there's a

nub of truth in them. QAnon is not, can't be total bullshit because it's got some core in it that's right and some craziness. If you think about Dianetics and Scientology, the first thing that they teach you about is the reactive mind. That's not a terrible theory and then before you know it, it's xenon and volcanoes, right? So what's going on is is that people are not aware of how K-Fabe works, right? Wrestling is one of the most dangerous, demanding sports of a certain kind. Now it happens to be theatrical and pre-programmed, but if you've ever dealt with anybody, like the wrestling community suffers a death

rate unlike any other sport in the world, What you have to understand is that K-Fabe, and I highly recommend you look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality intermingle. And that's what you did on the last time that you were here. And I can talk to you about the fantasy, I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies, but I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius, and the insight. And what I want the world to learn is you're getting sucked into mass delusions that you're not properly imagining. There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't acknowledge.

And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in, because in some sense the mainstream is our official cult and then all of the rest of us produce these other cults. And in my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep conversation about GU, Geometric Unity, with my own community. Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you is dwindling to fewer than ten. It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you. Thanks for being a decent guy. I know that not all of this has been welcome. This has all been welcomed. Any truth. And like I said,

I take you up on on examining and exploring these into the areas, because like I said, these are tools. I just want to offer a new set of tools to that community so that they can now advance past the points where we are. Try not offering, because the first thing you need to do, the first thing you need to do is not necessarily be a student, it's not a higher versus lower, but just recognize that you're bringing gifts and you're bringing problems and it's very expensive to help you.

But it doesn't mean it's impossible. And one of the great things about this program is that if there is anybody out there, they can hear it. Now, I'll be honest with you, I've been on this program maybe six times before. I am often astounded that I can reach all of planet Earth and there isn't a single soul who can hear me. And I think that one of the things you're gonna have to reckon with is you're saying certain things and you may get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of responses and there won't be a single meaningful response among them. And I don't know what to do about that, but

straight off Twitter. Yeah. I did my best to give you whatever response I could all I really want is if you saw some benefit in the things that I've displayed and show share with you I want them in my house then let's have a conversation I've got I've got it for you we got it we're all connected now thank you very much gentlemen it was a lot of fun thank you guys very interesting very informative Thank you, Jamie. Thank you, Jamie very very much. All right. Bye everybody. Thank you