Terrence Howard & 1 x 1 = 2

[scotslad]

Terrence Howard...

Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?
Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

Interesting thoughts and exercises for you to test...

hhhmmmm. Intriguing...



Video

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1PH_IMMxT4E

Something in the void? (empty space and the flower of life)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PNOK1Is-eoU

Book
https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/upload...ER_29_2020.pdf


Site
https://tcotlc.com/

[ExomatrixTV]

see also:

• Terrence Howard Talks About a 6000-Year-Old Secret
  

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by scotslad (here)
...

Just a short notice or observation of me:

In the video, you hear him saying:

• 7:10 quote: "Does a penny times a penny equals one?"

To me, that sounds like Flat Earth type of "reasoning" that can easily be debunked.

An "amount" or a "quantity" is NOT the same as the object(s)/substance(s)/"physical thing(s)" that you are counting ... So why assume it is the same? ... Why?

But in general I have no issues when people search for hidden (or overlooked) deeper insights in "plain sight" as long as they are willing to hear sincere rebuttals that is NOT done from a "denialism" perspective >>> but from a common sense perspective using logic & honest inquiries.

• In the world of the blind, the one-eyed person seems a "genius".

To make it even more hilarious confusing:

"An apple PLUS an orange equals two ... Correct?"

Answer is YES if you count "fruits"
Answer is NO if you only count bananas or apples!

• So now you have learned something about the importance of having the correct accuracy/quality of your perspectives/perceptions! ... Not to be confused with having unchecked/unchallenged, WEF tunnel vision assumptions.

Let's say you are taxed by how much fruit you sell ... but you get partial tax returns from selling oranges ... how do you value things overall?

You see, I can go on and on and on that almost everything in life is based up on having the correct perceptions & perspectives ... But most do not bother to think like that at all ... "Too much hassle".

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[Jim_Duyer]

I'm with Exomatrix on this one. Also, throughout history, it has always been the word and not the number that was of importance in the universe - even with those who gave us 360 degrees, Arcs, 60 minutes time, etc.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Terrence Howard: "This Is The Best Kept Secret In The Entire World!":

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=So5zO7DL17I

Considering the public education system was established to "create good workers not thinkers" this doesn't suprise me much. Am glad Terrance is talking about this.

[Patient]

Ahh...once again the synchronicity button has been hit as I had just found him and his discussions yesterday.

I watched a couple videos where he sits and discusses his thoughts with others. It was like he was talking about many things that have been sitting in my mind for a long time - and the reason being that I didn't know what or who to have a further discussion with.

I am probably not expressing myself correctly because I am typing fast trying to get my thoughts out.

One thing that caught my attention was when he discussed basic math theories, I remembered questions that came to my mind in school. I would get stuck at math when it didn't make sense to me and the teachers would always be frustrated by my questions.

Don't be quick to judge what is is saying - much of what he is saying are small pieces to a large picture.

He makes my mind open up like in an almost joyful way - yeah, it's weird but good. Awesome.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)

• Terrence Howard: "This Is The Best Kept Secret In The Entire World!":

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=So5zO7DL17I

Considering the public education system was established to "create good workers not thinkers" this doesn't suprise me much. Am glad Terrance is talking about this.

Are there a great many secrets that have been intentionally hidden form us? Sure.
Are there a great many theories that are based upon wild-ass-guesses and nothing more - and then peer-reviewed by like-minded morons with degrees? Sure.

But sorry Terrence, it's even simpler than you propose:
two times three is just 2 repeated three times or six.
two times two is simply 2 repeated twice or four.
and 1 times one is just one repeated one time or one.
No conspiracy, nothing hidden, no need to lose your grits over lack of common sense.

[ClearWater]

I've only listened to about 5 minutes of one of his video's and I can only do the bare minimum mathematically, but here's where I get confused...

If 1x1=2 then what does 2x1 (or 1x2) equal?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by scotslad (here)
Terrence Howard...

Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?
Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

1) Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?

No. It's illogical gobbledygook, in which he's confusing a number of totally separate concepts and mixing them all up together in a kind of bubbling soup of his own making. (Howard is an actor, not a mathematician of any kind. And no, he doesn't have a PhD, as he seems to have claimed.)

2) Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

No.

3) Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

If there was, we'd not have known exactly to the second when the 8 April Solar Eclipse would begin and end, and exactly where it would be visible. Nor would you be able to see what I've written here on your computer or phone, your car wouldn't start, planes couldn't fly, and nothing technological would work — not even your digital watch, your toaster or your fridge.

[wegge]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by scotslad (here)
Terrence Howard...

Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?
Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

1) Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?

No. It's illogical gobbledygook, in which he's confusing a number of totally separate concepts and mixing them all up together in a kind of bubbling soup of his own making. (Howard is an actor, not a mathematician of any kind. And no, he doesn't have a PhD, as he seems to have claimed.)

2) Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

No.

3) Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

If there was, we'd not have known exactly to the second when the 8 April Solar Eclipse would begin and end, and exactly where it would be visible. Nor would you be able to see what I've written here on your computer or phone, your car wouldn't start, planes couldn't fly, and nothing technological would work — not even your digital watch, your toaster or your fridge.

are you aware of the story surrounding the original Maxwell equations on Electromagnetism and how they were shortened by Heaviside and we're now dealing in electric science (or however that should be called?) with something that does not acknowledge a unified field, as compared to the orignial equations, which did?

[Apulu]

I watched Terence Howard at the Oxford Union and there was a question from a student in the audience that turned into a good debate - I think it boils down to this - the student argued that:

1 × 1 = 1 is a convention that we have collectively chosen, is not logically incorrect, whilst of course the convention is needed if we are to agree mathematically and across different fields.

The answer that came back seems to be the pertinent point in this whole debate, and I can't see how it can be argued with: convention is absolutely fine in mathematics, UNTIL it's applied to something that produces a result which is untrue or non-sensical.

Therefore when we apply mathematics to money, we have to change mathematical convention to the extent that it should mirror reality.

25 pence X 25 pence is 625p, or £6.25

NOT £0.25 X £0.25 = £0.0625, or 6.25p

The wrong convention has been applied, leading to an incorrect and nonsensical outcome.

So I think that's all he's arguing - that the mathematical rules we apply to science and economics alike can radically change outcomes, and that our common conventions in mathematics can be and are terribly miss-applied in various areas of these fields.

So I'm with Terrance there, but I'd have to look at a lot more to understand his proposed applications of these arguments.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ca1vIYmGyYA

[lake]

I consider that concepts such as this are promoted to confuse and lead folk down wrong paths .... wasting their time!

There are no "physical world things" in math.
In multiplication there is a multiplier and a multiplicand.
So in 9 x 10
9 is the multiplier and 10 the multiplicand <<<< these are not "world things"

Unless some one would care to tell me what "11 spanners x 13 willow trees" is?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by wegge (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by scotslad (here)
Terrence Howard...

Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?
Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

1) Does his work and research on mathematics, make sense?

No. It's illogical gobbledygook, in which he's confusing a number of totally separate concepts and mixing them all up together in a kind of bubbling soup of his own making. (Howard is an actor, not a mathematician of any kind. And no, he doesn't have a PhD, as he seems to have claimed.)

2) Does it re-write our understanding of maths and the universe?

No.

3) Is there an untruth embedded in all our maths, computers et al?

If there was, we'd not have known exactly to the second when the 8 April Solar Eclipse would begin and end, and exactly where it would be visible. Nor would you be able to see what I've written here on your computer or phone, your car wouldn't start, planes couldn't fly, and nothing technological would work — not even your digital watch, your toaster or your fridge.

Are you aware of the story surrounding the original Maxwell equations on Electromagnetism and how they were shortened by Heaviside and we're now dealing in electric science (or however that should be called?) with something that does not acknowledge a unified field, as compared to the orignial equations, which did?

Yes, absolutely. And there are very probably errors, or aspects which are incomplete, in the equations of Quantum Mechanics and even the General Theory of Relativity. But that's all very advanced mathematical physics, and nothing to do with whether 1x1=2!

[ExomatrixTV]

• Terrence Howard Just Exposed Everything And It Should Concern All Of Us...:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IH1v-g3fe10

quote:
"Terrence Howard's recent revelations have sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry, sparking concern among fans and insiders alike. In a candid and unfiltered expose, the acclaimed actor has peeled back the curtain on a range of deeply troubling issues, shedding light on the darker side of Hollywood and beyond.

Terrence Howard's revelations touch on a myriad of topics, from the pervasive culture of exploitation and inequality within the entertainment business to the insidious influence of power and greed. With fearless honesty, he has exposed the systemic injustices that have long plagued the industry, challenging the status quo and demanding accountability". unquote

• The above video was very recently uploaded to a YouTube channel with 3.73 Million subscribers!

That does not mean he is "100% right" nor "flawless" but at least it will spark millions to look beyond the programmed conditioning of the masses in so many other (controversial) topics!

And yes the majority of them may be "gullible" or "intellectual lazy" not using real discernment skills. Nevertheless, there is a trend that more and more people question (corrupt) authorities on almost all levels.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

backup video:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dzKoAQLi-KI

Joe Rogan, known for his fascination with unconventional ideas and alternative viewpoints, recently delved into the intriguing discoveries and theories proposed by Terrence Howard. Howard, primarily known for his acting career, has embarked on a journey into the realms of ancient symbolism, frequency dynamics, and their potential implications for understanding the universe. His discussions have centered around concepts such as the Flower of Life, hidden frequency rhythms, and the role of frequencies in shaping human consciousness. Howard's exploration challenges conventional scientific paradigms and invites us to reconsider our understanding of reality.

[Merkaba360]

Ok so i watched the first shorter video. I sure hope his other videos are much clearer cuz he is totally rambling without fully explaining what on earth he means exactly.

1) He says 1 x 1 = 1 is not multiplication cuz it doesnt get bigger. lol We just named it that cuz originally it would have been developed with non negative integers that ALL grow/multiply except for the one case he mentions. If we take a number smaller than 1 .... 1/2 x 1 = 1/2, now it is shrinking or dividing. So, 1 x 1 = 1 is the identity, the balance point where it neither shrinks nor grows. It absolutely works for how it is defined and used. To say it isn't a multiplication is a silly semantics argument. Its 2 numbers using the mulitplication operator. And as math has developed , it turns out all kinds of weird numbers can use the mult. operator and still get results. They don't all have to have a larger result just cuz of the naming. lol

2. He says x^3 = 2x is a nonsense equation. I don't know what the hell he is talking about. The solutions to this cubic equation are 0, sqrt 2 , - sqrt 2. He makes an example using sqrt 2. And just uses the calculator to find that the left side and right side equal the same number and its some kind of weird loop. lol Yea thats what happens when the left and right side equal and mirror each other. Just bounces back and forth off the mirrors. No idea what he is trying to say other than that, so he totally failed there.

3. Yes, there are interesting things with the atomic orbitals and sacred geometry. The s, p, d ,and f orbitals are due to the geometries of the nodes of the vesica pisces (s orbital), and as you add circles making the egg of life and such you get the geometries for the p, d, and f orbitals. I have the pic somewhere but not on this computer. I have no idea what the heck he is saying in regards to the inert gases. But to me those are like the end of the completion of the octave (octet). In music isnt there a rest or silence between each octave. If so, then I see those inert very stable atoms as being that kind of quiet point or balance. What was he trying to say that chemistry has wrong ???


If he is a genius , then from the little i've seen in that video, he is a crappy teacher and maybe something like those autistic people who can't explain to others whatsoever. That rolling stone dude may have 0 math skills and just seen an actor able to talk with much confidence and he just assumed his ramblings were brilliant. lol

Now, the number 0 is very tricky and we develop math on that number from certain perspectives. And I sense that there are other ways to handle 0 that our mathematicians are missing. So, convention says 0 x 0 = 0. Well, thats true. But maybe 0 x 0 = infinity or 1 in another sense. So, he should not say that 1 x 1 = 1 is wrong. If he wants to offer another way to look at multiplication and make 1 x 1 = 2. Or like 1 + 1 = 11. Then thats fine. Just explain EXACTLY how and why.

I'd like to see him go and argue with Terrance Tao or Chris Langan. Both like 200 IQ math freaks. Terrance the professor and Chris is great cuz he hates academia and would love to see logic that proves academia wrong. Chris will crush him very fast if he has any flaw in his logic.

PS. Im in Chris Langan's FB group. Dude's ego is so huge. I think he's like an old grumpy grandpa who is tired of getting ignored by academia and everyone who can't understand him. He has no patience left. So, he is annoying to follow. I dont have a lot of time to learn his theories, but slowly i will. I have seen a few concepts that are pretty enlightening, so I just want to pick his brain for some good insights . Some of the things he says are so incomprehensible to me. Either im an idiot or he is just talking in his own complex way that its ridiculous to expect others to decode it. I think a bit of both.

[Merkaba360]

oh also, I check and Howard is a Pisces !! Spiritual, open minded, imaginative and prone to delusion. Cough David Wilcough cough. hahahaha. Well, if i recall correctly , I think he is also a pisces that fits the bill perfectly.

So my money is not on logical genius

[lake]

Posted by Merkaba360 (here)
oh also, I check and Howard is a Pisces !! Spiritual, open minded, imaginative and prone to delusion. Cough David Wilcough cough. hahahaha. Well, if i recall correctly , I think he is also a pisces that fits the bill perfectly.

So my money is not on logical genius

Hi ya .... you seem to like this stuff .... so a concept (and why not? If we are considering if 1 x 1 = 2 .... then all bets are off lol)

It has been stated many times that "Nature" does not create "Straight Lines" .... and OK but how about this?

All that "Nature" does IS create straight lines!

A straight line is the shortest length between two points.

So take 3 molecules created by "Nature" which is in a straight line .... they can't stay there (to do so would be against all the 'laws' of this realm .... they Must move!)

So that "Movement" actually creates TIME.

A molecule created by Nature has no inbuilt Time .... Nature only builds in "Straight Lines" .... Join molecules together and the forces of this realm "Move them" which that movement makes Time?

While I consider Chat GPT rather sad .... this is what it said:

The statement "There are no straight lines in Nature" is not entirely accurate. While it's true that perfect, eternal straight lines are rare in natural systems, temporary instances of straight-line arrangements can and do occur.

In various contexts, such as the alignment of molecules, the trajectory of certain phenomena over short distances, or the crystalline structures of minerals, straight-line configurations can be observed. However, these arrangements are typically temporary and subject to change due to factors like thermal motion, molecular interactions, or environmental influences.

So, while perfect straight lines may not persist indefinitely in nature, the concept of straightness does manifest in various natural phenomena, albeit transiently.

ME:

Could "Time" exist if molecules never changed or moved?

Chat:

If molecules never changed or moved, it would suggest a complete absence of dynamic processes, including those related to the passage of time as we understand it. Time, as a fundamental dimension in physics, is intricately linked to change and the progression of events.

In the scenario where molecules remain static and unchanging, there would be no observable processes, no events unfolding, and no transitions occurring. Without change, there would be no basis for measuring the passage of time or distinguishing between different moments.

In essence, time as we perceive it relies on the existence of dynamic systems where change occurs, such as the motion of particles, chemical reactions, and other processes. Without these changes, the concept of time loses its meaning, as there are no events or phenomena to mark its passage. Therefore, in a scenario where molecules never changed or moved, the concept of time as we understand it would likely be meaningless or nonexistent.

So " Nature" only creates molecules in Straight Lines .... But time is created by the movement of those molecules from the "Straight Line" (which is the most perfect creation .... no deviation)



Sorry .... most likely off topic!

[Merkaba360]

I looked up his "proof" and found the error. His proof isn't even clearly written.



for 1 x 1, I believe he i saying that 1 is to be added to itself 1 time.
so, 1 x 1 = 1 + 1 = 2.

No idea where he got that definition (since we need a property of multiplication NOT a comm or assoc. property. The problem word here is "Itself".
For example,
3 x 2 = 2 + 2 + 2. We are adding 2 , 3 times (3 groups of 2) 3 terms.

1 x 1 = 1. We are adding 1, 1 time. Meaning there is only one number ( 1 group of 1). NOT adding 1 to itself, there is only 1 term, thus no adding in this case.


I dont know what he is doing with the associative and communative property. But seems he is mixing the properties of addition and multiplication.

(1 + 2) + 3 = 1 + (2 + 3) Assoc. Prop. of Addition.
(1 x 2) x 3 = 1 x (2 x 3) Assoc prop. of multiplication.

NOT (2 x 3) + 4 = 2 x (3 + 4) MIXING Add. and Mult. 10 = 14

Doesn't seem like this is relevant however, and when the numbers are all 1,
(1 + 1) x 1 , it happens to work out as opposed to 10 = 14.

I think he is trying to apply the comm and/or assoc property to say 1 x 1 = 2. But there is no assoc prop there. It would just be a property of mulitiplication definition that is used. Man, he is just mixing things together to confuse and get new results.

Anyway, glad to waste my time explaining this NON-genius to any non-math people who are curious to what he is on about. lol

[Merkaba360]

As far as nature not creating straight lines.

I mean, technically lines are 1 dimensional. To me it seems , creation , or that which can be perceived has to be at least 2D. A 2D circle can be seen from most angles from a point outside of the circle. But some angles it would be 1D and be invisible or non existent/non perceptible.

In terms of something being perceivable and tangible , then we need 3D, which is why 3 is the number of creation. This gives us a 3 cycle for reproduction - mother/father/child, or more fundamentally, a loop for perception - here/there/witness of the duality.

Perhaps we can think of non perceptible 1D and maybe 2D, as information, rather than creation. In holographics, there is a 2D holographic plate that contains the information pattern for the 3D hologram. 1D i think of a internet cable. Of course these are the physical equivalents that arent truly 1D and 2D.

In the end, all dimensionality is mind/imagination. So, we start with the abstract (math/geometry) and build into 3D patterns/shapes like atoms. I think the point is that for nature to be built, it really has to fundamentally start with circles/curves (not lines), cuz nature is cyclical. 0D is a point and from another perspective is a circle.

The circle/spiral are the fundamental patterns we can trace as creation begins. however, at the level of 3D physicality, atoms/matter are all magnetic blob fields of probability. So, no perfect shapes anyway. The patterns are only approximations of perfect geometries we can imagine.

therefore, I would say, No perfect Lines and No perfect circles/spirals at the physical level. In some pure mental realm, it seems the problem still exists. If one was imagining a perfect straight line, can't we just keep zooming in and needing to make it straighter and straighter. What matters is that something is straight enough from a certain level of perception that it works. Just like a machinist making parts that are flawless enough, that the miniscule error is ignored.

I wonder what Howard says in his videos that get deeper into his esoteric understanding of reality. But given his terrible math, I won't waste my time watching his vague videos of rambling and mixing things together to confuse and sound like he is next level.

[Merkaba360]

Could 'they' be blackmailing Howard to put out some esoteric nonsense to confuse the awakening noobs ?

Or he could be one of them and doing it willingly for brownie points to level up on the dark side. lol

Just another angle on this to consider.