Hey everyone, it's time for another
reaction video. And boy, do I have a
treat for you today. You guys remember
Terrence Howard, right? Terrence Howard
is an actor. Was an actor. I don't know
how much acting he's doing these days,
but he clearly has transitioned into
being a fake guru, scientist, cult
leader, whatever the hell you want to
call it. Um, and uh I I've made quite a
bit of content that uh people seem to
have enjoyed. uh mocking him for his
recent insane behavior. Uh it started
out he went on Joe Rogan, spewed a bunch
of insane crap. Um and I made a little
uh a little commentary video on that
which went fairly viral. Um so I think a
fair amount of people actually
discovered my channel from that video.
Uh and then I followed it up quite a bit
because he kept doing more insane [\h__\h]
So he went back on Rogan with Eric
Weinstein. So, I decide to make fun of
both of them there. And then, I don't
remember the exact sequence, but I know
that he went on the PBD podcast and uh
was saying insane [\h__\h] He was went on
with Bill Maher and was saying insane
[\h__\h] Uh what else there was? Oh, he Oh,
Billy Carson. He did. I did multiple
covering his antics with Billy Carson,
the other idiot fraud. Um I think there
was one more. I can't remember. But uh
anyway, uh I've been making fun of uh
all of this activity for quite some
time. Uh and he does he doesn't like it.
He doesn't like it very much. He gets
very testy. He refers to me as some
chemist um and tries to defend all the
insane [\h__\h] that he said about the sound
of burillium and all this other crap. Um
and uh but yeah, so he he kind of was
laying low for a little bit or so it
seemed to me. Anyway, I think that uh I
think that his ego took uh took quite
the blow uh from the entire world making
fun of him relentlessly uh and
deservedly. Um because let's not forget
he's a wife beater and just generally an
awful, horrible, narcissistic, terrible
person. Uh so I don't really feel bad uh
making fun of him. Um but uh as luck
would have it, he has peaked his head
out of his little burrow with this
wonderful gem of a feature film. It is
uh if you want to call it that, right?
It's I mean kind of just a extended
YouTube video, right? It's just a lot of
like stock graphics and him narrating
his ridiculous script uh with some with
some nice uh background music. Uh, so
somebody sent this to me and was like,
"Dave, you need to react to this." And I
was like, "Yeah, I need to react to
this." So I uh I just kind of I I did
just a quick skim just to see what the
hell it was. And I was like, "Okay, this
is ridiculous." So we we're going to do
this. We're going to react to this. Uh
this is Some of you have noticed in my
reactions, I haven't been drinking
lately. Uh partially because I didn't
feel like it and partially because I'm
[\h__\h] tired of [\h__\h] going, "Oh,
you're an alcoholic for drinking a small
amount of alcohol one time." But that's
the internet for you. But uh there is no
[\h__\h] way that I'm listening to Terren
Howard for 74 minutes without drinking.
So today we're doing a drinking one.
That's for sure. I've got this is my B
the Balvene. I don't know how to say it.
Caribbean cask uh rum rum casks uh
scotch. So this will be this will be
good. Uh so we've got this. We've got uh
let's let's queue up the video here. Um,
yeah. So, so this is Terrence Howard's a
new understanding of the universe. So,
uh, so Terrence who knows [\h__\h] all about
the universe does not understand a
single solitary thing about the universe
has a new understanding of the universe.
So, anybody who knows anything about the
universe, astronomers, physicists, uh,
anything like that, um, don't stop what
you're doing. Stop what you're doing and
watch this movie with me. We're going to
learn a new understanding. All of the
rest is bogus. All the science that you
thought you knew, it's not real. Okay?
So, we're we're we're getting a brand
new science here. A brand new
understanding courtesy of Terren Howard,
the smartest man in human history by a
mile, obviously. Um, and so that's what
we're doing. Uh, drink along with me.
Let's have a great time. And here we go
real quick before we sip through the
hottest gibberish you've ever seen. We
all know that Terry's word salad has
absolutely zero correlation with
reality. But there are those who want to
help you make your way in the real world
in this information age. How can you
dodge all the tetrans and learn skills
that will set you up with a hot career
in tech? Well, let me introduce you to
boot.dev. Have you ever wanted to learn
how to code? Boot.dev is for you. It's
the easiest way to learn Python, SQL,
Go, and Typescript. And apart from being
super simple and hands-on, it's also
gamified into a fantasy theme where
Boots the Bear Wizard helps you along
your quest as you gain experience points
while building real projects. It's like
playing an RPG, but you're also getting
ahead in life. I went through the first
few lessons, and even though I'm pretty
technologically incompetent, I found it
intuitive and easy to progress. There
are daily quests that allow you to earn
rewards, community boss battles, and
more. Try to top the leaderboard,
complete every course, build asteroids,
learn cryptography, and when you're
done, get cracking on finding that new
dream job so you can watch your salary
skyrocket. All the content is free to
read and watch, but you can also become
a member to unlock interactive features
with either a monthly or yearly plan.
This gives you full solutions for all
lessons and access to infinite practice
in the training grounds as well as
certificates of completion. Use the QR
code you see on your screen or go to
boot.dev dev and use code professor Dave
to get 25% off your entire first year on
the annual plan with a 30-day no
questions asked money back guarantee.
That's boot.dev and use code professor
Dave to set off on your enchanted coding
quest today.
Without further ado, uh the keynote
speaker for the evening and soon to be I
I hope a long-term member of Tesla Tech.
Please welcome Terrence Howard.
>> Good evening everyone.
Well, that's it. We're not even gonna
So, clearly Terrence got invited to some
dumb [\h__\h] New Mexico pseudocience pseudo
conference um as the keynote speaker
because he's famous. That's the only
reason because he's famous. So, they
probably gave him 10 G's or whatever to
come and spew a bunch of [\h__\h] uh for
everyone to go, "Wow, magic is real." Uh
the the actor says so. Uh, and you're
going to queue it up that way. And we're
not even not even going to see a single
second of the keynote. Okay, let's go
straight into whatever the [\h__\h] this is.
He's opening up the flower of life
properly, right? That's the thing he
always says, opening up the flower of
life. It didn't mean anything until now,
right? It was a little door and he did a
little fun spinny thing and then it the
door opened. So, let's see what's on the
other side.
Greetings, beloved souls, and welcome to
the sacred gathering of minds that dare
to dream beyond the bounds of
convention. Today, we stand together not
just as curious observers, but as
conscious participants in humanity. Why
does just he just always has to have the
[\h__\h] hat over the hoodie or like why
are you so devoted to looking [\h__\h]
ridiculous at all times? Is this the
cult uniform? Does everybody have to
wear a hoodie and then a goddamn Panama
hat over it or whatever the [\h__\h] kind of
hat that is? Holy [\h__\h] dude. Um, I mean
this guy like I He's definitely trying
to start a cult and I don't I Let's see
how successful it is. I bet not, but
these days I don't know. Humanity's
greatest awakening. Let's do it.
>> Greatest awakening. You see, for far too
long, we've accepted limitations as law
and and approximations as truth and
fragments as the whole. But there comes
a moment in every civilization. There
was Newton's law of universal
gravitation, Einstein's uh ma mass
matter mass energy equivalence and 1* 1
equals 1. Terry is going to defy them
all. He's going to disprove Newton's law
of universal gravitation. He's going to
disprove Einstein and he's going to
disprove second grade arithmetic all in
this movie. Let's go. Brand new
understanding. We don't want the
limitations of basic physics and basic
[\h__\h] arithmetic. We want to be
[\h__\h] that spew what whatever kind of
[\h__\h] we want and it'll be true
because we say so. And if you wear your
hoodie and your hat uh uniform, cult
uniform, you too can make up complete
and utter [\h__\h] and be vindicated at
at every corner. Let's do it.
>> But someone must step forward and say,
"What if everything we thought we knew
was just the beginning?"
Well, today we'll embark on a journey
that will challenge every assumption,
illuminate every shadow, and reveal the
magnificent harmony that's been waiting
beneath the surface of reality itself.
My name is Terrence Desawn Howard and I
am absolutely honored to be here among
my beloved family. Now, mind you, when I
say family, I'm speaking in the sense of
all of us having a peculiar calling, an
insatiable curiosity, the dreamers, the
engineers of the impossible, the child
in all of us that identified with the
message from the Muppet movie when
Kermit the Frog sang the rainbow
connection.
Why are there so many songs about
rainbows?
And what's on the other side?
I see many of you smiling.
Holy [\h__\h] man. Like, it's straight up
just going to be AI slop and singing
Kermit the Frog. He That's That's what
it is. That's what the movie is. Um,
it's I feel like we're going to get
through this pretty quickly because
usually like when I do the Steven Meyer
or something, there's very concrete
claims that with very concrete
rebuttals. This is just such nothing.
It's just nothing burgers of [\h__\h]
that I kind of just have to watch
flabbergasted. Uh, hopefully there will
be some I like it when I get to explain
science in the debunks. It's not as fun
in the reactions. It's not as fun was
just like, "Hey, did everyone see how
[\h__\h] dumb that was?" Uh, there's only
so long that I can do that. So,
hopefully there's some some stuff to
sink my teeth into. Um, what's on the
other side of the rainbow? Uh, there's
there's no What other side of the
rainbow? What are you talking about? Uh,
so you're you just don't know what
rainbows are. Uh, either that or you
don't you can't use it metaphorically. I
don't know. Man,
>> that was a very deep and profound
question. I mean, what is on the other
side of the rainbow? I was 10 when I
first heard that song, and that question
stopped me in my tracks. I recall
thinking, if the rainbow represents the
visible effect of the light spectrum,
the visible effect of the light spe it's
refraction. It's light being refracted
by moisture in the air. Uh, so you don't
know what a rainbow is. the the visible
effect of the light spectrum. Uh visible
light isn't an effect, it's light. Uh
and you're just like there's there
exists visible light. Uh you you can see
things and it's not always rainbows. You
can just see visible light and then
rainbows are are refraction refracted
light because due to moisture in the air
after rain. Um couldn't even be bothered
to look up what a [\h__\h] rainbow is.
That's that's what this guy's doing.
>> Then exactly what is on the other side
of it?
It was the invisible, the source, the
cause,
that resonance that brought us all
together right now.
I didn't know how at the time, but I was
determined to find the answer to that
question because it set my mind and my
imagination ablaze.
Well, right now we're going to
rediscover some of that wonder.
We're going to uncover some of the
hidden harmonies of our universe through
a geometry born not of force, but of
resonance.
To start, I'd like to offer something
different for a change. It's not a
theory, not not a new belief, not
conjecture.
>> Yeah, it's [\h__\h] It's called a
script of word salad [\h__\h] You don't
know what any of these words mean, dude.
You don't know what resonance means. You
definitely don't know what resonance
means in any context in chemistry, in
physics. Um, you have no idea what
resonance means.
>> It's just a remembrance, if you will.
>> What I'd like to share with you are a
new set of tools for a new understanding
of our universe.
And like any good set of tools, we must
first make certain that the foundations
that we're building upon are secure,
stable, trustworthy, dependable. Right?
That would involve you actually learning
science. If you want secure, stable,
trustworthy, dependable understanding of
the universe, try start go back to
kindergarten and start again, right?
Learn basic [\h__\h] science. Learn
Newton's laws. Learn what Newton's laws
are. Like, learn the most utterly basic
[\h__\h] that you definitely do not
understand, dude.
Therefore, we're going to begin
tonight's presentation with a bit of an
audit, if you will.
>> And of course, he he misspelled
academia. Uh he's going to audit
academia, and he misspelled academia.
You can't make this [\h__\h] up, man. It's
like when Billy Carson uh misspelled uh
Terrence Terren's name multiple times
and then he misspelled parents as well.
Uh that was a classic moment. My god,
all these people are [\h__\h] morons.
Oh, Jesus Christ, dude. It's an audit of
academia's fundamental understanding of
our universe.
So we're going to explore the standard
models platonic solids with their
inherent fractures.
The standard models, there's a standard
model of particle physics. You don't
know what that is. And that's one thing.
Uh so when you say standard models,
you're just trying to go like, oh,
science is standard. Uh no, the standard
model of particle physics. Uh I recently
put out some particle physics tutorials.
You should check them out, Terry. You
could learn something.
to a grand unified super symmetrical
system.
We will speak from academia's chaosbased
number theory
all the way to a redistribution of
primes that are predictable.
>> Okay. First of all, he keeps saying
academia like it rhymes with macadamia.
I think that's I think that's what how
he thinks you say that word. But also
redistribution of the prime like you
don't even know what prime numbers are.
How are you going to redistribute
primes? You're just going to pick
different numbers and call them prime
and go like, "Oh, these are the prime
numbers now." Well, no, they're not.
They have factors. So, uh, the prime
numbers are the prime numbers. You don't
know what they are. You don't know what
prime numbers are. Holy [\h__\h] And their
placement on the spiral correlates to
the very elements of organized matter
that's expressed on the periodic table.
We will speak from the geometry of the
proton and its hidden mechanics
all the way to the harmonic edge of our
cosmos.
Now speaking of the cosmos,
what exactly is the edge of our cosmos?
What is the shape of our universe?
How can we even attempt to answer a
question definitively on a subject
that's so vast?
Well, one way is to apply the laws of
common sense. Yeah, let's use common
sense to do frontier astrophysics.
Uh that totally works. All of the common
sense that's based on uh on on
terrestrial laws, uh what goes up must
come down on uh on Earth and [\h__\h] like
that. that's going to help us uh
determine qu uh answers to unknown to
questions in astrophysics. Uh I swear to
God this whole like people who think
that that common sense belongs in
science, they just don't know how
science works. I'm sorry. Speaking about
chemistry, there's nothing about
chemistry that's common sense. We probed
the molecular world, figured out how
molecules work, the the the the rules of
the molecular world. We learned about
it. Now we understand it. None of that
[\h__\h] is common sense. Where the how the
[\h__\h] are you going to develop common
sense about [\h__\h] you can't see, right?
Common sense is what we've evolved uh
based on what we need to understand in
order to hunt and [\h__\h]
uh and stay alive in on on on the
savannah. That's that's common sense. Uh
this is this is just like hey uh it's
all common sense anyway. So don't worry
that you know [\h__\h] all about science. I
don't either. So, we're just going to
common sense this [\h__\h] and say whatever
the [\h__\h] we want. And that's worth more
than science because we say so. That's
it.
And the laws of common sense are based
upon the laws of similarity. If A is
equal to B and B is equal to C, then A
is equal to C. You find the common
factor and you either multiply or you
divide.
You find the common factor and then you
either multiply or divide. to do what?
Multiply what with what? Uh if you find
the greatest common factor that's a
singular number, what are you gonna do
with it? Multiply it by what or divide
by what? What the [\h__\h] are you saying?
What are you saying? This [\h__\h]
simultaneously amuses me more and pisses
me off more than anything else I ever
cover. It's just so It's just like how
how can how dare you pretend to be
saying things? That's how [\h__\h]
ridiculous this is. So, what's the shape
of our universe based on the laws of
similarity?
Well, some would say it's a sphere.
We'll call it a ball, others too.
And many would swear that it's infinite.
Let's reason about this for a moment.
What are the dynamics involved in the
structure of form?
What is the most common shape of our
universe?
It's an expanding sphere, right?
So,
>> an expanding sphere. What do you mean
expanding? Uh, stars throughout their
lifetime expand and contract. Planets
don't really expand or contract
appreciably. Maybe gas giants do. I
don't know. Um, yeah, the structure of
form like it's just god damn it, man.
It's just endless word salad. Why does a
bubble take the shape of a ball?
Why does it take the shape of an
expanding sphere? Why not a square or
cube or a triangle or a tetrahedrin? How
would it how would a bubble maintain
sharp edges, right? Same with all this
other [\h__\h] Like why don't you talk
about why stars are spheres? Talk about
gravity, right? It's all stars and
planets and all this [\h__\h] their spheres
because every
every component of the object is trying
to minimize gravitational potential
energy. It's all trying to get as close
to the center of the object as possible.
And so that the shape that does that is
a sphere. If you if you have a square
instead, there are parts that are
farther away from the center than they
could be. So it crushes itself into a
sphere. That's very large, massive
objects. Um why why aren't shapes more
complicated in nature? Terry Terry
wonders. Sure.
Well, you see, once the pressure is
equalized in the center of the bubble,
the strongest thing exerting force on it
is the weight of the universe pushing
down upon all points.
So, if you follow those points out to
the edge of the universe,
you would have the shape of the
universe. Nonetheless, we're told by
academia that our
>> academia,
those academia nuts are always talking
about the edge of the universe. um
you're you're pretending that regions
beyond the observable universe are
pushing a a bubble uh and that because
that is happening we can discern that
the universe is spherical. Is that what
you're saying? Um I mean we have to we
you have to take into account the
warping of spaceime so you can't you
can't really assign it a
three-dimensional shape. I think you
would need to assign it a
four-dimensional shape. Um, but the
point is we definitely don't know,
right? We definitely don't know uh
whether the universe is infinite or not.
I I I would reckon it ain't uh to borrow
from Louie. Um I would reckon that it is
finite. Um but I don't know. He sure as
[\h__\h] doesn't know. Um he doesn't know
anything about our solar system even. Um
but sure, let's let's keep
pontificating.
>> Our universe is infinite.
But I ask you, how can it be infinite
when it's made up of finite parts?
Waveforms.
Everything expands as what? A sphere.
Everything contracts in what? Geometric
form.
If we drop a pebble in the center of a
swimming pool, the waves do what?
Well, they expand as spheres until they
hit the edge of the swimming pool.
>> Circles are not spheres. um and you you
initiated a perturbation at one point.
Why why would it magically do anything
but radiate in concentric circles where
every part of the circle is equidistant
from the center where the perturbation
was?
This is not an incredible insight,
Terry. I'm sorry.
Well, in a curved swimming pool or
curved universe,
the returning waves don't just reverse,
they refract.
The spherical boundaries bends their
path inward at specific angles.
And where the returning waves meet
outgoing waves, standing waves emerge.
Now, this is the secret to all
structure. From protons to galaxies, all
form a standing wave that's born from
the embrace of expanding and returning
waves. What expanding and returning
waves? What about the proton is
expanding and returning waves? What
about a galaxy's expanding and returning
waves? What about the universe is
expanding and returning waves? Waves of
what? Where are they going? What are
they bouncing off of? What are you
looking at? What the [\h__\h] are you
talking about? And what does any of this
AI slot [\h__\h] have to do with any of
the words that you're saying? You've got
somebody playing pool. I don't even know
who the [\h__\h] that's supposed to be.
Newton, somebody. Uh, and you're you're
just show you're talking about thing
like it's just random pictures with
string music over random words. It's
unreal. I can't believe that anybody
would watch this uh earnestly.
Therefore, I'm going to ask you plainly,
is our universe infinite?
Well, if it were infinite, outgoing
waves would never return.
But nevertheless, we observe
interference waves. Outgoing and
incoming waves. What waves? Waves of
what? What the [\h__\h] are you talking
about? Light, sound. What are you
saying? Gravitational waves. Where are
you observing them? You're observing
them from what source going in which
direction? What are you seeing that's
coming back? What? What? What? What?
What? You're not saying anything. It's
incredible.
And that's where the pressure zones are
formed. That's where geometry is born.
And if every particle within the
universe is bounded,
then the universe itself must be bounded
by the very last waveform.
You see, in mathematics, they say that
an object must be equal to the sum of
its parts. It can't be greater than it
or less than it.
Well, in our universe, it must end where
the last wave form fades.
And that is where we will introduce our
paper, the necessity of a finite
universe. And in the interest of time,
we're going to highlight just some of
the key takeaways from this. And one of
these take
>> the the key takeaways from a fake paper
that's probably a four-page pamphlet. Uh
we're going to get some key takeaways.
What's this? The paradox of infinite
dispersion.
Dispersion, refraction, uh uh waveform.
Uh let's make a nice list of all the
words that Terry uses that he doesn't
know what they mean. Uh yeah, this is
going to be good. takeaways is the
paradox of infinite dispersion and why
flat space fails.
You see, any attempt to distribute
finite energy across an infinite domain
necessarily reduces local energy density
towards zero,
breaking the laws of conservation.
Now, this is a formal violation of
energy conservation when applied to
infinite systems. The law of
conservation of energy demands that
energy within a closed system remains
constant.
But when the domain becomes infinite,
this breaks down not through failure of
math but through contradiction of
meaning.
Let's just look at this equation of
harmonic finite industry dispersion.
He you didn't want to give that one a
second take, Terry. Harmonic energy
dispersion. Uh, no. Terry, you want to
do that one again? Now we got it. Move
on. Nobody cares if I say words right.
Let's just get going. Come on. Does my
hat look good? Let's go. Next. Next. Uh.
Oh, we're going to we're going to do
some equations now. Great. If you try to
stretch a finite amount of energy across
an infinite universe,
the energy at any given point becomes
infantessimal, effectively zero.
Now, this breaks physical law because
energy is no longer conserved locally or
globally.
It's completely diluted out of
meaningful existence.
So based upon the laws of conservation
of energy,
is our universe allowed to be infinite?
No. Our universe must be finite in order
to have conservation of energy laws.
So let's take a moment to just breathe
that in
and let us consider how this will affect
our understanding and our views
regarding astrophysics.
>> It won't change him at all because to my
knowledge very few astrophysicists if
any claim that the universe is infinite.
I don't know I could be wrong about that
but I don't think that that's a very
popular uh take in astrophysics. uh you
we we there was a finite amount of
energy associated with the initial
singularity and then expansion from
there. So it's a finite amount of
energy. I don't think anyone is saying
that the that the universe is infinite.
So you're saying nothing even remotely
controversial. I think the only thing
that's interesting to me about this is
usually pseudo spiritual gurus will talk
about infinitess. So, um, it's actually
surprising that he's not like, "Oh, the
universe is infinite, you guys, and
here's a bunch of [\h__\h] I made up to,
uh, justify that, right? He's saying a
bunch of [\h__\h] to justify this other
thing that is trivial and doesn't even
need to be discussed in the first
place." Um, but, uh, yeah, interesting.
A little bit of a a little bit of a
curveball. Okay.
Well, right now, let us continue on our
walk through the corridors of academia's
fundamentals.
Now, we're going to explore constants
like Oilers's number, the bore radius,
plank's constant, and the fine structure
constant because these are not our
>> I'm kind of surprised he said oiler
correctly. Uh, he must have looked that
up. Uh, I wonder if he looked it up
while they were were recording. Uh,
yeah, it's good.
>> Arbitrary. They're not random and
they're not given.
They are resonant echoes of symmetry of
motion
and motion being the key word.
Therefore, in order for us to understand
them, we must first understand the laws
that govern motion itself. Right?
You see old Isaac Newton up there,
brilliant fellow though he was, yet he
envisioned a universe that behaves like
a giant celestial game of billiards.
Because you see in his first law he
tells us an object in motion will remain
in motion in a straight line unless
acted upon by some external force. Now
that sounds quite reasonable, right?
Except there's this curious little
paradox lurking beneath that elegant
phrase because in his third law, Newton
tells us with great confidence, I assure
you, that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction.
And here's where the wheels come off the
cart. Or better yet, they begin to
spiral out.
Because if every action causes a
reaction, and this reaction is equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction,
then no action can exist in isolation.
What does that mean? It means that every
moment causes a feedback,
a returning wave, a resistance, a
curvature.
You don't know what feedback means. What
the [\h__\h] is a returning wave? Right? If
you apply force on, if you're in space
and a force is applied on a spaceship or
an apple or whatever the [\h__\h] you want
to uh be examining, it starts moving.
There's no waves. There's no wave
happening. There's no outgoing wave.
There's no returning wave. There's no
feedback. There's no resistance. There's
no uh there's no dispersion. There's no
uh resonance. Let us know any of these
buzzwords that you want to talk about.
Um, uh, the first and third laws of
motion from Newton do not somehow
contradict each other. You're just a
[\h__\h] idiot that doesn't understand
middle school level physics. Uh, hate to
break it to you, Terry.
So, to say that something moves in a
straight line
is only true in the absence of reaction.
Because the moment that we acknowledge
the third law, the moment that we say
aha, the a the universe answers back,
the first law becomes, shall we say, uh,
polite fiction.
>> No, we can't say that, Terry. We can't
say that because it's not fictional. It
is a very basic law, fundamental law of
physics. U, in order to accelerate
something, a force must be applied.
Whether you are accelerating from rest
or decelerating back to rest in a
particular uh inertial reference frame,
uh the law works just fine. You're just
[\h__\h] dumb and don't understand what
it means. Uh feel free to show us
something accelerating without any force
being applied. Now, that would be
something if you could do that. Uh if
you could just make something move with
your mind, that'd be pretty neat. Uh, if
you could make uh if you could make uh
uh something in if you could stop a
comet, if you could make a comet stop in
its orbit uh without any external force,
that'd be [\h__\h] crazy. If you could do
that [\h__\h] I'd join your cult. I'd wear
a goddamn hoodie with a with a with a
Havana hat over it. Uh if you could do
that. Uh no no dice though, I'm
thinking. So yeah,
>> because straight lines don't exist in a
universe such as ours.
Every line curves, every path folds,
every motion sings back unto itself
because curvature is the child of
reaction.
The more force you exert, the more the
universe pushes back.
And what is resistance really but a
change in direction. And what exactly is
a change in direction but curvature?
So the greater the action, the greater
the reaction. The greater the reaction,
the greater the resistance. The greater
the resistance, the greater the
curvature. So yes, Newton's first law is
quite lovely,
but like all first laws, it is
incomplete until it breaks you.
>> Not everything's curves, man. I mean you
can have uh you can have one-dimensional
motion along a singular axis. Uh you
could have a ball or a hockey puck or
something moving in one direction again
uh to until it uh you know there could
be uh a paddle or a bat or whatever uh
hitting it directly in the direction
that it came. No curvature. Uh sorry.
It's just everything's got to be curves
with this guy.
So what about the platonic solids? Our
fundamentals that are built on the ideas
of straight lines.
Yes, these beautifully carved
structures. There's the tetrahedrin,
hexahedron, the ocahedron, the
decahedron, the iicasahedron. Each one
is defined by perfectly straight edges
and flat faces.
Well, let's not forget it's impossible
to make a straight line in curved space.
That's a direct violation against action
and reactionary laws.
So, where did in the world did they get
the straight lines to make the platonic
solids?
Well, in researching this subject, I
found that the most likely origin of the
platonic solids is one of the oldest and
most sacred symbols known to mankind.
That is the flower of life.
>> I mean you you seriously can't can't
fathom people making up shapes, right?
Mathematics uh I is is is
deals with formulations in a in a
hypothetical imaginary perfect space.
Right? Nobody denies that. That's why
math is different from empirical
science. Math is not science. Math is
not empirical. Math is based entirely on
a on on pure reason and logic. Uh right
the the perfect mathematical world
doesn't actually exist. Um but uh like
you can imagine people being like hey
what's a shape with three sides? Oh it'
be that like that triangle. What kind of
different triangles can we make? Oh they
have different uh relationships between
the sides and the angles and stuff like
that. Isn't that interesting? Now we've
got a uh now we got a square. Oh let's
turn it into a cube. Right. Let's make
it threedimensional. Like you really
can't wrap your head around people just
coming upon these shapes by exercising
logic. Like you you really think that
people made up the [\h__\h] flower of
life before they conceived of a cube?
You really think that? Uh that's [\h__\h]
insane. And uh also these are this is a
two-dimensional uh pattern. So I still
don't know what the [\h__\h] you're talking
about with that.
And to support this,
there are ancient whispers passed from
Egypt to Greece to Renaissance vaults
that suggest that the Platonic solids
were in fact derived
from this very geometry of breath, the
flower of life.
Leonardo da Vinci studied the same
flower not as an artist alone, but as an
engineer of harmonic proportions.
And even Plato or perhaps his Egyptian
tutors hinted that behind the forms of
matter lie
>> Egyptian tutors. What the [\h__\h] Uh Plato
was taught by Socrates.
What the [\h__\h] are you talking about?
>> Living archetypes that are embedded in
divine geometry.
So yes, it's quite possible that the
Platonic solids was first glimpsed
through this flower.
Platonic solids is plural were first
glimpsed and no they were not. No, they
definitely [\h__\h] were not. Do you see
a dodcahedron in there? Draw me a
dodcahedron. You're so sure that they
came from this [\h__\h] Well, that's not
even the flower of life. You're just
showing a flower. You're showing an AI
flower. Um, why don't you take the
[\h__\h] thing and draw all the shapes
for me? Do that, man. Nevertheless, here
is the harmonic pivot.
The flower of life, the first breath.
Well, that's a thing of curves. Circles
upon circles. Each one born from the
center of another. Spaced precisely so
that their perimeters intersect at 60°.
And this overlapping of spheres is not
drawn with rulers. It's not made with
straight lines. It's sung like a
harmonics from a singing bow. You see,
no straight lines exist in the flower of
life. None.
It's a world of curves, of pressure
waves expanding and contracting breath.
So now the question arises,
how did they get flat platonic solids
from the curved flower of life?
Well, the answer, my friends, is rather
awkward.
They drew them in.
They fudged it.
>> You're not doing any. You're just put
You're just superimposing the shapes on
this flower of life. You drew a
triangle. You just drew a triangle and
then that morphed into other shapes on
top of the flower of life. What the [\h__\h]
are you doing, dude? God damn it. They
normalized it.
They averaged the points of overlap.
They took the petal intersections,
those beautiful almond shaped vissica
pisces, and said, "Let us draw a line
from this midpoint to that one." But
here's the twist. Those points aren't
flat. They are curved intersections of
spherical space. So to draw a straight
line between them is to say, "Hey, let's
pretend the curve does not curve."
Yeah, all those th those other [\h__\h]
shapes aren't real. Like there's no
perfect circle in in the universe. You
understand that, right? There's no
perfect anything in the universe. Uh it
is all an approximation to this
mathematical perfection. There's no
perfect circle just like there's no
perfect cube, just like there's no
perfect anything. Uh it's an idealized
uh
world of math, right? Um, so there's
nothing special about all the
overlapping circles either. That's also
just some [\h__\h] we made up. Doesn't exist
actually. So,
>> and that my friends is the birth of the
lie.
So now
>> al also though there like you can find
uh things that are cube like you you
have uh uh cubic repeating cubic lattice
structures uh in for ionic solids like
there's whatever you want to point to
that's roughly spherical or or circular
uh there are things that are roughly
cubic that are equally roughly cubic. So
I don't know what the [\h__\h] you're
talking about. All these shapes are
there. They're around. Uh so
>> how are we supposed to interpret these
structures?
We can no longer interpret them as the
true fundamentals of form because they
are imaginary.
They can only be interpreted as a crude
depiction of its primordial alphabet, a
tutorial if you will,
like the nursery language of the cosmos.
Because in reality, space does not
tolerate
perfect flatness. Because every
interaction, every spark, every breath,
it causes curvature.
That is to say, the moment that the
universe began acting, it began curving.
So what exactly does that mean for
academia's fundamentals and the axioms
and postulates and theorems and
underpinnings that have been derived
from that?
Well, let's look at the square root of
two, the uninvited guest, the bastard
stepchild.
It's a direct consequence of the advent
of imaginary straight lines.
You see, when they derived the
hexahedron from Medatron's cube, the
cube, which in fact itself is derived
from the flower of life.
Their usage of sixpoint star structures
to construct right angles that do not
exist in the sea geometry is akin to
geometric and harmonic blasphemy.
You see, the moment we say that the face
is a square,
we introduce a measurement that does not
harmonize
with the spherical circles, namely the
square root of two.
Spherical circles.
He just said spherical circles, you
guys. Um, what the [\h__\h] does any of that
have to do with the square root of two?
I I I'm going to I'm going to shoot
myself. I'm going to shoot myself. Uh, I
I already regret doing this. This is so
unbelievably painful. It's I cannot
describe to you this sensation of having
to listen to this. Uh I can't even do I
can't do this. You see the irrational
square root of two. This ancient
fracture in the harmonic mirror.
That's a phantom seam. It is stitched
throughout the entire edifice of
mainstream mathematics, geometry,
chemistry, and physics. It's the first
known irrational. It's the moment when
rational broke from the resonance when
they tried to measure
the diagonal of a square, an imaginary
structure without consulting the spiral.
What spiral? What the [\h__\h] are you
talking about? If you draw a square, it
has a diagonal. Uh and and if you have a
if you Yes. If you have a a right
triangle, the legs are in the ratio of
xx and x 2. Um,
irrational numbers exist. Sorry, I don't
like Do you want an apology from the
universe that irrational numbers exist?
Well, they do. Uh, I don't know what to
tell you. Also, imaginary ones, too. And
they crop up in the in the equations
that govern that govern the universe.
It's not just uh [\h__\h] we make up. So, uh
yeah, you got just you got a lot to deal
with here, man.
Now, here's a little funny hiccup about
the square root of two, which you may or
may not have heard. It loops. It lies.
You see, if you take the square root of
two, which is 1.414213562
373095.
Now, if you cube it,
meaning you multiply it by itself three
times, what do you get? You get
2.8284271 98284271-21746190.
But wait, that's the same value that you
get when you double it because the
square of 2 * 2 is equal to
2.828427121746190.
So somehow the square of 2 cubed is
equal to the of 2 * 2 which is
equal to the of 2 + the of
two.
That's not a relationship.
>> It is though. Sorry. Uh just roo2*
roo2 is two and then multiply
another roo2 in there. You get
22. So you're just not
understanding that roo2 * roo2
equals 2. And then times another
roo2, you get 2 * roo2. Um
it's not there's just there's nothing to
talk about here. I I I I just I did so
much on this on my other Terry videos. I
talk about this uh algebraically where
you can solve for it, right? Which what
what uh what number uh cubed is the same
as doubled and it ends up being 2.
You can do it graphically as well. You
look at where 2x and and x cubed uh
those where those uh where those uh
equation where those uh intersect
graphically. You just don't get it,
dude. You just don't understand very
basic math. That doesn't mean the
universe is something different and all
the crazy [\h__\h] It's just you're too
dumb and lazy to learn basic math. Just
[\h__\h] accept it, man. That's not
rigor. That's a mathematical love
triangle pretending to be a rule.
Now, we've just demonstrated that x cub
is equal to 2x, which is equal to x + x
only if x is the square root of two.
And this unreality is pretending to make
sense.
>> It makes perfect sense, dude. If you set
x cubed equal to 2x, divide both sides
by x, you get x^2 = 2. Now take the
square root of both sides, you get x=
2. It's basic [\h__\h] algebra.
Godamn it. Why? of all the values, of
all the numerical values, why wouldn't
there be one for which doubling it and
cubing it gives you the same result? Why
can't there be a number like that? Well,
there [\h__\h] is. It's 2 uh and
negative2 actually, right? If if
you uh double negative2, you get
-22 as well as if you cube it
because when you when you square it, it
goes positive, but then multiply again,
it goes negative again. So um uh and
zero actually also uh also works for
zero. So there are three values for
which doubling and cubing gives the same
result. Uh isn't that neat? So we don't
need any spirals. We don't need any
fractures. We don't need need any loops.
We don't need any of that [\h__\h] Uh we
just need you to go back to [\h__\h]
elementary school and actually pay
attention and apply yourself this time.
Big guy, I think you can do it.
So let me share with you a list of some
of the foundational systems, fundamental
systems
that are deeply entangled within this
mathematical fallacy called the square
root of two.
From quantum mechanics to AC circuits,
from 4A analysis to image processing,
the square root of two is the fracture
that runs through all of them.
Show me where where root two shows up in
any of that. You don't know what any of
those things are and you cannot cite how
what the relationship is between root
two and any of those things. You just
listed random words and said root2 blah
blah blah. Uh that's it. Yeah.
Uklitian geometry, cartisian coordinate
systems, trigonometry and unit circles.
quantum mechanics normalization of wave
functions in Hilbert spaces bell states
in quantum superpositioning amplitudes
the square root of he's he's literally
just listing random uh vocab words
Hilbert spaces unit circle ukitian
cartisian uh he's straight up he just
like went to Wikipedia took a bunch of
words that he thought sounded cool and
then he just recited them in random
order. That's the movie. We've got an AI
dude running route two floating across
the screen and he's spewing random math
terminology.
Good god.
>> Two often appears in entangled state
coefficients in electrical engineering,
AC circuits, forier analysis, digital
image processing.
>> You you already said those. What about
forier analysis? What is Forier
analysis, Terry? What the [\h__\h] is it? Is
it man running from fire? Is Forier
analysis man running from fire? Is that
what it is? Uh, I thought it was
something else. I think I have some
tutorials on it in my in my math series.
and pixel geometry, linear algebra norms
and rotations
in our architecture and our engineering,
computer science, algorithms, graphs,
mathematical constants and sets. I mean
the square root of two is the first
discovered irrational setting the stage
for real numbers. What do you mean
setting the stage for real numbers? We
knew about real numbers first and then
irrational uh or no wait no irrational
numbers are real numbers right yeah real
is rational and irrational and then
imaginary is something else so what the
what the [\h__\h] are you even saying dude
um that may be true that root two was
the first discovered irrational number
um but uh so what there's a bunch of
other ones uh pi uh you know e uh root
three uh root a bunch of other [\h__\h] why
what's what why aren't you freaking out
about root three. Oh, right. Because you
care about root two because you want 1*
1 to equal two because you're a [\h__\h]
[\h__\h]
Proved irrational by the Greeks
initiating the rift between logic and
geometry.
The philosophy of infinity and Godale's
incompleteness. The square root of two
its irrationality foreshadowed the
unprovable truths and unaccountable
sets. measurement theory and error
fractto and chaotic systems.
Now, understanding truth
necessitates a disruption of tutological
loops.
And the square root of two is just that,
a tautological loop. No, it's a [\h__\h]
number. There's no loop. The loop comes
when you try to go, "Oh, uh, cubid
divide by two. Cubid divide by two.
Cubid divide by two. Oh my god, it's a
loop." No, you're just sitting there
doing something over and over again for
no reason. Nobody asked you to do that.
You just sound like a [\h__\h] [\h__\h]
It's like going, "Uh, okay, here's the
number one. Double it. Now divide by
half or divide it in half. Double it.
Divide it in half. Double it. Divide it
in half. It's a toological loop." No,
you're just a [\h__\h] idiot doing
arithmetic infinitely for no reason. Uh
and and I don't know why you're playing
a uh uh footage of a roller coaster
while you're talking about this. What
the [\h__\h] is that?
In other words, it's a mathematical
fallacy.
It is an unnatural equation at the very
starting point of mathematics. And these
are the foundations of our geometry,
our chemistry, and our physics.
>> So you see, we've built an entire
civilization on the convenience of
imaginary straight line projections
because the universe doesn't do straight
lines.
>> This he can't even like you can't film
like that. That was an audio video
mismatch, right? He can't even get that
right. This is it. Of all the arguments
against AI, uh, the existence of this
video, I think, is the strongest. Um, I
so desperately wish that this did not
exist. This is an this is so offensive
to to human civilization. This is
probably the most offensive thing that
has ever happened. Uh, it's up there,
right? Holocaust, slavery. Uh, this is
like in that tier, I would say. Um,
that's how bad this is. Yeah.
>> If every force meets a reaction, if
every motion curves back into itself,
then what are we looking at? It's not a
grid,
but it's a spiral, a living geometry.
Living being the key word, a harmonic
memory.
So, let us approach this topic from its
source.
You see, in 1696, Johan Berni
audaciously challenged all the
mathematicians in Europe to derive the
fastest path under gravity apart from
straight down. For a be to travel from
point A to point B, the brachistochrome
curve known as the path of fastest
descent under gravity.
It's not a straight line, but a taut
spiral of intention
bending.
>> It's not a spiral. A curve is not a
spiral. You don't even know what a
spiral is. God damn it. This is not a
spiral. That's a curve,
[\h__\h] Through space with
purpose. You see when four
brachistochrome curves are folded inward
and mirrored around a central point
they form the sacred geometry of the
tetrium.
A curved tetrahedral wave chamber where
motion pressure and memory converge.
It is within this nested structure that
1* 1 equaling two becomes not a
contradiction but a revelation.
For each curved unit of unity, when
mirrored and bonded through resonance,
does not return to one.
It expands into a second presence
forming duality from singularity.
I'm
I I'm just I'm telling you right now,
we're we're we're 25 minutes in out of
an hour 14. I'm not finishing this. I
can't do it. This is so p it's it this
is more painful than anything that I
react to. I remember now how angry I
used to get when I would watch these. Uh
some I don't remember how many I did
that were reactions. I think usually
they weren't reactions so I would watch
it and script stuff. Um I'm I'm
definitely done with that. But this is
just my god it's just so infuriating.
um the [\h__\h] tetrion and uh just
flashing trig trigonometric functions
that he sure sure as [\h__\h] does not know.
He does not know what anything in
trigonometry is. Um and then just the
[\h__\h] 1* 1 equals 2. Just the just the
just the the audacity of the assertion
of 1* 1 equals 2 and just the smuggness
about it. It's just beyond my ability to
tolerate.
This is the birth of dimensional space
through harmonic recursion.
The moment the universe chooses to
remember rather than merely reflect.
Now this insight undermines cartisian
flat space logic
and confirms our revelation that this
uni you know that you can have cartisian
coordinates in any number of dimensions
right there. You can have
three-dimensional cartisian coordinates.
Uh you you'll learn that in school. You
can go to higher dimensions too if you
want. Um yeah. So I guess he didn't know
that. Terry
>> universe is constructed through harmonic
wave paths not forcebased linearity
and this curve proves that nature
straight lines
yet.
>> Ahores I think you mean abhores.
Ab ho rs. You wrote aores. That's the
other thing is I don't know whether you
you someone gave you a script or you
wrote it. No, you pro I'm sure you
didn't write it. Um something gave you a
script. Probably AI. You probably used
AI to to write most of this and then you
mispronounced everything and then are
those autogenerated? What are who where
are those subtitles coming from? Who the
[\h__\h] decided that aor is a word? Uh,
it's incredible. It's incredible.
>> Yet, it favors resonant paths, those
that go through time and harmonic
descent.
Therefore, flat paths are insufficient
because nature selects curves that
minimize time and energy.
And efficient forms like these become
harmonic nodes. And these harmonic nodes
generate matter and matter obeys its
harmonic law.
>> So you
>> It just looks so bad every time he comes
in there. Uh and the and the audio and
video don't match. It's Wow. It's
incredible. Uh so nodes generate matter.
Where where the [\h__\h] is this node? Where
where are these nodes? Show me the nodes
and show me them conjuring matter uh out
of thin air. What the [\h__\h] are you
talking about, dude? What are you
talking about?
>> You see this is not a mistake in the
fabric of space.
This is the fabric.
So if even the effect of electricity
called gravity
and time and light preferred curves,
then why in the hell did academia's math
insist upon straight lines? Why did
those macademia nuts make the straight
lines? Didn't they know that electricity
is gravity and gravity is electricity
and 1* 1 equals 2? And why don't they do
my curvy awesome stuff?
God damn it. You see, to multiply means
to make more or increase in number and
become larger.
>> Uh not necessarily. If you multiply
something by uh uh 1/2 or a fraction of
one, it'll get smaller. Uh, so you don't
know what multiply means cuz you're
stupid.
>> That is the very definition.
Therefore, 1* 1 equaling 1 fails to meet
the requirements of the definition of
multiplying.
>> You're confusing an arithmetic operation
with the colloquial connotation of
multiplying meaning to make babies. Uh,
when we multiply, we we make babies and
then the family grows. And you think
that that's what the arithmetic
operation means? Again, because you're
[\h__\h] stupid.
Now, let us ponder over the
multiplication that they taught us. 1 *
1 = 1.
But that assumes perfect flatness.
Well, here's a grid.
>> Nope, there's no flat. There's no grid.
There's no nothing. It's just one thing
happening one time equals one time that
the thing happened. Uh, I'm not doing
this again. I'm not doing the whole I've
I've explained this like three different
ways in my other videos. Uh one thing
happening one time equals one event. Uh
there's so many ways to talk about this.
Uh
one times one equals one. Get over it.
Um also, didn't you start backpedaling
all this [\h__\h] right? when he was on
Bill Maher and all of these other uh you
know he just had been getting made fun
of so much by all these different people
even dumb people that he started walking
it back and he was like well of I I
forget exactly how he described it but
he he was basically conceding like if
you're just doing like regular math then
yeah 1* 1 can equal one but when you're
doing my special curvy terology blah
blah blah math it it has to equal two
because I'm in the special awesome Terry
land where uh everything is different
And so that's why I say that that's why
I say that. Uh but no, he's right back
to it. He's right back to this same old
[\h__\h] Uh okay, here's a grid. Let's
let's see. I asked a large language
model to generate an image of what 1* 1
equaling 1 actually looks like in the
continuum.
This is what it laid out.
And then I said, what happens when we
allow form to enter the equation? What
happens when we allow form to enter the
equation? Well, where should we put it?
When we have 1* 1 equals 1. Let's put
form in there. So, should it be 1 * form
1 = 1? Or should it be 1 * 1 equals form
1? Should it be form + one? Uh, where
should the word form go in an arithmetic
equation? And what the [\h__\h] could it
possibly mean? Nothing, you [\h__\h] That
doesn't mean anything. None of this
means anything. You did not ask an LLM
to do anything. This isn't anything that
an LLM would provide you. There's not
there's no AI that would give you this
picture. This is some [\h__\h] that you
made up. Uh
god damn it. God damn it.
When we multiply one living wave by
another living curved wave.
>> What living wave? Living wave? What the
[\h__\h] are you talking about? What wave?
What kind of wave is alive? What are you
saying? What the [\h__\h] are you saying?
>> Aha.
>> You see this is volutric multiplication.
See how it's looping back upon itself?
>> No, because it's not. What the [\h__\h] does
that mean? Looping back on itself? No.
All of the waves are are are moving away
from the point of uh uh point of contact
where they're doing what whatever
they're doing. Now, this is what happens
when we give it the lynchpin geometry as
a base.
Oo,
>> looks very familiar, doesn't it?
>> Looks very familiar. No, it doesn't.
I've never seen this AI hallucination
before, nor does it have [\h__\h]
anything to do with basic arithmetic.
But, ooh, very sexy. Uh, yeah. Sexy
holes. Yeah. What kind of holes are
these, Terry?
And then look what happens when we give
it the instruction to form from the
Howard comma.
See, here's the curved multiplication
equation.
1 * 1 = 2.
Not
>> what where where where did you put 1 *
1als 2? And into what? And how did that
give you this? And what the [\h__\h] is a
Howard comma? What the [\h__\h] does that
mean? Uh, I'll save you some time. It
doesn't mean anything. 1* 1 doesn't
equal to. You didn't plug that into
anything. Nothing gave you this based on
1* 1 equals 2 because it doesn't. Uh,
this is just some random stock footage
or some AI hallucination and you
rambling like a lunatic on top of it.
It's what this entire uh this entire
pseudo documentary is. In fact,
obviously, as if there was any doubt.
>> Not because we are careless with logic.
but because we care deeply about life
itself.
You see, our universe is not mechanical
and it's everything but dead.
It's not an artifact. It's a living
breathing mega being.
You see, one is not a static identity
here. It is a waveform, a living spiral.
When you multiply one living waveform by
another, you are not stacking integers.
You are overlapping spirals.
The result is not a number but a
resonance structure.
And I'm tell I got I got like 10 minutes
in me. I I can't do this. I can't. Every
[\h__\h] s every single sentence is
meaningless. Every [\h__\h] I mean I knew
that. I knew it was going to be like
this every time. This happens every
time. I know it is going to be the
hottest gibberish in human history and I
and I'm still shocked every [\h__\h]
time. I don't know how he does it. I I
genuinely don't.
>> The smallest resonant structure made of
two bonded waves is a diad.
And in geometric terms, this is the
tetran. The first stable curve bounded
unity between two nodes.
The result is not singular. It has
curvature, tension and boundary.
Now to derive this through spiral
harmonics, let us redefine
multiplication using angular resonance.
We're going to allow theta sub 1 to
equal the angular position of waveform A
and theta sub 2 to equal the angular
position of waveform B. Angular
position. What the [\h__\h] is angular
position? Theta is an angle. It's an
angle. It's not an angular position. And
what the [\h__\h] is an angular position of
a waveform? What even is a waveform in
the first place? Do you know what a wave
is? Do you know what a waveform is? Do
you know what an angle is? Do you know
what a position is? What the [\h__\h] is
angular position? Uh, that doesn't mean
anything. What the [\h__\h] does any of this
[\h__\h] mean? What the [\h__\h] are you talking
about? Now, the interference yields the
cosine of theta sub 1 * cosine of theta
sub 2, which is equal to the 1/2 of the
cosine of theta sub1 plus theta sub 2.
It said minus and he said like I need to
know the relationship. I need to know
who wrote it. I need to know why he
[\h__\h] up while reading it and why they
don't do another take. He's like he's
clearly [\h__\h] up whatever he's reading
in the booth. And he's he just powers
through it. And if there's somebody
there with him, I assume there is. He
has money, right? He's going to pay
somebody to like, "Oh, okay. We got that
one, Terry. Let's do the next." He's
[\h__\h] it up. And they're probably
like, "Let's take that line again." He's
like, "Nope. Uh, I got to I got to get
home and beat some women, so we got to
we got to power through this [\h__\h] here."
Um, he's saying minus instead of plus
and plus instead of minus and then the
or or did or did he say what he intended
to say and then the and then the
somebody [\h__\h] up the subtitles or I
don't know what uh he said the one half
like he's just throwing in the and like
just fumbling all of it. Um, and of
course obviously does not know what any
of the what what does cosine mean,
Terry? How do you find the cosine of an
angle? Uh, tell me about that. Tell me
what the [\h__\h] a cosine is. Do you know
what any of what uh do tell me anything
about trigonometry? Tell me literally
[\h__\h] anything about trigonometry. I
know for a fact that you don't know what
any of it is because that's like 11th
grade math. Um and you don't understand
second grade math. So this is very very
far above your uh capacity to
understand. Um I I think it's you it's
all you can do to say cosine, right? I
I'm kind of shocked you didn't say
cosine or something like that. Um so
yeah
now this is a waveform product identity
a multiplication that splits into two
terms. So even the trigonometric
underpinning of wave interaction gives
us two emergent frequencies from 1 * 1.
Why?
Because true multiplication in a
resonant universe
is always curvature meeting curvature.
The result one times one is love you
guys. It's two people in love in the
cosmos and that makes the curvature. So
it has to be two. You got one person and
a one person and they multiply. They
make the babies and then there's two and
then there's more than two. So 1* 1 is
actually more than two because you're
making love in the cosmos. And look at
the heart galaxy. There's a nice heart
galaxy that the AI hallucinated for me.
Isn't that nice? Um, god damn it. Is
always a change in form, a doubling in
dimensional awareness, a movement from
singular to diatic state conclusion.
Therefore, when they told us that 1* 1
equals 1, they gave us a symbol, but it
wasn't a life.
And then this harmonic model 1* 1 is now
saying this. It is a birth. It is the
meeting of two fields. So 1* 1 equaling
two is not a mistake. It's a
remembrance. It is a big mistake. It's
the biggest mistakes of all the
mistakes. It's the biggest mistake
you've ever been you've ever had. Uh
it's not a remembrance. I mean, you
might be remembering uh some [\h__\h]
Iawaska trip that you had where you
convinced yourself that you're the
emperor of reality and that any hot
gibberish out of your mouth must be
true. So, yes, you might be remembering
a drug experience where your dumb
narcissistic brain convinced yourself
that any that all of this [\h__\h] isn't
just you being [\h__\h] stupid. Um, so
that part's true, but it is definitely a
mistake, Terry. uh nobody could possibly
conclude otherwise uh then 1* 1 equaling
two would be a very big mistake. It's
the moment that the mirror reflects and
the image steps forward. You see with
curved multiplication the universe
doesn't multiply like a machine. It
dances like a spiral.
Now most people think that 1* 1 equals 1
because it seems simple and easy to
manipulate. It appears clean and
mechanical. But remember it's imaginary.
And our universe, my friend, is anything
but mechanical. It is alive,
rhythmic. And when one meets one in the
true embrace of being, they become two.
So wouldn't wouldn't that be addition,
you [\h__\h] idiot? Isn't that 1 + 1
equals 2? Uh so do you know that
addition and multiplication are
different arithmetic operations? Uh of
course you don't. So now let us begin
making our way back to our old friend,
the flower of life, and see what
treasures are still encased inside this
wonderful gift of spheres.
You see the tetrion? That's a return to
the curve.
Now, here's a shape we've heard whispers
of in this talk. And this itself is the
tetrion.
And this is truly what the tetrahedrin
wishes that it could be. If only it
could remember that it was born from the
flower of life.
>> Yeah. a a a tetrahedron totally wants to
be some [\h__\h] up circus tent looking
[\h__\h] uh that you use to sell
jewelry. Yeah, that's uh that's
incredible.
It's not with flat faces, but with
curved wave fronts, not with fixed
edges, but with resonant boundaries.
Not with points, but with pressure
nodes.
>> What the [\h__\h] is a pressure node? What
is pressure? What does pressure mean,
Terry? What do any of these words mean?
>> And from this curved geometry comes not
confusion but clarity.
You see,
they had to write he wrote the word
clarity just in case you were like
clarity are you sure? I don't think I'm
getting any clarity. In fact, I'm very
confused. Oh, wait, no, I'm not. I see
the word clarity there and there's
cloud. So now I feel clarity. Uh it's
all clear now. Uh my bad. Keep going
Terry. All clear. You have plank's
length, Oilers's number, the bore
radius, the fine structure constant.
All of these begin to make sense when
the platonic solids are allowed to grow
up and bend. What is the bore radius?
What the [\h__\h] even is that? What is
that? And tell me what it has to do with
1* 1 definitely not being equal to two.
Uh what are what are any of those things
that you listed? What are they?
>> You see the bore radius written as a
knot is equal to four times pi time
epsilon kn which is the vacuum
permitivity. The ability of space to
permit an electric field line multiplied
by the reduced plank.
>> What the [\h__\h] was that? Electric
field. Is he having a [\h__\h] seizure?
Uh what is happening? What what is
My god, this is incredible.
>> Constant known as H bar 2 divided by the
mass of the electron multiplied by the
square of the electric charge E squared.
Now that's the traditional model of
defining the energy of the lowest radius
of the hydrogen atom. So
with that, we're going to introduce our
paper from 2020 called the geometry of
>> Yeah. So it it's the
the radius of of
an electron orbit the n equals one uh
shell uh in in the bore model. Um god
damn it, man. It's just like it's I I
don't know. Like I we're really close to
the end here. I can't I can't do much
more of this tree of the proton and the
tetrion shape.
And this is how the geometry of the
tetrion generates the conditions for all
of these constants. You see in the
harmonic tetrion model, the bore radius
is not defined by force constants or
dimensional guess works.
Instead, a knot is proportional to the
inverse square of the node frequency 1
divided by fn node squared where f node
is the prime harmonic bifurcation
frequency.
It's the fundamental standing wave.
The vibration of the proton in the
electron harmonic system.
What about the fine structure constant?
Traditionally, alpha the fine structure
constant is equal to the square of the
elementary charge e^ 2 / 4 * pi
multiplied by epsilon the vacuum
permitivity multiplied by h bar
multiplied by the so-called speed of
light.
Now this yields a dimensionless value
approximately equal to 1 over 137.
Now, traditionally understood as the
coupling strength between light and
matter.
Well, in the tetrian derivation, alpha
is equal to f curvature over f light.
What the [\h__\h] are those? What's f?
What's f curvature and what's f light?
What the [\h__\h] is that? What are you
talking about? What are you talking
about? the ratio of f- curvature to f
light where f-c curvature is the spiral
frequency that's caused by the curved
spaceime within the tetrion. Is it
supposed to be a force? Is it supposed
to be a curvature? Is it a spa? Is it
what? What the [\h__\h] even is it? What are
you saying? What are you? We got one
more one more click. One more click here
and we're done.
and flight is the prime frequency of
light propagation.
This means that alpha is not a fixed
invention but a harmonic ratio defined
by the curvature of memory within
the Howard comma and that's something
that we're going to get to in a moment
and that tunes the spine.
>> No, we are not going to get to that in a
moment Terry. I am very sorry about the
memory of the of the Howard comma and
the or the curvature of memory or
whatever the [\h__\h] you said. Uh we're
done here.
My god, it's just everything about I
mean obviously it's complete gibberish.
Um, we already knew that that was going
to be the case, but it's like, what are
you doing with these visuals and the
overlay of text that's riddled with
errors and you couldn't even like get a
clean take on when you're doing when
you're doing the narration? Like, do you
have any idea how [\h__\h] insane you
look and sound by putting this out and
charging money for it? I think, right, I
got I managed to get a copy of it, but
god damn it, man. Like what is going on
in the world of Terry? Like what is
going on in the world of Terry that this
is where he's at where he's like, "Oh,
I'm going to make this [\h__\h] thing and
I'm going to put it out. Yeah, this
looks good. This makes me look smart.
We're going to we're going to this is
going to change this is going to change
the game. This is going to bring me
back. This is going to bring me back
from the bottom. We're gonna we're gonna
climb the ladder again and I'm gonna get
another Oscar nomination because uh I'm
totally gonna get hired on on sets after
this. Come on. Once everybody says once
everybody sees Terry's a new
understanding of the universe,
everything's going to be coming up
Terry, right? Everything's going to be
go going just great for Terry once this
once this gets into the zeitgeist,
right? This is the most important work
of cinema uh ever. It's this and the new
uh the new Discovery Institute uh
propaganda movie. Uh I don't remember
what it's called. Uh these these are the
two best uh films of the 21st century. I
would say they they got to be. I mean,
what is more revolutionary than this? Uh
anyway, the you guys I I hope that you
got something out of that. I don't know
what you guys get out of the Terry ones
other than laughing because it's like
the other [\h__\h] I teach you guys or I
that's the goal anyway. Some of you
already know what I'm talking about.
Some of you don't care what I'm talking
about, but some of you do care and you
learn stuff because I explain molecular
biology or astronomy or chemistry or
something. Um, you know, say they say
people make pseudoscientific claims that
are actually cohesive. They're actually
concrete claims that can be understood
by a brain and you can go, "Oh, well
that's actually wrong because this this
relationship they're citing is not true
and here's how I know because here's
this is what we understand." Right? It
allows me to explain signs here. It's
just me shouting at him that he doesn't
know what any of these words mean over
and over and over again. I can't do it.
Um, I don't we're not coming back to
Terry for a while here, unless he like
watches this video and flips out and
starts like talking to me directly, then
that would be hilarious and then
obviously we'll do more. But that kind
of fizzled out. Remember when he uh
remember when he threatened me with a
duel? He wanted to do like a legitimate
duel at 10 paces uh and he was like uh
trying like he literally challenged me
to duel. It was [\h__\h] incredible. Um,
so, uh, if that more of that kind of
[\h__\h] happens, then I will talk about
them. Otherwise, I really don't see
myself. I've got way too much other [\h__\h]
to do that is way more pressing. I have
actual like, you know, all the antiax
medical misinformation stuff. It's just
way more important than this. I just
kind of somebody sent me this. I glanced
at it. I was like, this is [\h__\h]
funny. We haven't talked about Terry in
a while. You guys like it when I make
fun of Terry, so let's do that for a
bit. But I I can't I can't do it. I
can't even get through this. I can't get
through this thing. It's so painful.
It's the hardest thing to watch ever
that I have ever seen. It's just that
ridiculous. So anyway, uh that was not
fun for me. I hope it was fun for you. I
got lots more [\h__\h] coming that's way
more just more educational, more
relevant, more pressing. So stay tuned
for that. Uh but uh you know, whatever
the case may be for you, whether you
were drinking along or enjoyed it or
whatever you thought of that. Uh thanks
as always for watching. I'll see you
next time. Hey guys, don't forget go to
boot.dev and use code professor Dave to
get 25% off your entire first year.
Learn to code today with boot.dev. Dev.