#2171 - Eric Weinstein & Terrence Howard

26:50And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and the physical sciences is extraordinary for outside ideas because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it. If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing with with the principle of explosion. And that's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years. For years, it's Norman J. Wildberger talks about it. It is what's, because you have to cancel conservation of energy and you have to cancel the action and reactionary laws in order for one time.

27:39One, now I understand you're seeing one, one time, but because of the associative law, the associative law that says, if A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself in multiplication A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B. But you're not there. If I change the word itself to the word zero, which you're gonna say, there is no zero. Why do I say there's no zero? Because you have, well this is why I'm trying to get back to what I understand of Terence's underlying metaphors. No, what I'm saying is there to say zero, zero is supposed to represent no thing, nothing whatsoever, but they have zero as a number, set up as a number, but to say no thing, your brain creates a chemical structure, even in saying nothing.

28:32So there is what I'm saying still. So there's a difference between the empty set and the zero. That's the difference. So if I say to you Terence, what is the collection of kittens that you have sold to North Korea to be used for spare parts? You would say, it's the empty set. I've never sold a kid. I say, hey Terence, what is the number of kittens that you've sold for the internal organs to North Korea? You would say zero. So zero is the... I would say none, yes. That's right. So there is a zero. But to multiply something by the nothing, to multiply something by nothing, don't they have to be dimensionally equal to in order to multiply, like you can't multiply a human by an ant because they're not dimensionally equal.

29:22Well, if there was a thing called a human ant, no, that was your point about dollars, right? What dollar times a dollar, that was a problem that people... That's a deesimal system. That's a problem with the... No, the problem comes up with the deesimal system why a dollar times a dollar can be different values based on different currencies. That was the point of that. I was pointing out, hey, the deesimal system is... Terence makes a correct point that we say one times one equals one, but if you say a dollar times a dollar is not a sensible thing, unless a dollar squared is a unit that you can interpret.

29:59That was your point about dimensionality. Right, and now in the moment, what is a dollar squared? What does a dollar mean? I don't know what that means. But since the dollar is no longer based on a hard asset, it's no longer gold, it's just an integer. It's just an integer in a computer being multiplied. It's a unit of account. It's a unit of account, but it's an integer that's still a... Now you're able to multiply it under different currencies. States are not allowed to print dollars, but states are allowed to print as much change. So who's to say that the state isn't saying, okay, we're going to make, we're going to print.

30:31We can get into seniorage, which is the concept of theft that occurs when either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing. This episode is brought to you by Buffalo Trace Distillery. Actually have some Buffalo Trace cigars here. They just sent me. One of the world's most award -winning distilleries that's been making whiskey the same way for more than 200 years, made as a tribute to the rugged, free spirited pioneers who blaze their own trail to new frontiers. It embodies the perfectly untamed spirit of independence. It defines what an award -winning bourbon should be.

31:16Age nearly twice as long as competitors in new, charred, white oak barrels and bottled at 90 proof, Buffalo Trace is the perfect bourbon to be enjoyed in any way, anywhere. And the taste, it's damn good. It's bold and sophisticated yet incredibly smooth, finishing long and deep. It's authentically American, representing uncompromising quality for the rugged, the powerful and the passionate. Tap the banner to learn more or visit buffalotracedistillery .com. That's buffalotracedistillery .com. Distilled, aged and bottled by Buffalo Tracedistillery, 90 proof, Franklin County, Kentucky, Buffalo Trace, American, family -owned, independent and perfectly untamed.

32:08Increasing the unit. The number of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit. But my claim is, you're gonna do a series of things. Like I've watched how you deal with people in interaction. You've created an incredible effect. Rick Rubin, the hip -hop producer. Yeah, he did my album. He, he, um... Okay, well that makes some sense. Because the first thing that happens is I'm awakened by a message from Rick Rubin. He's like, how come you can't explain physics the way Terrence Howard explains? That's not a way to get on my good side at eight o 'clock in the morning. Yeah, but he's probably baiting you.

32:42What? He's always baiting you. He's always baiting you. He's the best. He's the best. I'm trying to explain physics the way you explain it. Well, okay. I'm working for a partnership at the end of this. That's what I'm hoping to, to win you over as a pro in a contract. I'm, that's, I'm hoping that the information does that. There's at least one area that you have won me over in which I'm very excited about. But I'd like to get back. What is that area? It only was hanging. The, the linchpin will get to it. Yeah, but you can't leave us hanging. Well, I'm trying to get back. Look, I'm trying to do a service to this.

33:14You go, go, let me, let me let you talk. You just can't talk. Stop trying to control everything. You're not, you're not. He's got a plan. I know. He's got a very rich in plan. He did. Can I have a good time? Can I get an eye on Wasca, you know? Yeah.

33:31Actually, I'm going to bring the temperature. Yeah, we can lower the temperature in here. Yeah, because I'm shvitzing. But you are wearing a jacket, sir. Well, because I'm trying to be a professional. That's hilarious. Isn't that adorable? Like I like how you dress, Matt. I do pictures that cold. Beautiful geometric pattern on your hoodie. Looks much more comfortable. This thing you're doing, everybody does that. Smart as you are, you can wear a fucking dirty nirvana t -shirt. You don't need to come in. You don't need this nonsense suit. Although I do enjoy a good suit. But most of the stuff that I've been pointing out, don't try to control everything.

34:04The stuff I've been pointing out has been the blaring inconsistencies that they shove down until you just accept. And if I hadn't had, if I didn't come up with a separate cosmologist, I didn't come up with it. If a separate cosmologist hadn't been handed to me, given to me, that's why I explained that. You, you, you, you, okay, I'm gonna be quiet. I'll, I'll start with the flower of life. You're wearing it on your shirt. On your shirt shirt. I'm wearing some apparition on the flower. That's right. So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing. Because it's, it's confusing, right? And the one thing I can't go with you on, is I can't go on the nan tuck its lay ride where we're talking about the Bose Einstein condenser and then we're talking about the period.

34:45Oh, I'm gonna show you that. We can do that. I'm gonna show you that. But we had to, we had to, we had to, we had to stick to the specific topics one at a time. Because otherwise it's just, I'll, I'll be chasing, I'll be chasing after you and you'll get nothing. Yeah, that was part of the plan today. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of let someone play out. So you want to start with the flower of life. Jamie, can you pull that up from, please, from my book. It's on page one, 2134, T -C -O -T -L -C dot com, or it should be in the regular thing. Also that, that blender thing is very cool. Yet which for rebuilding of Saturn?

35:17Or the one that you were talking to this other guy where he's asking you questions about the five forms and you have, Jeff, I found that through sleuthery on the internet where it was, it was doable. And because it's, you know, in particular, when you, when you do them opaque, it's very hard to see. Sometimes when you let it become translucent, it's easier to see. Well, that's why, while he's getting that, I'm going to, it's got it. It's on your, I'm on, no, no, no, I don't. I'm on your website. I don't know exactly where the book would be. Oh, it's one of these links. Just go down. You think it'll be a little more square root two.

35:55No, no, no, no, no. If you just type into my book, T -C -O. That's what, what, where is the book? It's, or you could also Google O -T -O -E -T. O -T -O -E -T, we'll take you to that. Yeah, one times one equals two is the acronym. If you go to, just go to T -C -L -T -L -C .com. And that'll be a problem. I'll, because then T -C -O -T -L -C .com, you have right below there, Terrence Howard. Yep, to that point. Yep. Well, I'll survive. See if you just open up the book. You got to open it though. Download, you have, right there? That's, I don't know if that's what downloads the book. Yeah, I don't know.

36:42Let's see, open, I'll click on that and that just takes me to this. And then it's not doing it. It's not doing it. Let's try searching Google O -T -O -E -T. And then several, all right. So if you go, and then put in Howard, or put in PDF, you should be able to pick, yeah, okay. That's probably right. Yeah, there you go. Okay. And then go to page 134, on the right hand side. You do have several editions. Yeah, I didn't even, that other one somebody else set up there to probably distract and keep people from being able to find it. It's probably the government. Yeah, we're going to do that later.

37:34You're going to have that. Yeah, coming. Just tap on that, that jewel right there. Okay. Okay. So this is, and we can rotate that with the cursor and get a, what's great about this, I'll be able to pull pieces out of it. Yeah, so just tap on to that drill. So we can start with this. Okay, so the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything, I've seen this pattern before, didn't know its history. I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a mathematical thing, about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments. But what these overlapping circles are, is a question.

38:10And the way in which I got to understand how Terrancy is the world, as he says, look, there's this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world. And there isn't a great explanation for why it's found in so many different places, as far as I'm aware, and part of your point. And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet that this thing is hiding a secret, and that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic. There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface. And then you said something, it's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is that maybe this is like a shadow on a flat wall, and that those two things are exploitable.

38:56And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface is, first of all, suspicious to you because of that curved linear triangle that you see in black. And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say, as above so below, but what if you said, as below so above, and you imagine that there was a three -dimensional structure floating above this, that actually projects down to this and distorts down to this. So that's the first idea. The first idea is, it's not this, it's the thing that projected to this. And that's what you mean when you say, opening the flower. Because the flower, when I was researching where the platonic solids came from, this is the oldest version that I got from all the, all the, all the ventiquity.

39:43It came back to them. Well, there are no platonic solids because you're indeed dimension two, except for what you built, which is the thing above in black. But what they did years ago, 6 ,000 years ago, was draw straight lines where the circle's overlapped. And I thought, in what I was reasoning with regard to our energy being expressed in motion, our motion being expressed in waves, our waves being curved, and that there were no straight lines in the universe. So I was like, There's several errors in what you just said. If I stop there, we'll get off track again. But you should correct those errors while we're there.

40:19Okay. It is not true that all energy is expressed in motion. What energy is not expressed in motion? Potential energy is not expressed in motion. If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't know this. But most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a spring. So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of all physics, even the most theoretical physics. It's very, very strange to think, hooks law. When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, energy is conserved. Now at the top and at the bottom, that weight is not moving.

40:56Because all of the energy is in the potential of the spring. It's in the stress of the crystallization that has occurred within that system. And then you will say something like the moment that, but that energy is still being held together. There is still energy there. And it's still moving at a microscopic level, it's still spinning centripetals. We have to get into what you will make a point, for example. Is that true? You'll say that it's still in motion. It's just in motion in a lower frequency. There's nothing moving. Let me show you what goes wrong in the interaction. Okay. Terence says, show me in nature a single straight line.

41:38Okay. And I like your point about Euclidean women that was lost. That was from Alan Watts. All right. So, if I show this to Terence, because I just bought this from the end of the seventh ray, last straight lines. Last straight lines. Terence is going to say, you would think it's a straight line. But when you look at it under an electron microscope, you're going to see the crystalline structure. So again, this configuration is an illusion. It's not perfect. It's an optical illusion because crystals form in symmetrical. Yeah, very often. Like a lot of straight lines. A lot of straight lines. Perceived straight lines.

42:19Right. But every atom is filled with empty space. I mean, we could take this down to, like, there is no matter. That is. We could get crazy. So, what we're about to. Well, you've seen that Mexican cave. That's the best example of it. I know. The Mexican cave is amazing. It's insane. The best example I've ever seen of crystals. Yeah. Where you've seen it? No. Oh my god, it's insane. It's insane. You can just look just for a little sidetrack. Let's take a look at it. Because this Mexican cave is probably one of the most spectacular things that exist on Earth. By the way, the spaceship behind you is supposed to be a mushroom, Joe.

42:54No, it's a spaceship. That's the classic UFO. Yeah. And that's me with the headphones. Look at that. How insane is that this was created on Earth just by nature? It's crazy. It's so different than anything else we see that it makes our mind go, what the fuck? Yeah. Like, those are crystals? How? How? What happened? Okay. Wild. So, in this straight line. That's a beautiful thing. I would say there are a lot of straight lines, but I've also studied Terence enough to know that he's going to say, uh, They're not perfectly straight. They're not perfectly straight. They're not straight at all. The moment you look at them through an electron microscope, this is part of where we get into.

43:32Right. So, they're not precisely straight. It's your point. And, in fact, let's imagine that I, but the Earth isn't precisely circular, right? No. No. It's far, mouth. Very far away from, we use this thing called the geoid, which is not circular either, but at least it's smooth. Right. We have many different geoys. It does seem odd though. The Earth isn't round totally. No, it's, well, the Earth is aging. It's being, it's on its way out. It's on its way out. It used to be. Well, the Earth is a career going on. We're falling apart. We need some Botox. But we don't. We're at it. The Earth needs Botox.

44:07The Earth needs the Earth. You want to drink? We could drink. No, no, no, no. I'm not necessarily. Not necessarily. What does that mean? In the car. You're a American man. You should be able to do it over the fuck you want. God damn it. I'm in Sweden. And you're in Texas. You're American man in Texas. This is a free state, sir. What do you have? We have whiskey. Oh, I would love one. That's what we need. We need whiskey. Let's get some whiskey and some ice test. Yeah, and then we're going to get into the wave congregation. I want to show you something. And I wanted to ask your opinion before I forget.

44:36There was a recent, well, I recently found it online of these two photons that were entangled. And it looks like a Yin and the Yang. Have you seen this? No. Yes, no, it's not true. I have seen it out of the corner of my eye. I did not study what caused this. I had to run it by you because you're probably the only one that I know other than maybe Terence. It could understand what the fuck they're saying. I have a motto of it. I do. And I don't. I believe you. I believe you. So what are they saying? How did they see this? Like this bifoton digital holography? Can someone explain that? Maybe, but I don't know what those words mean yet.

45:12Okay. Do you know what it means, Terence? Like how they could see this? A bifoton. By always meaning too. Someone that you're examining to. Did they smash them? Are they smashing them together? What's their process of looking at it? That's a very good question. And using the same interferometer that that Michelson Morley experiment which turned out to be. It turned out that it actually proved there was an ether. They just. There's a way in which you're right about the ether to be blunt. That's what I've. Listen to this statement in the beginning. Look. You know, put the bog down and listen to this.

45:50High dimensional bifoton states are promising resources for quantum applications ranging from high dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging. Just that phrase. What fucking percentage of human beings breathing on Earth right now have any idea what any of that means? I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space which is multi particle. So you've got something in the degree to level of a bosonic fox space where the two photons were created together. And that's going to be where the entanglement comes from. High dimensional, I don't know what it means because I know too many different.

46:33I assume it's a term of art in this area. And what they're saying is if I can create something that is geographically distributed but also linked at the point of creation. Like if a photon decays into an electron positron pair, those two are going to be entangled. And if you make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of the entire system. And so what they're trying to say is if you want to get jiggy, people always want to talk about faster than light communications by taking an entangled pair and saying that if I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light come.

47:12So we can give meaning to these things. Then you have to say, well, it doesn't allow you to create information transfer faster than the speed of light. And you have to be very careful and precise about it. But if you just start getting jiggy, then you start thinking you introduce the ether. So the ether, so you know, in part when I've been here on previous versions of Jerry, I talked about vector bundles. And in a certain sense, how do you have a wave without a medium? The medium was supposed to be this ether. But the medium is actually something called a vector bundle. It's a little bit weird that you're a...

47:47No, it's perfect because the vector bundle... Go ahead. You're a wave in a medium. And you as a wave don't know that you're a wave and you don't know what medium you live in. And it's funny that you go through life not understanding what you are. No, but that medium that got luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of his equations off of Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium. The only reason that special relativity came along was because they couldn't... They had misread the results from the Michelson -Morally experiment. Because it did show a slight change or some drag.

48:27But from that point on, because Einstein's theory of relativity was so easy and it predicted all of the movements of things, it did... They allowed... They had a bad idea of what the ether was going to be and special relativity would say. Yeah, in a certain sense. And what you are trying to say, the way I interpret it again, and I don't know if we don't do the work, is, Hey, the spiritual successor to the idea of the ether exists. And that thing has properties. And if you say, if I put a vector bundle on top of a lorensian manifold, then you don't have a contradiction. And if you call that the ether, that's more or less what we work with.

49:14And then we do this weird thing where we say, well, they used to think the ether existed and it didn't ha ha ha. And that's not really... Because that's when they said that space was a vacuum. And they realized that space is not a vacuum. It's not a vacuum. You know how much is going on in that vacuum? It's all going on. Yes, all of this stuff in that. So this is the thing, which is if you step on this thing the wrong way, everybody laughs and says, ha ha ha, he doesn't understand the Michelson Morty experiment. He doesn't understand why there's no ether. And then we secretly sneak it back in in this...

49:45Thank you. Thank you, John. Cheers. Cheers, John. I don't want to. Look at these professional spherical cubes. Yeah, they're cool, right? Round ice, which is nice. Ah, now I can have a conversation. Oh, yeah, now. So... Mental freedom in a glass. So... Or a person. If you're careful about it, it makes sense. If you're not careful about it, the whole thing blows up in your face. And the reason that I speak about the ether, all of the wave conjugations, all of my patents, have been defining... Different aspects of the ether. I believe that I've defined the electric side, the plasma, the plasma, the plasma side.

50:25And I believe that I've defined the magnetic side and the constitution between them. I mean, that's what I want to show. I want to get to that. Let's go back to the flower. Before you go from that other spot. If you look at that picture again of those two photons interacting. It looks like it's at the center of what would typically be a whirlpool. This is like the very center of a whirlpool. So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vorticity, that natural vorticity. That's what they took the picture of. They looked directly down at something being a two light moving a fluid.

51:03And they described how they take the picture. It's so complicated. Jamie, go back to where it was, where they were explaining what they use here. Here it is. Here we introduce bifoton digital holography in analogy to off -axis digital holography, where we coincidence imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography. What the fuck? See, but that's because of the uncertainty and Schrodinger, all of that. But if you were able, because they started off trying to predict an electron cloud, and find a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties and probabilities came out.

51:48But they were doing things on a two dimensional basis. That's what I believe that I've figured out with the wave conjugations, because they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through all these unnecessary steps to reach it. I am just so happy that someone's doing something like this. I'm so happy that we can talk about it. I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on at the highest levels of this kind of science, because it's so damn fascinating. These people are finding the very building blocks of the universe and studying them. It's fascinating.

52:27This is a bit up from that. The tomography is like how we assemble a picture of you when we do an NMR or a CAT scan. We have this thing called the radon transform, where we send waves through your body, and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body, reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system responds. We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly. That would take me 15 minutes with looking things up. I was just going to say it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can actually look at these quantum entangled photons like that.

53:17We need to do a better job. Right now we're in a crisis where no one knows what's true, nobody knows who's full of shit. Nobody knows where they can trust. One of the things that actually moved me to reach out to Joe is that by default, I've addressed the National Academy of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them. They wanted to know how much I knew about their lie. It's weird to think that this little studio, you know, weird way, is one of the rivals of universities when we don't know what's going on at Harvard, as you recently seen. We don't kick out plagiarists.

54:03We don't check what's going on at the National Institute of Health. It's very strange that this table is one of the last things that is trusted by many people. That's one of the reasons I'm here, which is people have a chance to see people in conversation about things. You know, you screw up, but the conversation's recorded and we all go on and people have a chance to see what's coming out. If we can go back to the flower of life, I can try to... Yeah, I love that. But with the flower, all of these things, I went up to Oxford eight years ago and tried to present them there to be examined. They didn't want to take me seriously.

54:43Because you keep coming at it. Because the one time you run when I said the one times one, but like I said, that was a metaphor to say something's wrong, something's wrong, but they know something's wrong with the math. It's not adding up. You bring up re -normalization theory. Re -normalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math that's wrong. And on the other hand, we have a way of working with math that's wrong, even though we know it's wrong. If you have an error of a particular kind, and you can find an expression with the same error that's different in the denominator, sometimes you can cancel the part that's wrong because you've introduced it twice.

55:23So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you have the opportunity to have one problem kill another. Is there a potential future where human beings, through whatever means, develop a superior method of mathematics that doesn't have a problem with the number two, that doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about? Well, that's what I think I've done with my wave conjugation. It solves all of those problems. That's what I can't wait to talk about it. It solves all the problems. So this is like we said, we start with the tetria now. No, no, no, no, we haven't gotten to the tetria.

55:59You're just talking about the tetria. Look, you have a story. Yes. And by doing the nan -tucket sleigh ride, you lose everybody like me, because nobody thinks it's real. And what parts of it are real, what parts of it are wrong, what parts can be improved, and what parts should be improved, how important it is, is never going to get a judicat. Beautiful. So you start off with the flower of life. It's a very coherent story that this thing is found all over the world. I learned from this. I didn't understand how widespread it was. I didn't know that there was a mystery of it. I know something about sacred geometry is a kind of spiritual geometric thing.

56:34We can talk about it later. Terence has a couple of ideas, maybe three. One of which is, maybe it's not about that flower of life, because that's an attute -dimensional plane. Maybe that is a shadow cast by something in higher dimensions. And it's a cryptic message from an advanced consciousness that will open its secrets when we finally understand it. Now there was something, for example, called the antithereomechanism, which was a bunch of gears found by this Greek island of antithere, and famously it was just in the Athens Museum. It predicts the constellation of that. There were two cats who really focused on it.

57:16One was named Derek de Sola Price, and the other was Richard Feynman. And they were obsessed with it. And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how much ancient wisdom and knowledge there was, because this was a mechanical calculator for understanding the positions of celestial objects. Far more advanced than we had any idea was possible. So if you want an analogy, in part I'm trying to steal menu, we have a situation in which the antithereomechanism gives you a possible example of what the flower of life might be. It might be a cryptic instruction. And a different version of this, the Carolus School of Astronomy, which was a religious school in the south of India and the west coast of India.

58:01More or less worked out. You're that beautiful thing. Well, that's a reconstruction. Yeah, that thing. Yeah, that's the real one. But I mean, what are the, when you look at the actual reconstruction, what they think it actually looks like. Oh, if we pass an A. Can we get the video for the reconstruction? Yeah, it's mind blowing. What year was this that they believe it was constructed 2 ,000 years ago? This is when they feel for me then, or Tala Meigh, you know, example of the world. But this doesn't seem to follow. Tala Meigh equations. Those 39 equations for me. Well, it's, you know, because of so many different factors, there's war, natural disasters.

58:39There's been a lot of moments in history where shit got lost. Just the, this, the pyramids are the best example of that, right? Like, what the fuck did they do? We don't really know. You know, we don't really know how they did it. Well, another, we're just talking about Werner Herzog. Yes. Werner Herzog created an entire film. Fitzgerald, though, just to test his theory about how to move heavy objects over a mountain. Right? So he wrote a, he wrote a, an entertainment to test an engineering theory. And this idea about entertainers not being scientists or engineers is just total bunk. Like Werner Herzog is an engineer.

59:17And he's also an actor in a cheeseball movie. He was in a Reacher, which Tom Cruise, he was the fat guy. It was, it gives that guy an opportunity to cut off his finger or something. Oh, there he is. He's good, though. Heady Lamar, famous for so - Oh, yeah. He's been through technology. So I don't find it. I don't find it. That's one of the reasons I just, I believe that we listen to people who have, have things to say. So if we go back to the flower of life.

59:47So Terrence has a couple of ideas, one of which is, this is the shadow. Another of which is that once you go into higher dimensions, you should be thinking in, so you should be thinking of these curved linear structures. And then instead of focusing on the spheres, you should focus on the areas in between, the voids. And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids. So there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Because he said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are beautiful. That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with.

1:00:31So what Terrence is doing here is he's saying, look, the circles are cross sections of spheres. And the spheres have to be placed in very precise places to generate what Terrence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations. And he has different ways that spheres run into each other. Then he says something very cryptic, where he says, if you drop a pebble in the center of a spherical lake, circularly symmetric lake, the wave will radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore, and then it will radiate back. And so he's talking about this. He says wave conjugations. And wave conjugation didn't call up anything directly when I heard him say it.

1:01:19They would call it a phase conjugation. Well, or they would talk about the conjugate wave coming back. If you do something like a garden hose that's affixed to the wall, the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something. So what Terrence is talking about is the idea, and you could do this, where we could drop like, let's say, six stones in precise places in water. And then, you know, using super slow -mo, watch what happens as these waves in precisely placed places run into each other. Because really what physics is is waves in collision. And they're going to create a particular simatics, which is going to show the harmonic points where matter and all of those things occur.

1:02:05I'm not going there yet. Okay. Okay. So then what Terrence does is he has in blender some means of bringing up platonic solids that are not the usual. So I bought some of these platonic solids from Amazon, and you see that they're all extremely cartesian. They're made up of flat faces or best attempt to do flat faces. Terrence says, I don't think that that has to be the case. If you generate these things from this pattern, and he focuses on the tetrahedron and an octahedral structure. Can you go up, Jamie, please, so we can see it as from that side perspective of it? Yeah. Let's go around. Okay.

1:02:54So what that is is a curved linear tetrahedron with spherical, and it's not actually hyperbolic. Those are going to be positive curvature, not negative curvature. No, that's going to be positive curvature. Compressing, yeah. I think it's positive curvature because those are going to be parts of spheres. The spheres are interacting, pushing inside. Yes, but negative curvature would be more like a Pringles trip, a chip, where the principal axis of curvature went in different directions. So I think it's not negative curvature. So this isn't the negative space between four bubbles? No, what do you mean by negative space?

1:03:32Negative curvature and negative space are different concepts. So the word negative is appearing twice, and that's why we're confused. Again, there are a million of these gotchas where you're... Can you describe the difference between the two? Sure. If I take the tip of my nose, that's going to be positive curvature because I've got one... Extending out. One curve going one direction, the other is going... They're curved in the same direction. On the other hand, if you look at like the crease of my nose, that's going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this, another that's going like that.

1:04:04Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?

1:04:13So that would be negatively curved, right? Because you'd have things going in opposite directions. That looks like a cool seat. Yeah. That looked a little comfortable. Okay, so negative curvature is what? Negative curvature would be what we would be talking about with like hyperbolic space. And spherical curvature would be what we're talking about with the inside of those curve linear triangles on his. So he's making... Again, I don't see this as... This isn't where I think it's worth, you know, saying he's wrong. He just doesn't know the language and doesn't know that there's a formalization of it.

1:04:53Now, if you take... So the other structure that he keeps running across is an octahedral curve linear. I don't know what... It's not really a platonic solid because it's not flat. If you go and push... You have to push on the jewel on the side, Jamie. If you go to the side of the thing, press on that jewel, and then go to that blue on that right, that blue, yep. And then you get where he bubbles. So now what he's doing is he's saying, if I have eight bubbles, and these bubbles, each face of this object, this octahedral object, he's taking a sort of curve linear triangle on a sphere, and he's imagining that these things are all sort of...

1:05:48Racing towards each other. And how would you... No, no, no, no. If you put those two in, he's going to go into a different world. No, no. So if we take... You can just tap on each one of those tetrians. Just tap it, it'll go away. Tap it, it'll go away. Now, how would you generate... So Neil doesn't know where this comes from, right? Now, the way in which you would do this, I believe, is that you would take a... Let me think about how you'd do this.

1:06:23You take the eight... That's right. No, no, no. You take the eight vertices of a cube, and you'd put a sphere at each one, small sphere. So imagine that you had a vertex at 111 in three -dimensional space, and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to have either ones or negative ones. So you have eight possibilities. So you could have negative 111 or one, negative 1, negative 1, et cetera. You allow those spheres to increase to a size of square root of two radius, and that will close off all of the means of escape, leaving a cavity in the center of your cube. And that cube will have an octahedral cavity that looks like this.

1:07:16That's how I think you generated this. I actually generated this by putting eight of the pieces together. I took eight of those triangular pieces together, and I put them together. They basically became the basis of two tetrians, which this would be seen as a neutron, and the interesting thing about this piece right here is nature always makes things in pairs, and they're always balanced. This doesn't exist. This exists only as a result of a pressure condition, a higher pressure condition. Jamie, if you go to that last blue tap, tap that last blue on your past, not the last blue, go around one more time.

1:08:03That one right there. That hunter, that huntian, only exists as a result of the four of the eight pressure conditions created. For a hunter, you'll appreciate this tap. Now tap on that hunter in the middle. No, no, not that one, damn, I gotta start it again. You can hit that one again, and then tap on the... Yeah, tap that. Make that go away. That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians interacting, and they create that other greater pressure condition. That's the negative space that they generate, but it does it. It's a massless area, because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away, and the energy generated disappears.

1:08:53But it's a part of everything in the... So you're putting a lot of words. Like, first of all, let's just admit that this looks gorgeous. Very cool. You're turning around Jamie, so they can see it please. So, you know, the problem, Terence, is that you have a desire to go immediately towards what this means. Right? And before you get to what it means, people don't even know what it is. True. Right? So what I'm gonna claim is I've got these eight rhombutons here. What's a rhombuton? It's like a gorilla testicle. You never had these? No, what other? Is it fruit? Yeah, it's like liches. Oh, liches, I've had liches.

1:09:37But this is, I think rhombut is the Indonesian word for hair. Where did you pick those up? Ranch 99 Market. You would have got you some flowers, but the light changed. If I take eight of these suckers, and I arrange them in a cubicle formation, there's gonna be one of Terence's things in the center. In the center. Right. Except they're gonna be six holes for the sides of the cube where you can get in. Now, what Terence is saying is, imagine these are special magical rhombutons. I can't even hold this thing. And that you allow them to grow a little bit bigger so that those holes close off by moving through each other.

1:10:22Imagine that they're made of magical substances. In the center, you're gonna get one of his curved linear octahedral structures, which is the thing that he just subtracted off. If you go back to the paint, if you tap on the paint right there, you'll be back to that, oh, the next one next to it. Wow, that shouldn't have done that. So what's going on is that, for example, is that Neil can't figure out where did this come from. So what it is is spheres of radius root two at the eight vertices of a cube passing through each other but closing off an octahedral cavity with positively curved triangles inside.

1:11:06That's what I needed you for. Well, that's what I just when I needed you most. Thank you. Pretty glamorous. Okay. What can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for diving into this? Like, what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as a 3D structure in the space inside of it? They're gonna call me crazy again, but it went now as 42 and had been kicked out of the world as a result of the allegations. I had another dream and that same being woke me up and took me back to where I was when I was a child and I saw the, I started putting the pieces together, the all shapes in your dream.

1:11:54In the dream together and then I was like, oh, so it's where four forces meet that makes a difference. So when I put four spheres, four circles, a cut four circles out and I made the all shape. And then when I started adding them together, then I saw the flower of life. I didn't see the flower of life initially. I saw that after when I'll show you the piece of it. Because the all shape is a different thing. In this case, in order to do this, what he did is he said, I mean, to make mathematical spheres, they're gonna start to intersect each other. And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material until they close off the holes in the cubicle lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature.

1:12:42To make what he calls the all shape, you do something very different. You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self -dual, that is, there are four vertices and there are four faces. And you can interchange faces with vertices. In fact, I don't know if you guys have these things. You have this? No. What is it? So this is an engineering feat. So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Haberman figured out how to take the self -duality of a tetrahedron, and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up. And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, in between them are four triangles.

1:13:34And he figured out a mechanism. We can cut one of these open. There's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the public, where you get a dot... You can't hold that up so they can see it. So the audience can see it.

1:13:49So as you pull this thing apart, it can change colors. Yeah. You spin it ever so slightly, Joe. Oh, wow. Yeah? All right. That's nice. You guys. It's cool, right? Yeah. That's very bizarre. All right. Now, my point is that one of the things that Terrence has going against him is people are saying, oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity. There's nothing new. And then I would say, well, and then why did Charles Haberman create a mechanism realizing the self -duality of the tetrahedron? Nobody even talks about it that way. And by the way, here's something that people, you know, played Dungeons and Dragons, they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here, and you put the tetrahedron in the middle, and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides, there's a duality that interchanges the pairs with the center being self -dual.

1:14:55In other words, the cube has six faces in eight vertices. The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices. The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices. The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices. Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides, because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal to, for anything that is spherical in nature. Now, if all of my things, when they come together, if they create a natural dodecahedron, and they create a natural icosahedron, what is that sound? They do, and they don't. They do, no, I'm going to show you. No, I'm saying you haven't seen yet.

1:15:39I haven't shown you yet, but they will when you see it. So, Terry, why don't you show it to them right now? We're on it right now, show it to them right now.

1:15:55Shout out to all the homies right now, trying to figure out what the fuck's going on. I'm so honored. Like, what are these guys talking about? Holy shit, legalized schedule one. So, you don't understand. And then I'll have to explain... So, we can't hear your turn. You're not on camera right now, unfortunately. You're speaking to myself right now. Right. The problem is it's the middle of a podcast. How's the family? Everything's great, man. How you doing? It's all your dog. Like, I've met Marshall for the first time. Oh, that's right. He's never met him before. He's the best. He's the level boy guy.

1:16:32He and Carl, they were getting after it. Is Carl worn out? Oh, yeah. Oh, he's done. Yeah, I wore Carl out. Everybody wore Carl out. So... So, here we are. I'm going to church. Terrence, no one can hear you up. I know you can. But we have a podcast going on right now. He was about to put the headphones back on. Okay, here we go. The problem is you were talking out for the distance. I can't even hear you. And I'm right here. So, this is where... If you go to where the 12 bubbles meet. Yeah. On the thing, so these... Okay. Can I finish my riff on those... ...seroys before we get to these toys? Sure.

1:17:08My point was that... I call bullshit on the idea that because Terrence is playing with stuff that people have been playing with since antiquity, that you can't come up... That there's nothing new under the sun. Right. Because if there's nothing new under sun, first of all, how did Charles Hoberman come up with something so cool? Second of all, that means that there's an object that hasn't been invented. I give this to high school kids. You should be able to throw one of these up as a cube and have it come back as an octahedron. You should come up with a gearing mechanism. And you should be able to throw up a dodecahedron and have it come back in your hand as a differently colored icosahedron.

1:17:46And I've never seen those toys. Just the way the Rubik's Cube came out of nowhere, or hungry. And that thing took over the world by storm. So, to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up with something new, the Rubik's Cube, the Hoberman's Switch Pitch, these things prove that that's not true. I think it's a foolish thing almost always to pretend there's nothing new under the sun. You should always consider it. Well, the difference. You might not be correct. But there's only one way to find out. Well, there's a difference between... You see, Terrence has much greater odds of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics.

1:18:28I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt, are very, very small. Even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this is a problem. I don't want to go there. The patents do not speak to what you think that they speak to. That's okay. Look, you can see into my heart. I'm not trying to... No, no, no, no, no, no. All right. But we were talking, I told you that you produce a super symmetrical structure. Then you say super symmetry. I don't know that you know what a super symmetry is. What does super symmetry mean to you, Terrence? Super symmetry means that all things come together, fit together, relate to each other.

1:19:04They come... they are self -referential. And they are from a fractal that comes back to that same fractal space. That's super symmetry. So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up. But super symmetry is a reserve term that means something hyper -particular. And that's what between bosons and fermions. That's what this is. This is the bosons... for the laymen out there, the boson, the cloud, the whole boson thing is the force field or the energy field. The fermions is considered the matter aspects of it. Okay. So if we can go into... He's got five of these patterns, one of which he calls the Terrence...

1:19:48What is wrong with the term super symmetry? Then I want to see an algebra, which is a linear vector space, which has an object called a bracket. And I want to see that that bracket obeys a super -jacobie identity. And otherwise, there's no super symmetry. But is it a specifically use scientific term or a reserve term of art? Yeah, but its geometry is its own proof. Super symmetry and geometry allows you to visualize, like you look at the ocean and you see the super symmetry associated with it. I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the term super symmetry. And he's saying that super symmetry only applies to a very specific thing.

1:20:35Because in their math... It's been defined. No, in their math, the platonic solids, like I said before, have a discrete symmetry. You can only line up the blocks and all of those things. You can't put all of them together and tell a full story to where they fold into each other. I don't think he's disagreeing with you with that. I think he's disagreeing the term that you're using a reserve term of art. And you're using it incorrectly. And you're going to pay a penalty. Okay, I don't want to pay no penalty. Like this is a thing where, like if I'm watching an MMA fight and someone's doing commentary and they call it kick wrong, why are you doing this?

1:21:10You don't even know what that is. Like you incorrectly reference something that's very specific that we've been talking about for a long time. If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's not wearing any clothes, is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind? No, a rear naked choke is a particular move. Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with what she did. So is there... Less she gets to hooks him. Question in the world of physics, in the world of mathematics, is there a super symmetrical system, geometric system, ever been produced in mathematics? Yes, in mathematics, yes.

1:21:51What is it? What's super punky real? Yeah, but that's not... That's on the plane. That doesn't... That's not volumetrically, that doesn't scale up. Terrence, you have an entire way of thinking that is completely foreign to everyone that I know. And I've tried to understand what it is. Oh, I'm sorry. No, it's not a question. No, I don't think he's saying this is a negative. No, no, no, I didn't see it as a negative. What I'm trying to say is, if the reason that science works as well as it does, is that up until very recently, there were clear rules, cultures, we agreed to leave certain things at the door, like our religious beliefs.

1:22:35We agreed to submit to certain sorts of things, we were decent to each other, and that system is in a process of collapse at the moment, right?

1:22:45Now, what... Well, Terrence comes from an earlier way of thinking, when things were much more wide open. You don't find many polymaths anywhere in a respectable position anymore. Terrence is coming from a polymathic perspective. He's all over the map in terms of the quality of his thinking. As far as I understand, some of his stuff is really, really good, some of his stuff is offensive, and it's everything in between. Now, I've not gotten it for you. No, no, no, no, I don't take that offensively. I take it in, I'm the fact that you're here. But let's get back to what I was saying about having, if my pieces naturally come together and form those same structure...

1:23:29Doing a dough. Well, here we have... How did they not, Eric? Well, I'm going to show them. Here's where 12 bubbles meet. If you go to the yellow one right there, Jamie, please tap on that. This is where the negative space where 12 bubbles meet. I call this the Arbureon, I named it after my oldest daughter. Okay. You can take a look at it, at how it behaves. Here, Joe. Okay. So you can have it, and you can have a larger one or smaller one. By the way, I would be honored to have... I'm going to give you some of these things. Anything that you make of this type of my home. It's very, very cool. So when I put 10 of them together, they look like this.

1:24:10Yeah. I put 20 of them together. They make a natural icosahedron. Yeah. Without breaking any rules, I'm saying that the... I believe in this. This, I don't, I don't disbelieve. I haven't gone through the math, but I don't disbelieve in this. I want to ask it the same thing about one other thing. So here's the light unit. If you'll go back to the green, Jamie, please, this is the light unit. Now we're going to get into some stuff that's not going to be so much fun, but it is going to be... You are going to get what you want. No, you're going to love this. You're going to love this because what I'm going to show you as I share.

1:24:53Whoa. And what you say concerning... Yeah. Now look at that. Let's put it down. And it will show you this is where 20 where I put 20 of them together. The same way I put 20 of these together. And it makes a natural dhodakahedron. But what it's showing you is where electricity is being pushed into the center and you'll see these magnetic waves coming out. It's showing you the magnetic field. So these predict and create a natural dhodakahedron whereas these come together and create a natural archaohedron. That's not something that just happens by accident. No, this isn't an accident. This is... I'll put it up.

1:25:38What's going on, Terence, for me? Can you connect all these together in one big ball of fury? Yes, because it's super symmetry. They all fit together. I want to see these together. It ain't super symmetry, but it's freaking cool. I know it's a sin. But the problem is that term, right? Okay, but my point is that you can write into all kinds of terms of art in the field that you don't know well. Right. And Terence is... Like, I come on your show and I do this thing, which I've never really discussed why I do it. I have this feeling that somehow Sean Carroll, 15 years ago, started talking about a suite of ideas.

1:26:17Like entanglement, the multiverse, these Boltzmann brains, whatever. And people have been talking about them ever since because it was a very successful tour. Much of the coolest stuff in mathematics and physics, it's completely established. This non -speculative is not discussed. And I don't know why. And one of the things I tried to do was I tried to show you the hop vibration. I tried to do the thing about the direct string trick.

1:26:46Terence is bringing cool stuff from the world of geometry.

1:26:54It's a proof, effectively, that people don't know where it's coming from. A lot of this is real as geometry. If you look at the thing that he calls the Terrantin, right? The Tetrian is the... The Tetrian is the... The Tetrian is the Tetrian. So the Tetrian that is the thing that is closest to us, the black thing that is closest to us. So he then starts to make noises about it. And he says things that I don't love, which are, that those faces he associates with the electric field. And the vertices, which sometimes he calls vortices, and sometimes I'm not quite sure, he associates with the magnetic field.

1:27:36Now, I don't have a clue why he says the next thing, which is, and because the number of magnetic and the number of electric things are balanced, they cancel out and therefore it's the weak force. And to me, it's just like super cool stuff and then suddenly turns into horseshit. Well, listen why? Here we have those two Tetrians on the end. They share, they both have equal poles for electric poles and for magnetic poles, according to how I see it. That where magnetism is spinning off of the tips, the vortices, because it's no longer able to maintain that center space of spinning center. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

1:28:26What brought you to that conclusion? With what? The way you're describing the energy involved in that. Well, anytime you look at electricity, that was one of the things that that Viktor Shavurger was talking about. Electricity is, when water starts to spin to the right, it cools down. That's the natural nature of electricity. Electricity is colder. It flows better in the coldest environment. So, as it's cooling down, as it's spinning down to a higher point, trying to get to that higher point, that's the highest point there. It's looking for the highest density. That's the north. North is always the highest density.

1:29:06South, no matter where you are, south is always away from the higher point. When you're talking about universally, not talking about geographically on the earth. North is always seeking a higher position. South is always seeking a lower position. That's based upon stuff that Walter Russell talked about. Based upon the stuff that Viktor Shavurger talked about. But it's a problem with the definition of the words, the terms. Right, but your description of electromagnetic force and magnetism. What is happening that it's bringing you to this conclusion. That you're so specifically saying that something that you literally can't even see with the human eye is happening very clearly.

1:29:53I'm saying four magnetic fields are pushing in on that area. I don't see magnetic fields. I see those spheres. Magnetism, what does magnetism do? It expands that. What brings you to the conclusion that elective? Let me use a term, do you know what we think electricity and magnetism are? You think it's the same thing. No. Part of the same force that you have on couple of things together. Jamie, could I ask you to find a ferridate tensor? Yeah, what I was trying to get to the conclusion, like magnetism and electricity. What brings you to this definitive conclusion that you can so clearly state that this is what's happening there?

1:30:38Well, based upon any time there's an electric force acting on something, it causes a cavity. Electricity is always pulling in from the inside. It's always trying to tighten the density. And you assume this energy exists in the flower of life, why? Because that's where all those circles, the overlapping circles, they represent the magnetic field. They represent the radiative field that's coming out and coming back. Well, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball? Why not a square or a triangle? Why does it expand into a sphere? A sphere is an abstraction that it's going to be the solution to many different problems.

1:31:19If I ask you to give me the maximum possible volume with the minimum possible area, I'm going to get a sphere. If I ask you what is the best thing to launch out of an old -style cannon and to stack next to it, you're going to say a sphere. Then you have a question about, is that the same concept of a sphere? You know, if I take the three -dimensional sphere of unit quaternions, is that the same concept of a sphere? You are, in part, freely associated repeatedly between things that remind you of other things. Now, you have an incredible storehouse of things between your ears that you know to associate with.

1:32:00And your brain is like, I mean, in part, it's like, if you think about the totality of your brain, it's like a Ferrari engine and a Volkswagen. The Volkswagen chassis is not capable of supporting something else that you're doing really well. And so what you're constantly doing as far as I can tell. So the chassis being education. It's not just that. I mean, it's in part, people who see many connections are often bad at cleaning up their own stuff. And people who don't see connections are often very rigorous and they don't do shit for their entire life. So that's why I like, I love the geometry because the geometry demonstrates even though I've been auto -didactic and have learned these things on my own.

1:32:46The geometry is its own proof, like even in showing that these become those decades, that these create an icosahedron, if you move those just for a second. Eric, you pulled this up before we get any further away from that. Explain this please. Electromagnetic. What you see that F super mu nu is an anti -symmetric four by four matrix. That is, there are only six independent components because if you flip that matrix from the northwest to the south east as the line of which you flip over with the zeros, the things above the zeros determine the things below. So there are six independent entries in the top triangle.

1:33:30Now the top three are the electric components in a Cartesian coordinate system of the tensor and the B fields are the magnetic. Terrence could say something closer to what we understand reality to be. He could for example hold up a cube and say, you know, the six faces of the cube. Remind me of the six independent entries in the electromagnetic field strength. And then the idea is there's a duality and the duality relates the electric field to the magnetic field. And then you might invent something called all of Montonan electromagnetic duality. So in other words, if I took the top three, if I hold the cube up like this and I put electric above and magnetic below and then I did a transformation that took top faces to bottom faces, he would be doing something that might bring him to recent research on electromagnetic duality.

1:34:35But instead what's happening is that the spheres are reminding him of waves, like, you know, wave fronts that are expanding spherically. And he's got super cool geometry that the reason that this is so cool is that we haven't seen much of it. It's not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's the inventor. Well, I am the inventor because I own the patent. But you can find out that there's prior art later. Look everybody everybody's been. I love to see that. I got to it though. I think you're doing. I have no desire to take this way. So far as I know, you're the first person to do this.

1:35:11Now with that said, you're taking something where he's saying real stuff about geometrical understanding based on a spiritual undertaking. And it used to be that spirituality and science were hand in hand. That's what I was trying to say about the careless school that figured out almost got calculus coming out of religious verse, like stuff that rhymed. It's crazy. Terrence is coming from an older perspective where he's drawing tons of inspiration from all these different sources. I can track it but like good luck finding people who can track this because the number of people who can do this is very, very small.

1:35:49But that's the problem. I agreed. Now then every time he steps on a landmine, my colleagues just start laughing. And that makes me crazy because they could help him figure out what he actually is trying to say. So if we go back to his. This is an electromagnetic tensor. How does this apply to these these patterns in the void between that thing. We did not understand until the mid 1970s. Remember I tried to tell you to get Jim Simons on this podcast and he just died. Jim Simons and C. N. Yang figured out this is going to figure into what Terrence is saying that everything all forces are curvature.

1:36:32It's not just gravity, which we've known has been curvature since 1915 actually 1913 for Einstein Grossman. It's actually the case that electromagnetism. The weak force and strong force are a different form of curvature, which might be called aerosmanian curvature or fiber bundle curvature, which is not necessarily Ramanian intrinsic curvature. This object encodes the curvature codes electromagnetism as the components of curvature to your point about nothing is nothing is a straight line. But that's this is where I have issues. You're talking about this is in Cartesian space and in Cartesian space.

1:37:13Curvature is not allowed. There's no curvature that's allowed in Cartesian space. That's wrong. Really? Yeah. Because what you have. And by the way, this is a super subtle thing. We've only really known this for 50 years. Thereabouts. There is a weird mysterious circle that none of us can see at every point in space and time that we can't derive from space. You can have space time and something else put a circle at every point that is obscured from us. And that thing has a curvature even if space and time is flat. So we call the idealization of flat space time and kufsky space. You can slap a curvature tensor of a circle on top of it, generate this.

1:38:01And it wasn't until and this is mind blowing. Can we get the air and off bone effect up here? See, but that's where my biggest issue is why go through all of those steps to define curved space with flat plane matrix when you have the definition of it right in front of you. That's why when you get a chance, I'd love for you to lay these out so you can see it predicts every distribution, every waveform. There's nothing that this doesn't really work. I want you to think about you ever play blackjack. I've never been good at blackjack. Well, that's never been because you're sitting there over back.

1:38:39You're sitting over. You're sitting there on 19 and you say hit me. All I hear is hit me on 19 and you keep going over. Okay. All right. Now this thing here is a proof. This is a gift for you. This says we did not understand classical electromagnetsism until the late 1950s. Well, after Mr. Maxwell. Now what happened is we thought electromagnetism was that thing with the electric magnetic field components that we just saw. If you put a wire coming out of the plane of the screen and you insulated where it says solenoid. Can we just isolate that? We can see it. Yeah. Okay. Now you have this crazy thing which is like you have a cathode ray tube at A.

1:39:36Let's imagine. And you shoot it through a double slit. And you want to know whether or not there's current flowing in this insulated thing that you can't see. Now you think that the insulation is going to keep you from being able to tell whether there's current flowing. It turns out that the interference pattern changes whether there's current even though there's no E and B fields outside of that insulated structure. And that proves that it cannot be the electromagnetic field strength that actually determines electromagnetic phenomena. What's really going on? Can we call up the electromagnetic for potential?

1:40:15So one of the things is if you want to hang with the cool kids on any of this stuff, you don't try to map the electromagnetic fields because it's the electromagnetic for potential that's got it going on. Look at that thing. That's cool. I'm looking for something that looks like A equals and then four components. Well, let's hit that thing what you just had that that's good. That that A where you see partial derivative of A. That thing is called the gauge potential and the gauge potential. The force potential. The gauge potential is really where the electromagnetism is happening. This thing over here on the right, the Faraday tensor is a consequence of the real star of the show.

1:41:04A is the thing that matters and we thought that A was a convenience product that constructed the electromagnetic field strength until the late 1950s. I think one of these guys who developed this is named as Yakhir Aranov who is at Chapman University. I think he's still alive. So in other words, we fooled ourselves into thinking we understood electromagnetism until the late 1950s, which is one of the reasons that you listen to your heterodox colleagues as opposed to making fun of them mercilessly because you're not nearly smart as you think you are. Now, most of the time what Neil says is, oh yes, one in 10 ,000 heterodox people have a point and Neil Betts on the 9 ,999 don't.

1:41:46And so he doesn't listen. This thing here is a proof that you can find elementary omissions, very late in the game that change everything. And everybody who pretends that peer review works and that we've known this since antiquity, all this stuff, they need to understand the exceptions we've already found. If Terrence wants to do good, he would take that A with the new at the beginning and he would say, okay, electromagnetism isn't about the electric and magnetic fields. It's about four of these suckers rather than six of those. On a simple level, how would you describe electricity? Well, I would not do it simply.

1:42:32Electricity is really, electromagnetism is really about rock paper scissors. In other words, is rock better than paper? No, it's worse. Then you do it around that thing. The failure of these things to knit together, if I had... Terrence, give me your hands. I want to put my hand over yours and that... Under, you're right hand under, it's like Jiu -Jitsu. Go right hand under, under, on your hand and grab his wrist. There you go. That thing. Who's on top? All of us. Okay, the electromagnetic field strength. So now make your hand into like a plane. Measures the degree of the Escher staircase, the Escherness in that Penrose staircase is measured by that E and B stuff.

1:43:22Okay? That A basically measure is the collection of hands that we had, the planes. Jamie show the Penrose staircase just so people know what the fuck we're talking about because it's a very bizarre optical illusion. All right. So the key point is the Penrose staircase is not just an optical illusion. It's actually an effect called holonomie. And those things are called horizontal subspaces. And the electromagnetic potential, which gives rise to the photon, actually is a series of stairs that appears to be in some kind of a contradiction. The curvature that he keeps talking about is the thing that actually resolves that contradiction.

1:44:09And in a weird way, the photon is a function, sorry, the photon is a derivative, and the electron is its function, and you use that derivative to differentiate the function. That's a crazy way of saying it. But at its deepest level, that's really what we are. We're in a geometry in which those flat planes say derivative equals zero. And you're trying to take the derivative of an electron based on this stuff. And geometrically, this only got worked out in Stony Brook, Massachusetts in the mid 1970s, except for a guy named Robert Herman, who nobody listened to in Boston, who was off -south published.

1:44:47Well, let's consider one of the things that this is talking about. Again, this is where I have issues because we're talking about two -dimensional or three -dimensional space that does not exist. We're still talking about imaginary things. Instead of talking about real things, like math is departure from where numbers started representing actual things. Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things. The numbers don't represent any true things, and so anything can happen inside the mathematics that they build from. But when you have the actual stuff, like what I wanted you to do, if you could lay these out, just for...

1:45:33I'm so worried I'm going to break these things. No, you're not. I made these over the last few days. Just lay them out. You have to move those other things so you can see. And what I'm talking about, the interesting thing... I want to see a YouTube video of you and your lab put in these things together. If you shine light on these, they end up creating all of the mathematics. No, don't even stack them up. I don't want you to stack them. I just want you to align them, like I'm saying, if you move this one out of that, out of the way, and some of those. This will continually predict every harmonic node, every wave function.

1:46:18It will continue on. They overlap on each other to where any size, any crystalline configuration that somebody could hope for occurs. This is the supersymmetry that I'm talking about that defines the entire wave field. This is one part of... This is the crystalline electric wave field. That's not even... That's just one of the coolest things. The problem that you're in right now is everything that you touch in this space, made of spheres and platonic solids and whatever. You can spend your entire life, and I've seen people do it, staring into this, and just finding cool thing after cool thing, thinking that you're seeing Jesus.

1:47:04I promise you. I want you to hold this in your hand. It's made by a woman named Beth Sheba Grossman, pleasure to shout her out. She is a mathematical artist, Par excellence. That is out of Beth. That is an eight -dimensional lattice called E8 projected into three dimensions, which is one of the craziest sort of sphere -packing gadgets. This is ultimately maybe the weirdest object in the universe. It comes from a 248 -dimensional group. Let me show you this in your life. No, no, no, no. You're going to Bob and Riff, and all this stuff. Let him keep going. What I'm trying to get at is, look, I want you to think about this legitimately as a drug.

1:47:53If you're not very careful with the mathematics that you're playing with, you are going to get so high, you are going to see everything connect to everything. There's a reason that this stuff takes place in Islamic art. There's a reason, you know, if I bring a... This is another version of the self -duality of the tetrahedron. I believe in spiritual sacred geometry they call this the Merkaba, which is like Hebrew for chariot. Everything connects to everything else in this unbelievably beautiful way. The concern that I have, Terence, to be entirely honest, is you have to get disciplined about this as a drug.

1:48:40Otherwise, you're going to see everything in everything all the time, and you're going to have the same repetitive conversation where people don't take you seriously, because you're going to keep hitting on 19. But if these, if light passing through these, show the same semantics that we look at when we're looking at natural occurrences of individual frequencies, doesn't that become its own secondary proof beyond the symmetry that of what it does? You say geometry is a proof, and one of the things is, you are your weakest when you have an equal sign. No, no, no, you're strongest geometrically.

1:49:21You're your weakest when you have an equal sign. You say the dumbest stuff about equalities, and you say the coolest stuff about geometries. And I wonder whether you mean something. Like, it took me a long time to figure out what I think you mean when you do this riff on the square root of two. Jamie, could I trouble you for that portal group slash TH? Okay, if you do the square root of two challenge, right, you say, Howard's unbalanced equation, you say, okay, take the square root of two. You cube it. That's equal to two times the square root of two. That is illogical. It is unbalanced. It is unnatural.

1:50:04Now, first I had no idea what the hell you were doing. So I came up with something to prove to you that I'm trying to understand you. And I said, take the number of magi at Jesus's birth. He was born in the 25th day of the 12th month. If I raise the 12th root of three to the 25th power, and I take the fact that Jesus died in the 9th hour according to the Bible, I see the same Trinity rooted by the number of apostles. Now, that seems to be like a profound statement. But the fact is I always really did as I created an equation based on two numbers X and Y. And your version of it, I put in one and square root of two.

1:50:50And in mine, I used 12 and three. And the reason I got 12, 25 was that 25 is just two times 12 plus one. So in other words, the danger of this stuff, right, is that when you start to see patterns and you start to see stuff that looks crazy, you don't realize what you're actually doing. What you're really saying is you're coming from a perspective that is philosophical before scientific or mathematical. And you have a statement which says, everything is in motion. And then you go into a riff about loops. And you say, take out your calculator, turn it to the side, take the square root of two, cube it, take that divided back to two.

1:51:31And you do this thing where you happen to know the large decimal expansion up to a point, which is increases people's confidence. You got to be worried because that's like the confidence in con man to, but you make a point. We have a name for the thing you call a loop. We call it a fixed point. A fixed point. Now a fixed point, you have something called a transformation, the transformation. Let me see if, if Jamie, if we can bring that back. So I'm just trying to standardize your, can we go below that? Let me see. Okay, Terence loop. You have a mapping, T for Terence, from the real numbers to the real numbers given by x cube divided by two.

1:52:14If you take the polynomial, y cube minus two y equals zero, that factors as y minus square root of two times y plus square root of two times y minus zero. You claim that there's only one number that satisfies a fixed point relationship according to that mapping. What you call a loop, there are actually three zero negative square root of two and square root of two. You make the correct point that if you iterate that for numbers above the square root of two, it's going to go off to infinity. If you were to go below numbers of square root of two, but above zero, it'll go toward zero. Zero will go to zero.

1:52:50Then you have the same thing below negative square root of two, it'll go off to negative infinity. Above square root of two, but below zero, I think it'll go off to zero. That thing is studied under fixed point theory. You can look up the left -shets fixed point theorem, the cacotani fixed point theorem, the brow or fixed point theorem. All of these are proofs that you have to have fixed points. Now I thought, why does he keep doing this riff? Then I realized that he's got a thing about everything is in motion. For him, it's unnatural in the illogical, you use both words, that the square root of two would be fixed under this iterated experiment.

1:53:33Now, that is not unnatural. There is something, I hate to say it, it's called the hairy ball theorem. Can we bring up the hairy ball theorem? Before you put your hairy balls on my piece of stone.

1:53:50Okay, the hairy ball theorem says that you cannot comb the hair on a rhombutan without creating a colloc. So let's see if we have any cool images of it. In other words, if you have a map of the wind that is going along the surface of a sphere, there has to be some point which is perfectly still. If you have a map of a sphere to a sphere, there has to be some point that doesn't move. In other words, what you're saying about thing can't be still is not only incorrect, it is impossible to avoid stillness. And this is in part what John Nash got his Nobel Award in Economics for because he took work of von Neumann and Morgan Stern on two -person games, turned them into multi -person games with a higher -dimensional fixed point theorem, and said a multi -person game is more interesting because that's a market, therefore markets have equilibrium.

1:54:49So you're saying real stuff in a way that fundamentally just doesn't... We don't know how to talk your talk, but we know... Teach me, yeah, I know. Teach me, I'm learning right now. But Jamie, do me a favor, pull up the calculator. I want you to fill up the calculator. We're going to look at this loop. And you tell me that this loop is in a contradiction and says that the map... I want a scientific calculator. Yep, yep, hit two. Square root. It'll be over one more, I think that maybe it... Yep, cube it, hit exit -a -third. Oh, no, no, no, go back. Go back, yeah. Hit two. Square root, cube it, up, right up there.

1:55:41Yep. Now divide by two. Hit equal. Cube it again. Exeter -a -third. Divide by two. That is a loop. Cube it again. Hit exit -a -third. That's an unnatural equation. It's a loop. It's a tuck inside of the matrix. It does not allow for math to make sense because of the square... Because of the identity principle. Okay, Eric. You're trying to say something. What you're saying is wrong. What I'm seeing, no. No, no, no, no, no. You're saying what you're saying is fine. I agreed that you have a transformation that I called t. You can put those two steps together, which is cube and divide by two. That thing is going to be dead still till the end of time.

1:56:37That's your point. And then you pass judgment on it. And you say that is not logical and it's irrational. And I don't know what you mean. Well, because here we're multiplying something basically three times. And it's coming up to the same value as if we multiplied it by two. And you keep doing that. Yeah, well, I did that with the... That's a 12 -th root of three. And I have a transform just like you. But that 12 -th root of three, that hypothetical situation you put up there, does not affect the rest of mathematics. Sure it does. That loop right there, that... Oh, is your point that there's something special about the square root of two?

1:57:22I'm saying that the square root of two is a manufactured number because of the identity principle. If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with one times one equaling two. Or... Why are you offended by one times one equaling? Just because action and reaction, the universe... It's the separation of math from science when math was supposed to define physical things. So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense. The rest of the audience don't understand. They're like, wait a minute, well... Okay, objects and motion tend to remain in motion, right?

1:57:59That was his first law. But what do objects that rest do? There's no object that rests. Ah, so you have a problem with Mr. Newton? No, no, there are no objects that rest because everything is sitting on something that's in motion. Everything is in motion within itself. So this is like there's no straight lines in nature. So the idea is you're saying at some level that you don't believe. I mean like... I can still... I can still... That's a sabbatomic level. That nothing still because everything in the universe is connected. So if you have one steel thing, then everything connected to it also has to be still.

1:58:34If I understand what you're doing and I try to steel man it, you're trying to say, look, first of all, the vacuum isn't the vacuum. It's roiling with activity. Right? The void isn't a void. Stuff is happening. Virtual particles are coming in and out of existence. There is no vacuum. You're very much in tune with modern physics on that. You really are. Then you have this idea of math is supposed to be about the physical world. It's not supposed to be unto itself. And if there is no vacuum, then there is nothing at rest. Because the vacuum is going to be in constant quantum tumult. And then you get to the point, which is something that is rest, therefore is on physical, then therefore it is unnatural.

1:59:17It took me a long time. Fear what the hell? I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest because everything is moving and communicating through vibration. And vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion. So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum in a naive sense, the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people naively think. Therefore any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or whatever is invalid is imaginary.

2:00:02It's talking about an imaginary space. I don't know what to tell you about this because if I say something about a sphere, you might say, hey, Eric, what is the thickness of your sphere? All the points, unit distance away from the origin. And I'd say it has no thickness. And you'd say, show me one thing in the universe that doesn't have thickness. And then I'd say, well, wait a second, I'm talking to you about a mathematical structure that exists as math. You're like, I don't want to hear about math that is an immediately referenced physics. First of all, that's not how this game goes. When did math separate from accounting for physical things?

2:00:50Was the beginning of imaginary numbers trying to... At the beginning of imagination, if I have a picture from AI of a woman that doesn't exist, but you can't tell the fact that that was generated by an AI, are you going to say that graphics file doesn't exist? No, the graphics file exists. Mathematics has a physically independent structure. It is a system of logic. Then you have this very weird thing, which is Eugene Vignor famously talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and the physical sciences. But David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of physics and the mathematical sciences, that many of us have had that since for the last 50 years, since Simon's and Yang.

2:01:39And then there's also this thing, which people associate with max tag mark, which is older, which is the mathematical universe, that the math is the basis, that there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community. Now, I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you. But what you were doing when you were lecturing is terrible. It's really, really bad because you have points. And by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing, you are in fact causing people who don't trust Tony Fauci, let's say, because Tony Fauci shouldn't be trusted to say, maybe I can't trust mathematics.

2:02:27Now, I have a lot of competitors, enemies, people I really don't like. I have stalkers who actually stalk my family, and if you're my personal life, who have PhDs. Okay? My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe, the mathematical universe, is essentially zero up to 1973. We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think, until the 1980s. And why is that? Well, money. Money, money, money. Ronald Reagan brought in a guy named Eric House to the NSF, and the university stopped expanding, and they started playing games. We had a thing called the Mansfield Amendment, which got the military out of science, which was a disaster.

2:03:16There's a lot of things that happened. But imagine if science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of relativity, in abandoning the ether. And now they've walked down this road, and now they realize that it's a potential dead end, but instead of turning around, and saying, okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these equations were built off of. And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the Ethereic nature, their surface substance. So that's what I wanted. Jamie, if we could bring back the portal group page, I can sort of show what Terence is talking about what his geometries, how he relates them to the physical world.

2:04:08So if we could go up to Howard's Unification's claim. Okay. So you say you've come up with the grand unified field equation. First of all, he's doing something very unusual. He's saying grand unified, which actually is less than unified, because unified would include gravity. But he's also drawing from a group, I think, called the Electric Universe. No. Okay. No, no, no. I'm drawing from Lawrence and Heinz work when they were deciding they were trying to prove that it was electricity and magnetism. They could derive all of the effects of nature that we see from electricity and magnetism. All right.

2:04:54So if we go down here, hopefully, because we just prepared this, by the way, shout out to Dr. Brooke Dallas who put this together and just got her PhD from Caltech. Congratulations. Yeah, congratulations Brooke. All of this, these four things are how the community that you're trying to unseat thinks about nature at its deepest level. Now, let me see, is there anything under there? Maybe not. So go up to, let's do David Tongues because you brought up David Tongue. Okay. I think I understand this, and I'm able to talk to you about it. Is this something, so this is my community and how it thinks of everything in the world.

2:05:41All right. Right. Do you have a way of relating what you think about in terms of what my community has wrong? Does this mean anything to you? If you remove gravity outside of the equation, you take gravity out because gravity is affected, gravity is actually covered by that strong electrical force. Terence, one second. Without, this is not a gotcha and it's not me. No, no, I'm just saying, do you know how to read this? As best as we're talking about, I as imaginary, you know, D to the four, I don't know what the D represents. So that's the volume element saying that you're in four dimensional space and you're going to take an integral.

2:06:29And why to a negative G? Why to a negative graph? It's the determinant of the space -time metric with which you might have an issue. Okay. So in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers look one way or the rulers look another way according to Einstein, you have to put more weight or less weight on a region of space. Do you know what that R is? That's the four play. And then in the parentheses is where the stuff gets crazy. Explain it. That's what's called the scalar curvature. So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was like Einstein scaling the shear face of half -tone.

2:07:07Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later and said, you know, you can derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the world, which is the scalar curvature. So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of Einstein's pseudo -Romani and metric. And then remember F mu nu? That's what we were just riffing on before. That's saying we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff. So we're going to do the stupidest thing possible and we're going to figure out how big it is and square that and we're going to shove that into this thing to be minimized, which means make this as small as possible.

2:07:44So give me the configuration that gives me the least electromagnetic size. Then because of 1954, guy named Cien Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't do nearly as much afterwards, said, you know what the strong and the weak force are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism and we didn't know that. So nature in that first line from the R to the W takes curvature four times and three of those are doubled, like FFGGW, but one of them is singly in there and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility, not what Ed Witten says about you can't quantize gravity. That's not the discrepancy.

2:08:30We've been lied to for a long time in my opinion. What it is is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and electromagnetism occurs differently. One is remanion, one is aerosmoney. The line below that. Derock in that term, cybar D -cy is telling us the kinetics and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's in the line above. And then the last three terms are the fudge factor due to Peter Higgs because when we found out in the late 50s, a guy named Madame Wu, the Dragon Lady of Physics told us that if you put cobalt 60 and let it beta decay in a strong magnetic field, all the particles come out spun one way.

2:09:21And that left -right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a standard way for the matter which is showing up as psi. So instead what we do is we have this thing which is a field called the Higgs boson. Cy is the wave function. Cy is the fermionic wave function of the matter. That's the quarks, that's the electron, and that's all the neutrinos that are penetrating us all the time. That kinetic term, the D -h's, tells us how this Higgs field will move. But mostly, you see, imagine that in this room at 69 degrees Fahrenheit. You think that it's the same everywhere, but maybe where Joe is is actually like 68 .7 and over there at 70.

2:10:08There's a different frequency, a different frequency. And so that H thing is said to have a vev that varies slightly in the world. Value, vacuum expectation value because the vacuum isn't boring. Now that V of H, that is the potential term that you neglect every time you say that all energy in the world comes from kinetics. That's not true. And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those F -F -G -G -W's, which is pure potential. That last thing, which is not comment upon here, is called the Yukawa coupling. And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass to the matter, which was prohibited from having a naked mass because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Lee, which is the same Yang of Yang and Mills.

2:11:00That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level. This thing right here, which might be called the partition function, is a fine and path integral of this. And if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't in what you see. It's a woe. Can I get a woe? I'm just between having, you know, this has been, they've been working on this for a damn near 67 years. But they don't have any physical models that represent any of these things. And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force, and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects that we see, then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through it.

2:12:01I did do that. Let me show you. All right. Okay. Show. Now it's time to show. Okay. Here we go.

2:12:11I really want a YouTube video of him creating these things. I would love that. So. Just you with a settling torch. I want him a glass. I want him a glass, brother. Yeah. Somebody needs to make this. Well, I tried to do that before. Well, you know, we have a community of mathematical artists. I want to hook you up. I would love that. So this tetrian, as I say, begins the entire dance. It's the, I would call that that would be plunked to me. That would be the proton. That would be the beginning or everything. You've got four different things to this. You say one, it's dark matter. I say because it's interstitial.

2:12:47Wait, we want to say one. It's dark matter because it's interstitial. Two, you say it's hydrogen. It becomes it. It takes three. You say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic because you associate the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic. You say you go back to Walter Russell who has this whole thing about exhaling and inhaling, expanding and contraction. You know, it's a lot like a lazy ass. There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven. And then you say because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak force because there's no net.

2:13:26Voodoo on it. Then when you get to your, if you can bring up what you call the hunt you. Hold on. Let me let me let's stay on this one. I say that this right here, like nothing in the universe, the universe does nothing for a single motive. Everything has multiple purposes and accomplishes multiple things. This becoming the geometry of hydrogen or the very first visible element is as a result of all of those forces pushing on it. But the first, no, yeah, I can use another. Yeah. It's called explainer juice. Yes. Yeah. So thank you. Thank you. Thank both of you. So if we start with this as electricity, then we want to go to the very first phase from it.

2:14:22The first thing that happens to it is it decays the first line of decay and that first line of decay is literally just putting on two magnetic fields. If you'll hold that for a second. I've got to get something else out. I got to say, I love these things. They're really, they're really, they're really dope. Yeah, you need a shelf in your office. For sure, I put this in my house, but Tarrant, I just don't see. We're not done. We're not done. All right. So when you put, didn't you see the box you came in with, bro? What kind of box? No. Box stuff. So when you now, when they line up, then they begin to create, and if you lay it down on your thing, you can lay them down.

2:15:15Yeah. And you'll see them align. If you can. I want to design a skate park around these. Well, sharp surfaces. What? Any time you're urinating, the man is urinating, he sees this pattern where it's expanding and contracting, expanding, contracting that braiding behind the boat. This describes that motion from, from that. But then let's add, let's go to the next stage of decay. The next stage of decay will be, it will be four, four sides. Now, what these are responsible for? Boom boom.

2:16:00How you doing, Eric? All right, chill. Yeah. You were dope. And this is. This is the hard part for me. Does the fun part. Okay. This is a part I've been waiting for. This is a part I've been waiting for. Now, let's put this. It's a elaborate hoax. Yes. My whole action. Now, I should be putting the patterns out so that everybody isn't out there saying, you know, this isn't his shit. But so when you get to this level of decay, they start to come together and they create this natural herbicide. How gorgeous. Look at that. But do me a favor. They also create these spaces. And if you lay them out, one on top of.

2:16:43Well, I'm still riffing on this one. Well, you're about to see that interact with the other side. Like, we came to play today. Boy, nothing like these conversations make me understand how different people's brains work. This is different humans out there. Yeah, we go. So, all right. Let's, if I can move some of your stuff. By the way, I just didn't know what I was getting. Yeah. Frontlinks of weird tools in case you were going to make weird points. So, if you're laying these out, you're starting to see this pattern. But what's interesting, these have chirality. These spin in opposite directions from each other.

2:17:25But they ultimately. They ultimately reform together to make, to fully tell that story. So, this is why category theory is so powerful. Because you're analogizing brain. I mean, let's be honest. I want everybody to form without saying anything to each other. What is this most similar to? The DNA. All right. I was going to say the same. And if it was DNA, what would be the interstitial between these two things? That would be the latter. Each line, it would be the ATCG, the hydrogen bond. That would be the hydrogen bond. It would be phosphorus, phosphorus, oxygen, oxygen. Now, if I was a protein scientist, what would I say this was?

2:18:17You would say it's a ribosome. I would say it's an alpha helix. Oh. I would say this was secondary structure and protein. So, my claim is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't actually get to the double helix is that she was a really good scientist and once in a quick we're not good scientists. She said, look, I can see, I can see right through you. You just found out that Linus Pauling figured out the alpha helix and protein. And you want to be, who don't know Jack Shit about biochemistry, want an alpha helix. And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the x -ray crystallography of the maltease cross.

2:19:00You're going to try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling all over again. I don't want any part of it. And the problem for her was, yeah, helices are ubiquitous at all different levels. So, in other words, Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix. What happened is that a very common structure that's going to come up over and over again, it's going to come up in viruses where you have helical viruses. You have it in protein, you have it in nucleic acid. That structure is because there's a platonic form which you're finding here. You're going to find helices over and over and over again because you can't really have nature stop finding the structure.

2:19:42It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system. And so, everything is going to run. Now, your big problem is that everything rhymes to you because you know a lot of stuff and you know a lot of similarities. Your brain is very good at that. And what your brain is not very good at is pruning the amount of rhymes that it sees. Well, what I'm saying is this is defining all motion. We just define the motion behind a boat. We just define that other aspect. And remember, I was saying about the tetrate, about the huntian. Being a massless particle. It only exists as a result of these four to eight tetrians pushing down because of pressure.

2:20:23The moment that these eight tetrians disappear, that interior space, it's no longer there. The moment that that disappears. I don't know how to stop you from doing this. I hate doing that. Why? You're not stopping me from doing what I'm not supposed to be doing. No, no, I don't mind. I'm so far out over my skis. I promise you what the internet is going to say the next day about me is, Ha Ha, or it wants to see blah blah blah. Don't read the end of the stop reading the dammit. Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is, you're taking all the good stuff that you're doing and you get into 19 and you're saying hit me.

2:20:58And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say, don't do that because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find some structures like the ones you're talking about in wavefronts. Right? I think what you're doing is totally canonical and it's very, very natural. And I think you're building models and you don't know how to do the algebra probably and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all that. Fine, I can point you to books I can try to help you. I'm a geometry. I like doing geometry. I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these pieces based and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or posthilates to be made for it.

2:21:43That's what I wanted to do with Mr. Tysen. Okay, but part of what you're doing is you're coming into another community. Like what you said about David Tongue is so unfair to David Tongue. What did I say? David Tongue. Okay, first of all, do you know who David Tongue is? I know I'm on the internet, I know, but I've watched a few of his things. I was very impressed with it. That's why I reached out to him. He's amazing. And I have my difference. He's an acquaintance of mine. I haven't seen him since 2011. Okay. He's an amazing treasure because that guy has a gift for explanation in our community.

2:22:23And in a world where a lot of people in string theory have no, have lost complete touch with reality. Right? This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with razor sharp clarity. So he's an absolute, he's a national treasure of the UK. And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16 fields. I said, I have the models for your 16 fields, which was your teaching. Yeah. That's okay. If you want to say, I don't understand this, you get a positive reaction from us. If you say, I have something and I'm not quite sure what it is, can I get an evaluation because I think I might have something.

2:23:07You should be able to get something from a guy like me. And that's what I did. I went to Oxford. I know. Didn't get that. But I'm trying to say something. Okay, go. Okay. Then you do this other thing, which is you teach. And your teaching is not good. You tell us stuff that's not true, that we can tell is not true. And then we say, okay, I can throw out the entirety of what he's saying. What did I say that wasn't true though? That's what I'm, that's, that's, that's, I don't know. Well, one times one is not equal to two. Let's start there. That, in fact, I'm angry at Joe because Joe should have pushed back on that.

2:23:46Joe is an awe of, the calculator says one times one doesn't equal one because of that square root of two. Can we pull the portal group back up? There's a lot of wild cheddar. Don't push back on if I'm not sure. No, I'm not a fucking person saying I understand. That's why. But also because I know that people are going to eventually just go into it. But Joe, right now we've got a crisis where nobody knows what to believe in. Unfortunately for you, you are in a bad spot because you wanted to have fun. You had a show and it got really big. That's why I'm just saying. Okay, wait, wait, wait. I'm saying people have, can we go to the Terrence product maybe below that?

2:24:23I think you were, I think you're in the right place. Yeah. Okay. Here's how we would do this in mathematics. Assume you were a colleague, right? And I wasn't trying to get rid of you and get you out of my office. I'd say, okay, what? No, I'm not, I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding. That's what we're interested in. One and a half further conversation. Okay. Standard thing what we would do is we say, okay, wait a second. I don't really buy your claim that one times one equals two. But let's try to evaluate what you're saying. Then I'd create something called the Terrence times binary operation star sub t.

2:24:54And I'd say that provisionally I define a star sub t times b to be equal to a times one plus b because your rule says that you should add a to itself b number of times. So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times. Then I come up with the Terrence root of c equaling d. If d Terrence producted with itself equals c. So now I have Terrence binary operation Terrence root and the Terrence square operation. And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object until you try to blow away times or multiplication in the normal sense. Now what I've got is I've got a new operation and I want to know its properties.

2:25:51Is it commutative? No, a times a Terrence times b is not b Terrence times a. Those are two different numbers. Then I ask is it a social? Yes, it is a social. So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy ass shit that you say when you go to Oxford. And this is how I would start to understand it. I would say Terrence, do we get anything new out of Terrence times Terrence root Terrence square? And I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring. The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our f 'ing asses off. And you come in and you say, I have developed, imagine if I got on this program and I said, is John Jones out there?

2:26:34He's a huge pussy. He doesn't know how to fight. I have a one touch technique. I filate a pinky on John Jones. You're going to see a quivering little powder butters. Sean Strickland has no disciplines. Guy, guy's a big fatty. It's not going to go well. No. Okay. So what I'm trying to get at is that's what you're doing to us. I didn't mean to. That's not what I meant to do. But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that there's something very wrong with the math because math should not be done. There's nothing wrong with the math. I'm saying the math that we are doing is still based on linear projections, even though we are in a multi -dimensional space.

2:27:16And if the square root of two didn't have that problem. Listen to me very carefully. Soon you have the most beautiful curve linear object. My wife. Yeah. Can we do it for a while? I don't want to talk about it. I don't want my words back. I saw what happened to Will Smith. I want to keep my wife's name out of my mouth. You'll meet my wife. She's. I'm sure she's dope. Okay. If you take the most beautiful ski slope you've ever been on and you imagine it was perfectly groomed so that there's a lot of things that you can do. It's just all it is is smooth. You cannot create non -linear smoothness without giving rise to something called the tangent bundle.

2:28:00And the tangent bundle has made up of linear objects. The non -linear includes the linear. And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an action and a reaction. The non -linear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the non -linearity. So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you could on Walter Russell, you would not try to deny the linear. You would say that the non -linear is part and parcel with the linear. And that creating the non -linear requires creating the linear. The differential operators at a point on a non -linear structure form a linear space.

2:28:41And that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside of something else. Because you hear that the universe is expanding. You say, well, what's expanding into? Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around it, no ambient space, by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear. So we've got an entire language that you don't know about. But let's unpack that. For something to be linear, something to be straight. That means that it is no longer having to deal with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything. Because the greater the reaction, the greater the reaction, greater the reaction, greater the resistance, greater the resistance, greater the curvature.

2:29:32Everything in this universe has the resistance. And that's where the curvature comes from. So when they talk about, I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line. But the curvature of the universe is literally, is that fee at 1 .618, that expansion aspect of it. That's the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe. All right. If you take the concept of why is the cosmological constant almost zero? I have no idea. Well, nobody really knows. I mean, in them saying that the cosmological constant is zero, which means... Do you know what it's that means? No. Can you explain what the cosmological constant means?

2:30:22Can we bring up the Einstein field equations with cosmological constant? Is that the dark energy? That's that darks, that the quantum field, that they... Not the quantum field, the... What did they call it? The vacuum. All right. Is that the vacuum? Yeah, let's pull that one. No, no. Yeah, I like that one. Okay. So that R mu nu is the Ricci curvature. That is a sub, sort of a sub -packaging of the full curvature. So you throw away a piece like filleting it, and you throw away the vial curvature. Does a bivector... Well, these are symmetric two tensors. Sometimes people call bivectors. I find that terminology confusing.

2:31:10But yeah, you're the right neighbor. That lambda is what's called the cosmological constant. And there's a raging controversy. As to whether that thing is a number, whether that thing is like the temperature which might vary subtly. And this was this thing that where Einstein supposedly said that his greatest blunder was to put this in. He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the universe is expanding and then very recently in the end of the millennium, they said not only is it expanding, but it's expanding at an accelerating rate. And that's when this whole dark energy thing really took shape.

2:31:48That thing... And where was I going with this? Oh yeah. Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African American physicist we have, brilliant, brilliant guy at the University of Maryland College Park. He's a strengthier, so he and I are naturally like Montague's and Capulets. But he's a lovely guy, very, very brilliant. He says, look, we need super symmetry because that thing should blow up. And it's almost zero. And the only way that it's almost zero is because the bosons and the fermions of super symmetry is true have to be balanced. Right? So imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door and they're of exactly equal strength.

2:32:31The door doesn't move practically at all, not because they're not powerful, but because they're perfectly balanced. Like, unnaturally balanced. And so what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object? Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and creating the immovable object between them to carry through the analogy. So that thing has to do with a balancing between two incredibly powerful but opposite structures. And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have perfectly balanced things through fine -tuning issues. Now, one of the fine -tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk about them in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is before we had DNA.

2:33:19There was a guy named Irwin Chargaff and he gave Watson and Crick the worst peer review in human history. He said that these are two idiots. They were pitch men in search of a helix. They didn't know anything about chemistry and he totally dismissed them. He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C and the amount of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true is because of hydrogen bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side. And the other side is in one angle. And so the idea is that that was the fine -tuning solution.

2:33:56Why did you always have equal amounts of these things? Oh, because you didn't see that they'd been paired in a helix. You just saw it once it was broken. But the actual nucleotides had been paired. And so the hydrogen bond enforced that one. Was a double bond, one was a triple bond. This is like this. We're trying to figure out why lambda. We would understand better if it were zero. Or we would understand better if it was enormous. The fact that it is almost zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff to your point. This is one of the greatest reasons for... This is probably the greatest.

2:34:35I agree with Jim. This is the reason for supersymmetry. Without supersymmetry, we don't have an explanation for why that thing doesn't blow up. So if you saw a geometric structure that defined and worked together completely. Would that be... Would this qualify as a supersymmetrical system? Well, and we haven't even got to the magnetic field yet. But you see how these things fit together and what they might do in replacing. So you have a metaphor. And you have a metaphorical mind. So you have this thing that you call the... What's the tetrahedron one? The tetruterium. Tetruterium. You've got one called the Huntsian.

2:35:15The Huntsian, that's my son. Okay. And then... You have a Brein. You have a different one where the Huntsian is... That's blanked by two tetruterium. That's called... Which you call a transformer because it's... I call it a light unit. And you say it's a photon. Yes, a step up and then... And then... And then... The communication scheme goes, you say, look. I don't need gravity because I simulated Saturn without gravity. By the way, electromagnetism looks very similar to gravity, which causes all older... That's what I've mentioned. Electricity is... O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O .O.

2:35:46Electricity is a causable gravity. Gravities, in effect, it's a draft. Like a thermo... Like the thermos... We use the draft the learning man. We call it a... I'm so sorry. I'm just saying interesting stuff and then you just always go over. Okay. You want to know what the DMT of this stuff is? I'll hand you the stuff that will blow your mind. Right now, where this is is something called the double copy. The double copy is a relation that was totally unexpected between the amplitude associated with gravity and the amplitude associated with the angle stuff. And I just met with a guy, this V -burn at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought us this double copy.

2:36:30And it's a great mystery. It's like looking directly into the equimolar relations before you have the double helix. So there is a relationship that is much deeper than the superficial relationship between, you know, can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation? Yeah, and then let's do a bathroom break. Sure. What you do right now, we do right now. Do a bathroom break right now. Yeah. We'll be right back. You don't know who he is? No, the last three weeks all I've been doing is watching your shit. Bob Lazar. I'm like, let me see whatever. Oh, man. Bob Lazar was a kind of a team. I cut him into it.

2:37:08He said, we talked about me. It was like, what's my name doing in Terrence and the mountain? That's hilarious. TMZ asked you a question. Yeah, they said, do I have anything going on? And I was like, yeah, I mean, Eric Weinstein. I said Weinstein. Stein. I said, Weinstein. Because Brian Keaton said Weinstein. He said Weinstein. And Weinstein is Weinstein. He was being. Not Weinstein. Yeah. So it's Weinstein. So I said, whatever Harvey is. He's being Keaton said Weinstein. Is that what you're saying? He said Weinstein. No, he said Weinstein. So I thought I said Weinstein. But I didn't know if that was just a joke or a play on things.

2:37:41They got super sensitive after Harvey. Yeah. Sure. I don't know. So what we were talking about was Bob Lazar, who's a guy who claimed to be back engineering UFOs for the government back in the late 80s. That's what we were just talking about. I did see something about him. Yeah. He was on the podcast many years ago. It's a fascinating story that I hope is real. And that's what we're discussing, like whether or not Eric could make sense of it. So that's what we were talking about. We walked in here. What were we talking about right before we went for our bathroom? He threw up an equation. Not threw up.

2:38:22Newtonian. And then what was after that? We're about to do the analogy between electromagnetism and gravitation. Right. Newtonian gravitation, okay. Force law. So we have these inverse square laws. And because of the similarity, can we do the electromagnetic force law?

2:38:43With two charges separated by a distance of R.

2:38:53Who smoked weed in this while we're waiting for it? Nobody. Okay, just Elon. He's the only one. Okay. So if you look at, let's do the electromagnetic, the FE equals KQQ over R squared. Yeah. Okay. So fix that in your mind. And imagine that I turned the Q1 and the Q2 into masses. And the R is the distance between them. And that K becomes a different constant. So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.

2:39:31Okay. You go above? Yeah, let's do the one with the two big spheres right there. So you see that it's like very, very similar. Formally. Right? There's a constant in front. There are two different objects and there's a distance. So one of the reasons that I wasn't, I have the same feeling you do about that Saturn hexagon. Like what the hell is that? It's unexpected. And I've never understood this great red spot on Jupiter being, if it's a gas giant, it's just so stable for millennia. The whole thing doesn't super make sense to me. It's going to give birth to a moon. Okay. So partially what happens with when electrical engineers get older, they start to have this idea about electricity and gravitation.

2:40:17And you get this stuff about electric grvidics. Sometimes people call it grvidid dynamics. And the formal similarities between these things appeal to people. And they want to see one as the other. And of course the Kalluzek line theory tried to connect gravitation and electromagnetism super early on. So part of what happens is that Terence tries to say, look, I keep coming up with these ideas of somehow wave fronts. The wave fronts create these shapes that are related to the platonic solids, but curvilinear versions of them. He associates the tetrahedron with the weak force. He associates the octahedron with the strong force.

2:40:57He associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron on curvilinear on opposite faces with the photon, i .e. electromagnetism. He replaces gravitation. Then he says weirdly that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't have gravity. So he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity. And then he's got these shapes. And the disconnect is between the shapes and invoking forces. In other words, there's a moment in the story in which it's just this massive leap. From the shapes creating force? Well, it was the issue in which I tried to show you the Lagrangian inside of a partition function for encoding everything and in order to unseat.

2:41:57Let me just give an advertisement for the establishment. The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying this for the Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic fields meet up and to where there's a feel almost a balance. Same cat. Different issue. Like, when Zizi talked is singing about lagrange. When most people hear Lagrangian, that's what they're thinking is Lagrangian. But I'm sure you're thinking about something else. No, I'm thinking about an objective function. I'm thinking about something to be minimized. In effect, normal human beings think about physics and equations.

2:42:36Einstein's equation, or the Schrodinger equation, or all this kind of stuff. Physicists don't think in that way. And if you permit me an analogy, imagine you have four forces. And the four forces are analogized to the four different configurations of the beetles. When Ringo is singing Octopus's Garden, he's in front, everybody else is supporting. So when it's, well, my guitar gently weeps, George is out front. Penny Lane is going to be Paul and Strawberry Fields going to be John. Those four different configurations of the beetles are all the beetles, but they're different configurations. Yes. And the equations are like the different configurations of one person in front and everybody else supporting that person.

2:43:23But the beetles is like the Lagrangian. So the Lagrangian is a machine for creating those four configurations. Now, in the case of physics, you have these different equations for the different fields. The gravitational field equation has gravity in the metric out front. The Yang -Mills equation has the photon, the gluons, the wz particles out front. The Dirac equation has the matter out front, and the Klein -Gordon equation with potential has the Higgs field out front. And those are the basic fields of reality, so far as we understand it. But the Higgs field is responsible for like 1 % of the force applied upon them, right?

2:44:17So that I understand the Higgs field is talking about. The Higgs field has to do with the fact that none of us are zipping off at the speed of light, yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the weak force. If the weak force was not around, we would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs field, rather, the Higgs field to generate an as -if mass. But because of the asymmetry built into the weak force, which is the only thing that has this left -right asymmetry, we can't have normal mass. There's a place to put a normal mass in the equation that's forbidden if the universe is left -right asymmetric.

2:44:53This has to do with this thing called the tau theta puzzle from the 1950s. We were freaked out. Can we get a picture of Cindy Crawford? That's a good transition. No, no, it's important.

2:45:10So by the way, I'm dating myself because... How old are you? What? 58. Okay, you got me by three years. Well, you said you were a young man. I was flattered to hear. I was 55. Now let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric. Right? And the asymmetry has to do with the mole that she didn't remove from her face. So we can tell when you have an image of her, like if she wasn't holding a can of Pepsi, and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell but for the mole, whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her down the center line.

2:45:51So Marilyn Monroe and Cindy Crawford have this left -right asymmetry to them. That thing is like the weak force. It's the only thing that can detect this difference between left and right. And the weak force is the thing that prohibits a normal mass that forces us into a higgs mass through something called a yukawa couple. So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing, is it's a crazy hail -mary to save all of physics. Because normally, if the world were left right asymmetric due to a debated decay, the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and an electron and an anti -electron neutrino in the process, that process is the thing that denies us mass.

2:46:31And we would be at the speed of light, we would all zip off in opposite directions, but for the higgs. And that process is the radiative process. That's the process I call magnetism, that tears apart, that rarifies that, which was concentrically drawn together, the electricity, that weak force is an equal force to electricity. Let me ask you a question. That's what I feel. I'm taller than Joe. Imagine I challenge Joe to a fight. What do you think happens next? I get my ass kicked. Well, Joe knows some shit that you don't know. Joe knows some serious shit. I have an advantage on it in terms of weight.

2:47:14I have an advantage on it in terms of height. He's in great condition. The guy knows how to fight, and he's got a spinning back kick to die for. What happens is I get my ass kicked. You do not know when you're going to get your ass kicked. And it's a big problem that you're going to keep courting, because I watch you. You keep finding the space where we could come together, and you insist on teaching into it. And it's like, I'm trying to be nice as pie, because I'm inspired by what you're trying to do. But you have no idea, like, when you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last name and a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't wrecking, you've just, you've got to stop.

2:48:01Yeah, and I see the metaphor in it. Can I ask you before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is incorrect, and there's something else that accounts for all of the effects that we call gravity. Yes. And what do you think that is? I feel that it's electricity. I feel that gravity is the draft left behind from the electric force, as the electricity moves through. There's a draft that's generated, because it creates whirlpools. Each of those whirlpools is the gravity or the cosmic foam, or, forget, there's another term that they were using for this foam, but it's a flowing. In the same way that thermos are effective by magnetism or radiation creates these thermos that you're able to fly on.

2:49:01The opposite of those thermos, I believe, that gravity is the opposite of those thermos in the electric force. It's the pulling down the same way the thermos push up. What do you think about that? I don't even want to touch it. I'm going to get into the same thing. I'm trying to say to you, I'm just saying, and I could be wrong, because based upon what I am putting together is taking common sensecocod geometries and taking definitions of words and putting them together in a manner by which the layman sees it. Because the whole point is for everyone to understand science. But you're teaching repeatedly, and that is going to be your downfall.

2:49:50No, I'm listening. Right now I'm a student. Right now I swear to you right now I'm a student. I don't know how you generate all that stuff. I've tried to understand your mind. I try to do this, by the way, this isn't peculiar to you. So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's theory of the universe, Garrett Leasey's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's theory of the universe, your theory of the universe. My colleagues don't do this. See, I thought I was special. No, no, you just made me feel not special. Brother, you were certainly special. That's not what I'm trying to say.

2:50:26What I'm trying to say is that physics and science is broken down. I will steal in you. I will try to put your best foot forward. I'm not out to get you. What we are right now is that the Brian Greens of the universe will not look at anything that isn't string theory. They're really like that. Whether it's Ed Witten or Sean Carroll or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, this generosity of spirit, spirit of collegiality, it's dead. And what you get is got your artists. Right? And that's all they do. There's also something called gripe and swipe where they try to find any flaw in what you do so that they can throw you aside and then they can take every right thing that you did and put it under their own name.

2:51:13That's why I patented everything before doing it because I thought that might be the case. Because I went to somebody at MIT and I showed them the wave conjugations. I can't remember his name. Because it's a small community. Yeah, no. I'll remember his name by the time I'm done. But he said, oh, I've seen these before and I was like, no, you wouldn't. No, you haven't because if you had seen them, I wouldn't have the patent. So this is part of the problem is that what you need, this is a very important digression. You need help from the community. Yes, but the community also sees you as a 17 -year -old blonde girl from Minnesota getting off the bus and the sunset strip having no idea where she is.

2:51:58Even though I've got the 97 patents and all that because, first of all, you cannot patent science. They took away our ability to earn a living from doing science. Right? You can do technology in patented, but you cannot patent fundamental mathematics in physics. Well, see, that's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping that they ultimately take your patents from me because they become basic generals. Let me tell you something. It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something, then you fooled some patent examiner who has no idea what the hell is going on and can't actually earn a living the way he dreamed of being an engineer.

2:52:38So, you know, at some level, the most important thing that you've done is weirdly based on an error, so far as I can tell. So can you bring us a linchpin? Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing. Okay. And Jamie, could I trouble you for bringing up that same page over and over again? I'm sorry about that, brother.

2:53:08Just bring one. No, no, no. Okay. But we're dead air here. Okay. Okay. Howard's linchpin. Howard's extraordinary claims for the linchpin appeared to mirror. Green's extraordinary claims for the string. So let's look at Terrence Howard filling up the dead air here talking about the linchpin. Okay. The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter either seen or unseen. The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus. The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter. It is the true currency of the universal flow because of it is the common factor of all things. It is the smaller, it is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quantum, the smallest reflection ultimately in collective potential of all things which equals the multiverse blah, blah, blah.

2:53:53Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green do the same thing. It's a great expression of friends face. String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is something else. So if I take a little cork and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's nothing inside, but String theory says I'll find a little tiny thing and a little filament, a little filament of energy, a little string -like filament. And just like the string on a violin, I pluck it and it vibrates. It creates a little musical note that I can hear. The little strings in String theory, when they vibrate, they don't produce musical notes, they produce the particles themselves.

2:54:37So a cork is nothing but a string vibrating in one pattern. An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern. A neutrino. Nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still. So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right, deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter, there's nothing but a dancing, vibrating cosmic symphony of strings. Okay. Now, if you look, take what he just said. This is entirely respectable. This is a Columbia professor lecturing me for 40 fucking years about what they're going to do one day when they grow up, that everything is just a string, and it's just the way a violin can vibrate in different modes.

2:55:29All of the particles come from this excitation string. It's exactly how you sound with the linchpin. Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially. It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else has happened for 40 years, and they've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues. And so, in part, you're going to incur an emotional penalty for me with the linchpin, which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool. So the same basic pattern, which is one thing, explains it all, has a terrible kind of kind of...

2:56:13Hey, I'm about to get you. I got the... I'm about to get you. I got the other one. My point is, this thing that you created is based on an error, and it's a beautiful error, and I think people are just not going to grasp it. What's the error? The error is that the arc cosine of minus one -third is not equal to three -fifths pi. Garlic makes my feet stink. Okay.

2:56:46That was perfect. Okay. Terrence, with the timing today, I'm sorry. It may be the whiskey. It is the whiskey. Certainly not, but I'm not mad about it. No, it's hilarious. So what's going on is, is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly, I've got these vectors that point out towards the vertices, and between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six edges.

2:57:18What's the angle between those two vertices as measured from the center of mass inside of a tetrahedron? Still be at 120 degrees. No, it's the arc cosine of minus one -third. That's what you're talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Now, you say this is an undiscovered geometry. Now, why is that an undiscovered geometry? Well, because they gave me to patents. No, no, no. We've got to stop that with the patents. No, no, I did the patents because they, I have watched so many people come and tell somebody's work. So it was just, it was a protection. Okay, we've covered the patents. Okay.

2:57:56My claim is that what you discovered is a little bit like even temperament. Now, even temperament is a lie. Do you know about even temperament? Yes. Okay. They're going up to 440 instead of 432. Well, no, no, no, no, no, no. Keep retucking it. No. Keep retucking it back together. They keep, it's an attempt to modulate or keep, keep everything start right back at the beginning and avoid the Pythagorean comma. Avoid the necessary expansion. Now, we're talking the Pythagorean comma. The difference. All right, Jamie. Can we get? Can we get the 12th root of 2 raised to the 19th power? Good luck with that, Jamie.

2:58:43Come on, Jamie. Well, I'm going to do this tear out on the couch. I'm going to do this tear out on the couch. I'm going to do this tear out on the couch. There's a flaw in all of mathematics and all of music. Take out your calculators. They won't allow me to project it right off. So if we take the scientific calculate, turn it on its side. Take the number 2. Okay. 2. Now, we have an x root y. Can we find the right below that? Yeah. Try it again. 2. Okay. 2, x root y, and then do 12. Just type in 12. Well, I'm sorry. I'm not sure. Okay. And now raise that to the 19th power. That's this one, right?

2:59:34Yeah.

2:59:38Oh, shit. It's almost three. It's almost three. It's 2 .9966. That is, if we take the national anthem, can you say, I think you can. Give me O say. O say. Okay. Now take from say and get me to land of the free. To the land of the free. Okay. That is supposed to be the ratio of three. But if we did it on a harmonica, and the harmonica was probably tuned, sorry.

3:00:22That's not going to be three. It's going to be 2 .9966. Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts is that we couldn't figure out how to get three to be perfect because you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of, by the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on this. We call it the Procrastrian 5th, because when you, even like when I put these together, you'll see that there's points where they will not connect because everything is expanding by P and that expansion. You've got a Pythagorean comma in the middle of your linchpin. Yes, I do. Yeah, with 109 .107.

3:01:04For seven, rather than 108, you've bastard. Yes. Yeah, that's why I caught you. Okay, well you didn't catch me. I just used the little thing that they don't know about. No, I know about it in the reason. But wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to keep going. Come back here, Terrence.

3:01:23Terrence, I'm coming. I'm coming. Terrence, come with me. I'm coming. I'm coming right over to you. I just want to have you. So when it's time to get there. Terrence, I don't think you understand the dead air principle at the JRE. The dead air principle, I'm here. As long as I'm here, everything is well and high. Terrence, okay. So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you figured out something that is analogous to even temperament, which is if you shove a pentagon which should have three radians distributed around five angles in degree terms, that's 108. But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is one of my 447 and changed.

3:02:13And so effectively the same game that we played and people like Bach started playing with the even temperament is where do you pay for even temperament? Well, you end up paying for it in the expansion of the song. It does not follow a natural expression. That's true. There's no circle of fifths. There's what? There's a spiral of fifths. There's a five. And you know what the worst note is? The worst note? C in between, it's C in B and E and F, hitting at the same time. No, no, no. You're saying something different. I mean that in the Doremi Faisola Tito, Dote to me is an abomination. Can we do, I can turn, left a good job in the city, let's go.

3:03:00Left a good job in the city. Okay. Working for a man every night and day. But I never lost a man in a sleep Thinking about the way things might have been. Big wheels keep on turning. Keep on turning. Well, Mary, keep on burning. Keep on burning now. Rolling. Rolling. Rolling. Rolling on a river. Rolling on a river. Okay. It's basically Mary had a little lamb, right? But it's much cooler. Now, left a good job in the city. City is going to be the third. And that third is wildly sharp to the Pythagorean third. That's the penalty we pay for dividing the perfect octave. Right? Can you give me somewhere over the rainbow?

3:04:02Somewhere over the rainbow. The bird fly way apart. Let me see what it would be.

3:04:18I feel like I'm in a box car. I feel like I'm in the launching pad with a UFO lands on closing counters. Do do do do do do do do do do do do do. Somewhere it's a doubling of frequency right? The doubling is perfect. The fifth is a lie but it's a good lie. The third is an abomination. It's not until you get to 53 notes, which the Turks use, that you get a better fifth and a better third. You get a better fifth that 29 notes per scale. Yes. And you get a worse third so there's no reason to do it. 12 to 29th, 53rd. Yeah. Now, my claim is, is that you pulled off the same thing by finding a cheat inside of the linchpin, which is why it's genius.

3:05:09And I don't even think you know how genius this thing is, is my guess. I'm about to show you noble gases, and I'm going to show you matter. I'm about to put up the whole thing up. So, listen to me. The number of edges in a tetrahedron is what? And a tetrahedron is six. And that's why you have six pentagons. But these six pentagons are not either they're not perfect or they're not joined perfectly. You put six motors in these things with propellers and you have six degrees of freedom. There you go. You have an object. Well, so we talk about pitch, role, and yaw. But those are basically, if I understand correctly, the basis vectors for the lealgebra of SO3 or spin 3 or SO2.

3:05:56What's on lealgebra? Well, so the idea is I have a rotation group of symmetries of this object about its central vertex. Right. And that's one of the things. You can put one of these things up. And with three degrees of freedom, I can spin it, right, like a full on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that nothing else can move. Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four motors. This is unlimited. OK. But let's go to distract this. Let's get to that in one second. Because it's super cool. By the way, that's a CGI. Yes. I actually see a CGI. I'm showing you how to actually fly on this around.

3:06:33So I don't want to do this. We always get like 19 of them. That's that's actually true. So what's going on with this is that you have three degrees of freedom, which is the rotations that I need here. But you've got three extra degrees of freedom to move in different places. Now, there's something called the affine group, which is the semi -direct product of SO3 with the R3 group of translations. And SO3 introduces the chromatic aspect of... I don't go chromatic. Just don't go chromatic. You've got something brilliant. OK. OK, I'm listening. I'm just trying to understand. The best thing that I've seen out of Terrence Howard, I will tell people, this is why you never throw the baby out with the bath water.

3:07:14And again, I don't know that you invented it. I think you did. I did invent it. I promise you, I think you did. No, I didn't invent it. It was given to me. An angel gave that to me. And I'm sorry that everybody's in the neighborhood. I'm sorry to say this. There's a way in which we all feel pressure to give away the genius stuff that we do to some higher power. This is why if you ask, like, could be Nirmagameda, like, how do you do such great things? You'll say, Mashallah or this stuff, Rullah, right? Isha 'Allah. Right? Isha 'Allah. Because Islam is very good about you always give away the compliment because you can't hold it because it'll cause you an ego distortion.

3:07:51This thing here has six degrees of freedom based on the relative speeds of the motors that you put into it. Plus, there's an affine group called SO3 semi -directed product R3, which has six lealtre -braliments. That means that this thing can potentially span the leal -bral. And if you have a track ball over here as a controller, and you put like three thermons so that you could control in three -dimensional space, you potentially have a drone that can rotate itself in three dimensions and get anywhere based on these six objects. Now, I could be wrong about that. No, you're right. We've actually done that.

3:08:35So my claim is, if the only thing you've done, forget the art, forget the science, forget the this, forget the that, if the only thing you did was to introduce an error, which is 109 .47 is not exactly 108. But 108 is that key of A, which is... God damn it, you won't stop. I'm not stopping, I'm just, I'm working with you. Keep going, keep going, all right, you talk. That is a really cool grade A idea until I hear that somebody else did it or that when you machine this, because this is the thing. Now, this is when you put four of them together. Now, the thing is, it's very cool, if you take what Intel does with drones, where they sort of synchronize these swarms, this thing comes together and it forms a stable structure.

3:09:24Now, if you look at it, the tolerances that you've built into this thing because these pentagons do not exactly come together. 109 .47. He's not 108. That thing, with an engineering is like even temperament. Even temperament is a lie. It's a fraud, but oh my God, all the most beautiful music in the world is built on even temperament. But look at what it generates. That's what I'm talking about. You put four, now four of these come together and make this. Four of these come together and they make this larger structure that is the same exact thing. So that's not a lie. It is a lie. You're trying to build the whole universe off of the lens.

3:10:11I'm defining something new. You are. To the best of my knowledge. By the way, I looked at this, years ago, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on, no, no, no, before you go there, this is the other side of it. Yeah. This is what is very interesting. Like these, they'll come together and meet, you can see where they meet up. They're natural meeting up. Now this one looks exactly like this one, but they don't have the same mixture. So what this is creating, this is actually showing, this is the equal and opposite. This is matter. This becomes the anti -matter of it. You can't stop you doing that.

3:10:48You can't stop me. I know. Sorry, I'm on worse enemy in my own best friend. Mm -hmm. You know what? That was a beautiful statement. But what I'm trying to say is the fact that they keep, and these four will keep, this is just a magnetic, what I consider a magnetic field. You see, you stopped yourself. I consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding at the center and magnetism in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater. And you know when you just said in my language, in my language, that's what I just did with the Terrence product. In other words, I'm sitting in your language.

3:11:22I'm trying to get you to stop pissing my community out. I don't want to piss my family out. I don't want friends. I need friends. Terrence, that's what we're here. Right? But this right here, when you have, and these will keep bonding with greater ones and keep making the same structure. The point is, it's good enough within engineering tolerances to be a Dodecahedron. This Dodecahedron's, I'm not gonna teach you. Now, if Jamie, can we bring up T4 bacteria, phage, capsid? Because I think, do you know what a capsimera is? No. All right. I know what a papimera is. It's the second time you've been there.

3:12:02It's the second time you've been there. I've enjoyed both of them. Okay. I think you got a bad doctor. Okay. Now, let's do the one below the cartoon. So you see where it says, college and sheath, let's do. Yeah. Oh, those are, those are, there's quick things that run along, they're moved so very quickly along. No, you're talking about something else. You're talking about transport thing. This is a virus. Oh, this is a virus. It looks like the transport thing that is along. This is phage lambda. And what this thing is, that thing is an icosahedral capsid. So all of the nucleic acid is upstairs in that compartment, but it's not a perfect icosahedron because it has the elongation of some triangles and the truncation of others.

3:12:48Now, this thing is an example of imperfection in nature. Right? So nature wanted to do something very rigid to protect the nucleic acid by coming up with an icosahedron, but she didn't do a perfect one. Can we find any other that, like, you see above that one? That's way too perfect. It's not true. That's a good one. So in some sense, what you find often enough is that nature actually chooses imperfect perfection. Nested. Yeah. Just nasty instead of us. Now, the way this works, can we look up capsomere? Again, I'm way out of my element. C -A -P -O. C -A -P -S -O -C -O -M -E -R.

3:13:42And then images. So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your drone units, your linch pins, that come together to form capsids. So can you hold up one that, in case it's a dodecahedron? Oh, right here. Right here. So that is like a capsid made from capsomers. So I want you to spend some time on the protein data bank. Maybe let's go to the protein PDB capsimere. And you'll get an understanding of all the ways in which nature has been doing this engineering that we've been learning from. Maybe actually just go to the site PDB. Yeah, let's try that.

3:14:35Herpes.

3:14:39Basically, what these are, are little natures version of linch pins that come together to form platonic solids, which are the triangular platonic solids, are valued because the triangle is a stable structure. If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily. So they're not very, you know, engineers will use triangles over squares. What you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out the eternal ones understanding of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability that actually use the imperfections, just the way you were using the imperfections.

3:15:21And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because 108 wasn't equal to 109 .47. It's closed. And the fact that you're willing to deal with something doped with imperfection is what actually is the genius akin to even temperament. Well, it's like how do you walk? You don't walk by a perfect gate. You walk by moving past the point of equilibrium and catching yourself. Well said. It's the key. I don't know how to think like that. I think perfectly, not imperfectly. And it's to my detriment in many situations. Well, you've got an incredible mind. As do you, sir. Can we go back to the main page?

3:16:00Because another thing that I see you taking a lot of guff for is the periodic table. Now, I don't like your periodic table. But you are also the only person I know who's pushing into the public consciousness, the understanding. Okay. So first of all, do you know Stanley Jordan? Not by name. You smoke weed. Stanley Jordan is one of the... I don't even want to call him a guitarist. He's an alien intelligence from another universe. But if you go up and you click that, people have been saying that Terrence Howard is making up this thing about the periodic table and the sound of the elements. And I want you to hear what he calls sonification.

3:16:43The ionization energies of the elements as represented here at a periodic table. And we are going to produce tones representing those energies. The way that this app works is each one of these elements in the table is actually a push button. And I can play tones with these push buttons. The settings in this control panel here will determine how those energies will be converted into tones that we can hear. First of all, we're just going to look at a few of the controls for now. See, we have transpose frequency. The frequencies corresponding to these ionization energies are extremely high. So we have to transpose them down to a range that will...

3:17:25As you said. So here we're going to transpose it down. In this case, 42 octaves, negative 42. So let's start with hydrogen. If I transpose it 43 octaves down, I get that tone, or I can go 44 octaves down. I can also transpose it chromatically. As you can see here, I can go up... And up again. And up again. But normally I set that at zero and just leave it there. And I only change the octave. Let's go back to 42. And I'm going to show you some of the other controls that we have here. The duration is in seconds. So here we go, one second long. Or we could go longer, let's see, two seconds. And the damping factor controls how quickly the tone decays.

3:18:24Three is kind of like a nice... So what he's doing is he's preparing you for the fact that he's going to play the periodic table. And by the way, I just want to say this thing. Stanley Jordan is a friggin' mega genius. I see that now. And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago. And what he was going to do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the elements. And also go beyond that for molecules. See, I tried to do the same thing. And I asked, I called... People treat you like you're nuts. I called UCLA asking for the prime resident frequency of the elements and they wouldn't give him to me.

3:19:03Nobody would give him to me. Or because in part, Greatlessness. Boran. Carbon. Nitrogen. Oxygen. Floring. Neon. Now what happens is, as you start listening to this, you start to notice... At any chance. And go through this second row again. But I won't say I'm, I'll just go ahead and play through them. Beep.

3:19:40Beep.

3:19:45Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Kind of a beautiful melody, isn't it? Now, these pitches that we're hearing are determined straight from a calculation based on the actual energy of the... The element. So, we are getting tones that you couldn't necessarily play on a piano. A lot of them would fall in between the keys. So they don't fit our conventional way. Their sense, sharp or sense plot. System. But if you want it to fit, we can enable this. It says quantized pitch. So all these pitches are slid to the nearest note... So when you say key of E. The chromatic scalpel just means all of the notes that we could play on a piano.

3:20:34And I'm talking about 432 when I was talking about the key of E. Well, you make an error again.

3:20:43So... You say this thing about hydrogen. 40 .5. Well, no, I wasn't saying... Wait a second. But I wasn't saying that hydrogen is 40 .5. I was saying that the key of E is 40 .5 hertz and doubles to 162. Those things... Yeah, but you said it in a very authoritative way. And the one in the 40 .5 is not 40 .5 hertz. It's 40 .5 megahertz associated not with hydrogen, but with mercury. But you have to keep... Once you keep doubling that... But ways that you get to... You activated a bunch of chemists who said, I don't know this frequency. Because they're looking at 440. They're looking at their... The 440 is in a relevant seat.

3:21:24The 440 is concert A in a time when we've decided that that is concert A. If you were to use the Indian, the Hindustani system, let's say. Instead of Doremi Fasolati though... It was Doremi Fasolah. No, they do Sarigamapa. Sarigamapa Dapaga Sarigamara Sarigamara. They use... I did the suffelgians. I did the suffelgians. I know. That's what I'm saying. But I'm saying this is that for North India, right? It's in a relevancy because everybody is allowed to tune their saw to a different tone. They don't have to tune their saw around A440. Because there's only three instruments. There's a tabla which doesn't have that tone as an important part.

3:22:12There's a tangpura which is tuned to the soloist and the soloist determines what their saw should be. So can we do Sarigamapa?

3:22:23So in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter. Because you can tune it to whatever you want it to. You're not trying to come up with an orchestra. It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament that forces us all to listen to the concertmaster as to what A440 is, right? Joseph Garbo pushed that around the world. Okay, not to judge. Garbo. Just keep drinking. Drink your whistle. What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the periodic table except for a tiny number of people. Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go beat back below that, the sound of hydrogen from WSU.

3:23:12So this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure out how to play these things. And this is the sonification. Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think. But you need to know that guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University, which is trying to do some wild radical stuff. They are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on frequency of the valence electrons, and that particles that vibrate the same way, smell the same, even if the shapes are different. And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations are very different, they don't smell the same.

3:23:57So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Sent about the academic, like all the people who try to push you down, they're trying to push Luca Turin down, as if he doesn't know what's going on. He's written the Bible of perfume. I don't know if you like sent. I know. He understands the vibratory quality of sent. And so trying to sort of cynistize these things by saying that everything that has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms, has a small freak community, a very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing. The only problem is, you gave us, you know, people asked me for an analogy.

3:24:35What do you think of Terrence Howard? That's all I got for like a week. Can we pull up the... Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan experience? Yeah. No, no, the gen... We're having that right now. The genit...it'll come up as genit -left -step periodic table. What you did to the periodic table was, by the way, what a gift that I hate the periodic table. Can't stand it. The problem is, I had to analogize when I said, when people asked me what I thought of you, let's click on that thing. That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables that's much more in favor with people who are mathematically minded like you are, rather than the Walter Russell periodic table.

3:25:23Because what this does is it uses the quantum mechanics to stop with those exceptions. Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the rule? This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical harmonics, where you're looking at complex valued functions on the two -dimensional sphere. And this sort of alfboult principle, imagine that there was only a coulomb potential centered at the origin in a hydrogen situation. You would go along and say hydrogen -first helium, then lithium, then beryllium, then boron carbon, nitrogen, et cetera.

3:26:10And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the electrons, in which the, you have this principal quantum number, which is basically the energy level. But then the L quantum number is what we would call a highest weight for a highest weight representation of SU2 or spin3, which is the double cover of SO3. That first one is one -dimensional, but it's spin up and spin down, so you get two elements. The next one is going to be three -dimensional, but you're going to get six elements, and then you're going to get five -dimensional, because SO3 that determines the representation theory.

3:26:50This thing is what I wish you had given us, rather than the Walter Russell thing, which is sort of a historical artifact. Now, no offense, but the big problem is, is that if you are trying to talk about hydrogen, and then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is what you said, doubling the frequency. What is that thing below hydrogen? And you say, I don't know, it's too dense to be perceived, like bullshit. But there is ultra -low frequencies, even though we cannot hear it. Yes, but there's ultra -low frequencies, and that's what I'm saying. My problem is... That's where your analogy broke down, Terran.

3:27:34No, because hydrogen sits in the same exact position as carbon does when you're looking at it. No, it doesn't. It doesn't come off at the same coloration. It doesn't have the same tone. Terrence, you're talking about a periodic tale from like 1926, something like that. And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly. Now, look at all this shit that you're doing, and look at the fact that he's locked in 1926. Jorak is not going to come up with the Jorak equation to supersede the Schrodinger equation for another two years. Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born.

3:28:15The neutron isn't going to be discovered until the early 30s. And you're taking the wrong fight. You're saying, when David Tongue, here's what I really didn't appreciate about what you did. David Tongue said, this is all a lie. And you took the wrong meaning from that. What David Tongue was saying was different. David Tongue was saying, we teach hard little ball theory. Right? There's an upcork and two downcorks in every neutron and two upcorks and one downcork. And they're all little hard little balls stuck together by rubber bands. And then we've got one electron going crazy around it. He's like, that's not what's true.

3:28:53And what did he say? It wasn't a lie in the sense that that's the best knowledge that we had. I don't know how to say the word field to a seven year old. They're fields. They're not hard little balls. But that was my problem with David Tongue because here I showed him. You don't have a problem with that. No, no, the problem that I had was with his response to me was here I was showing him these are the way fields that your particles sit with me. Every time you teach, you occur a penalty. But see, that's the problem. How do you not teach when you have some new... First thing is, you try to figure out who's ethical and who isn't.

3:29:34I'm not kidding around with this. You've got to be Jesus Christ to figure that out. Because most people they have a good faith. Terce, let me ask you a question. Have I been fair to you this time? You've been amazingly fair. Have I been kind? No, I haven't been uniformly kind. You've been honest. You're talking about my heart is my heart is open to you. No, you've actually talked about the things that I've talked about. You've given me criticism on things where I've made mistakes. You've told me where I've been. This is not available as a service in academics. In academics, basically, it's a closed little world.

3:30:06And if you don't come with protection, we stab you in the eye. This idea that Neil said about why doesn't he just submit to peer review? It's the biggest bunch of shit I've ever heard about. We've got two papers, the geometry of the proton. Can we pull up the Neil stuff on... I prepared on that page. Because I cannot believe how disingenuous this is. He calls you the worst insult in academics, which is... There was a study called... Downing Kruger effect. Downing Kruger effect. ...is both an effect that is studied and the ultimate insult. It's basically your mama, right? Let's just click on that and see what happens.

3:30:51I spent a lot of time on it. And I thought out of respect for him, what I should do... is give him my most informed critical analysis that I can. In my field we call that a peer review. You come up with an idea. You present it either at a conference or you first write it up, and you send it to your colleagues. It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided, or wrong, or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out, or the logic doesn't comport. That's their job. Not all ideas will turn out to be correct. Most won't be. But to get to that point, you need to know things like what has everyone else said about this same subject.

3:31:38Am I repeating someone else's work? Is this a new insight that no one else has had, but has foundations that are authentic, or legitimate, or objectively true? Am I making a false assumption? Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false? All of this goes on on the frontier of science. Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe. It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier. What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's call it.

3:32:18It's possible to know enough about that subject, to think you're right, but not enough about that subject, to know that you're wrong. And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence. This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning Kruger effect. It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge you over -assess how much of that subject you actually know. And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I thought I did. So then there's a sort of a lull there. And then when you learn even more, you come back up. Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong.

3:32:57To become an expert means you spend all this time. It doesn't happen overnight. You can't just sit in an armchair and say, I'm now an expert. It requires years and years of study, especially looking through journals where new ideas are published and contested. That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that which is objectively true, or determining that which is objectively false. Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the universe. I'm going to read you just my opening line here. It's titled One Times One Equals Two. So I lead off.

3:33:41So that was the, now if we go below that, what do we have? Is that, let's try that. Hi, Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which by the way was published in a peer -review journal. Crazy idea. The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media. It is not Joe Rogan. It is not my podcast. It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end of the day offers no higher respect for your energy and intellect than by declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or whether your publication or not.

3:34:36I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with his treaties. But you got the sense of it. Thanks for listening. Okay. I want to be very careful about my words. Is there anything below that that we've put together? This is a, let's go above. This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, just so you don't feel bad about yourself, talking about me and my theories based on that question and ask me anything. Will you be able to talk about Tarrick Weinstein about the new theory of geometric unity? This is from 2013. We are all wondering about that. Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary.

3:35:25In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science documentaries that came afterwards. So the answer is no. Let me explain where you are. Neil is not unaware that you are never going to get your hearing and a peer -reviewed journal. Your ideas are going to come through. You're a self -taught, auto -di -deck polymath. You haven't been cleaned up. You haven't been taught how to speak properly. You don't know the fact that when you say, Lou, we know fixed point. I know how to do all this stuff, right?

3:36:04You're not getting a peer review from me. I know a lot more than you do about a lot of this stuff. You're getting an elite review. My elite review says that a lot of this is bath water, but a small amount of this is baby. That's not available anywhere. It's not available in the university. It's not available in the journal. That's available on the Joe Rogan experience. And, you know, Neil's right. If what you want is peer review, you should go to a journal and they will laugh you out. They will take one look at your email address. And if it doesn't end in .edu, I promise you you're not going to get hurt.

3:36:42Do me a favor, Jamie. Can you pull out the link and finish? No, no, no, no, no. Let's go below where we just were, Jamie. I don't think Neil DeGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review. This is Google Engrams, and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus of English language books, published in the world. Peer review basically begins in the mid -1960s. Now, there were various forms of review, editors in particular were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to not peer review things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who should be not.

3:37:26Can we bring that back up?

3:37:30More or less from what I can piece together. Gillane Maxwell's father, who started Pergamon Press, destroyed - Jeffrey Epstein's Gillane. Correct, correct. He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune by blowing out the number of journals, enforcing every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to publish, because to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission that you had an incomplete library, so that he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals. This was a group of very informal high -quality enterprise. Now, most of the destruction of science in terms of how high quality it used to be, it's taken place relatively recently, post -Robert Maxwell.

3:38:26Because now we have an enormous number of journals, staffed by people who can't spot publication cartels where we agree to cite each other's work, and we agreed to publish stuff, you know, pay for play, all of the nonsense that you see with irreproducible research comes after this peer review thing. The peer review thing got woven in so that people think that the scientific method and peer review are effectively the same thing, where one is an unwanted infection from the biological biomedical universe, which had peer review much longer than everything else. Neil is giving you a very cursory back of the hand brush off.

3:39:11I felt it. All right. I'm here because I love this man, and this is a higher quality environment. We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci in the origin of COVID. I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything that you were saying at a level where he did say, look, I can't evaluate this. He was letting you have your peace. Joe was established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose. He can call on all sorts of amazing people. He called on you. Well, he has lapses in judgment, but he has his good quality. My point being that this is actually what science was supposed to be.

3:39:56We were supposed to listen to each other, not go after each other with an ice pick to the eye. We were supposed to try to figure out the best version. Remember at the beginning of this where I was trying to say, look, I want to do the best version of your idea and build it up. So what you're saying, though, can I just summarize this? What you're saying is that Neil deGrasse's understanding of peer review is flawed. Sure. And that it is not really available to someone like Terrence. It really isn't. He knows that. You see, peer review is not one thing. One thing peer review is the ability to get rid of the axe murderer who's just wandered into your office with a manuscript and read crayon.

3:40:33Well, while you guys are talking, I've got to run to the bathroom. Just this alone, just an important point. Okay. So Joe and I were just talking about. Yeah, we're back from the bathroom break. Is what is peer review actually and why is it controversial? So imagine that you have four types of people. You've got two establishment figures. One of whom is screwing up the field who's in a very powerful position and should be removed from the impediment being the impediment to progress that they are. Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it. They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment.

3:41:13The establishment is recognized how valuable that person is. Now you've got two other figures. You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of the universe and anybody doesn't understand them is a horrible person. Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about and can overturn the established order, which is where you get a revolution. Peer review just sees establishment versus non -establishment. It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years. And it will stop somebody coming from outside. It will reapportion credit. So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I said about grape and swipe.

3:42:01We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've produced away from you and we publish it under our own name. I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues, particularly younger colleagues. And to simply say peer review, it works bitches. Holy cow. How can this be? I thought I was upset with some things that you would said. No, no, no, they're dwarfed. They're dwarfed by this. This is so disingenuous. Basically, this is saying please submit your stuff from a Gmail .com address.

3:42:50We'll take one look and say it doesn't look like .edu to me. And we'll throw whatever you do in the trash heap and we'll say, well, you've got the benefit of my peer review. Now you look at what Neil said about your stuff. And by the way, he's right about one times one, equaling one. You're wrong about that. That was your opener. You picked a terrible move. On the other hand, you heard what I said about the linchpin. It was a combination of bath water and baby. I do not have any economic or authoritative interest in taking anything that you've done putting under my own name. I am simply here to help you.

3:43:34And when we talked about the angle and all this stuff, I can tell you that that's a great idea. It may have been had by somebody else because I don't know. But I assume it comes from you. It may not work in practice. I think it's pretty promising. And I think if you don't do anything else and you create one drone that just does that really cool thing, it'll all have been worth it. No, we've got. No, no, no. I know. It's not. It's now. You're already created. You're obviously doing cool stuff. What I'm trying to say is we in science have lost the ability to talk to people who do flawed stuff from outside.

3:44:14All we want to do is get rid of you. And it's because we have this fake openness. We have a fake scientific method. Peer review has nothing to do with scientific method. We got along fine without. Peer review isn't even peer review. It's something called peer injunction where your peers can stop you without shorting you. I'm happy to bet against you and all sorts of things that you're doing. And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience. But if I block you and I won't short you, that's saying that I think you're dangerous because it's too dangerous to say it to go short. And the idea that we're handing old people and establish people and very politically savvy people, the ability to block you without shorting you is unforgivable.

3:45:04So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer, I'm like I'm not pretending to be your peer. I know a lot more than you do. I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome. And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that supposedly got handed to you does. So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is in my field that I care about. For 40 years we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory people are doing real work and everybody else isn't. And it's total hogwash and there's no way we can get out from under these people in the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacarya was just with Jay Bhattacarya in Italy.

3:45:47You have this guy who has a PhD in economics and he's a doctor and he's a professor and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some bureaucrat who is probably in control of the bio weapons portfolio. You know, because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s. The Geneva Convention and the bio weapons convention. He and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe epidemiologist. It's like no, we're going to have a mutiny and the mutiny is going to be based here because this is a place that you'd invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacarya. Oh, for sure. Yeah.

3:46:34We can do any of that. I bring garlic. We could have Michio Kackeling here. Crosses on the wall. Let's have Michio Kackeling and Brian Green. Let's have a discussion about string theory. Let's fundamentally discuss neoclassical economics. Shall we discuss whether or not random mutation is the true engine of neo -Darwinism? Is that reasonable? Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is but random mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins? Because stability is too difficult. The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility. And even though you think of it as I just like having conversations with people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have any other place.

3:47:17We can't go to the National Academy of Sciences to politicize. We can't go to Harvard. You saw what just happened with Claudine Gay who's still a professor. We've lost everything. And podcasts as Dippy and Shitty and as variable in quality as they are. Jerry very much included. This is all that's left. And my claim is that I'll challenge Neil. I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the hook. And by the way, some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong. The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind what I'm talking about. When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasma field, I've got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be reviewed.

3:48:06I will show you. I would love that. I would love that. I'll take care of your money. I would love that. I would love that. But I'll also try to help make it better. But it's having the proof. And then mind you like Jamie, if you pull up the... But don't you know what he's saying about not being an expert in teaching and then coming from the outside and that it's insult. It's insult. It's a bad way to approach a concept because the people that have been studying these concepts for so long instantaneously are told that they don't know but you know. And that's offensive to people that are actual experts in a thing.

3:48:48I think the same ideas could be portrayed in a way that does not do that. I have to learn that nomenclature. It's just you're so much smarter than most of the people you're talking to. Well, this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector. In other words, you believe what you're saying. And you're obviously very, very smart and you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to. Like how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and geometric algebra in Clifford. I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do that. And I saw you mention Clifford algebra.

3:49:24I was like, okay, there's a commonality. Right. Now Sean Carroll for sure knows what a Clifford algebra. I'm not sure whether Neil deGrasse Tyson does. Brian Green certainly does. But in general, this stuff doesn't get introduced in places like this. And then... and you'll watch this in yourself. I'll try to put a circuit in your mind. So you'll know exactly the point where you start pissing my community off. Can we bring up the cruel tutelage of Pyme? What's that? I'm... I love Chick Flix and I think the ultimate Chick Flix. Joe. It sounds like my ex -wife. I'll see you there once in a legally blonde.

3:49:59I've seen you right now when you're socks on. Let's go... Let's go earlier than this. Is that from Kill Bill? Yeah. Oh, okay. I can't show this. That's why we can't. Yeah. You gotta be more specific. I can show this stuff on you. Well, the bride goes up to the top of these stairs. Okay. And Pyme asks her, what do you know? And she says something like, I am acquainted with such and such and so and so and I am more than proficient in the fine art of Japanese, whatever. And Pyme completely kicks her ass. Because she doesn't understand where she is. And my claim is that you need your ass kicked. And you need to apprentice to some of us who know more than you.

3:50:54And believe me, let me just tell you this. I've had my ass kicked and I will get my ass kicked more because you need some kind of humility. You're coming across wrong. By the way, never pick a fight with Jamie Foxx. Holy shit. Is that guy good at everything? No. I learn that the hard way. Jamie, if you're out there, I totally love you. And what you did in Ray is just unbelievable. But he does it every move. He's just, he's so damn good. Yeah, he's an insanely talented person. He's one of the most intelligent people I've met. I was sitting on the set of Ali with him. And I'm playing chess with him.

3:51:32And I'm playing a serious game of chess. He's having a conversation with two other people while he's playing chess with me. I wish if it's nothing, if it's nothing. Yeah. And I play chess well. So for, I was, I've never been more impressed with somebody who can compartmentalize. And he's an organizational genius. He's, he's, whatever he is, he is. But you know what? I had my guy. My guy was named Noam Elkies. I don't know if, uh, Noam Elkies. You never heard of Noam Elkies. Noam Elkies. I entered Harvard at 19 with a master's degree. Noam was 18. He didn't have a master's degree. So we're sort of in a weird way, neck and neck.

3:52:14And everything that I thought I was good at, Noam was better. Noam, I played a little piano. Noam could compose anything. I mean, this guy's just like super genius beyond genius, right? And he was, he wasn't a bad guy at all. But he was so powerful in his mind that, like he composed, I think, an 11 by 11 crossword with no black squares. I don't know. Stuff that just can't be done. And I thought, geez, there's just no point in competing with Noam Elkies. And one Christmas party, the professor named Raoul Bott, heard me playing, trying to play the Boogie -Wogie piano. And Noam sat down. And like Raoul said, well, why didn't you play us some Boogie -Wogie?

3:52:58And Noam started playing what he thought was Boogie -Wogie. It was like rock mononof. And Raoul would say, no, no, no, no. And Noam would go into Chopin and then he'd go into List. And he was playing ever more brilliant things. And finally, his brain just blew. Because he couldn't think through Boogie -Wogie. But Noam then became the youngest professor in the history of Harvard University. And I realized that I had accidentally entered in a year, in which Noam Elkies was present. And by having my ass kicked repeatedly by this guy, I had to ask myself the question, well, what am I doing on this planet?

3:53:32What do I have to contribute? And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like this. There's a creative spark in the spirit in you that I really see and appreciate. It comes from an older era and we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere. We used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields. And right now what we've got is a specialization epidemic. And as far as I can tell, what you need is some discipline. And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot more than you, who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those things.

3:54:09And not just shut them down. And the epidemic we have is assassins. We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system, all they do is see things in terms of like done in Krueger, done in Krueger, done in Krueger. The funny part about it is that's the midwits endpoint is that they see heterodox thinkers and they can't figure out how to place them. And so they just say, if I can find one error, I can reject everything. And you keep triggering that. And that's why one times one, but that's why I keep saying the one times one is more of a metaphor. It's not a metaphor to us. It is life and death.

3:54:49You try to sneak one times one through airport security. It's like, it's just a clock 19. I understand that, but it was really to get to gain the attention. They never do it. To gain the attention of something. Listen, you didn't know anything. Well, okay, there's one more that's going to keep us from ever getting you through this thing. Can we pull up my page again? I'm going to wrap it up with this one. Yeah, I want to do this. It'll be a little bit more than I thought. No, we didn't even do a lunch man. Terrence. Terrence, where is this? There's no far down the road. This is four and a half hours.

3:55:24Okay. I want you to take a look at the chemical engineering PhD. Because if we don't do that, I can't actually help you. Oh, that right there. Let me explain that. Yeah. Here, I took over to what was the name of the University of South Carolina University. I was working with Apollo diamonds. We were growing diamonds. And I developed a way in which to grow diamonds larger than the two -carat diamonds. I went over to South Carolina University and I talked to them about introducing the diamond process into their university. They were going to give me an honorary degree. Okay. Now, I'm thinking they're giving me an honorary degree in chemical engineering because of what I'm doing.

3:56:19And it's just an honorary degree in humanities that they gave me. And so I went on the show and I was like, yeah, well, I got an honorary degree from them. But that ended up coming across as if I got an honorary degree in chemical engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering. I assume you did. An honorary degree is worthless. It's like, would you take, if your child needed brain surgery, would you go to Dr. Dre? No. Okay. Here, I want you to hold this. As a guy who was 19 with a master's degree, Harvard University and I got into a fight. And took me seven years to get that away from it, from them.

3:57:07And they would have been happy to bury me without it. Okay. That is blood, sweat, and tears. And the work that I actually started doing ended up in somebody else's name because Harvard University and part credited with them with it. That's the people person. When you screw around with a PhD, like this Claudine Gay, this woman needs to be a PhD. She needs to be fired. Okay. Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill. Enough with the anti -semitism, enough with the woke, enough with the DEI. Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics.

3:57:52You're getting absolutely treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've done. You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff. That thing about the PhD is basically fraud. What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit. Marit is merit. If I can catch you in a fraud, if I can catch you in a lie, I can catch you in an error. I don't care. My question is, what did you do? What was the cool stuff you did do? I'm not an assassin. I don't care if you, in part, exaggerated your achievements. I know how it feels like to be shat on. I know that you have no ability to fight what's being said to you from on high.

3:58:35Okay. What I'm saying is, the only thing that matters is what you contribute in the end. And imagine that there was fraud, imagine that there were lies, imagine that there were errors. And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines everything because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six dimensions in the semi -direct product of SO3 with R3, whatever. It doesn't matter. It's that cool. Gregor Mendel probably faked his Pee Pod experiments. And there's a guy named David E. Kaplan at Johns Hopkins University who said to me, something that's so beautiful, I can't reproduce it.

3:59:13He said physics is based on everything. It's the backstabbing. It's the frauds. It's the geniuses. It's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done, the experimentalist's who toil on papers with a thousand people. And this community of all of these people have come together to produce something, which is something close to the source code of the universe. And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help. There's a lot of work to do it. It happens that I had done a lot of the work over my life so I didn't have to put an infinite amount of energy into this.

3:59:53But what happened is that you created a mast illusion. And it was a mast illusion in part because we're not aware of what mast illusions actually are. They start with a nub of truth. They start with creative sparks of genius. So we're on the lookout for people who are just frauds, who have nothing that they actually can contribute. And what we don't realize is that you have these things about K -fabe, which are these melanges of reality and fakery. And they're interwoven. What you've produced is something that is part bullshit and part real contribution. And we don't have a system to pull it apart and we don't have any experience for how to sense when that's what's going on.

4:00:38But they consider the bullshit to be the one times one equaling two. And the 97 patents, the supersymmetry... It's not the 97 patents, it's not the supersymmetry. It's simply the residue, the reduction of when we get rid of all the stuff that wasn't supposed to be here. Because you're a self -taught polymath. You're obviously incredibly intelligent. You're obviously not taught by the system. And you can't do that work all on your own. No. So you've got to come in and you've got to find somebody who's not looking to kill you. And that's been the entire dance. What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and mathematical community so that they can advance past the Platonic solits.

4:01:27It's the Platonic solits. I still see in the two or three -dimensional position. And since we are living in hyper space and hyperbolic reality, then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space. So we don't have to go through Lorenz transformations and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space. I think that the real story of Terence is going to be whether you can stop teaching long enough to accept some help. I'm here to accept the help. And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something. The Lynchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know into the extent that I did know it.

4:02:14I threw it away. And I think it's a great idea. And I think that the art and I think that some of the higher -dimensional stuff and I think that a lot of this stuff has a kind of beauty that if John Horton Conway were still alive and hadn't been killed by COVID, I know where to send you. There's a guy, you know, there are sphere -packing people, there are combative tourists, there are all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm. But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is that when you get on a program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion. I've got a Fauci mass delusion.

4:02:50I've got a string theory mass delusion. I've got a Biden -is -fine mass delusion. I've got a Trump -is -not -a -problem -mast delusion. All I have, morning, noon and night, is mass delusion on mass delusion. But people don't understand that the reason that these mass delusions get started is that there's a nub of truth in them. QAnon is not, can't be total bullshit because it's got some core in it that's right and some craziness. If you think about dionetics and the Scientology, the first thing that they teach you about is the reactive mind. That's not a terrible theory. And then before you know it, it's xenon volcanoes.

4:03:27So what's going on is that people are not aware of how K -fabe works. Wrestling is one of the most dangerous demanding sports of a certain kind. Now it happens to be theatrical and pre -programmed. But if you've ever dealt with anybody, like the wrestling community suffers a death rate unlike any other sport in the world. What you have to understand is that K -fabe, and I highly recommend you to look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality intermingle. And that's what you did on the last time that you were here. And I can talk to you about the fantasy, I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies.

4:04:09But I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius and the insight. And what I want the world to learn is you're getting sucked into mass delusions that you're not properly imagining. There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't acknowledge. And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in because in some sense the mainstream is our official cult. And then all of the rest of us produce these other cults. And in my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep conversation about G .U. Geometric unity with my own community.

4:04:47Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you has dwindling to fewer than 10. It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you. Thanks for being a decent guy. I know that not all of this has been welcome. This has all been welcome. Any truth? And like I said, I take you up on examining and exploring these into the areas because like I said, these are tools. I just want to offer a new set of tools to that community so that they can now advance past the points where we are. Try not offering because the first thing you need to do, the first thing you need to do is not necessarily be a student.

4:05:30It's not a higher versus lower. But just recognize that you're bringing gifts and you're bringing problems and it's very expensive to help you. But it doesn't mean it's impossible. And one of the great things about this program is that if there is anybody out there that can hear it. Now, I'll be honest with you. I've been on this program maybe six times before. I'm often astounded that I can reach all of planet earth and there isn't a single soul who can hear me. And I think that one of the things you're going to have to reckon with is you're saying certain things and you make it hundreds and hundreds or thousands of responses.

4:06:05And there won't be a single meaningful response among them. And I don't know what to do about that. But, um, start off twer. I did, I did, I did my best to give you whatever response I could. All I really want is if you saw some benefit in the things that I've displayed and showed share it with you. I want them in my house. Then let's have a conversation. I've got it, I've got it set for you. We guys again. We're all connected down. Thank you very much, gentlemen. It was a lot of fun. Thank you guys. It's very interesting, very informative. Thank you, Jamie. Thank you, Jamie. Very, very much. All right.

4:06:39Bye everybody. Thank you.

4:06:49Thank you.