Terrence Howard on Reality

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

That wouldn't follow from that. He would first needs to establish why would his model be impossible under the current mainstream theories of science

Give him a chance and maybe he will do that. That's why I want to see a conversation between him and scientists. 

[Salvijus]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

but because we have finite time and resources we need to choose which one to explore and which one is worthy to explore.

Yes we need to chose to whom we give our attention and to whom we don't. 

There're only 3 options here:

1. You genuinely believe someone is not worth attention. And you just don't participate in it. 

2. You adress the proposed theories and show the flaws in a friendly way. In a mood of exploration of science. Not as an ego battle. 

3. Your ego is afraid that your reality is now questioned. You need an explanation to run away. So you label the person all kinds of names without even looking at their ideas genuinely and smear them with bad reputation. 

First two are okay. Third one is 99% of the people right now. Being lame. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[undeather]

23 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Ugh... My do I have to be the one defending his ideas.... Howard should do it himself. While talking to some scientists. And the rest of us should just be quiet and watch the outcome. 

But I believe just by watching the Joe Rogan podcast alone. That these are the only drones that can spin in all 6 directions while staying in the same spot. Normal drones can move in 4 direction only. 

And the type of science and theories used here are very different from convention science. 

Again... Howard should be the one explaining all this not me. I don't qualify to talk about it. 

No, normal drones can move in literally any direction by tilting their thrust-angle.
There are even drones who can adjust their motors in-flight to do exactly what Howard's can do.
 

21 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

His inventions are based on new model of understanding reality and physics. And if these inventions are actually legit. It proves that his new model of understanding reality is also legit. 

How is building something that can fly with 6 degreees of freedom a new model of understanding reality and physics?
It's simple aerodynamics you can calculate using high-school maths.

By the way, EVERY modern Airplane has 6 degrees of freedom.

19 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

In case I did a bad job explaining what's so special about his inventions. Here's a video of his drones. 

But seriously. Stop asking me all these scientific questions. I don't qualify to speak for Howard. 

Brother, you are making the case for him - so be ready to encounter pushback! 
Just take a sober look at those videos - does this really scream "ground shattering new science" to you?
I am not even against this drone - stuff! That looks fine and dandy! 

But to take this as a defense for all the "crazy" ideas he is having is just preposterous.
Either there is substance, or there isn't - and so far it's just a bunch of empty talk.
And again, I want this to be true as everyone else - new physics is always exciting!

Edited May 27 by undeather

[Salvijus]

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

No, normal drones can move in literally any direction by tilting their thrust-angle

See I'm no expert. But during the Joe Rogan podcast he says normal drones can't spin around its axis while being still in the air. What Howard did has never been done before. 

13 minutes ago, undeather said:

But to take this as a defense for all the "crazy" ideas he is having is just preposterous.
Either there is substance, or there isn't - and so far it's just a bunch of empty talk.
 

If you were more honest. You would not be able to say, it's all just empty talk. You say that without any basis. The real honesty is. You don't know. And if you really want to find out if there is substance to his claims. You should investigate him. Not me. 

 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, undeather said:

Either there is substance, or there isn't - and so far it's just a bunch of empty talk.

A person only qualifies to say "It's all just empty talk" after he does proper investigation of his ideas and proofs and then comes to the conclusion. "Yea... There is nothing to it." 

But right now. Everyone is saying Howard is full of shit without zero genuine investigation into his theories. That is what's lame about it. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

20 minutes ago, undeather said:

Brother, you are making the case for him - so be ready to encounter pushback! 

I'm not interested in defending Howard. I'm interested in pointing out where people are lame. 

[undeather]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I'm not interested in defending Howard. I'm interested in pointing out where people are lame. 

Oh my sweet summer child
I would invite you to follow any of his claims to their conclusion and try to find palpable evidence for what he is saying.#
Be interested in his ideas, but don't hesitate to dismiss it if there is no substance behind it.
Designing a fancy drone does not make all your ideas right - this is simple epistemology. 

Anyway, I am done with this! 

Edited May 27 by undeather

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, undeather said:

Oh my sweet summer child

✌️ 

[Salvijus]

32 minutes ago, undeather said:

I would invite you to follow any of his claims to their conclusion and try to find palpable evidence for what he is saying.#

 

I second this. I want to see how things will turn out aswell. 

32 minutes ago, undeather said:

Be interested in his ideas, but don't hesitate to dismiss it if there is no substance behind it.

True. And let's not say there is no substance to it before we actually did proper investigation would also be a healthy position imo. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

29 minutes ago, undeather said:

Designing a fancy drone does not make all your ideas right - this is simple epistemology. 

Nobody sayed that's all he had to show for it. 

[MrMog]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sounds like a classic conspiracy nutcase.

Where did your radical openmindedness go, on which you made a whole episode in the past?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, MrMog said:

Where did your radical openmindedness go, on which you made a whole episode in the past?

It flew out the window as soon as Howard blamed the government for his failure to operate his own phone.

And also, the guy does not understand the basics of how to multiply two dimes together.

Edited May 27 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

1 hour ago, MrMog said:

Where did your radical openmindedness go, on which you made a whole episode in the past?

Radical openmindedness entails accepting the possibility of being wrong and that goes both ways, so that doesnt get you anywhere, absent of evidence.

How many of the radically open minded folks could stomach being wrong ?  Do you think Howard is open to the possibility of being wrong?

This is also strange:  Why is it, that people are needed for him to lay down his arguments and evidence? Can't his arguments and evidence stand on their own feet?

Edited May 27 by zurew

[zurew]

At 39:23 he claims he is working with a doctor who can cure cancer and AIDS. This video was 6 years ago. Again radical claims (right now not about physics, but radical medical claims) but 0 evidence

Edited May 27 by zurew

[Salvijus]

I was contemplating his x^3=2x supposed fallacy in math. I think i understand the point he's making. That simple example shows how math is inconsistent. Because the formula doesn't work with other numbers expect with √2. And for a formula to be true, it has to work with all numbers. And math that is not consistent is not math at all. 

Interesting example if you ask me. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[zurew]

54 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I was contemplating his x^3=2x supposed fallacy in math. I think i understand the point he's making. That simple example shows how math is inconsistent. Because the formula doesn't work with other numbers expect with √2. And for a formula to be true, it has to work with all numbers. And math that is not consistent is not math at all. 

Thats all nonsense.

Why would a "formula" has to work with all numbers - Which math axiom implies that?

You are also wrong about the formula not working with other numbers than √2, it works with 0  and with -1*√2 as well , but I don't think any of this is in any way relevant to math being consistent or inconsistent.

[Salvijus]

Hmm. After more contemplation I'm starting to think there's nothing wrong with the x^3=2x situation. My bad. 

[Salvijus]

Edit. I realized the flaw in my own thinking. My bad. 

Edited May 27 by Salvijus

[Brahman]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It flew out the window as soon as Howard blamed the government for his failure to operate his own phone.

And also, the guy does not understand the basics of how to multiply two dimes together.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water here

There seems to be a lot of bath water lol. But theres also a lot of beauty to these ideas and the essence from where they are coming from

The highlights for me are Walter Russels periodic table (as an alternate way to THINK about chemistry, rather than being explicity correct) 

Flower of life geometry and which holds all platonic solids and the empty space geometry. The flower of life being found in extremely old cultures all around the world

Alternate ideas on the laws of Gravity and dark matter. (in my opinion the dark energy/matter problem being ~97% the mass of the universe that we have no observation of whatsoever, deserves some alternate hypothesis to be considered. Its a pretty big hole in the observable universe and our laws governing things)

Saturn reconstruction only using electromagnetism is quite insane. Still havent seen anybody talking about this… or giving it serious thought. This was the most damning “evidence” he presented in my opinion.

Cyclical contained universe (rather than big bang expansion into the “big chill”) not necessarily big crunch either but along those lines

What gets me is there are so many examples we can see of similar galaxy and patterns within nature and contained systems that we have. The idea of the hollographic universe and that the every holon is representative of the larger structure beyond it. He is coming from a place of connecting those dots together which I think is a cutting edge way to think about science. Most of science right now is too narrow minded to even put these larger patterns together. While Terrences mind may be too wide, i think theres merit to his pattern recognition and application

[Brahman]

 

 

i really recommend those who want to write Terrence off as insane watch this deconstruction
 

i think it highlights terrences best points and elaborates on them in a bit more structured manner

and boy if its wrong, fine its wrong. But God is it beautiful

 

edit: if you dont wanna watch the whole thing start at 7:00minutes thats when explanations begin and it gets really good towards the end

Edited May 27 by Brahman