Is Terrence Howard Truly the Next Isaac Newton?
- Jason Pluebell
- Nov 27
- 23 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
Once in a while, a person will pop up on a podcast or livestream and make some bonkers claims about reality. From the pyramids being wireless electricity generators, all the way to claiming to have redefined modern physics. Today, we are examining someone similar to the ladder of those two. He claims to be smarter than Einstein and the smartest human being on the planet. He catches far too many people off guard with his impressive ability to string together long sentences that contain no meaning and use terms unrelated. He uses big words and makes big claims, and to the layman, that is all the qualification someone needs. I am, of course, talking about the American Hollywood actor Terrence Howard.
He claims to have "opened" the flower of life to discover the quantum wave conjugations humanity has been searching for for over 10,000 years. Born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1969, he openly admits to having a 1.6 GPA in high school and has no formal education in mathematics or physics. Despite this, he still says he is the smartest man ever, yet questions why bubbles take the shape of a sphere (ignoring the fact that a sphere is the geometric shape that has the smallest surface area) and claims to have memories from his mother's womb. In his book, "One Times One Equals Two," he claims to be the Man. He claims to be a "manifestation of all collected states of matter," that "every wave within the universe has to have cosigned my existence," and that he sees himself as a divine presence on Earth. He even did a speech at the Oxford Union, where he admitted that his acting career was based on lies. He says his very first resume was full of things that he hadn't done, but wanted to. Don't worry, though; eventually, he did all of those things, so it is not technically lying (which is still lying).
He fell from fame after his role in Iron Man 2 was revoked, as well as receiving domestic violence charges against his ex-wife. He denies such charges on Joe Rogan, and then in the very next breath admits to cheating on his current wife, but has made up for it. In this era of downtime, he was visited by a mysterious being in a dream that took him through his childhood. The being was in a large mansion and kept handing Terrence secret geometrical shapes. He also went to the Jehovah's Witnesses, new-age spiritism, drugs, and now scientific conspiracies. With this trip through false philosophies and beliefs, along with drug use, it is not surprising that he spurs so much nonsense. I know I may sound a bit harsh, but we will soon see how illogical this nonsense really is.
He is known nowadays for creating his own theories about mathematics and physics called Terryology. It revolves around the concept that 1x1 should equal 2 instead of 1. He argues that the current understanding of multiplication is flawed, and he often says his proof is that the square root of 4 is two, and the square root of two is 1 (it is actually 1.414). He also offers more proof in his plastic shapes he creates called Terryhedrons, which he thinks demonstrate the concepts of his theory. He has said he wants to reeducate the world about mathematics, and he has published a free book online, which is organized like a PowerPoint presentation with emojis and low-quality JPG images. He claims his theory ultimately has applications for the environment, space travel, and energy production by filtering the atmosphere and mining the asteroid belts. But his theory goes against proven principles of mathematics that have been rigorously supported over hundreds of years of systematic study. Despite this lack of scientific evidence, he still pushes his theories on podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience.
He also claims to have studied at Harvard and received a degree in chemical engineering as a child, which is easily falsifiable and false. There is no record of this happening. He even visited Uganda, claiming his lynchpin technology would save the country and usher in a new age of utopia by introducing the geometry of hydrogen. He said his lynchpin drones can perform all the bonds that hydrogen can, with "ultimited bonding," whatever that means; he doesn't elaborate. They can achieve supersymmetry, which is a concept from Strong Theory that every bosonic particle has a fermionic counterpart, and every fermion has a bosonic counterpart, none of which have ever been detected, which is why String Theory is not taken seriously today. Not long after the government of Uganda looked into his theory, they rejected his nonsense for what it is.
Terrence Howard quite literally spouts nonsense and has an amazing ability to create an amalgamation of word salad that is unmatched on the internet. We will now look at the main claims of Terryology and why they are wrong on just about every level.
Issues With Terryology
Terryology makes a lot of claims, so be prepared for a lengthy article discussing as much as I could manage. I am standing on the shoulders of many others, and some videos will be linked below for you to check out for a deeper discussion of Terrence's theory. He makes many claims and commits many logical fallacies when thinking through them. Most of his "proof" is not actual evidence, and he is mushing together multiple different scientific conspiracies into one, along with a very light grasp on scientific concepts, and almost no education in mathematics. I may sound harsh, but I am being brutally honest, as we will see, nothing Terrence says makes logical or historical sense.
One Times One Equals Two
The core foundation of his theory is the idea that 1x1 should equal 2 and not 1. He asks how 1x1=1 can satisfy the term multiply, as he says it means to make more of something. Terrence is playing a semantic game here, as there is nothing wrong with 1x1=1. If you multiply 1 by itself, you will yield 1, because multiplication and the number one are defined in such a way that any number times 1 will yield the same number. But multiplication is just "making more" of something; it is the compressed action of repeated addition. If you were not to multiply, you would be stuck constantly adding, for example, 1+1+1+1=4. Multiplication is the method by which we compact this operation, creating a new mathematical symbol (x). So now, instead of 1+1+1+1, we can write 1x4. Terrence is focusing on one single definition of the word mutiply, but that word has different meanings depending on the application and context.
1x3 is 1+1+1=3
1x2 is 1+1=2
1x1 is 1
In other words, you are taking one thing, one time, thus you only have one. But Terrence claims the two onesin 1x1 are seperate entities, but there is no material entity attatched to them, nor is that how the mathematical logic works. We are talking about an abstract concept, not a material object. So when terrence asks how can 1x0=0, as if the one had energy attactehd to it and it broke the first law of thermodynamics, he is simply equating an abstract mental concept with an actual object, a logical fallacy. He is fixating on one single definition of the word multiply, which he says is "to make more of." But this too is a fallacy, as this is not what multiplication means in the contex of math. Multiplication has a very specific meaning, referring to a specific operation, repeated addition. What Terrence fails to understand is that words can have more than one meaning dpeneidng on the context, thus, he is making a logical fallacy, and then creating an entire argument based on it. Multiplication is a Polysemic Word, or a word or phrase that has multiple different meanings.
Terrence then claims that calculators are programmed to lie about 1x1, on purpose, by banks and politicians who want to keep you poor. He reveals that his theory of 1x1=2 is not scientific, but a conspiracy. He says that an action times an action equals a reaction, but math is not physics, and 1x1 is an abstraction, not an event. Terrence seems to be confusing descriptions of nature with causes of nature, as the laws of mathematics will be the same for all people. This means they are an objective truth, and not a subjective one; in other words, you cannot redefine math because you want to. Math is not grounded in our opinions about it; we find ourselves obeying it anytime we seek to understand nature. It's almost like the universe was created in an intelligible way for intelligent humans to explore and understand it to come to the conclusion that there was an author of creation (Romans 1:18-23).
Solving The Three-Body Problem
Terrence claims to have solved the three-body problem of Newtonian physics. He released a video an paper on instagram on March 20th, 2025, claiming to have solved the issues that Newtons equations of gravitation have when predicting the behaviour of three objects under gravitational attaction. Isaac Newton's equations that describe universal gravitation and the motion of macro-scale objects in the universe, and they do a very good job when only two bodies are involved in a system of attraction. Once a thrid body is added, very fine cariations in the intial conditions of the system cause chaotic and unpredictable behaviours to occur.
Terrence treats this like it is an unsolved mystery, and we have never been able to solve it. But we have methods to predict three-body systems, we just do not use Newton's equations. We have A.I. that can perform the calculations in under a second (Edd Gent, The ‘Three-body Problem’ Has Perplexed Astronomers Since Newton Formulated It. A.I. Just Cracked It in Under a Second, Space, November 4, 2019).
Terrence posted his paper, co-authring it with Chris D. Seely, and they claim to have solved this issue. Seely only has one other research paper published with Terrence, and the insitution he represents is called the Church of Truth, Love, and Consciousness. From what I can tell, this Church was started by Terrence, and the website named after them, tcotlc.com, is the link to download his book. Considering his background with the Jehovah's Witnesses and New-age spiritsm, it is most likely a new-age group/cult that support Terryology. Their paper does not have an abstract, as it just dives straight into the introduction that lists some of the real problems with the three-body problem. He then says that his Terryology introduces "harmonic corrections," and "tetrahedral constraints" that stabalize the system using "Lynchpin Geometry," "Tetryen Shape and Harmonic Nodes," and the "Howard Comma Corrections."
He offers some "mathematical proof" by simply stating that his constraint euals the average of the distances between the three bodies, and this makes it so that the distance between the three bodies remains constant and unchanging. But three bodies in a gravitational system will change in distance over time, he just claims the aversges of their distances somehow makes them not move. His next step is to introduce "harmonic bifurcation" in imaginary and negative dimensions. Yet our universe has three spatial dimensions, and an extra dimension of time; so where and how does imaginary units and negative dimensions come into play? They can be used in physics to solve issues when calculations get confusing, but Terrence does not explain how he uses them, he just says he did. Since there is no evidence of negative dimensions, or imaginary dimensions, we can conclude that Terrence has no idea what he talking about, and he seems to just be using terms that actually relate to the alter at emethods used for the three-body problem, but is not using them correctly, or explaining them at all.
He then intriduces his Howard Comma Harmonic Correction, which is him just stating that the pertubative deviation of the system must equal 0, why must it qual 0? He never explains. This is all the math he explains, he jumps right into observing the results. He aksa us to consider the Hamiltonian, or the equation describing the total energy of a system, which just adds the kinetic and potential energy of all bodies.
But he then redefines parts of the Hamiltonian of the system to be invariant values, in other words, nothing changes. He is simply stating the three bodies will not move, rejecting the foundational principle of gravitational systems, that the objects will change their distance as time goes on. He also redefines everything by shwoing equations that have nothing to do with stabilizing the bodies. His theory here is not varifiable, because in it, there is no predictive power whatsoever because the bodies never move. Therefore, terrence has not actually solved the problems with predicting the behaviour of three-bodied gravitational systems. He didn't show any mathematical calculations; he only states that the system will be stable. But astronomers actually observe three-body systems, and they do not conform to stabe orbits, they dollow the methods we use to get around the three-body problem. Terrence's "math" contradicts the observed three-body systems we have seen.
Electricity is the Only Force
One of Terrence's other claims is that there is no such thing as gravity, there is only the electromagnetic force. This is known as the "Electric Universe Theory" and is a modern scientific hoax and conspiracy. Terrence seems to have watched some of the videos online about, and now thinks he understands it all. But these theories have many issues, and I think it is important to cover what it states, and how its claims are simply wrong and mistaken.
The main proponent of the Electric Universe is a movement, and youtube channel called The Thunderbolts Project. They claim that gravity does not dictate macro-scale phenomena in the universe, but that the electrmagnetic force does it all. Gravity does not drive planetary formation, and does not play a role in powering stars through nuclear fusion. Einstein's General Relativity is flawed and completely wrong. It was created by "them" to keep the truth hidden, without ever specifying who "they" are. Despite their claims, modern Astrophysicists have a very good understanding of how gravity causes gas to collect to form stars and galaxies on a large-scale. These models are backed by observational evidence, and mathematical support. Compare this to the simple "nuh uh" claims of the Electric Universe proponents.
Gravity is what causes objects to fall towards Earth, and is the attraction of all objects with mass, or massive objects. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to predict what objects under Earths gravitational feild will do.
(M1) and (m2) represent the masses of the two objects, (r) represents the distance between the objects centers, and (G) represents the gravitational constant. The more massive an object is (the greater m1and m2), the greater the force (F). Earth is a very massive object, so the force of gravitation near its surface causes objects tohcing it to stay on it, and those pulled away form it to fall into it. Newton's second law of Motion tells us that forces induce an acceleration on an object.
So gravity causes objects near Earth to accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s2, and the downard velocity increaes. This means that as the distance between objects (r) increases, the force (F) will also decrease; and less massive objects exhibit less gravitational force. We can use these equations to predict phenomena on Earth, and motion of objects in space with high degrees of precition. Yet the Electric Universe says that this is wrong, and electricity is gravity. but how can the electromagnetic force be the gravitational force. If gravity does not exist, why do thing work the way it says they will. We have sattelites, and sent probes to the moon, and have an international space station. We also understand electromagnetism enough to produce elborate technology utilizing it, and we know electromagentism does not act on electrically neutral matter.
The electric universe cannot be demonstrated to be correct, but can be demonstrated to be wrong with a few probing questions. If gravity is electric, why don't differently charged particles accelerate to Earth at different rates? Why don't paramagnetic 9slightly attractive to magnetic fields), diamagnetic (slightly repelent of magnetic fields), and ferromagneitc mateiral fall at different rates? Why don't magnets fall at different rates? Why we know gravity is not electromagetism is because they act on different types of matter in different ways. gravuty is an exclusively attractive force, and acts on all matter with mass, regardless of charge. Electromagnetism acts on particles with opposite and similar charges to either attract or repell. they are two different forces, acting in different contexts, in different ways. That is why we don't call gravity electromagetism. Bulk matter is on average electricly neutral, so the electromagnetic force can do nothing to attract it, that is why another force is involved, called gravity.
The electric model rejects hundreds of years of empirical confirmation. the Newtonian model of the solar system works extremely well for predicting the orbital paths of planets. Electric Universe proponents also do not provide an alternative working model with electromagnetism as the only force. There is no electric model that accounts for the movements of stellar objects, the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, as well as other phenomena in the night sky. They never, using electromagetic equations, derive the acceleration of falling objects on Earth to be 9.8m/s2. They never explain where the attraction on Earth comes from. Is it a current that is connected to the core? If so, why doesn't it change depending on what material you stand on? How does it stay a complete circuit when an object leaves Earths surface? There is no obervable phenomena with water, which can carry electric current. ther esimply is nothing that confirms this hypothesis.
They claim there is zero evidence supporting the Big Bang, which is simply false. I have written about the evidence for the beginnig of the universe here: https://www.ptequestionstoeden.com/post/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning. They say neutron stars violate chemistry, and state new principles of physcs without any explanation as to how they derived their conclusion. They claim that heavy elements are a mystery, but we know heavy elements can form under high energy conditions, like a collapsing star. These models are supported by mathematical evidence. We didn't just make this stuff up out of nowhere. Since they deny gravity, they have an issue with how stars are fueled. As immense gravitational forces within a star allow for extremely high kenetic energues, enabling atomic nuclie to collide and combine, producing energy in the collisions, or nuclear fusion. We can also create plasma on Earth, and experiment with it, as well as perform nuclear fusion, lending credibility to the idea that it is fusion that powers stars. The Electric Universe models simply have nothing going for them.
Everything is Made of Vibrations and Light
Terrence also says that there is no such thing as matter. Everything is just made of pure cystalized light and vibrating waves at different frequencies. He may have a very limited understanding of String Theory, as evidenced by his assertion that the universe is supersymmetrical, a term from String Theory that posits the existence of particle counterparts with opposite spin; specifically, fermions have a boson counterpart, and bosons have a fermion counterpart. The issue with this is that String Theory has not been supported, as it makes predictions of particles that do not exist (supersymmetry) and multiple space-time dimensions within the Planck length that are unobservable (vacua). I have written about String Theory in this article here: https://www.ptequestionstoeden.com/post/does-the-multiverse-explain-cosmological-fine-tuning. Suffice it to say that his claim that everything is vibrations is never explained by him; he just makes the claim and moves on to the next one.
Terrrence also says that any object can be levitated with the right frequency. What frequency? Frequency of what? Through what medium? What objects? He never explains anything beyond making the claim, which is not scientific. Terrence has no idea what he is talking about. Another claim he makes is that everything is made of light. A lot more people than just Terrence say this, but it just reveals some ignorance on his part.Terrence may have seen something about light atomic nuclei and concluded they are made of light. Light atomic nuclei possess relatively low mass numbers, generally ranging from 5 to 20. They contain fewer protons and neutrons than heavier nuclei and encompass elements such as hydrogen and helium. Light nuclei play a crucial role in nuclear fusion, which involves the combination of two light nuclei to form a heavier nucleus while releasing energy. There is no such thing as a light element, as light and matter are two different things. He claims that all matter is light because of E=mc2, but this is incorrect. E=mc2 does not apply to light.
The full equation is seen above. E represents the total energy, m represents the mass, c represents the speed of light/causation, and p represents the momentum. If an object is not moving, then the momentum portion is removed, and the equation becomes E = mc². However, light is massless and travels at a constant speed, so the mass portion is removed, and the equation for light becomes E = p x c. The equation applies differently because of the nature of light and matter. Matter cannot be light, as photons have no electric charge, while matter is composed of particles with positive and negative charges, and that is why they are different. How would a massless, chargeless particle create massive charged matter? Without an explanation as to how, he does nothing more than make another claim. Not everything is a vibration, and not everything is light.
The Dewey Decimal System
In his Oxford Union speech, he refers to something called The Decimal System as a Whole, written by Dover Statter. He couldn't remember the name and kept saying Dewey Decimal System as a Whole, which is not a real thing. The decimal system is how we count in base 10; the Dewey decimal system is a library catalogue that organizes books by number. He quite literally has no idea what he is talking about. Terrence says that Dover Statter challenged the Dewey decimal system, claiming it was wrong, but Statter never makes such a claim in his book.
In The Decimal System as a Whole, Statter argues that base 10 should be used across all disciplines and areas where applicable. He argues that the clock should count to 100 instead of 24, a circle should be divided into 100 degrees, favor Celsius, and the metric system. Which is understandable; it would make everything easier to remember, but it only led to some of it being adopted across all countries, except America, and a few others. It is blatantly clear that Terrence has read nothing from Statter and can't even remember the name of the Decimal System, yet claims to have created a Grand Unified Field Equation at age 7. Terrence claims this Dewey decimal system makes it so 1x1 can equal different values depending on the currency. Yet he does not elaborate on how, nor does he understand multiplication. Statter affirmed the decimal system.
Walter Russel's Periodic Table
Let's start with what Terrence says about the table. He says Walter Russel believed that elements are not distinct substances but temporary pressure conditions of light that are expressed in rhythmic, wave/ring-like cycles. He says that you can change one element into another simply by altering its pressure conditions. Terrence also claims that Einstein said he should have read more Walter Ruseel before his death, but there is no evidence that this was ever said. He says that Russel's table is the correct table for elements, but forgets the reason why we stopped using it in the first place. Russel's theory of elements contradicted quantum theory by rejecting the existence of electrons. Instead of starting with observations and building a model, he viewed it through a metaphysical "first principles" approach. Russel's table lacks empirical support, like certain elements having a color and tone. Russel's table is in the form of a spiral to show elements evolving into new cycles of compression and radiation, or generation and decay. His main assumption is that all matter is just different compressions of light; thus, he organized it based on pressure conditions and polarity cycles. He did leave open spaces for undiscovered elements, but Terrence claims that he already discovered and named them before they were actually discovered, which is not true. Russel wrote a star, and "unknown" in the places where undiscovered elements were thought to be.
So why did we reject his model? Russel's model ultimately was not grounded in experimental data and mathematical principles, which are foundational to quantum theory and modern chemistry. His model was also based on the universe being a giant self-aware cosmic mind, which is not based on anything other than speculation and esoteric slogans. Nothing about the gravitational force makes intelligent decisions; it always does the same thing when two massive objects are in space. Nature is not mind. What do rocks dream about? Moreover, his model did leave room for undiscovered elements, but made far too many predictions than actually exist. He predicted elements lighter than hydrogen, which makes no sense because hydrogen has one proton, and you can't have half of a proton; you'd have 1.5 quarks, which is not a thing. He also failed to predict modern discovered elements, whereas models based on prior experimental data have. He also saw matter as crystallized light, which is never explained, just stated. How does a massless particle create massive elements? By squishing it? How would squish the light? His model applied musical tones to elements that are not falsifiable, or an unnecessary unobservable explanatory entity.
Russel simply made a model without observing elements as rigorously as those who prevailed. Walter Russel was not a chemist, and the modern periodic table displays periodicity. The Periodic Table is assembled based on an element's nucleus and electron shell. A row, or period, is a group of elements with the same number of electron shells, but with different electrons within them, which leads to different chemical properties and reactivity. A column, or group, is an element with the same number of valence electrons, thus exhibiting similar chemical properties. Valence electrons are those on the outermost shell that are responsible for chemical bonds with other elements. Different amounts of valence electrons mean different levels of reactivity. Yet Terrence claims all elements are the same substance, carbon. He simply does not understand what differentiates elements. They are all made of energy, but the energy is not what makes them an element; but the number of protons and electrons. As for each element having a tone and color, he may not understand how information can be transferred to different mediums, or simply, data transfer. We have to look at the frequency of light released from an atom during spectral emissions (light through space), and use the same frequency for sound (movement through air) to, in a sense, "hear" the element, but elements do not have their own sounds, nor does it mean light is sound.
All it means is that data transfer is real, and the universe was oddly constructed in an intelligible manner for humans or explore it, which does not tell you the universe itself is intelligent, but intelligible. Terrence also says that hydrogen and carbon are in the same key of E, but Russel's original table does not apply keys to elements; modern online versions do, and they have carbon in the key of C, not E. Terrence cannot even correctly remember his own models. Elements are not keys or notes. They are identified by their protons and neutrons within the atomic nuclei. This aids us in predicting the realm of chemistry. Terrence then remembers about angles of incidence, colors are sounds. Again, this is data transfer, not that light is sound. We are unable to hear the frequencies of red or blue light because they fall within the terahertz range, while human hearing is limited to frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). A frequency of 400 THz equals 400,000,000,000,000 Hz, which is more than 20 billion times higher than the maximum frequency detectable by human ears.
He claims hydrogen is the first visible element because the ones before it are too dense to be seen, which is not falsifiable. How is it dense? What is being condensed? Hydrogen is the first element because it has the least amount of protons in its nucleus, not because it is the densest. Terrence also imposes sexualities on the elements. He says carbon is a bisexual tone because it has a positive and a negative side, which doesn't make sense. Carbon can have either charge, depending on the chemical bond it makes. If you have a normal carbon (0 charge) and add a positively charged atom or molecule (+1 charge), the overall charge becomes dominantly positive, but that does not mean carbon alone is both negative and positive at the same time. Neither does this mean it has a sexuality. He also claims to be able to split water into oxygen and hydrogen by playing the sound of berrylium, but never specifies how, or what frequency this is, or how he found the sound of berrylium. Also, beryllium does not react with water, which makes this even more confusing. He says that Arsenic kills us because our DNA wraps around it and unwinds the nitrogen in our DNA into phosphorus, thus unraveling the DNA. However, arsenic alters chemical signaling within the cell by modifying protein genes, which changes their shape and functionality, typically causing a cell to stop producing a crucial material, such as ATP. After which, the cell will enter preprogrammed death. He does not understand how chemicals kill us, as cyanide prevents the cell from forming a proton gradient, which ceases the function of a lot of vital systems for the cell. Even worse, DNA does not unravel when we die.
The Flower of Life
His main focus is the Flower of Life. He says that men have been trying to decipher its meaning for thousands of years. It is a simple pattern of overlapping circles, and you can make it with a notebook and a pencil right now. It's most famous for being found in the Temple of Osiris, and people claim that it is laser or molecularly burned into the wall. It is not, and it is obviously red ochre paint, as it is surrounded by other paintings. Terrence says that he opened the flower in 3d modeling software and found quantum wave conjogulations, yet he can't even produce one calculation to support this. He often shows a picture like seen below, where he points at random spots and says it represents a specific force or field. Yet there is nothing about his pictures to imply that anything he sees represents any forces. He just points and explains, with no epistemology. He also claims to have performed experiments, but never shows records, pictures, or explains the experimental apparatus. As Joe just sits there stoned, with an upper-decky just eating this up.
Terrence claims to have found the math Pythagoras was looking for, and the flower of life reveals the wave conjugations we have been searching for for 10,000 years. Pythagoras was a mathematician and philosopher who didn't really contribute much to modern science or quantum theory. He thought planets orbited the sun according to musical notes, which was not based on calculating their orbits (other than the Pythagorean Theorem). Conjugation is also when a verb in another language is identified by voice, mood, tense, or person, as well as a method by which bacteria share genetic information. You cannot conjugate a wave, and a wave conjugation is not a real thing. Recorded human history doesn't even go as far back as 10,000 years ago. What he claims makes no sense, and he is referring to a nonexistent term. A wave conjugation is quite schizophrenic.
Terrence also says that all energy is expressed in motion, and all motion is waves, all waves are curves, so where do straight lines come from to make Platonic solids? Therefore, there are no straight lines. So when he opened the flower of life, the conjugations exposed the "in between" spaces that hold us together. Yes, he really said this. Not all energy is motion. Potential energy is there by virtue of an object's position in a field, like a gravitational field. E=mc2 also tells us that matter can convert to energy without motion. So not all energy is expressed in motion, and not all motion is waves.
What are Platonic Solids? Regular polyhedra, or three-dimensional shapes with all sides being the same polygon, or two-dimensional shape. Like a cube, made up of six squares. When you look at crystalline structures, you can see a linear construction of straight lines. Terrence claims that when he researched where platonic solids came from, he came to the Flower of Life, but the Flower of Life is two-dimensional, and platonic solids are three. He also says that since you can draw straight lines where the circles overlap, there were no straight lines. He also never specifies what the in between, or what is holding us together. He also claims to have proved gravity is only an effect and not a force (which is already established in General Relativity), and that he has built Saturn without gravity... in Blender. Just because gravity is an effect of curved spacetime does not mean gravity is fake. Moreover, how can you build a planet with no gravity? He has never released the equations involved, only a blender animation of a really crppy Saturn appearing out of nowhere.
Terrence also claims that the wave conjugations he has discovered from the 3d Flower of Life allow him to open "things up" by knowing the correct angles of incidence, which was not possible with prior platonic solids because they were approximations. There are several things wrong here. Angles of incidence have nothing to do with polyhedra. An angle of incidence is the angle of a ray relative to the perpendicular of the surface it is being refracted or reflected by. Plutonic solids are also not approximations; they are idealized polyhedra made from ideal polygons. The material world exhibits approximations, not mental concepts. Plutonic solids are the ideal; nature is the approximation. Terrence also says the universe is based on equanimity, or the balancing side of gravity that Einstein left out of his theories. But Einstein did include a counteracting force to gravity, the Cosmological Constant. Equanimity is an emotional term, meaning keeping a cool and calm mind in a stressful situation. Terrence has just combined big and smart-sounding words to impress laymen.
Terrence then claims that gravity is actually caused by the electric force. Electricity is always trying to find higher pressure conditions, so it spins northeast until it meets the center of an area/cone, but is pushed to the vortices by the next wave behind it. This, too, makes no sense. Gravity is not electric, and the electromagnetic force is detectable apart from gravity. Electricity also seeks a lower pressure. Something cannot spin northeast. An area is a two-dimensional space, while a cone is a three-dimensional shape. Terrence never explains what is being pushed to the cortices, whatever he means by this. All of this happens in the shape shown in the picture above. Because the flower of life can fit a triangle in it, or a square, straight lines were invented and not discovered because men believed the Earth was flat. Yet he misses the part where the flower of life has no straight lines in it because it is made of circles.
Terrence then reveals the 3d Flower of Life, and shows us a curvy triangle, saying it looks exactly like hydrogen. He never explains how this is hydrogen; he just states it and continues. He doesn't tell us how he came ot the conclusion that it is hydrogen, but just trust him, bro! He never explains how the corners represent electricity, and there is little consistency in what they represent when he points at them. He claims that ten of these put together predict all possible distributions of matter. How many distributions? Where is it being distributed? He never says. Does he mean he calculated the mass of the observable universe as a black hole, as Roger Penrose did? Does he even know how to? He doesn't; he can't even perform basic math. His claims about the flower of life literally make no sense. Terrence says that his shapes show exactly where the energy is, so that the uncertainty in quantum physics can be abandoned, but you don't just wipe away an entire empirically proven theory by showing us a blender animation. His model cannot predict where a particle is; thus, there is no way to verify it, and there is no working model.
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. (2 Peter 2:1-3)"
Comments