Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Terrance Howard is an ACTOR in films like "Hustle and Flow" and "Iron Man", etc and he's just appeared on Joe Rogan for 3 hours talking about all his theories and the hundreds of patents he's registered, and its mind explodingly compelling stuff. He doesn't mention EU, but he's describing everything in line with these theories. Gravity is an electrical effect, etc. It almost appears he's done zero reading on EU and has extrapolated all his idea's on his own. I don't understand this at all, and never in a million years would have guessed this guy was such a Savant in these areas, but he really seems to be.

I know it sounds crazy, but please give it a listen and weigh in on his thoughts. I'd just like to see someone who's a legitimate voice here to give it a listen. By half way, I guarantee you'll be sold on the fact that he is a legitimate polymath who is very aligned with EU theory.

https://youtu.be/g197xdRZsW0?si=L2T9LGyrMmZ641Am

Very interested to hear your thoughts. I always had a hope that Walt might make it on Rogan one day, and sadly that time has passed, but this is as close to that moment I could imagine, as electricty theory making it mainstream..

ROGAN: "If your right, so many people are wrong, hahahaha"

I watched Terrance Howard for three hours.
He has certainly latched on to alternate views about math, physics , geometry, reality, etc and created something ,to him, that seems coherent. But beyond a few names of people to look into, I did not learn anything from him.
Perhaps he was talking about to many things at once for me to follow.
Jac

I had a quick look throo the transcript. I did not see anything of value.

He's certainly not the guy we all wanted as a representative to introduce these idea's to the public, because he's not designed like a university professor who's looking to educate. He's not a great explainer. But I'm still fairly excited to see these EU idea's hitting a mainstream audience. For what its worth, its still a baby step towards ultimately what we'd all want.

On Joe Rogan, through a hollywood actor who played a Boyz in the Hood rap singer role, the following idea's were discussed:

Push gravity
Electric force stronger than gravity
Gravity is an electrical effect
Burkland Currents
Eather
No Black holes
No Dark Matter
No Dark Energy
The Dogon Tribe
Hollow core
Planets born from the sun
Red spot on Jupiter will become a moon
All living things is one great being, “we’re all God”

Among many other ideas. I count this as a step forward, even if he's not our poster boy. He can't command academic respect, considering his afiliations and noteriety, but he's a liked celebrity, so if someone else who has more legitimate academic credentials, gets an opportunity to discuss these paradigm altering idea's, then he'll be discussing idea's that that actor we all like was talking about. Its a pre endorsement, even if he gets trashed by the debunkers. Every little bit counts.

Here is the latest Joe Rogan. Its Eric Weinstein and Terrance Howard. Eric takes an open approach to discussion and helps Terrance clean up his terrible explanations. He criticizes Science and academia for not doing what he does with Terrance, which is to take an interest, and try to extract the idea's from the poor understanding of academic language.

https://youtu.be/nrOaFxNex7U?si=zu0PaJLBskQ3Y-Ih&t=2

Eric describes where his idea of the flaws of EU are, and he describes it at 2:36:38

“… what happens when electrical engineers get older, they start to have this idea about electricity and gravitation. And you get this stuff about electric gravitics, some people call it grivited dynamics, and the formal similarities between these things appeal to people, and they want to see one as the other…”. And he goes on.

Joe asks Terrance to explain what he thinks is responsible for gravity, and Terrance explains his idea that its based on electricity at 2:44:37

Eric even mentions the term ‘electric universe’ and asks Terrance if EU is his influence, but Terrance says no, and goes on to differentiate the origins of his idea’s, at 2:01

How can you not mention his 1 x 1 = 2 ?

It made sense to me although I’m not party to the deeper mathematical debate on this or how it effects EU/ Plasma Cosmology.

However I thought his explanation of how he was punished at school for insisting on questioning the assumption that “1 x 1 = 1” was very apt and actually nailed an entire sociological process that ends up with the cult of gravity. Follow the leader. Don’t ask any stupid questions. Repeat the gem about “science being abuout inquiry and discovery” but if anyone questions the central tenants of the creed then its off to the prinicpals office for you !

Open Mind,
Using words like Birkland currents, electricity, magnetism, etc. is a far cry from presenting EU ideas.
I see the list of words or topics but can you give a time location on either video when what you identify as an EU IDEA is presented, stated, or commented on by either Howard or Weinstein please.
Thanks.

jacmac wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 5:05 pm Open Mind,
Using words like Birkland currents, electricity, magnetism, etc. is a far cry from presenting EU ideas.
I see the list of words or topics but can you give a time location on either video when what you identify as an EU IDEA is presented, stated, or commented on by either Howard or Weinstein please.
Thanks.

I mean, I could, but that would take some time. And these were just mentions. He's already not a very good explainer of his idea's so hearing the actual mention of those concepts won't be very satisfying for you. After the Weinstein interview, everyone is in agreement that he has a very broken knowledge base demonstrated by misuse of certain terms and idea's. There's amble examples of things he's said that all qualify as 'enough' to disregard and dismiss his idea's, so Weinstein's magnanimous engagement with him was a very encouraging example of mentoring of young scientists as to what a productive discussion looks like. And that's what EU needs to take the next step of actual debate in a public forum, if any of these idea's are to inspire more support.

Phorce wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:41 pm How can you not mention his 1 x 1 = 2 ?

It made sense to me although I’m not party to the deeper mathematical debate on this or how it effects EU/ Plasma Cosmology.

However I thought his explanation of how he was punished at school for insisting on questioning the assumption that “1 x 1 = 1” was very apt and actually nailed an entire sociological process that ends up with the cult of gravity. Follow the leader. Don’t ask any stupid questions. Repeat the gem about “science being abuout inquiry and discovery” but if anyone questions the central tenants of the creed then its off to the prinicpals office for you !

As soon as I heard him say that 1x1=2 thing, I suspected he was suggesting it as a metaphor to lead into a discussion about how math unrestricted by practical observable limitations, can become a misleading and distracting form of analysis. And then in the Weinstein interview, he literally said he meant it as a metaphor. I also knew that statement was going to be the canon fodder for debunkers, so I didn't see the need to dwell on it and give it oxygen.

All this reminds me of Buckminster Fuller. I believe he would have understood what Howard is talking about, and could probably explain it better.
Bucky also said the minimum number is 2. But I don't remember the exact quote. He was , no doubt, talking about the Universe.
It's time for me to hit the library for Bucky books.

Five or six years ago, I was teaching (as a substitute) occasionally high school algebra, and entertained the kids with the proof that 1 = 2. You can look it up; it involves dividing by zero, a prohibited math operation, but maybe not so in cosmology.

The best JR is where they show the Elemental Table in EM form. It's a circular form with levels up and down. It's perfect imho.

Terrance pops up again on this podcast.

https://youtu.be/MKU_bxVk64w?si=8GiHaaknSAy876HW

Early on Terrance mentions Electric Universe, (19:30). Here's the podcast breakdown:
00:00 Go! Introduction and Overview
00:03:12 Quest for Fundamental Answers
00:05:32 Wave-Particle Duality Revisited
00:11:05 Dynamic Field Interpretations
00:24:13 Critique of Quantum Electrodynamics
00:25:37 Meaning and implications of a mathematically driven universe
00:27:13 Pitfalls of oversimplification in science
00:31:33 Role of science versus engineering in research
00:32:30 The quest for a holistic understanding in science
00:33:49 Balancing scientific knowledge and spiritual beliefs
00:45:25 Challenging established systems
00:46:18 Desire for freedom and new possibilities
00:49:41 Embracing a future of truth and paradigm shift
00:51:44 Motivation beyond traditional recognition
00:55:24 Trusting the process and long-term impact
01:06:51 Physics and Technology Integration
01:09:30 High-Pressure Refolding for Radioactive Materials
01:11:32 Technological Innovation and Peer Review
01:16:03 Challenges to Established Mathematical Models
01:28:05 The nature of mathematical operations in calculators
01:31:20 Abstract representations in mathematics and their physical correlates
01:35:06 Challenges with multiplicative operations in non-integer contexts
01:50:34 Magnetic vs. Electric Fields
01:51:42 Nature of Polar Interactions
01:54:00 Reevaluation of Magnetism
01:58:24 Unified Theory of Physics
02:13:06 Harmonic Relationships in Elemental Spectra
02:16:00 Exploring Spectral Line Harmonics
02:21:45 Frequency and Elemental Creation
02:38:42 Tetreyen Theory and Manipulation
02:39:25 Magnetic Dynamics and Vortex Formation
02:41:00 Self-Referencing Systems and Structural Repetition
02:42:29 Proposal for an Etheric Structure
02:44:06 Further Exploration and Evaluation