Actor Terrence Howard Should Be Taken Seriously
Lately Actor Terrence Howard is stirring up the media and the physics community with his arithmetic challenge. I mention this case in my workshop
Today I wrote a LinkedIn article on him about his recent podcast with Seth Rogan:
Actor Terrence Howard Should Be Taken Seriously By Seth Rogan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Eric Weinstein, Sabine Hossenfelder, and All Others.
I would like to have a discussion with Terrence Howard and I am inviting him to speak with me either in private or public.
Mr. Howard makes a good point that something more is going on when we multiply two numbers including 1 multiplied by 1. This ‘more’ has to do with energy as he rightfully declares. But what about this energy and why is 1 X 1 = 1 squared in one case and in a simple scalar multiplication, 1 X 1 = 1?
Where did all arithmetic rules come from including multiplication? It all came from natural physics!
I explained some of this in my workshop tutorial hosted by Mokx.
Mathematics should be made natural by starting with natural physics. When we do that, we’ll invariably incorporate natural calculus (different from Newton’s and Leibniz’ erroneous and abstract calculus) and in so doing, we’ll end up bringing much of ganita (ancient Indian mathematics) back with real and functional calculus using spherical or other curved coordinates.
All such corrections to modern mathematics and physics will end up describing the physical and natural difference between ‘1’ and ‘1 squared’ that is sadly not understood by modern physicists as they brush off actor Terrence Howard!
Joe Rogan pushes back against Terrence Howard during podcast
Header image: The Irish Independant
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
1 is a symbol used to represent something countable. If applied to a circle, then 360^2 does not equal 360.
His multiplication example falls apart in the presence of decimals, which happens to be where nature makes her magic.
I think he’s expecting multiplication to behave like addition, and relate it to energy. My brain sees those as different directions when applied to energy and are not the same.
Reply