Advertisement
17:02
Transcript
0:00
I recently learned I got name checked by
0:02
Terrence Howard on his recent appearance
0:06
on Joe Rogan I reached out to Neil
0:08
Degrassi Tyson Neil degrass Tyson he was
0:11
like hey man yeah I'd love for you to
0:13
come on my show do my radio do my TV
0:15
thing would love that I was like yeah
0:17
but let me I've got something I want to
Advertisement
0:18
introduce to you I got name checked
0:20
because 8 years ago he sent me a 36 page
0:27
treaties and it was only 36 pages so
0:30
this is Terence
0:32
Howard attempting to reinvent
0:35
mathematics and physics a little
0:38
backstory there I took initial interest
0:40
in Terrence because my mother said to me
0:44
do you know Terrence Howard I said yeah
0:46
I know you mean the actor she said yeah
Advertisement
0:48
well I heard him interviewed on NPR on
0:51
there he said that like when he was a
0:52
kid he wanted to be like a scientist and
0:54
study the Universe I said well that's
0:57
cool okay maybe we'll get him on Star
0:59
Talk we love talk to celebrities who
1:00
have a soft geek underbelly at the time
1:03
I didn't quite know how to get in touch
1:04
with him but we met at a something
1:08
called the upfronts which is where
1:10
networks present their next season's TV
1:13
shows I saw him at an event um uh
1:16
upfront and then this came in in my
1:19
inbox in this particular case since I
1:22
basically solicited it from him I
1:24
actually spent time reading every line
1:27
of all 36 pages and I commented my
1:30
comments are in red here you see that so
1:33
I spent a lot of time on it and I
1:35
thought out of respect for him what I
1:37
should
1:38
do is give him my most informed critical
1:43
analysis that I can in my field we call
1:46
that a peer review you come up with an
1:47
idea you present it either at a
1:50
conference or you first write it up and
1:52
you send it to your colleagues it is
1:55
their duty to alert you of things about
1:59
your ideas that are either misguided or
2:02
wrong or or there's a Mis the
2:04
calculation doesn't work out or the the
2:06
logic doesn't comport that's their job
2:10
not all ideas will turn out to be
2:12
correct most won't be but to get to that
2:15
point you need to know things like what
2:17
has everyone else said about this same
2:19
subject am I repeating someone else's
2:21
work is this a new insight that no one
2:23
else has had but has foundations that
2:26
are authentic or legitimate or
2:28
objectively true am I making a false
2:30
assumption am I makinging an assumption
2:32
that someone else has already shown to
2:33
be false all of this goes on on the
2:38
frontier of science let me make it clear
2:40
that I'm delighted when I see people
2:44
with active Minds trying to tackle the
2:47
great unknowns in the universe it's a
2:49
beautiful thing that people want to
2:51
participate on this Frontier what can
2:54
happen is if you're a fan of a subject
2:57
let's say a hobbyist let's call it it's
3:00
possible to know enough about that
3:02
subject to think you're right but not
3:05
enough about that subject to know that
3:08
you're wrong and so there's this sort of
3:10
Valley in there a valley of false
3:14
confidence this has been studied by
3:17
others and it's called the Dunning
3:18
Krueger effect it's the phenomenon where
3:21
a little bit of knowledge you over
3:24
assess how much of that subject you
3:26
actually know and then when you learn
3:28
even more you realize no I didn't know
3:29
as much as I thought I did so then
3:31
there's a sort of a lull there and then
3:33
when you learn even more you come back
3:34
up ultimately learning enough to know
3:37
whether you are right or wrong to become
3:39
an expert means you spend all this time
3:43
it doesn't happen overnight you can't
3:45
just sit in an armchair and say I'm now
3:47
an expert it requires years and years of
3:52
study especially looking through
3:54
journals where new ideas are published
3:57
and contested that's what we have
3:59
learned learned is the most effective
4:01
means of establishing that which is
4:04
objectively true or determining that
4:07
which is objectively false both of those
4:10
work hand in hand to move the needle on
4:12
our understanding of the universe I'm
4:14
going to read you just my opening line
4:17
here it's titled 1 * 1 equal 2 so I lead
4:22
off by saying this is an ambitious work
4:24
that is a clear indication of a Restless
4:28
active mind with in these Pages however
4:31
there are many assumptions and
4:32
statements that are underinformative
4:59
greater than the initial number squared
5:02
for that would expose a loose thread
5:05
within the fabric of our understanding a
5:08
loose thread capable of unraveling the
5:10
very ground rules of mathematics that's
5:13
a bold statement so then I I just say
5:17
this opening thesis is false there are
5:20
plenty of examples of this that have
5:22
escaped your attention his statement is
5:25
shown to be false for every number
5:27
that's less than one and greater than Z
5:30
for example the square root of 64 is8 8
5:36
is bigger than 64 and it's a larger
5:39
number than the original and 64 squared
5:44
=
5:46
496 a smaller number than the original
5:49
to the extent that the next 35 Pages
5:53
depends on your stated
5:55
thesis this fact undermines your claims
5:58
and assumptions and conclusions it's not
6:01
about feelings here it's about objective
6:04
reality so at the time I I considered
6:06
Terren a strong acquaintance and we hung
6:08
out a bit and had much exchange we
6:10
haven't spoken much since then but go to
6:12
page two and in here he mentions people
6:16
who he declares were persecuted because
6:19
their Vision exceeded the myopic view of
6:21
their contemporaries and he mentions
6:23
Walter Russell Nicola Tesla John Keeley
6:26
and many many more regarding you L your
6:28
list of people who have made Brave
6:30
sacrifices I note that to be a genius is
6:33
to be misunderstood but to be
6:35
misunderstood is not to be a genius the
6:37
work of Russell Walter Russell has
6:39
eluded any experimental support and the
6:42
work of Keeley is generally not
6:44
reproducible science is about
6:46
reproducibility I can have the most
6:49
brilliant crazy fun idea ever and if I
6:52
perform an experiment and no one else
6:54
can duplicate that experiment it belongs
6:56
in the trash Heap it's me in my own
6:58
world think I have landed on an
7:00
objective truth when in fact I haven't
7:03
that's how science works the
7:05
reproducibility of results as for the
7:08
work of Tesla much of it had very real
7:12
value to physics and our understanding
7:14
of electromagnetism and that value is
7:16
duly recognized by my community in the
7:19
naming of a unit of electromagnetism
7:22
after him you can't get more badass than
7:24
having a unit named after you Newton has
7:27
a unit named after him for example the
7:29
metric unit of force is a Newton much of
7:32
the rest of his work was Fringe and
7:36
unrealized either for violating known
7:38
laws of physics or for being simply
7:41
impractical just because you do some
7:43
good stuff doesn't mean everything you
7:44
ever did is going to be great I will
7:46
further affirm that just because an idea
7:49
sounds crazy doesn't make it wrong the
7:52
system of research and Publications in
7:55
peer-review journals has the capacity to
7:58
spot crazy but true ideas provided they
8:01
supporting by compelling arguments and
8:04
ultimately supported by experiments and
8:05
observations Newton's Laws Einstein's
8:08
relativity quantum physics were all
8:11
revolutionary ideas that appeared in
8:13
peer-review settings or journals
8:16
meanwhile most of the work of Russell
8:17
and Keeley had no such success with
8:20
their ideas so I think on Rogan Terren
8:24
said that I trashed those three
8:26
researchers attack that I had immediate
8:30
that I talked about Walter Russell and
8:33
Victor Shaw Berger and John Keeley as
8:36
and Tesla as the people that I looked up
8:40
to so he threw on on he was like
8:43
well Tesla Tesla stuff worked but Tesla
8:46
was never really respected and out there
8:49
when I'm just simply stating the fact I
8:51
don't think of that as trashing I think
8:52
of that as being honest I mean I could
8:55
have softened it but I don't think
8:57
that's what people who care about you
8:59
should do people who care will be honest
9:02
with you about ideas about thoughts the
9:05
world is changing so quickly and so is
9:07
everything around us unfortunately we
9:09
have chosen to remain handcuffed to
9:11
Antiquated and obsolete beliefs we have
9:14
put an enormous amount of faith faith
9:18
into the methods and practices of old
9:20
that are as dead today as The Men Who
9:23
propagated the notion that the world was
9:25
flat so I say here regarding your world
9:28
was flat reference
9:29
it's not widely appreciated that the
9:32
idea of a flat Earth predates the
9:35
introduction and development of the
9:37
methods and tools of science as we
9:39
practice them today those processes date
9:41
back to around 1600 coincident with the
9:45
invention of the microscope and
9:47
Telescope before then truths were
9:49
whatever seemed right to the senses
9:51
afterwards and to this day truth was
9:54
whatever the verified data obtained by
9:57
your instruments forced you to believe
10:00
if your senses otherwise contradicted
10:02
the data this fact means that there's no
10:06
such misunderstanding on the scale of
10:09
the Flat Earth in the era of modern
10:12
science and in multiple places
10:14
throughout the
10:15
treaties he's attaching a number to a
10:19
physical idea or a physical object that
10:22
idea goes way back by the way go back to
10:25
Pythagoras famous for the Pythagorean
10:27
theorem which we all learned in 8th
10:29
grade was it or nth grade Pythagoras was
10:31
also a philosopher who tried to
10:34
understand how things worked he felt
10:38
among others in his group that if you
10:40
assign a number to something the number
10:41
can abue that object with certain
10:43
meaning and significance which means
10:45
then if you manipulate the numbers that
10:47
you gain insight into the objects
10:49
themselves once you've assigned a number
10:51
to it there's a lot of that that
10:54
permeates this document uh but it's a
10:57
long disproven approach to the world
11:01
again there's nothing wrong with a
11:01
failed idea now other people know to not
11:04
do it right that has value if we place a
11:06
candle in front of a mirror the
11:08
measurement of light is doubled is it
11:10
not it does not measure as only one
11:13
light source we actually see two lights
11:16
a light meter will show twice the
11:18
intensity of light this is false he
11:21
attacked it so with such
11:24
vitro maybe that's too blunt what else
11:26
should I say I'm a scientist that's what
11:29
I would tell a colleague a colleague who
11:31
then say would thank you and then we go
11:32
out for beer after cuz that's how that
11:34
works and there's an old saying I first
11:36
heard it from Michael Dell of Dell
11:39
Technologies if one day you find
11:40
yourself the smartest person in the room
11:43
change rooms I say this is false the
11:47
light in the mirror appears dimmer than
11:49
the source of light itself for several
11:51
reasons starting with the fact that no
11:53
mirror is 100% reflective but more
11:56
importantly the candle in the mirror is
11:58
always is farther away from you than the
12:00
candle itself so the light meter will
12:04
always read less than twice the actual
12:06
value of the candle itself I will
12:10
note that from this work Terren produces
12:16
art sculptural art which I find to be
12:19
intriguing even beautiful to me more
12:21
intriguing than beautiful because you
12:23
got to look at it and you keep looking
12:24
at it what is that and what's going on
12:26
there I just want to read you my end and
12:29
comments here I could not follow the
12:31
reasoning on these last few pages but
12:34
the illustrations that derive from them
12:36
are beautiful regardless of how they
12:38
were derived my notes have been strongly
12:41
critical of your reasoning and
12:43
conclusions I was candid and blunt out
12:46
of respect for the energy you have
12:48
clearly invested in this work but if
12:51
you're sure that you are still right and
12:54
that I have completely misunderstood
12:56
your thesis then you will need to look
12:58
for another person to evaluate what you
13:01
have done and solicit their comments in
13:04
any case like I say above the images and
13:07
illustrations in your final pages are
13:09
beautiful works of art unlike any I have
13:11
seen best to you Neil so in case people
13:15
wanted to know what actually went down 8
13:18
years ago just always be cautious of the
13:22
Dunning Krueger effect you put in a
13:24
little bit of work and you have an idea
13:26
and then you think your idea is right
13:28
and that Einstein is wrong and Newton is
13:30
wrong and that everybody's wrong and
13:32
that all of modern astrophysicists are
13:34
wrong that's
13:36
bold that's B audacious
13:39
Bodacious when continental drift was
13:41
proposed it was like what land masses
13:45
are moving on Earth Sur that's a weird
13:47
idea that's going to be a hard cell we
13:50
think there's sort of up swelling of the
13:52
yes locally but whole continence move
13:55
that's crazy it would take a few decades
13:58
until ultimately when we're mapping the
14:01
bottom of the ocean we find that there's
14:02
a Mid-Atlantic Ridge that the ridges are
14:04
separating it's like bada bing so the
14:08
resistance to jumping on the idea that
14:10
continents
14:11
move was not because people were
14:14
stubborn it was because people are
14:17
cautious any new idea needs to be put
14:20
through the ringer that's how science
14:22
works you put it through the ringer
14:24
every possible test you can not just cuz
14:26
it happens to look like South America
14:28
fits with Africa any better evidence
14:30
than that oh wait a minute fossils
14:33
matched between the west coast of South
14:36
America and the east coast of Africa not
14:39
recent fossils fossils from millions of
14:41
years ago that's interesting things that
14:43
make you go hm that brought some more
14:46
people over to the camp you keep that up
14:49
and you reach a point where enough
14:50
evidence is brought to bear on the
14:53
question and then you have a new
14:55
emerging truth but at the the vibrant
14:58
energy that goes on it conferences and
14:59
the contest of ideas that's how we roll
15:02
that's how it works when Einstein came
15:04
out with relativity saying SpaceTime
15:06
curves Albert Al what are you saying
15:09
what are you doing well you can test it
15:11
the total solar eclipse so the idea
15:14
comes out in 1915 is published in 1916
15:18
1919 we measured light around the edge
15:21
of a total so during a total solar
15:23
eclipse cuz you can't see the stars
15:25
during the daytime you see the light the
15:27
light rays bent from their actual
15:29
coordinate positions on the sky Sir
15:31
Arthur Edington an astrophysicist
15:34
provided the first experimental evidence
15:36
for Einstein's general theory of
15:38
relativity which by the way was
15:40
published in a peer-review journal crazy
15:43
idea the platform to be accepted for the
15:48
ideas is not social media it is not Joe
15:53
Rogan it is not my podcast it is
15:57
research journals
16:00
where attention can be given on a
16:04
level that at the end of the day offers
16:07
no higher respect for your energy and
16:10
intellect than by declaring that what's
16:13
in it is either right or wrong or worthy
16:16
of publication or not I wanted to post
16:19
this to my website so you can see my
16:21
comments mixed in with his treaties but
16:23
uh you got the sense of it thanks for
16:26
listening thanks for watching
16:29
Neil degrass Tyson here as always keep
16:33
looking up
16:41
[Music]
— end of transcript —
Advertisement
