Join us as we dive into the 36-page treatise on mathematics and physics sent to me by Terrence Howard eight years ago, which he referenced during a recent interview. This video addresses his attempt to reinvent mathematics and physics and details the comprehensive critical analysis I provided at the time.

A Peer Review of the Claims: Out of respect for the energy Howard invested, I spent time reading every line of the document and offered a thorough, informed critique, which is known in the field as a peer review. The purpose of this analysis is to alert the author to elements of their ideas that may be wrong, misguided, or illogical.

Key Concepts and Critiques:

• False Confidence and Expertise: We explore the concept of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon where insufficient knowledge of a subject leads to an over-assessment of one's own expertise. Becoming an expert requires years of study, not just armchair theorizing.

• Fundamental Flaws: The treatise included ambitious statements, such as the opening thesis surrounding 1×1=2, which I demonstrated to be objectively false using examples involving numbers between zero and one, or by noting that the square root of 64 (which is 8) is smaller than 64 but larger than 64 squared (which is 4096).

• The Reality of Light: The document made incorrect claims regarding objective reality, such as the assertion that a light meter placed in front of a candle and a mirror would show twice the intensity of light. I clarify that a light meter will always read less than twice the actual value because no mirror is 100% reflective, and the mirrored image is farther away from the viewer than the source itself.

• Science vs. Belief: The video addresses the assertion that individuals like Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, and John Keeley were persecuted. I emphasize that while Tesla's work in electromagnetism is duly recognized (with a unit named after him), much of his other work was impractical or violated known laws of physics. We note that to be a genius is often to be misunderstood, but being misunderstood does not equate to being a genius.

• Reproducibility and Truth: True science hinges on the reproducibility of results. Ideas, even "crazy but true" ones, must be supported by compelling arguments, experiments, and observations, and must pass through the rigorous system of peer-review journals, which has been the most effective means of establishing objective truth since around 1600.

Conclusion: While the document contained beautiful illustrations derived from his reasoning, science requires ideas to be put through the "ringer" of rigorous testing and evidence. This response aims to be candid and blunt out of respect, focusing on objective reality rather than feelings. Keep looking up.