Are there space based applications in Terrence Howard's theories?

[JohnFornaro]

In Joe Rogan's episode 2171, with Terrence Howard and Eric Weinstein, they discuss TH's proposed "new" theories of electricity and gravitation, among other things.  So the question I ask is:

WRT gravity, does TH's proposal have any application towards spaceflight?

[Ixokani]

It's all random gobbledygook, so no, no applications.

[Twark_Main]

"In which NDT gives Terrance Howard's nonsense way more respect than it deserves."

[CoolScience]

Great video. A key point relevant to practically all of the threads here, as many don't seem to understand this:

Saying "This is false, here is why" is not a personal attack of any sort, and in fact is how you be respectful of someone coming for scientific review of an idea, taking it seriously and giving honest feedback. Terrence Howard did the typical response seen many times on these forums of taking honest feedback that was as constructive as possible, and claiming he was disrespected and attacked. It is the same pattern of false accusation of ad hominem, which in itself is an example of ad hominem.

[gaballard]

In Joe Rogan's episode 2171, with Terrence Howard and Eric Weinstein, they discuss TH's proposed "new" theories of electricity and gravitation, among other things.  So the question I ask is:

WRT gravity, does TH's proposal have any application towards spaceflight?

As a good rule of thumb, if your source for a scientific theory includes the words “Joe Rogan”, it’s safe to assume it’s bunk.

[JohnFornaro]

As a good rule of thumb, if your source for a scientific theory includes the words “Joe Rogan”, it’s safe to assume it’s bunk.

Certainly Joe isn't the cuting edge of science, but he's personable and genuinely interested in all things, including scientific things.  Anybody got his email address? 'Cause I wanna send him my ring station design and get on his program to raise awareness.

[JohnFornaro]

Great video.

Agreed.  NdGT can present well.

Saying "This is false, here is why"... is how you be respectful of someone coming for scientific review of an idea, taking it seriously and giving honest feedback. ...

There is one thing that Terrence said on that Joe show that is interesting, although I don't know offhand of how it would have a pragmatic use. 

Terrence said something along the lines of, "There's no straight lines in nature."  Eric briefly challenged him, but quickly realized that finding a straight line in nature would be a challenging effort.  Everything seems to have a curve of some sort or irregularities of some sort when viewed from an appropriate scale.  Even a "straight line" of atoms would be bumpy, no matter how straight it would appear to the naked eye.

That a great circle defines the shortest distance between two points on a globe is another example of the "no straight lines" notion. 

[Nomadd]

There is one thing that Terrence said on that Joe show that is interesting, although I don't know offhand of how it would have a pragmatic use. 

Terrence said something along the lines of, "There's no straight lines in nature."  Eric briefly challenged him, but quickly realized that finding a straight line in nature would be a challenging effort.  Everything seems to have a curve of some sort or irregularities of some sort when viewed from an appropriate scale.  Even a "straight line" of atoms would be bumpy, no matter how straight it would appear to the naked eye.

That a great circle defines the shortest distance between two points on a globe is another example of the "no straight lines" notion. 

 It's easy. You just need to redefine the term "Straight line". It's the basis of of all things now days.

[Bizgec]

There is one thing that Terrence said on that Joe show that is interesting, although I don't know offhand of how it would have a pragmatic use. 

Terrence said something along the lines of, "There's no straight lines in nature."  Eric briefly challenged him, but quickly realized that finding a straight line in nature would be a challenging effort.  Everything seems to have a curve of some sort or irregularities of some sort when viewed from an appropriate scale.  Even a "straight line" of atoms would be bumpy, no matter how straight it would appear to the naked eye.

That a great circle defines the shortest distance between two points on a globe is another example of the "no straight lines" notion. 

 It's easy. You just need to redefine the term "Straight line". It's the basis of of all things now days.

All "straight lines" are geodesics. What's the problem here? Saying that there are no straight lines in nature is the same as saying that nature is not Euclidean. That's really, really ... not so deep at all.

[Eric Hedman]

Practically no one would have paid any attention to these ideas if it wasn't from someone with some fame like Terrence Howard.  Time to move on.

[JohnFornaro]

It's easy. You just need to redefine the term "Straight line". It's the basis of of all things now days.

These "redefinitions" are causing much confusion.

[JohnFornaro]

All "straight lines" are geodesics. What's the problem here? Saying that there are no straight lines in nature is the same as saying that nature is not Euclidean. That's really, really ... not so deep at all.

I'm not sure what "problem" you are referring to.  I merely said that Terrence's observation was "interesting".

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Theory disproven; thread discussion played out.

Thread locked. 🔐