hanimmal
Well-Known Member
The problem usually comes not with the stuff that aligns with the reality of math, it is the cherry picking that they do to pretend like the parts that fall apart are not explained by math. When they are, or they are just purposefully/accidently misinterpreting things that are.I watched the whole thing on Rogan were Eric Weinstein came on and went through some of it with him.
Crazy, but not so crazy. He has some stuff that is right, he just say's it oddly and understands it from a different angle.
That and he believes gravity is an effect of electromagnetism. Idk, but I do know gravity is still a theory. It seems like a simple thing but it isn't.
The 2 thing Terrance brings up is accurate as well.
The shapes he made seem a geometric proof that the math people have been trying through just math. He went and built it and used a small average to get around the known problem of intersecting angles of his tetrahedron. That is how he says he proved supersymmetry as he understands it.
I thought it was really interesting. The small error or averaging to get it all to work it the part Weinstein liked. He said he had looked at that exact problem years ago and just passed on it. But Howard went and made a workable average +or- to get it to work irl.
Kind of like life, there isn't and exact right or wrong and things still work together. Maybe because of that bit of wiggle room.
The stuff gets so complex that it is easy to lose something and get tripped up by it though, especially when you don't really know about it. So I am not going to try to poke holes in what you are talking about with the drawing thing without taking some time in it, but I know the numbers stuff that the cons like Howard are selling is pure lying propaganda. And if they are basing any of their other ideas off of it being real then it is really suspect IMO.
I havnt heard of the Weinstein guy though so not sure on him at all.
One thing though another of the weird words that gets mangled into meaning different things is how the word "Theory" is used in real life vs the scientific definition of it. It has to account for every single scrap of data we have or else it would not hold up in science word.