A lot of people like to blame FBI director Jim Comey's last minute announcement about Hillary Clinton's Emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop late in the 2016 Presidential campaign and The Supreme Courts 5-4 decision to stop The Florida Election Ballot Recounts for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore losing very winnable Elections. My question is which action was more unprecedented by our Legal Institutions?

Eric on X: "Many people vote for candidates that they feel do not generally represent them (e.g. ‘Lesser of Evils’ voting, Single issue voting). American adults: In 2024 are you voting for a US presidential candidate that represents your values?"

View Poll

Eric made this poll on X so I thought I would try it here too.

From his post: "People keeping up with mainstream news media and polls have been telling me for some time that this US election is expected to be a nail biter.

Q: Is this US election close?"

View Poll

"My girlfriend is real, she just goes to another school"
Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity is predicated on this Shiab operator but he doesnt provide the formula for it and he says "he forgot it". lol. what a joke.
"trust me, my theory is solid, i just left the equation that makes it work in the other room"
on top of that, he calls it a theory of everything when it cant reproduce the standard model nor gravity.

This guy probably learned about the story of fermat's last theorem and thought to himself "ooo thats a sexy story, i should use that". grifter

Then he has the audacity to criticize academic elitism. Which for the record, is something I personally think may be a real issue specifically in theoretical physics but not in any of the other sciences because the others atleast make experimentally testable predictions so it less susceptible to favouritism by the reviewers opinions. But Eric denounces ALL of scientific peer review.

The reason why Eric is so effective at his grift is because it requires a degree in physics (which I have) to be able to see through it. He's managed to dupe all of you because he preys on people's resentment towards "elites". I grew up poor, so im with you on that. but i can atleast tell when someones a bullshit artist

I just checked Eric's wikipedia article and to my surprise it's mentioned that he had worked for Thiel Capital from 2013 to 2022. I was wondering if any of you has any details or anecdotes on this or knows what he's doing now in terms of emplyoment. Cheers!

Moment he says it is around 1:46:45.

https://youtu.be/2gBmI0fw9a8&t=6405

My name is Darrell Ellis@gmail.com I have no degrees just a love for science and here's just a ferrofluids propulsion system I put through AI system and is just a theory

Does anyone have the audio file ? I want to revisit but I guess Eric took it down.

I can't find a mathematically precise definition of it anywhere on the internet

Firstly, this is a long read that I hope at least some of you will take the time to evaluate. Secondly, I am no mathematician, classical physicist, nuclear physicist, chemist, or engineer(though I have had formal 300 and 400 level undergrad training in all of those- and some post grad level training in heat transfer and fluid dynamics). I have done an informal and incomplete graduate level study in all these subjects as well-minus chemistry. I tell you that to say that this is not in anyway an attack- or anything along those lines.. and to make sure you know that I’m on the Far Side, uphill climb of the Dunning-Kruger curve. So, I am no competent person in these areas- but I am also no fool- I certainly know what I do not know. with that in mind, Please read through and give responses if this is interesting to you in anyway:

I have been circling back to math recently and I have a very specific discussion for you all. Firstly, I do not quite understand why Terrence is on about this-specifically speaking in mathematic terms (though philosophically, I do grasp his point somewhat) . It doesn't seem nearly as enlightening as he believes--even though the square root of 2 most certainly shocked the ancient math world and led to the creation of "irrational" numbers and incommensurability in geometry and magnitudes. We’ve obviously come a long way since then. But, there has always been something that truly bothers me. Since the very beginning of my journey in amateur mathematics when I was 6 -and I'm hoping you can discuss it with me..

I believe there is a possibility that Terrance is on to something, just not what he thinks he is. I have always had a problem with the Zero Product Property (which we use in solving the underwhelming and non-enlightening “Howard loop” equation).. And of course it is what one would have to use when solving any equation where the ((x) ^3 )/(n))=(x)…But, here is my problem and it always has been something that bothers me-the zero product property-the idea of removing a number from an equation simply by multiplying or dividing by zero. Well it seems irrational (in a philosophical sense) to me.

The conversations I’ve had with mathematicians or physicists about it have always struck me as similar to conversations I would have with Priests in the Catholic Church as a boy when I would ask them why I could not directly ask God to forgive my sins—why must I go to “Confession”.. the response is always as follows: well of course it’s because it is the proper way, it is the way we have always done it —and you must use us to truly be cleansed by God of any sin. I know this is a very strange comparison but the vibe I get is the vibe I get. Don’t know how else to describe it.. anyway, this all makes me consider that Perhaps we have gone down the wrong path in science.

Perhaps we are not in the closed system that all of our mathematics and chemistry and physics assumes -which Howard touches on slightly (more on this later in the post, please do not jump me here lol) Speaking VERY philosophically, the process involved with the zero product property would violate the conservation of energy laws in physics (in a metaphorical, but seemingly logical thought process).

The transference of the zero product property from mathematics into physics, requires all systems at one point or another to be closed. Therefore, all physics problems, that are truly solvable, are indeed closed systems. The term "open systems" such as in heat transfer- or even in chemistry -assume some level of closed off system properties in the outside larger system, or assume an equilibrium, (and so, now I interpret philosophically an “open system” as a closed system- the difference being one of simple semantics.) for example, We use specific terms when operating, "open systems". Such terms as “mass balance” or "equilibrium". we use these freely, but what those terms really mean in practice is that our open systems are actually part of a larger closed system (or, at the very least an arbitrary integral point where the system appears closed); Because of this, we are allowed to make the conservation of energy apply to our supposed "open system" -at least holistically..

and really, This makes me wonder, and deeply think about, if the zero product property should perhaps not have been able to be used when attempting to create and/ or solve f(x) physics functions— or other functions in other fields of study. And because we did it anyway, we have created, by necessity, an incredible amount of ways to work around what may have been a fundamental stumbling block that we placed in our foundation and have yet to see--(at least to a point, I mean).And, to my best understanding, those functions we have created are the foundation of most advanced physics, and even the pillar of advanced matrices applications. And , Of course in mathematics everything is built on everything else, and we filled in things to make it make sense where we could, based on our starting principles. So, at a philosophical level, it seems to me that something is missing or perhaps we went down a path of necessity, instead of THE correct path, resulting in the creation of hundreds of exceptions, constants, infinities, mathematical branches etc. in order to just to make these functions and formulas work--

And, perhaps, all of these exceptions,constants, etc. are possibly completely unnecessary- had we taken a different path we would not need them.. And because we went down the path of necessity using the Zero Product Properties, including its resulting infinities and undefined 0’s…dare I say our path is now a LIMITING one. Simply because we made up all these constants ,exclusions, etc. in order to fit the universe that is OBSERVABLE to us into our Zero Product Property foundations of our Mathematics. And that process over history has bothered me all the way through my studies..

Anyway, Well, as a thought experiment, could what I’ve said be the plausible. Forgive my colorful use of metaphor here, but perhaps we are indeed limited to elementarily forcing arbitrary shapes into undefined black holes like children— instead of understanding what the shapes and the holes actually are!?? And if so, are we on that path simply because we started in mathematics with the zero product property in 300 BC, straight through to Euclid, and since then have built everything else up from there. Borne out of necessity and lack of diverse thinking through our first 1700 years of mathematics , did we ultimately build a flawed, and limiting foundation of mathematics and physics??? What are your thought on this? Thanks -CT-

I remember when Bret left academia he was talking about the processor in exile syndrome which is that the majority of professors that leave academia get into crazy conspiracy thinking and how he was watching out for that in himself, fast forward a few years and now Bret is knees deep in conspiracy thinking interviewing Ben Davidson (a known fraud with a law degree who made a living creating a cult around apocalyptic space weather, he gave a 10% chance of a civilization ending sun flare happening last month on Bret’s podcast) I haven’t followed Bret pretty much since he got famous but it shocked me how far he fell from the strict skepticism of academia and I really thought he was the kind of guy that it wouldn’t happen to, any thoughts as to why this seems unavoidable for people who leave academia, I think Bret said it was something like 85% of professors get into crazy conspiracy’s when they leave