Does 1*1 really equal 2?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 340

  • @aladintobstar
    @aladintobstar 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +32

    This is how you respectfully adress a topic like this. Thank you

    • @bruceolga3644
      @bruceolga3644 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Do ewe huemans even comprehend what was shown in this video...ewe huemans should have brain for own comprehending; ewe huemans are fixed ribosome waiting for mRNA data programming to copy, paste, and & DNA 🧬 y transmit the data given back like parroting parrots 🦜 👁️ 🦁🔥

  • @RamssesPharaoh
    @RamssesPharaoh 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +50

    "We can only expand to the cage of our belief system." Wise words. Powerful. Thank you for sharing. ❤

  • @steventalmakkies6015
    @steventalmakkies6015 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    I've been waiting for this. No attacking of character proof to counter a claim that was made. 🙏

  • @Sentauri8
    @Sentauri8 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +33

    To be alive now, being apart of breaking out of the old systems & beliefs is a extraordinary time ..
    We all are going to watch magic happen together- absolutely remarkable ❤

  • @marcnantellegault
    @marcnantellegault 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +40

    Thank you for that beautiful response. It’s a combination of truth and kindness 🙏

  • @whole-eshifttv
    @whole-eshifttv 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +36

    I appreciate you and your mind. You are amazingly gracious and you don't give a yes or no answer. You give evidence. Love to you

    • @emarines8888
      @emarines8888 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Well said.

  • @bonnarlunda
    @bonnarlunda 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    In a time when new insights will be reached, we must have the guts to question everything without resorting to the old impulses. Nicely done, REG!

  • @JoannWoolley
    @JoannWoolley 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    I humbly make a request to have a round table discussion on your podcast with these folks; Terrance Howard, Billy Carson, Matias De Stefano and Donald Hoffman. A true live discussion with no pre discussion as to demonstrate the process by which high level conscious folks can have differing perceptions and set aside their own cognitive dissonance (anything we have held as always and absolutely true because we were TOLD) and see the benefit of such a discussion potentially birthing something totally brand new.

    • @Aboriginalmetazoan
      @Aboriginalmetazoan 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Shouldn't Eric Weinstein be there as well?

  • @BeTeLGeuZeX
    @BeTeLGeuZeX 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

    Reaffirmation and great way to tie it up at the end. I think alot of people are also having selective hearing/understanding and just need to look at the information with the neutral notion of " know that you know nothing and then all is revealed to you" this allows the person to better understand and be aware of other new information from a diff perspective

  • @rachelheart8397
    @rachelheart8397 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Thank you for talking about this! I love how you’re setting the tone for a response to be presented and dialogue to be encouraged. You were creative and not in any way polarizing- this is the space where many great things may occur.

  • @dominiquedimitri9678
    @dominiquedimitri9678 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    Omg, thank you for addressing this. I have been seeing Terrence Howard’s everywhere on TH-cam talking about this and listening to what he says but having a hard time understanding how he was explaining it. Thank you for the visuals.

  • @satorialina
    @satorialina 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    REG thank you for your existence 🙏 I simply adore you .. what a being and a gift you are to us 🎉😊

  • @julianbrown-priceman8163
    @julianbrown-priceman8163 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    The universe is a spectrum in it of itself so it’s only fitting that the answer to all problems lie within a spectrum as well. I love the intellectual conversations that spark from your videos. Truly one of the most digestible orators of the spiritual movement and I’m glad you’re in the good side. Hope to be a part of the new Orion social media platform, I’m ready to truly transcend with the rest of the team 🙏🏽💜🙏🏽

  • @Passion_killer
    @Passion_killer 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    What a respectful response. Thanks for this.

    • @Passion_killer
      @Passion_killer 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @AquarianSoulTimeTraveler I don't agree that it does hold. 1x1=1. But for me it doesn't invalidate some of his other points.

    • @middle-agedmacdonald2965
      @middle-agedmacdonald2965 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Quacks, it's like birds of a feather sticking together, even though they don't believe a dang thing they squawk about.

  • @jphili2023
    @jphili2023 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Robert - I recently enjoyed your interview w/Aubrey & Matias. While you were speaking, I noticed a new softening and humbleness in your face. I’ve been watching/learning from you for months so the comparison is over that time. The feeling I had while watching was the divine feminine being present and revealed within you & shining from within you. I simply want to let you know - I see you ❤

  • @lobo-p7s
    @lobo-p7s 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    Proof. This is how we move forward. Dead reckoning back to the one. Thank you and please continue to be the balance we need in these rough seas of progress.

    • @Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole
      @Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      Yes. And I also like how R.E. Grant didn’t dwell on the scandal of it, and how the media was completely badgering Terrence. He came from a calm, non-judgement perspective, acknowledged that he was defending Terrance Howard and simply moved forward with his own theories. Well done.// I’m actually working with his people on a new piano tuning that Robert has invented which is referenced against A432hz scientific pitch. I’m promoting the new tuning on my note-to-color music theory channel, and sharing the notes of the tuning so that piano tuners can apply this tuning. (And yes, it sounds way better than standard equal temperament. He calls his tuning “Precise Temperament” and it is actually a form of Well Tempering.)
      My work on this is here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ for those interested.

    • @Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole
      @Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler I forget what they call it but there is the Purple Plate treated metal plate, and it was invented by a scientist friend of Niko’s Tesla. I think the whole concept is called the Violet Ray.
      Also, speaking of violet as the future, i see b as violet, and B is, to me the key of ultimate transition. I’m just finishing my next video called “Why Ghostbusters Was Written in the Key o Ghosts!”

  • @DaliSYNlab
    @DaliSYNlab 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I was eagerly waiting for your perspective on this topic 💎

  • @thesacredselfmuse
    @thesacredselfmuse 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    So much appreciation for your gracious explanation on this conversation. Your perspective is very diplomatic & respectful of Terence Howard's concept. I knew you would have a concise response. This I feel reflects your professionalism & heart centeredness.

  • @bigpicture3
    @bigpicture3 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Buddha said: “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” With this statement Buddha was implying "what mind and thought produces" and not any indication of "how mind and thought works". Buddha also said that "thought is the cause of all suffering", indicating that it has some sort of connection to "emotions" and the nature of personal experience.
    I think that Buddha was building on earlier Hindu "how thought works" systems, one of which is "Thought Feeds Off Itself", as in the image of the snake eating its own tail. Another thing that "mind and thought" can produce is "insanity". Thought also produces "Beliefs" which are nothing more than "thought recycling itself", the snake eating its own tail.
    Which sort of explains the institutions of education today, the "thought recycling" echo chambers (snake eating its own tail) has led to some very bizarre results. (one might even say insanity.)
    To actually "change" that, (thought feeding off itself) requires the DECONSTRUCTION of the previous "thought recycling" systems. (beliefs) And apparently another way that "thought works" is there appears a self protection mechanism where it does not normally subject itself to "critical judgement" or "critical review" of what are "actual facts", what are "opinions", and what are "assumptions".
    I appreciate what you are doing here, "smashing the thought echo chamber" even though it will require that I DECONSTRUCT a lot of my previous thought and belief systems, in order to understand that approach to reality.

  • @LoveMoneySecretsTV
    @LoveMoneySecretsTV 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I love that Terrence looked at the flower of life acknowledging what was there and what was not there, therefore acknowledging the negative space which if you think about it, is something by. definition of your identification of it and observation of it. That is what has lead to his Linchpin which shows us how much at the quantum up to the cosmic works! In my humble layman's opinion.

  • @Ingridstargirl
    @Ingridstargirl 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    This reminds me of the “war” between the number 3 and 4… which is the most spiritual. In his 1570 Preface to Euclid, John Dee writes: “We consider a Unit to be a Mathematical thing, though it be no number, as it is indivisible." John Dee refused to use 1 because it is not a number. Worth it to study the Monas hieroglyphica… he never uses one! Aristotle also wrote:
    "The smallest number, in the strict sense of the word number, is two.”

    • @kricketflyd111
      @kricketflyd111 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Perspective

    • @bruceolga3644
      @bruceolga3644 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      On the QWERTY the number 3 shares the key with E; the E is 5th place in line making E3=8... ewe huemans should be aware more 👁️🦁🔥

    • @bruceolga3644
      @bruceolga3644 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      On the QWERTY the number 3 shares the key with E; the E is 5th place in line making E3=8... ewe huemans should be aware more 👁️🦁🔥

    • @bruceolga3644
      @bruceolga3644 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      4 is half of 8; this is factual since overlapping the two fours slightly at the ends create an 8, or hourglass ⌛⏳
      ewe huemans should be aware more 👁️🦁🔥

    • @kricketflyd111
      @kricketflyd111 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@bruceolga3644 🔥👺🌐👀

  • @dianahayes894
    @dianahayes894 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you SO much! I watched several Terrence Howard interviews and I definitely have questions. I understand his enthusiasm and I am so glad he speaks with individuals like yourself and Billy Carson you both possess knowledge and wisdom.

  • @RebeccaBurns1212
    @RebeccaBurns1212 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you so much for addressing this!

  • @christobecker
    @christobecker 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    From an English Language perspective Terrence would be right. Subject verb predicate, sentence structure. 1 (subject) x (verb) 1 (predicate) = 2
    Times is a verb, a function of addition. How many times we are adding the subject to the subject
    1x0=1
    1x1=2, (1+1)
    1x2=3, (1+1+1)
    ...
    Our math model focuses on the predicate and not the subject.
    Times is one thing, multiplication is what we are currently doing
    But it has provoked a lot of conversation and questioning of our systems

  • @Wakondaforever369
    @Wakondaforever369 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What an easy to follow explanation. Thank you!

  • @michellekellar
    @michellekellar 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I like to be open to the possibility that there’s room for all of it to be true. Just like I believe we’re multidimensional beings, it makes sense to me that we could have multidimensional aspects of science and the universe.

  • @pdias8469
    @pdias8469 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you Robert Edward Grant for all your great knowledge. Blessings always.

  • @JoannWoolley
    @JoannWoolley 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The number zero does not exist in the universe was a much more important statement in his JRE interview and all of math will be forever changed which I can theorize then our entire reality drastically changes

    • @Nosferatufatum
      @Nosferatufatum หลายเดือนก่อน

      Describe 'nothing' mathematicaly

  • @dominiqueubersfeld2282
    @dominiqueubersfeld2282 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I think it really disquieting that anyone would even make a video about 1x1 = 2. It seems that we are already living in the dystopian future described in the film Idiocracy (2006). Now I expect a video about 2+2 = 5.

  • @thefunexaminedlife1145
    @thefunexaminedlife1145 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thanks for reaching me the spiral of theodorus!
    I love how you show the seamless nature of math, geometry and philosophy.

  • @merodobson
    @merodobson 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Great answer. If a person can get past the 1x1=2 (not true from Euclidian math's perspective) they can still see Terrence has plenty of other good observations and points. Einstein said plenty of incorrect things, yet we still revere him, even when he said his own ideas were incorrect! Genius is not being 100% correct. Genius is having the ability to see from other perspectives to then learn through negation of untruths.

    • @ShifuCareaga
      @ShifuCareaga 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      "We" don't revere Einstein. He was wrong. Terrence is wrong. That's the end of it.

    • @Robert_Edward_Grant
      @Robert_Edward_Grant  7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      "F"

    • @NathanKhachik
      @NathanKhachik 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTravelerthis mf can turn two $5 bills into $26

    • @tonyisnotdead
      @tonyisnotdead 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler you added. you never multiply one object by another. if you multiply 1 dollar by the number 1, then you simply have a dollar

  • @ri1111ri
    @ri1111ri 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you Robert. You explained it so well and easily understood. Love and light to you ❤

  • @neesaljohnson86
    @neesaljohnson86 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +23

    The geometry actually helped. Because of the value being visual....

    • @ShifuCareaga
      @ShifuCareaga 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Here's a simpler visual. Hold up one finger. How many one fingers are you looking at? One group of one finger. 😂
      I have exactly one group of a specific one finger for all the people believed an actor off Empire discovered secret math no one else did.
      Terrence is a fraud and Robert is being nice but I don't have to. Terrence defrauded my friend ... So We call that out. You don't need geometry to see Terrence is wrong.

    • @taviimihaimsc
      @taviimihaimsc 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@ShifuCareaga Terrence is backed up by the entire universe buddy. try again. You are backed up by your singular finger. Keep sleeping babyboy

    • @tthecruxx
      @tthecruxx 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@taviimihaimsc the entire universe is also in his finger 😅

    • @troyrager1352
      @troyrager1352 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@taviimihaimscno he's not he's backed up by his ego.

  • @michaelgill8696
    @michaelgill8696 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    It’s amazing how intelligent this man is!!

  • @OMZCapital
    @OMZCapital 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    That is a very SOLID explanation. Appreciate the insight! 👊👊

    • @Robert_Edward_Grant
      @Robert_Edward_Grant  7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      I'm sorry but no. It doesn't do anything but make you look really uneducated at all.

    • @Robert_Edward_Grant
      @Robert_Edward_Grant  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTravelerthe only thing that series "holds" is incorrectness

  • @dustinfocus
    @dustinfocus 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Correct, the hypotenuse = 1.41 etc. I think of it this way; the Coplanar cotangent of 1*1 is 2.
    I think that makes more sense with Terrence's observation- according to how I've diagramed this in my channelling of yesteryears. That he's not wrong but that he's measuring a different dimensionality.

    • @troyrager1352
      @troyrager1352 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      ​@@AquarianSoulTimeTravelerholding doesn't mean it's right, Nikola Tesla said math can build and prove all sorts of structures that don't exist in reality.

  • @RockMe1977
    @RockMe1977 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thank you Robert 👌 you explain things so well 🌹

  • @3glitch9
    @3glitch9 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Square root of a number is a value, which on multiplication by itself, _gives the original number._

  • @LydiaJeremiah-en6ws
    @LydiaJeremiah-en6ws 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    In the instances where we deal with "Occurrence" 1*1=1. But when we are dealing with "Substance" 1*1=2. Eg 1 ball kicked once =1. (Occurrence) But 1 ball * 1 ball=2balls (Substance) so we have to have a law that relates this events and spell out what equations we are dealing with.

  • @tcvan-nm2fx
    @tcvan-nm2fx 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    But I thought he also said 'there are no straight lines in nature'. Is the archimedes spiral defined by straight lines, or are we 'imposing' straight lines to it?

    • @matthewleslie1008
      @matthewleslie1008 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      there are PLENTY of straight lines in nature. Just look at crystals.

    • @tcvan-nm2fx
      @tcvan-nm2fx 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@matthewleslie1008 From our perspective you are correct. I wonder if that is true at the atomic level, or quantum level.

    • @Silentnocturnes
      @Silentnocturnes 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It is interesting. But all the straight lines on the computer are made up of small round dots. I wonder in nature if he is talking about how things in nature look under a microscope? Is he talking about perfectly straight lines? I can draw lines that zigzag from pint A to B so would that be considered straight lines or not A straight line bc it zigzags? These are my questions I would like answered. Is he saying there are lines but they are not perfectly straight? Does nature prove 1*1=1 or 2? Look at cell division. One cell will become 2. Cells multiply into more although we say they divide into 2 but even though we say multiply cause in our minds it means to create more. I’ll quit cause I’m starting to ramble

    • @tcvan-nm2fx
      @tcvan-nm2fx 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@Silentnocturnes Yes, it is easy to ramble on, but that is better than ranting. I wonder what a third dimensional straight line would look like in higher dimension. Does a mobius strip look like a straight line to an ant that is on its surface? Seems like a matter of perspective to me.

  • @itoobable
    @itoobable 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    My gut told me that 1x1=2 was just a play on words and otherwise BS. Thank you for showing me WHY! love your work Robert

  • @michaelupton9009
    @michaelupton9009 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thanks. You give me food for thought!

  • @dejablueguitar
    @dejablueguitar 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    ThankQ SO MUCH for addressing this Robert - It's just strange this stuff from T.H. - I LOVE your insights into Geometry / Music / Maths

  • @mrc1111-x5y
    @mrc1111-x5y 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    My lack of a solid education in mathematics is loudly making itself known!😳

  • @kenb4849
    @kenb4849 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I am really glad that he knows what he is talking about, maybe in another life it will all make sense to me. Thanks, Ken.

  • @rufinoacosta9289
    @rufinoacosta9289 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you Robert for you insights according to Terrence work...i was looking forward for your perspective in this subject...The Truth will set you Free!

  • @Lisbudd
    @Lisbudd 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thank you for your great explanation. 1 is an amazing number.

  • @mariaoharra3024
    @mariaoharra3024 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So interesting, thank you.

  • @eszetako-qx7qx
    @eszetako-qx7qx 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Amazing. I am grateful for your wisdom.
    little bit out of topic if I can.
    I am in process of translatin Emeral Tablets ( incredible book ) to Polish Language. I am grateful that you answer on my big question about "Lie in the sarcophagus" and I know now , that the instructions work well. I am really interested what you know about the plane hidden under Sphinx's?

  • @Dmyra
    @Dmyra 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    my spiritual impression of Terrance's 1x1 thing is that its a trick question. its designed to test us.
    there is a problem somewhere in the System, the OS has faulty code Inserted. i feel he is trying to show us that.
    all of his other ideas are much easier to grasp and seem common sense.

  • @EmlinCromarty
    @EmlinCromarty 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    Robert, I discovered you on the Know Thyself podcast, and have listened to a few others, love your work. I would tend to agree with your explanation on this one, however don't you think in this case it is different considering that Terrance Howard's theories suggest that there are no straight lines in creation (your triangle proof making use of straight lines), and that there is actually no real static value for anything as nothing remains still and is always in motion. Thank you for your explanation, it does provide great evidence for us to decide for ourselves.

    • @Robert_Edward_Grant
      @Robert_Edward_Grant  7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I also do not agree there are no straight lines in nature. I can give many examples that refute this altogether.

    • @jeremiahh.3383
      @jeremiahh.3383 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@Robert_Edward_GrantCould it not be possible that Howard has created a lense that has enabled him to notice new illusions that although an illusion can still be used to drive practical understandings in the the same sense that the illusion of the sky being blue, pink, or red has been used by sailers and farmers among others for years to make critical forward thinking decisions in often accurate expectation of how the next days weather might turn out?

    • @superconscious.
      @superconscious. 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Robert_Edward_Grant I beg you to make a video on Christ Consciousness not everyone is pretending to be smart. Most higher consciousness beings do not want to have any dealings with an inferior quality of knowledge like academia. Even better make a video on industrialisation and how it needs all the meat machines to function.

  • @sangstar1
    @sangstar1 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you Sir for sharing your Input with everyone

  • @L.I.M.E.LighTnTwilightTarot
    @L.I.M.E.LighTnTwilightTarot 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Thank you for the geometry. Terrence is onto much however, just like us All, we must continue with an open mind and hone our understanding. More is always revealed as WE continue to seek ♾️

  • @shantihstar
    @shantihstar 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Was wondering what you'd say about this! The power of the infinite 1! 🙏✨Tyvm

  • @andreawills8419
    @andreawills8419 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I was listening to you before Terrance Howard. And I have nothing but respect and kind words for the work you have done and continue to do for the benefit of mankind. Can you please explain in one of your videos Terrance Howard’s 0 x 1 theory according to physics. I agree with this video but I never have understood 0x something equaling nothing,where does the “something” go?

  • @impulse2create
    @impulse2create 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I met Robert at the UFO convention in Indian Wells CA and i was profoundly touched by his knowledge. I asked him a simple question about how sacred geometry is evidence of an intelligent designer but i never knew that he knew so much about it. Wow 🤯

  • @carlaraimer718
    @carlaraimer718 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you. I like Terrence .. love Walter Russel but I agree with you on 1 & 1

  • @jamesgalway8814
    @jamesgalway8814 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thanks for itching that scratch in my brain 🧠 Robert ..

  • @Almuric.Tychos
    @Almuric.Tychos 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Multiplication is shorthand for addition. If you have one apple you set it down on the table one time, it remains, still, one apple.

  • @danielmilyutin9914
    @danielmilyutin9914 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    But it was not proven here that 1*1 equals 2.
    By the way from
    1²+1²=2 and 1*1=2 follows that
    2+2=2 and obv 2=0.

  • @richardtschida2321
    @richardtschida2321 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    If you actually listen to the statement made by T. Howard he stated that" 1×1= at least 2" so in my understanding from this explanation 1x1= an infinite value either negative or positive not 1 also, does 1x1=1 create a descripancy with the law of conservation?

  • @Sophia_Philo
    @Sophia_Philo 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    You’re both absolutely & subjectively
    correct… 2 is the division…
    replicating by dividing…
    when mars was ours -
    we would expertly draw
    our weapons of war
    & fire stars across the galaxy
    to strike love into the hearts
    of our venusian counterparts.
    when venus was ours -
    we would spin stardust into thread
    & make jewels of the other planets
    to adorn our milky breasts,
    enticing our mirrored mates
    to submit to the winds of fate.
    when eternity was ours -
    we gave it all up, for venus & mars…
    goddess of love & god of war,
    we traded the oceans of space
    to create a world worth living & dying for.
    when earth became our sacred place,
    we planted paradise with our offspring;
    ‘the human race’ - allowing true love to originate,
    replicating by dividing, our soul into new cells -
    gifting them the power to believe;
    heaven or hell, (their own to conceive)…
    somewhere we could make endless love,
    somewhere we would often (play) fight,
    a union composing all - our darkness & our light.
    to revel in the symphonies of our animated world,
    somewhere we could observe this exquisite universe
    the dream within the dream;
    our poetically charged verse…
    a solarium of shimmering stepping stones -
    l-e-a-p-i-n-g to the heart,
    our forever; growing home.

  • @shawanok
    @shawanok 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you Robert for this discussion. The réflexion on the properties of numbers such as 1 & 0. & ♾️ as well as the square root of 2 and how when applied to geometry is very enlightening. The moment space is introduced the square root appears. The moment time appears, sound and light, music and colour arrive with harmony following the square root of 2 in ratio. Beautiful!

    • @shawanok
      @shawanok 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is amazing to shift from the abstract perfection of mathematics and numbers into the chaos of creation of reality through thought, beliefs and consciousness. Infinity within the one emerging from the void or nothing, no thing, no thinking, no thought… 0, allows for creation. Nothing, Never, Nowhere… are what art creates beauty from and every manifestation can be considered eternal having existed in the Akasha despite its impermanence.

    • @shawanok
      @shawanok 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Cycles of exploration and experience!

  • @serdar6973
    @serdar6973 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Could you do a program about Walter Russell please?

  • @Unveil_The_Truth
    @Unveil_The_Truth 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great explanation Robert, thank you. 🙏

    • @middle-agedmacdonald2965
      @middle-agedmacdonald2965 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      What was the explanation? All I got was a lot of drawing, and then about how we should be nice to people who don't understand what they're talking about.
      Oh crap, that was the explanation! Sorry, you enjoy your day, and go on believing what the nice man told you. He is a very nice man, and has nothing but the best intentions. Both of those men, the one who is right, and the one who is wrong. Both very nice men.

  • @danielgaller5151
    @danielgaller5151 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I see your logics. It is convincing. I am as well a creationist....I believe the octave frequency spacings tells a lot in terms of our mood tk notes and to chords relation. It speaks to our inner quantum related eneegies (feelings) we arw finally learning to respect and observe with a more scientific respecful look!! Love you edward.....

  • @melaniestarkey7868
    @melaniestarkey7868 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It times itself, which means it should go up, not the same.

  • @celebratedrazorworks
    @celebratedrazorworks 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    BRILLIANT!
    4 my answer, i look to the technical definition. The Euclidean definition. 1, one time.. Is one. 1, two times.. Is 2. 0, zero times.. Is 0. 0, one time.. Is still a zero.
    Logic the math off paper, apply it to life as this man has in the video and you begin to see what school never taught us. Math is everywhere!
    However.. I believe that there is an incongruency in the assumptions of 1x1.. The manner in which we assume and apply the value of 1..not how we use it in this math system... In life, my efforts times your efforts breeds a value that although may be distinguished as only one result, that result is sometimes of exponentially more substantial measure than the mere sum of their efforts separately. That is all.. 😇 Keep mathin guys!

  • @kitwinters8940
    @kitwinters8940 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This was really awesome, and very much appreciated as the Spiral made more apparent where Mr. Howard was basing his argument. In teaching fundamental math to kids, an argument against 1x1=2 is far more rudimentary, based on a definition of multiplication in reference to movement along the number line...addition is counting forward on a number line... multiplication is moving forward in groups. Ie: one group of one is ONE...two groups of one would be TWO. It's wonderful to have challenges to our thinking, as it's clear throughout history that our understanding has been limited sometimes by the tools we use to observe, sometimes by our own rigid mental constructs. It's also very good to be precise in our definition of terms, which is where this was so easy in teaching the difference between ADDING 1 to 1, resulting in two, versus multiple groups ( or in this case only a single group containing one unit...which is 1) Love the debate, though!! 🎉 Thank you so much for this insight.

  • @JennieLynnMatheny-ct8ex6gt4v
    @JennieLynnMatheny-ct8ex6gt4v 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you 😊 I just love ❤️ you and your beautiful brain ❤

  • @Dawie103-9
    @Dawie103-9 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thanks for clearing this up

  • @priscillatse1332
    @priscillatse1332 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank u Robert! 🙏 Love ❤️ u so much.😊

  • @serdar6973
    @serdar6973 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    If you read his book you can see that he actually has good explanations why he believes 1x1=2 even if it’s not true. His perspective is still valuable

  • @philolingdotnl
    @philolingdotnl 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    What is this? It's soo much smoke, so many turns, where the answer is simply 'no'.
    A syntactical approach would suffice, 1 minute.

    • @Dmyra
      @Dmyra 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      seriously! i love the fellow but dang. be nice and polite and with all love say No

  • @julietomana3937
    @julietomana3937 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Greetings from Aotearoa New Zealand ❤

  • @bradensmith1843
    @bradensmith1843 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Robert what is special about o negative blood with all this? I have it and now I'm talking in some odd dragon words say heal thy self to all

  • @paulksycki
    @paulksycki 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I didn't think of it messing with the square root of 2, or how it would effect other parts of mathematics. I guess the problem in thinking occurs from compartmentalizing that one problem too much. Thanks for showing your work.

  • @shaktiveda7041
    @shaktiveda7041 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Hi Robert, thank you so much for this exhaustive explanation, although I use Numerology a lot, I am not afraid to admit that I am not well versed in Math; indeed, this is exactly the response I was hoping to get directly from you! So glad you took your time to clear the air on this one. I would not have accepted the same explanation by anyone else, but directly by you.
    In short, Terrence Howard's theory's correct, yet it is not referring to the multiplication itself, but it is in relation to the projection of its square root number. Now it makes sense. Thank you!!!
    PS: I am a big fan of the work you do!

  • @JohnPhillips486101
    @JohnPhillips486101 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    excellent...however, the assumption is orthoganility...what if the angle is really 180 degrees? Then 1x1 does equal 2...and multiplication collapses to simple addition for all numbers.

  • @ONEamongmany-j6f
    @ONEamongmany-j6f 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Robert, from Bruce Lee's book Striking Thought: "Do not be anchored to one view. - Having the totality means capable of following with what is, because what is IS constantly moving and constantly changing, and if one is anchored down to one partialized view, one sill not be able to follow the swift movement of what is."

  • @sharkawy70
    @sharkawy70 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great answer. One raised to power infinity is Euler number.
    I have learned so much from you.
    Thanks for your invaluable lessons.
    You have any best wishes always.
    ❤🤝♀️👍🌿

  • @shanewhite4256
    @shanewhite4256 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Have you posted this video on your Facebook page?

  • @yusufmhassan
    @yusufmhassan 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This started with a twitter debate between Terrence & I back in 11/2017. I'm surprised it's still circulating and growing in debate

  • @C-o-r-y
    @C-o-r-y 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Please turn phone sideways next time.
    Thank you for taking the time to explain this thoroughly.

  • @nativeworldproject6592
    @nativeworldproject6592 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    How about the calculator riddle?

  • @markhughes7927
    @markhughes7927 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    10:45
    Please Plichterate with the square root of -1…

  • @solarion33
    @solarion33 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    we agree that 1 is the multiplicative identity , its a definition of our Algebra and it leads to a development of a system that MAKE SENSE physically
    despite the fact that mathematicians like to prove stuff , philosophically they understand that there are some assumptions that can't be proven which form the basis of deduction.
    this philosophical study of challenging the norms and looking at our assumptions is what led to the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry and eventually to the theory of relativity .
    but it did took a long while .
    in this case very theoretical mathematics informed us about the physics .
    is there a problem in this system ? does it lock us in some mental cage ?
    there is nothing wrong in being aware that there are things we don't know that we don't know.

  • @cdrwin
    @cdrwin 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thank you 🔥🔥

  • @angelamckinney1455
    @angelamckinney1455 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Can’t get over how handsome and intelligent he is. Love his mind but I’m not so secretly crushing.

  • @kumararobinson8285
    @kumararobinson8285 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Gracias Profe 🎉

  • @joscelyneorr5659
    @joscelyneorr5659 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Circle of Goodwill...

  • @ckoh2078
    @ckoh2078 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Thank you!

  • @rehabhymn
    @rehabhymn 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    whoa caught a REG premier! Cool

  • @neogirl37
    @neogirl37 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I'm a dummy at maths, but you certainly made what Terence said make sense to me.. I love the golden ratio & things like that, I can do accounting to a level. But all that kinda of maths is way past me. So thank you very much 🙏🙏🙏

  • @astridgeerinck452
    @astridgeerinck452 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you so much!

  • @blir.becomes
    @blir.becomes 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Except he didn’t say 1x1= infinite value
    Whoops 🙄

  • @1988mathius
    @1988mathius 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Awesome explaination! wish your my teacher at school might have learned a lot more in maths

  • @paranormalexperience5770
    @paranormalexperience5770 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Intuitively Robert I see you getting younger with age…loving Orion 🌀

  • @Brucebogtrotterlovescake
    @Brucebogtrotterlovescake 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I would love to hear yourself and Jason from Archaix discussing this and many other topics.

    • @TheOneNashon
      @TheOneNashon 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yeah let's have a mathematician debate a violent sex offender. Let's put those guys on the same level.

  • @keevancrawford6708
    @keevancrawford6708 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    0 x 1 and 1 x 1 indicates you’re not multiplying, it doesn’t mean you have no units (0).
    It’s just poor phrasing, as far as, time tables in a conventional sense.

    • @keevancrawford6708
      @keevancrawford6708 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler Multiplying is just truncating the long-form of addition.
      Instead of writing 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 16. It's easier to write 4 x 4 = 16.
      The calculator should state you are not multiplying instead of suggesting the answer is 0.
      4 x 4 x 0 = 0 does not make sense because 0 has no place in multiplying.
      Multiplying nothing makes no sense, just like multiplying 1.
      1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 states you should not be multiplying. That is five 1s you are not multiplying.
      Again, horrible phrasing.

    • @keevancrawford6708
      @keevancrawford6708 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler It’s about the 0s and 1s in multiplication. 3 + 3 = 6 and 3 x 3 is still 9.