Terrence Howard: 'This is The Best Kept SECRET in The ENTIRE WORLD!'

✅GET YOUR FREE NUMEROLOGY READING HERE:

✅SELF-HYPNOSIS AUDIO PROGRAMS: Reprogram Your Subconscious Mind

►►►Check out Terrence Howard's Book (free!!!)

TIME STAMPS:

0:00 - The best kept SECRET in the Entire World
5:57 - Chemicals
11:06 - The Flower of Life
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
►Copyright ©:
Script - BE INSPIRED
Narration - BE INSPIRED
Footage is licensed through Videoblocks, Artgrid, and Envato.
Music: Epidemic Sound / Audiojungle / Envato Elements
Interviews / Video References were used under FAIR USE LAW.

© BE INSPIRED CHANNEL - All rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any concerns or business inquiries, please contact us at:

AFFILIATE DISCLOSURE: there may be a few links in this description that, at no cost to you, will earn us a commission if you choose to click them and make a purchase
Don’t worry, we only recommend products we know and trust!

[sarahfairchild]

Considering the public education system was established to "create good workers not thinkers" this doesn't suprise me much. Am glad Terrance is talking about this.

[Siranoxz]

I understand now why Terrence Howard was never in the other Iron Man sequels lol..
It makes sense now..

[chant]

Ain't no way these people in the comments are real

[drZarqawi]

This is insane to a degree I didn't think possible. And those people just lap it up....
"OMG you're legit genius..." lol

[danielo]

For the 1x1 problem, which I don't think is much of a problem if you approach it based on the fundamentals of multiplication. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say multiplication is the number of times the addition operation is meant to be carried out on a number based on the multiplier. In other words, a x b means add 'a', 'b' number of times. For example:
2 x 3 = Add 2, 3 times = 2+2+2 = 6
4 x 2 = Add 4, 2 times = 4+4 = 8
But when it comes to the multiplier of 1, there is practically no addition operation carried out, because you are calling the number once, whereas addition requires at least two numbers to operate upon. Hence you have that number added to nothing, and that simply returns the number. The main point however is that the addition operator requires at least two non-zero numbers to effectively operate.
For instance, in human biology, a baby only begins to form when there is a union between a sperm and an egg from a woman. However, the required "union" to begin forming a baby isn't possible with the absence of either element, because the "union" requires the presence of both elements last I checked.
In a similar vain the mathematical operator of addition needs at least two numbers in between which it can operate. Hence, multiplication by 1 only presents one number before the addition operator and nothing on the other end. Hence nothing added to the first number returns that number unchanged.
It's quite a crazy thing to try to explain, but not so much so as to ruin the foundations and principles of mathematics in my opinion.

《Edit》I think a helpful way of viewing the multiplier is to see it as a count of the number of times a number or an object is operated upon. For instance:
2x3 = sum(2, 2, 2) = 6, conversely
3x2 = sum(3, 3) = 6, and similarly
2x1 = sum(2) = 2, conversely
1x2 = sum(1, 1) = 2, hence
1x1 = sum(1) = 1

Look closely at the last three and decide if mathematically speaking 1x1=2. I personally don't see the possibility.

furthermore, when dealing with objects:
bx3 = sum(b, b, b) = 3b
bx2 = sum(b, b) = 2b
bx1 = sum(b) = 1b, or b for short.

I hope I haven't complicated it with the last part, I just thought it might help illustrate it further.

《Edit 2》
On account of the interactions with comments I've gotten to learn a bit more and attempted to understand the position of those who agree with 1x1=1+1=2.
I've also seen a few comments that attempt to use my illustration as justification for the proposition of 1x1=2, so I feel the need to make this edit while leaving the original comment unchanged in all fairness to replies already made.
Some have said that my logic of:
2x3=Add 2, 3 times=2+2+2=6 should translate as well to
1x1=Add 1, 1 time=1+1=2 as Terrence would suggest. I tried to clarify that in the original comment, and as well in the first edit, but let me give it one more go. I hope I phrase my thoughts better this time.

I think part of the confusion, especially when you multiply two of the same number is to assume that the multiplier is part of the additive process. In actuality it is only instructive about the count of the number being multiplied.
So 2x3=2+2+2, if you count the number of 2s on the right side of the equation you count 3. But 3 in itself is not being added, meaning 2x3 is not 2+3+3. Similarly 3x4=3+3+3+3, and we count 3, 4 times on the right hand side. If we switch it up 4x3=4+4+4, we count 4, 3 times.
Where I think the confusion may arise is when the numbers are the same, one may mistakenly think that the multiplier is offering more than the function of a count and think it is part of the addition.
So 2x2=2+2, but keep in mind that the second 2 is just telling us the count. And similarly 4x4=4+4+4+4, the second 4 is just the count, even though coincidentally 4 is also the number being multiplied.
Hence, 1x1=1, because the instruction is to return one INSTANCE of the first number, which is 1. Hence it doesn't follow for 1x1=1+1, because this returns two instances of 1, which is otherwise expressed as 1x2. If it is still confusing for you, then try the following according to my logic, and then afterwards attempt it with Terrence's logic:
By my logic-
4x1=4 (here count/instance/multiplier is 1)
1x4=1+1+1+1 (here count/instance/multiplier is 4)
By Terrence's logic since
1x1=1+1, hence it seems he suggests 4x1=4+1

I maintain that the laws of math and physics may be based on approximations and assumptions, but they are sufficiently adequate to refute the two mathematical arguments that Terrence highlights in his talks. If he seeks to uproot a system, then it means the alternative must surpass the first in logic, application and whatever areas that were found lacking.
As for the other things, I'm no expert in them, and I think there may be some gems worth exploring. But as hopeful as I may be that something new and exciting be discovered, I maintain a healthy mix of curiosity and skepticism. Thanks

[dnoordink]

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"... and "It's not what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so" come to mind.

[ddandymann]

Okay I'm just going to break this down really quickly. Multiplication refers to groupings of units, not individual units. Allow me to use a real world example to make it make sense.

Lets say I have one crate of beer which contains 1 beer, how many beers do I have? One. 1x1=1

Now lets say I have one crate of beer containing two beers, how many beers do I have? Two. 1x2=2

In the first instance even though I have two items, the crate and the beer it contains, there is only one of each type of item so one crate with one beer is equal to one beer. 1x1=1

This same example to explain why multiplying by zero equals zero, if I have one crate off beer with no beer in it how many beers do I have? Zero. 1x0=0

Now if I only had beers then we would be talking about individual units, meaning that you would use addition and not multiplication to calculate how many of them there are so if I have two beers that are not part of a group 1+1=2

I hope that cleared this up for anyone who's confused.

[Budwords]

The guy pushed the "3am high asf conversation's at a random party with the weirdo guy" to the next level

[Rose-gtyi]

Respect to anyone who says, “I’m willing to bring the truth at whatever cost that comes with it” then stands on what they say.👏🏻👏🏻

[monkeyking]

This is really quite simple folks. When you have a multiplication problem, draw it out as a grid. You have your starting number on one axis, and the multiplier on the other axis. Now count how many squares you end up with, that is your answer. This is why the dimensions of a room are described as “square feet“. If you have a room that is 2 linear feet x 2 linear feet, make this into a grid and what do you get? 4 square feet. Now what if the room is 1‘ x 1‘? Look how many squares you have, you have “one square foot“. No, it is not intuitive, which means that your intuition should be questioned and there is learning required. What kind of an argument are you going to make that your intuition must be always correct, without instruction?

[Keno_]

It makes perfect sense to me… Like a light switch. I have mad love & respect for Terrence Howard. That energy that is within up which is why we are more charged when we place our bare feet on the earth it channels through known as “Grounding” whereas we wear rubber soles on our feet to block out the connection. We are conductors of electricity & the earth contains endless power .

It is said that if on the right frequency we have the ability to heal ourselves & fix parts of us that are broken. Whereas Dr.’s & pharmaceutical companies run hand & hand when it comes to causing addiction, disease, & dulls our senses. Money & Power! Which is why if something that can better you & your health is not acknowledged & approved by the FDA then insurance WILL NOT cover it. (THEY WANT US TO HAVE THESE ISSUES) without them they will lose money, power, & control.

[kyonatbest]

The easiest way to explain the squareroot of 2 conundrum he proposes is instead of using squareroot of 2 specifically, we use squareroot of x. This can then be written as x^1/2.

For the first example, he calls for the result to be raised to the third power, so the simplification of this is x^(3/2).

As for the second example, he calls for it to be multiplied by the number itself before it was square root. So for example his case would be 2*(2^(1/2)). In x terms, this can be simplified as him saying x(x^(1/2)). In order to simplify this further, you need the denominator to have the same number before adding them up, so this becomes (x^2/2)(x^(1/2)) which then simply becomes x^(3/2). It's the same result as the first example.

His fallacy is what he chooses to represent as x. X was simply the number before he started the squareroot businesses. Because of this, the number 2 isn't anything special, the number 2 is suppose to be his x in this example, the reason why it doesn't work for other numbers is because for other numbers to work, you simply have to use other numbers. If I had taken squareroot of 3, then it would be 3 as the coefficient.

You can in fact test this. x^(3/2) is the first example, and for the second example, just try x*(sqaureroot of x). The logical fallacy is his bad assignment on the unknown variable x that led to his second example being wrong and being faulty believing 2 is a static coefficient when in reality, it's x*(squareroot of x).

So for example 5^(3/2)=11.1803398875 and 5*(squareroot of 5)=11.1803398875. Try plugging this new equation with any number you can think of and it will hold true. There is nothing wrong with the Math, Terrence just has his logic wrong.

The reason why he gets away with what he says is because he says it to people who aren't Mathematicians and brings it up in a public space for you to just tap away into a calculator without putting real thought into the logistics behind his fallacy. He brings it up in a public space where you have to listen to him and take his word at face value instead of testing and figuring it out yourself whether he is right or wrong. Hence, stop listening to celebrities talking out their ass. If a real Mathematician ever believes our foundation is wrong, they would definitely let you know lol

As a side note, the guy seems like a con artist that's also a celebrity. He can lie about what he says but he says it with the belief that he's talking the truth that people can mistaken him as a genius. He seems to have lied about his education background several times and tried to scam Uganda at one point as well. Yes, I do mean the WHOLE country of Uganda, just search it up.

[razorsharp]

So if I give you 1 apple 1 time, I did not give you 1 apple but actually 2? Wow, this guy is a genious!!

[bukdays]

There are two major flaws in his logic…

x^3 = 2x = x+x
This might seem weird, but this only holds for sqrt(2)

So x^3 = x*x*x
Let’s put x = sqrt(2):
sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) * sqrt(2)
= (sqrt(2)*(sqrt(2)) * sqrt(2)
= 2 * sqrt (2)

Which is the same as 2x and x+x, with x = sqrt(2)

The reason x^3 = 2x in this case, is because the ‘2’ we see in ‘2x’ is the square of sqrt(2).




The second flaw
4/2 has inverse operation 2*2 (correct), yet saying that concludes the inverse operation is 2/1 is 1*1 is false.

The reason the inverse operation of 4/2 is 2*2 is because 4/2 = 2, so to find the inverse operation we multiply the result (2) and the number we divide by (2) and this equals the number we diveded (4): 2*2 = 4

Now lets do the same for 2/1.
2/1 = 2, we want to multiply the result (2) with the number we divided by (1), giving us the number we diveded (2)
this gives us: 1*2 = 2, which is the correct inverse operation of 2/1



I think it would be very cool if we could disprove the math we use, but there are no fallacies in the equations he shows. There are only misunderstandings by Terrence Howard

[Dima]

The most secret kept from us is that we attract what we radiate and main thing we need to learn is how to see positive in every situation. Trues is always simple. I think moves like that designed just to keep our attention from what is really important for us.

[TruthInYourFace]

Take the Square Root of "4".

1. Multiply it by "2" (Result: "4").
2. Add "2" to it. (Result: "4").


Divide the Result by 2, then perform Operations 1 & 2 again.


OMG!!! WE'RE GETTING THE SAME RESULT FROM 2 DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS ON THE SAME NUMBER NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE LOOP THROUGH THE STEPS .


We're finally seeing the results from removing "Math" as an essential subject to graduate from GRADE SCHOOL.

And by the way, another term for "multiply" is "groups of". So when you "group" something ONCE (i.e. A x 1 ), you're NOT ADDING OR REMOVING ANYTHING FROM IT.

(watering crops with Gatorade doesn't seem too far away)

[beebee]

I recall watching a documentary about a man that became a math genius after getting beaten and robbed. He had a brain injury that created a savant level of mathematical understanding. And his vision also changed, in which he saw every object in life made up of FRACTALS (curves like Terrence says here). You can probably Google it and I’m sure the story will come up. The guy was interviewed lots of times. He had to go to back to University in order to begin understanding his new genius, because he didn’t have the formal knowledge and language to explain what he could see visually and calculate in his head. Fascinating story! And his description of what everything in the Universe is made of, matches what Terrence is saying from what I can tell.

[rozeongaro]

Finally I understand why maths was never mathing in my brain

[WisomofHal]

The identity property makes total sense. Interestingly 1 is THE ONLY whole number that is neither prime nor composite. 1 can not be factored. One is so important. There can only be one. You can not make a copy of 1 multiplied by itself. Multiplying any number by one just copies itself. It’s why 1x7 = 7. So it makes logical sense why 1x1=1 or 1^1000 = 1 you’re just attempting to copy one 1000 times.

[larrymansfield]

I will never look at Terrence Howard as an actor again, wow!