I listened to it all while working... I think I am going to listen again. If you are a fan of Nicola Tesla the info he talks about falls in line. Frequency, 3-6-9, and "gravity" pushing not pulling. Like OP said, get past the first 15 minutes or so ...
You missed his point. Let me explain it this way for you. Let's say you have two sticks. You can then use them in an equation. 1 stick X 1 stick, 1 stick + 1 stick, etc.
He is saying that in every such equation, your starting point was having two sticks. Now, after the equation is executed... guess what, those same two sticks still exist. One of the sticks does not magically disappear! So, in the equation of 1X1=1... he is saying we magically make one of the sticks (1s) disappear to get the answer of 1. The fact really is you will still have two sticks... so how can the answer = only 1 stick?
No it doesn't help lol. If you have 5 sticks in each hand and crunch the equation 5x5 you're hopefully going to arrive at 25. You're likely not going to spontaneously have 25 sticks in your hands though. Same for 1 stick in each hand doing 1-1. The second stick doesn't vaporize out of your hand, you're still holding 2 sticks, but 1-1 sure as shit ain't 2. It's nonsense
edit: Lemme probe further. If 1x1 is 2, because of 2 sticks in your hand. Does 1x2=3 because of 3 sticks in your hand? Likewise for 1x3=4, 1x4=5 etc. What if we take I dno some really crazy complex math, say... 3x3. Now you have 6 sticks in your hands, 3 in each hand. So is 3x3 6?, or 9? Or since 3x3 can also be understood as 1 times 3, 3 times. and 1x3=4, so is it 4, 3 times, which is 12? Though 4x3 is also only 7 sticks in my hand, so it's almost certainly 6, 7, 9, or 12.
You are not incorrect Sir. He didn't refute that all of the base 10 math didn't work. It only falls apart when you use "0" or "1."
It is akin to the more complicated math used in quantum physics and particle physics. Each, independently prove-out their positions. Both prove true. The math proves each one. Yet, when you try to reconcile them together, the math doesn't work but instead, stand in conflict to each other -even though, they are both describing the exact same thing. So, are they both wrong or both right? As Terrance stated, that is why nobody has been able to come up with a working unified theory. Was it the state of the universe that prevents a unified theory from being discovered or something else... like the math used to construct them? Or was it (as he stated) their original zenith (assumption) from which their evaluation started from? I would argue both.
Expand your thinking and give the concept a bit more due diligence before you disregard it as junk.
I listened to it all while working... I think I am going to listen again. If you are a fan of Nicola Tesla the info he talks about falls in line. Frequency, 3-6-9, and "gravity" pushing not pulling. Like OP said, get past the first 15 minutes or so ...
He preaches that 1x1=2.
No fucking thank you.
You missed his point. Let me explain it this way for you. Let's say you have two sticks. You can then use them in an equation. 1 stick X 1 stick, 1 stick + 1 stick, etc.
He is saying that in every such equation, your starting point was having two sticks. Now, after the equation is executed... guess what, those same two sticks still exist. One of the sticks does not magically disappear! So, in the equation of 1X1=1... he is saying we magically make one of the sticks (1s) disappear to get the answer of 1. The fact really is you will still have two sticks... so how can the answer = only 1 stick?
Does that help?
No it doesn't help lol. If you have 5 sticks in each hand and crunch the equation 5x5 you're hopefully going to arrive at 25. You're likely not going to spontaneously have 25 sticks in your hands though. Same for 1 stick in each hand doing 1-1. The second stick doesn't vaporize out of your hand, you're still holding 2 sticks, but 1-1 sure as shit ain't 2. It's nonsense
edit: Lemme probe further. If 1x1 is 2, because of 2 sticks in your hand. Does 1x2=3 because of 3 sticks in your hand? Likewise for 1x3=4, 1x4=5 etc. What if we take I dno some really crazy complex math, say... 3x3. Now you have 6 sticks in your hands, 3 in each hand. So is 3x3 6?, or 9? Or since 3x3 can also be understood as 1 times 3, 3 times. and 1x3=4, so is it 4, 3 times, which is 12? Though 4x3 is also only 7 sticks in my hand, so it's almost certainly 6, 7, 9, or 12.
You are not incorrect Sir. He didn't refute that all of the base 10 math didn't work. It only falls apart when you use "0" or "1."
It is akin to the more complicated math used in quantum physics and particle physics. Each, independently prove-out their positions. Both prove true. The math proves each one. Yet, when you try to reconcile them together, the math doesn't work but instead, stand in conflict to each other -even though, they are both describing the exact same thing. So, are they both wrong or both right? As Terrance stated, that is why nobody has been able to come up with a working unified theory. Was it the state of the universe that prevents a unified theory from being discovered or something else... like the math used to construct them? Or was it (as he stated) their original zenith (assumption) from which their evaluation started from? I would argue both.
Expand your thinking and give the concept a bit more due diligence before you disregard it as junk.