I think what people are missing here is that his mathematics is describing a dynamic in observed interactions between magnetism and electricity that have something to do with vortex and toroidial fields. To understand the context one would have to study the life of Walter Russel first and understand how he was able to predict the existence of then-unknown elements. Also check out videos on "vortex mathematics" on YouTube. I'll admit here that this kind of delineation is vague by Terrence and could be better stated. I doubt his mathematics is supposed to generally replace "accounting" math.
I think there’s an interesting difference between debating something logical vs. empirical. But maybe I’m just not seeing how they’re actually the same.
Debating a flat earther is usually a waste of time. They’re not seeking resolution and they’ve always got “well that’s just part of the conspiracy” to fall back on.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to say “oh well 1x4 = 4 is just part of the conspiracy.”
Though I guess there’s also the even more frustrating endeavour of arguing semantics. I’m right because I’ve redefined how these operators work. And I’ll hand wave a reason for why my redefinition is more correct.
The point of debates it not to convince your interlocutor. Not a single debate in history has ended in the other side changing their position.
The point is to convince the audience, and if you think no audience would consider the notion of a flat Earth possible, you underestimate human stupidity.
Everything should be up for debate, otherwise ideas become -- as John Stuart Mill called them: dead dogma.
