Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Entities

[TimeSensitive]

I am not sure I want a pair of concave lens glasses. Can you imagine all the loosh?

[lcam88]

oh that is good bsbray!

[Aragorn]

This "discovery" by Thunder Energies has already been posted about by Malc, here, and I have debunked Thunder Energies' claim in my subsequent posts on the pertinent thread, here, and here.

It is one thing to want to believe in entities — and please note that Thunder Energies also refers to galaxies, solar systems, planets and moons as "entities" — but another thing to believe in what is quite evidently pseudoscience.

[lcam88]

I'm inclined to say, upon gleening over Aragorns links, that "anti-matter" light is a misleading characterization. This light appears only to be refracted in a different way.

Furthermore, the entire concept of matter and anti-matter as defined in the standard model is probably just as drop dead wrong as their theories about black holes, dark matter and dark energy.

[Aragorn]

I'm inclined to say, upon gleening over Aragorns links, that "anti-matter" light is a misleading characterization. This light appears only to be refracted in a different way.

Which is what makes me seriously question their claim in the first place. I'm sure that I too can come up with some sort of alignment of lenses and mirrors that would create all kinds of wonderously strange but meaningless images.

Furthermore, the entire concept of matter and anti-matter as defined in the standard model is probably just as drop dead wrong as their theories about black holes, dark matter and dark energy.

Hmm, no. The concept of what antimatter is, is well-defined in conventional science. It is merely matter with an inverse electrical polarity, as I've explained in the two posts to which I provided the links higher up.

Furthermore, antimatter has already been created in very small quantities, but its confinement requires magnetic fields to prevent it from crashing into matter particles and thus causing the annihilation of both the matter and antimatter. The energy released upon those collisions between matter and antimatter was infinitesimal, exactly because the amount of antimatter that had been created was so insignificantly small.

[Aragorn]

This "discovery" by Thunder Energies has already been posted about by Malc, here [...]

I have merged this thread in with Malc's own thread on this subject in order to concatenate the discussion.

[bsbray]

Shows how much attention I pay when I read threads on here sometimes.

Thanks Aragorn.


It would be interesting to see how they explain this telescope as working. I can try to dig around later and maybe contact them with questions directly.

They should be familiar enough with physics to answer specific questions, since their CEO worked at MIT and Harvard:

ABOUT Thunder Energies Corp:

Thunder Energies Corporation is a breakthrough technology company featuring three cutting edge technologies in the fields of optics, nuclear physics and fuel combustion. Thunder Energies is led by Dr. Ruggero Santilli, CEO and Chief Science Officer and Dr. George Gaines, President & COO. Dr. Santilli is a former faculty at MIT, Harvard and other leading institutions around the world. For details, please visit Dr. Santilli's CV.

Then there's a video with his purported curriculum vitae here: http://www.world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv


I'm not going to make an appeal to authority, which of course is a logical fallacy, but I suspect that he probably knows all of the physics you're talking about, Aragorn, and would probably have some kind of alternate take or additional information on how exactly all this works. That's why it would be interesting to try to find a more in depth explanation. It may even be in the pdf of the journal paper itself, because I haven't got a chance to read that yet either.

[lcam88]

It is merely matter with an inverse electrical polarity... ...antimatter has already been created in very small quantities...

You are implying that the fundamental nature of electrical energy is something well understood? That is the fundamental presumption I'm in disagreement with.

Take polarized light for example, it can have any number of horizontal polarizations or "spin" polarizations. The very concept of polarization is a concept that is completely counter intuitive with what we conceptualize with wave, particle, EM, or even LaPoint modeling of the phenomena. Just to show you how mind bending the issue is, consider this documentary.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfT6xTuKBOE


To then say that polarization of electricity is a simple inversion is completely misleading; it depends on what exactly is understood about the fundamental nature of electrical energy.

[Aragorn]

You are implying that the fundamental nature of electrical energy is something well understood? That is the fundamental presumption I'm in disagreement with.

On account of its basic principles, electricity is understood well enough, yes.

Take polarized light for example, it can have any number of horizontal polarizations or "spin" polarizations. The very concept of polarization is a concept that is completely counter intuitive with what we conceptualize with wave, particle, EM, or even LaPoint modeling of the phenomena. Just to show you how mind bending the issue is, consider this documentary.

[video removed]

To then say that polarization of electricity is a simple inversion is completely misleading; it depends on what exactly is understood about the fundamental nature of electrical energy.

I have already seen that video, and I may even have used it as a reference with other people myself a few times. I happen to come from a background in physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, and to a lesser extent also geology. I am actually quite familiar with the concept of the polarization of light. The field of optics — and particularly so, the subject of laser technology — has long been a major interest of mine.

However, you are conflating electric polarity — which is binary in nature — with the polarization of light, which is a matter of phase-shifting and filtering. Furthermore, electric polarity is a property of fermions, while light (and all other electromagnetic radiation) is made up of photons, which are bosons.

The issue here doesn't lie with the science itself, but with the use of potentially ambiguous language — at least, in English — to denote two very different phenomena.

[bsbray]

Maybe if you guys can pinpoint some areas you'd like the people who were responsible for this paper to address (hopefully Santilli himself), we can send them off and see what kind of response we get out of them.

Here's some stuff from the paper itself (copied and pasted from the pdf so excuse any typographical problems):

As it is well established in particle physics laboratories, matter and antimatter particles “annihilate” at mutual contact by transforming their masses into light. One of the necessary conditions for a consistent, quantitative representation of this experimental evidence is that all characteristics of antimatter must be opposite to those of matter.

It as also been established that the use of 20th century mathematics for the representation of both, matter and antimatter, leads to predictable catastrophic inconsistencies.

Therefore, a consistent, quantitative representation of matter-antimatter annihilation requires the continued use of conventional mathematics for the representation of matter, while antimatter must be represented with a basically new mathematics characterized by a suitable conjugation of 20th century mathematics known as the isodual map (technically given by an anti-Hermitean map).

[...]

In spring 1996, the author presented at the First International Workshop on Anti-matter in Sepino, Italy, the prediction of isodual mathematics that light emitted by antimatter-stars, here called “antimatter-light,” is different than our ordinary matter-light in an experimentally verifiable way [4].

The above prediction was based on the fact that ordinary light has no charge. Therefore, the only known consistent way to conjugate light from matter to antimatter is the map under isoduality of all other physical characteristics of light. This lead to the prediction that antimatter light has negative energy, by therefore confirming the original 1928 conception of antimatter by P. A. M. Dirac as having negative energy, this time, with the resolution of its historical inconsistencies permitted by the novel isodual mathematics.

Its hard to copy and paste much else because of the formatting of the pdf, but it's all here: http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs...r-12-15-15.pdf


Most of this is over my head but it looks like he has developed or helped develop a more complex way of modeling photons that allows attributes other than EM charge to be considered, and so in some other way matter and anti-matter photons can be distinguished, even experimentally using "anti-matter stars." (I did some Google searches on this and it seems that anti-matter stars are theoretically possible but have not been verified because they cannot be observed by conventional telescopes, so it seems that Santilli was doing his research along these lines initially). That's the best I can get out of it but if someone can make more sense out of what is being explained in the paper I would be interested to hear about it.

[The One]

Here ya go cheers

[bsbray]

Thanks Malc, I forgot about that feature.

I've always been prone to episodes of absent-mindedness but the last couple of days have been exceptional.

[lcam88]

However, you are conflating electric polarity — which is binary in nature — with the polarization of light

The conflation is only to go so far as to suppose the binary nature of electric polarity is a presumption that indeed requires reexamination.

I contend it is absolutely not binary –*and it is this presumption that has lead to an incorrect understanding about material let alone anti-material.

Halton Arp describes two causes for red-shifted light in astronomical observation... The presumption that electric polarity is something "binary" in nature would leave only the velocity component of red-shift as a valid explanation, the fact that his observations and measurements gives credulity to an intrinsic component of red-shifted light, that occurs in discrete steps is evidence that the binary explanation of electric polarity requires reexamination. That perhaps electric polarity also occurs in "steps".

That leads to one possible conclusion where electric polarity can be likened to temperature, with the notable difference that temperature is understood to be continuous rather than defined in discrete steps.

Perhaps what we know of as positive and negative are just two rungs along the "ladder", that there is an absolute negative (likened to an absolute zero), and that what we know of as positive is one or two steps of difference from what we know of as negative.

That neutral is simply a moment between positive and negative where they happen to have no potential difference in ref to their surrounding environment.

A fermion or a boson are names given to things that came loose in a particle accelerator that then is thought to perform some function in the whole, but how those conclusions where drawn seems very much like the idea of immaculate conception. I find your position, to draw on aspects and nomenclature from the standard model, to explain an aspect of standard model theory to be mundane; I thought we where a bit beyond the strict adherence to that religion.

Why is this difference in electrical "polarity" that I'm pointing out important? This detail is essential for understanding the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. Matter existing in different levels of electric "polarity" or electric tension exhibit different properties about which energy dynamics are defined.

Perhaps 'anti-matter' light is one such example of a propagation of light based on this different type of electrical "polarity".

[Aragorn]

The conflation is only to go so far as to suppose the binary nature of electric polarity is a presumption that indeed requires reexamination.

I contend it is absolutely not binary –*and it is this presumption that has lead to an incorrect understanding about material let alone anti-material.

I shall be looking forward to your paper in which you prove Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla wrong then, lcam88.

Halton Arp describes two causes for red-shifted light in astronomical observation... The presumption that electric polarity is something "binary" in nature would leave only the velocity component of red-shift as a valid explanation, the fact that his observations and measurements gives credulity to an intrinsic component of red-shifted light, that occurs in discrete steps is evidence that the binary explanation of electric polarity requires reexamination. That perhaps electric polarity also occurs in "steps".

Yes, and we call that "potential". Potential is not polarity.

Just because a pregnant woman's tummy is not as round yet at 3 months as it is at 6 months doesn't mean that she'd be any less pregnant.

That leads to one possible conclusion where electric polarity can be likened to temperature, with the notable difference that temperature is understood to be continuous rather than defined in discrete steps.

Perhaps what we know of as positive and negative are just two rungs along the "ladder", that there is an absolute negative (likened to an absolute zero), and that what we know of as positive is one or two steps of difference from what we know of as negative.

I am sorry, but I refuse to accept your desire for iconoclasm as evidence that some of the most fundamental aspects of physics, which have been empirically tested and confirmed, would be wrong.

That neutral is simply a moment between positive and negative where they happen to have no potential difference in ref to their surrounding environment.

A fermion or a boson are names given to things that came loose in a particle accelerator that then is thought to perform some function in the whole, but how those conclusions where drawn seems very much like the idea of immaculate conception.

Well, then you may also add Satyendra Bose and Enrico Fermi to the list of scientists whom you are going to have to prove wrong in that paper of yours, lcam88.

I find your position, to draw on aspects and nomenclature from the standard model, to explain an aspect of standard model theory to be mundane; I thought we where a bit beyond the strict adherence to that religion.

Why is this difference in electrical "polarity" that I'm pointing out important? This detail is essential for understanding the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. Matter existing in different levels of electric "polarity" or electric tension exhibit different properties about which energy dynamics are defined.

You may find my position mundane, but as I've explained earlier already, I come from a background in (among other things) physics, so I find your position irrational and undocumented.

Perhaps 'anti-matter' light is one such example of a propagation of light based on this different type of electrical "polarity".

I have read the PDF file, and I find their supposition full of holes. That is not to say that I claim to possess a full understanding of the phenomenon they've registered — provided that they were genuine in their report — but then they should at the very least have chosen a scientifically more correct name, rather than "antimatter light", because there is no such thing.


P.S., and very important here, in my opinion: Certain so-called metamaterials can affect the refraction of light in such a way that these materials can be used for cloaking purposes. While the science behind this technology does make use of variations in the electromagnetic properties of the metamaterials, it still does not mean that these metamaterials would be made from antimatter.

[lcam88]

I shall be looking forward to your paper in which you prove Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla wrong then, lcam88.

Great, I am willing to fore-warn you though, you will be waiting for quite some time.

I don't view proving Einstein or Tesla wrong as much of a priority, I'm curious though that it should be a point you would make as some type of requirement. I thought it would be clear to any science minded individual that proving another scientist "wrong" is incidental rather than deliberate.

Yes, and we call that "potential". Potential is not polarity.

Polarity was the term you chose. Electrical potential [difference] is also known as voltage; so clearly that would have been at least as incorrect a term.

I am contending the aspect we are regarding as negative (vs positive in a proton) is _not_ a binary characteristic any more than gravity is "single flavored".

Even if that does turn out to experimentally verified, it will not "prove" Einstien or Tesla "wrong"; at best it will put perspective on their work. And in actuality, I think such an experiment will most likely simply be ignored. There are quite a few who would defend their theories with as much vigor.

Just because a pregnant woman's tummy is not as round yet at 3 months as it is at 6 months doesn't mean that she'd be any less pregnant.

You are clever. Perhaps what you mean to say is that consideration of time, in terms of electrical "polarity" is irrelevant. I could agree with that.

I am sorry, but I refuse to accept your desire for iconoclasm as evidence that some of the most fundamental aspects of physics, which have been empirically tested and confirmed, would be wrong.

oh, I agree, the analogy is quite poor. I'm only sharing one possibility there. I hope that was clear in the above posting, if you have another possibility that is fine too. I happen to find a certain appeal to the idea of "absolute negative" of which a further negative state, or a positive state, cannot exist.

If you think the concept of anti-matter, as suggested by an inverse electrical polarity type electron or positron, is one of the most fundamental aspects of physics which has been empirically tested and confirmed, I rest my case here. That indeed is what we are discussing here, my point being that it doesn't exist beyond the possibilities described by a realm of theoretical physics theory that is innately full of such hypothetical stopgaps that attempt to explain what otherwise would have been seen as errors.

If you regard electric polarity in terms of positive and negative as the fundamental aspect of physics having been empirically tested and confirmed consider: In a world where all inhabitants only know of love, how could their recognise hate if they saw it? Or if they only know gravity to bring something to its natural resting order, how would they rationalise endless free-fall? Of if they only know of black and white, how would they rationalise with the color green or blue?

My point being, to limit electric "polarity" in terms of positive and negative could indeed be our own inflection on the observation simply because we cannot know/rationalise else. FYI, I agree that "polarity" is a poor word.

Well, then you may also add Satyendra Bose and Enrico Fermi to the list of scientists whom you are going to have to prove wrong in that paper of yours, lcam88.

You should know that a theory can never be proven correct as a matter of scientific principle, it can only withstand being disproven. The point being, efforts to prevent a theory from being disproven on any grounds other then its merits serve a principle that is not scientific, rather political.

Furthermore, your statement is a demonstration that you presume the theory to be correct, as though it has already been "proven". I happen to hold no such prejudice or preconception about standing theory.

You may find my position mundane, but as I've explained earlier already, I come from a background in (among other things) physics, so I find your position irrational and undocumented.

Undocumented, absolutely. I've now had the honor of the implicit Ad hominem from Mr Aragorn, and I won't be insisting on being a double recipient here.

I am rather sorry that my rational went unrecognised or ill perceived, I feel as though my point was actually ignored. Oh well, I know I'm not the first and neither will I be the last.

And, I really didn't mean to provoke you. Mundane is as good a word as any to describe the standard model, especially with religion in the back of the mind. But I happen to be using the term to mean: ordinary, status-quo and everyday normal. The derogatory inflection is certainly intentional insofar as I'm of the view the standard model is, in large part, "virtual" or "arbitrary", especially since keepers of that theory have stopped looking at contrarian evidence.

I have read the PDF file, and I find their supposition full of holes. That is not to say that I claim to possess a full understanding of the phenomenon they've registered — provided that they were genuine in their report — but then they should at the very least have chosen a scientifically more correct name, rather than "antimatter light", because there is no such thing.

yeah, I didn't even bother reading the first page yet, but I will read it. That Anti-matter terminology was over the top for me; I became more fascinated by how the characteristics of light could change.

And it obviously has something to do with the nature of the energy and how it interacts with the "mundane" material of the lens. That points to something about the nature of the electric field involved; there is something about the fundamental nature of electricity we are not yet aware of. Perhaps it has to do with "polarity", "orientation" or "flavor" of some kind. So the ideas I shared are _my_ opinions about what that could be. And since I can care less that Einstien was right or wrong, I can also care less whether _I_ am right or wrong.

But I do care about refining my idea so that it may become less wrong.

So, why are references to standard model crap is so ill received by me? Our reality must be simple, therefore a complex theory must be a kludge. To then go and pick out one or two rather disjoined parts from such a theory is exactly like taking it on faith.

P.S., and very important here, in my opinion: Certain so-called metamaterials can affect the refraction of light in such a way that these materials can be used for cloaking purposes. While the science behind this technology does make use of variations in the electromagnetic properties of the metamaterials, it still does not mean that these metamaterials would be made from antimatter.

Indeed. Such meta-materials are emerging more and more every day. The 3d holographic projectors, for example, that are used in 3d cinemas use such a material to radially polarize light as per the specs required. The amount of light bending that goes into it is amazing.

So you think meta-materials could have a relationship with the nature of this "anti-"light? Care to elaborate? This is certainly more interesting to me than the head-butting we sportingly engage in above.