PDA

View Full Version : Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Entities



The One
23rd January 2016, 17:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRC2q_VLEM

Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.


“This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they’re completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope,” stated Dr. Ruggero Santilli, CEO Thunder Energies Corp.

Technical information can be obtained from the scientific paper R. M. Santilli, “Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with Concave Lenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE),” American Journal of Modern Physics (in press), http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs/ITE-paper-12-15-15.pdf or from the scientific archives of the R. M. Santilli Foundation. http://www.santilli-foundation.org/news.html

Source (http://www.b-tv.com/thunder-energies-discovers-invisible-entities/)

Joanna
24th January 2016, 06:37
Wow, such a simple change of lens, showing so much more. Thanks for posting, Malcolm.

Elen
24th January 2016, 09:33
Very, VERY interesting!

Aragorn
24th January 2016, 18:58
Something's not right here... "Antimatter light"? There is no such thing, because light is made up of photons, and photons are energy particles without an electric polarity, not matter particles with either a positive or a negative electric polarity. Furthermore, if light truly had an antimatter counterpart and said antimatter counterpart would be hitting the lens of the telescope — which is made up of matter — then, as Einstein showed, both the matter and the antimatter would be annihilated with an energy yield of their respective mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. (E = mc²).

So whatever those guys are smoking, they had better cut back. ;)

Joanna
25th January 2016, 08:06
'Antimatter light' does imply the existence of 'antiphotons'. Now, if the same rule of annihilation applies as when matter meets antimatter, where on meeting there is an annihilation of the matter and transformation into some form of energy, the antiphotons would vanish on meeting 'normal' light photons.
Therefore, if the Santilli telescope can actually view antimatter light, then it means light particles - photons and antiphotons - do not behave the same way as material and antimaterial particles....which would have rather large implications for some of the laws of physics!!

The One
25th January 2016, 08:12
Therefore, if the Santilli telescope can actually view antimatter light, then it means light particles - photons and antiphotons - do not behave the same way as material and antimaterial particles....which would have rather large implications for some of the laws of physics!!

And they dont want us to even contemplate another version of the laws of physics, just imagine what box that could open if we did not follow the same old paradigm and started to think differently.

Joanna
25th January 2016, 08:25
And they dont want us to even contemplate another version of the laws of physics, just imagine what box that could open if we did not follow the same old paradigm and started to think differently.

Yayyyyy!!

That is exactly what is needed, Malcolm....not just thinking outside the box, opening the box.

https://generalsystems.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/image0131.jpg

Dreamtimer
25th January 2016, 11:44
My mind's having trouble organizing number five.

I was wondering the same thing about antimatter. Perhaps we don't have a full understanding of it?

Now we have dark matter and dark energy. We still don't have a unified theory.

Hmmm.:scrhd::confused::crazy:

Aragorn
28th January 2016, 11:55
Something's not right here... "Antimatter light"? There is no such thing, because light is made up of photons, and photons are energy particles without an electric polarity, not matter particles with either a positive or a negative electric polarity. Furthermore, if light truly had an antimatter counterpart and said antimatter counterpart would be hitting the lens of the telescope — which is made up of matter — then, as Einstein showed, both the matter and the antimatter would be annihilated with an energy yield of their respective mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. (E = mc²).

'Antimatter light' does imply the existence of 'antiphotons'. Now, if the same rule of annihilation applies as when matter meets antimatter, where on meeting there is an annihilation of the matter and transformation into some form of energy, the antiphotons would vanish on meeting 'normal' light photons.

Yes, and the energy yield would be disastrously huge. In other words, those supposed anti-photons would collide with the normal photons permeating the atmosphere during the day, and even the amount of light reaching Earth from the visible stars in our night skies, and we would all no longer be here, because we would have already long been obliterated in a mini Big Bang. In fact, we would probably never even have been here in the first place, given the amount of light involved — those guys are talking about entire antimatter solar systems and galaxies.

It's all nonsense.


Therefore, if the Santilli telescope can actually view antimatter light, then it means light particles - photons and antiphotons - do not behave the same way as material and antimaterial particles....which would have rather large implications for some of the laws of physics!!

Of course, but the premise is wrong from the onset. Light particles (alias photons) are not matter particles. Matter has mass, while photons are energy particles and do not have any mass — if they did, it would be an oxymoron, because then light particles would never be able to attain the speed of light. Einstein proved that in order for anything with mass to accelerate to c — the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e. 299'792'458 meters per second — it would take either an infinite amount of energy during a finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration with a finite amount of energy.

Therefore, there cannot be any "antimatter photons" — it's a contradiction in terms. Those guys are not scientists thinking out of the box, but charlatans pretending to be scientists and spreading misinformation just to keep the lesser educated members of the so-called alternative community busy at chasing wild geese.






https://generalsystems.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/image0131.jpg

My mind's having trouble organizing number five.

Those images are 2-dimensional representations of respectively, 0-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-dimensional manifolds. Given that our Earthly existence takes place in a 3-dimensional manifold — 3 spatial dimensions plus 1 temporal dimension, according to Albert Einstein — it is only natural that we can't make sense of manifolds with a greater number of dimensions. ;)


I was wondering the same thing about antimatter. Perhaps we don't have a full understanding of it?

Well, it's pretty straightforward, really. Antimatter is simply matter with an inverse electromagnetic polarity. So what is called an electron in normal matter is then called a positron in antimatter. Electrons are electrically negatively charged particles which, in a normal atom, orbit the electrically positively charged nucleus of the atom, and that nucleus is made up of protons and (with the exception of hydrogen) neutrons. Positrons look exactly the same, and also orbit an atomic nucleus — of antiprotons and (with the exception of antimatter hydrogen) antineutrons — but positrons are positively charged, while the antimatter nucleus then has an electrically negative charge.

In other words, antimatter is essentially electromagnetically mirrored matter. And it is definitely not to be confused with the so-called antiparticles. Antiparticles are virtual particles which are theorized to exist (in quantum physics), but that has nothing to do with antimatter.

The principle of matter-antimatter annihilation has already been theorized as a potential energy source — and is also used as such in futuristic science-fiction series like Star Trek, Babylon 5 et al — but it is not considered a viable alternative to nuclear power. For starters, at present time, antimatter can be (and has already been) created in infinitesimal quantities, but it is very hard to contain it — it has to be magnetically isolated in order for it not to collide with matter particles — and the creation of antimatter itself currently still requires far more energy than what a potential matter-antimatter reactor would yield as an energy source.

The containment of antimatter via an electromagnetic field would also require additional energy, for that matter — pun not intended, but it's a nice one. :p


Now we have dark matter and dark energy.

That is again a whole other beast. Dark matter and dark energy are theorized to exist as a hypothetical explanation for otherwise inexplicable behavior at the astronomical and cosmic scales. So it is theorized that there exists a form of invisible matter which has a perceivable gravitic effect on matter, and a form of invisible energy as an explanation for the accelerated expansion of the known universe.


We still don't have a unified theory.

Well, what we do know at this point in time, is that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has so far never been proven wrong. As a model by which to predict macroscopic events, it always works, and Einstein had completed this theory during his lifetime. We also know that quantum physics works as a model by which to predict events at the microscopic level. But unlike General Relativity, quantum physics is still a work in progress, and both models contradict each other.

Albert Einstein was actually working on a unified field theory during his lifetime, but he never had a chance to finish his work. Physicists today are however fully immersed in the field of quantum physics, and they do try thinking out of the box, but all still within the confinements of their own focus on mathematics, because not everything in quantum physics can be empirically ascertained. A lot is commonly merely explained by way of unknown variables or presumed constants, and that's an ever-changing landscape. In other words, a large part of quantum physics is actually just guesswork, which goes directly in against the empirical and materially-focused premise of established science.

Just look at how many different models there are by which to explain the universe. There is the flat universe model, there is the concave universe model, there is string theory — and within string theory, there are about ten different variations — and finally, there is the P-brane model, i.e. the convex universe model. And although certain aspects of quantum physics have been proven through empirical testing, none of the complete models as a whole have empirically been proven, because they're all hypothetical and mathematical models — unlike Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which actually is supported by empirical testing.

Of course, we can rest assured that the military-industrial complex will already long have been in the possession of a unified field theory by now. ;)

RealityCreation
29th January 2016, 12:16
I was wondering the same thing about antimatter. Perhaps we don't have a full understanding of it?

Now we have dark matter and dark energy. We still don't have a unified theory.

Hmmm.:scrhd::confused::crazy:


Dreamtimer are you aware of Nassim Haramein? He has developed a unified theory (The Connected Universe) which he says builds on Einstein's theory & answers the anomalies or contradictions between quantum physics and "large scale" cosmological physics.

I was looking for a recent video of his work and found this presentation that he did in August last year (2015) which explains his theory. I've been following his work for many years now & there are many videos of him presenting various aspects of his work if you google Youtube.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbE5bVl8r2g

Aragorn
29th January 2016, 12:41
Dreamtimer are you aware of Nassim Haramein? He has developed a unified theory (The Connected Universe) which he says builds on Einstein's theory & answers the anomalies or contradictions between quantum physics and "large scale" cosmological physics. [...]

Yes, good old Nassim... And he's probably so close to the truth that Wikipedia doesn't even have a page on him — as you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=nassim+haramein&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go). Well, either that, or the page was removed, which is not uncommon, given how Wikipedia has been completely infiltrated with shills for both the US government and the corporate world. ;)




"The page "Nassim haramein" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created."

Joanna
29th January 2016, 13:49
Dreamtimer, this form may help....opening the box of higher dimensions (at least, relative to particle interactions), described as an amplituhedron:

"Artist’s rendering of the amplituhedron, a newly discovered mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions. Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated — the probabilities of outcomes of particle interactions."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/amplutihedron_span.jpg

Quoting from this article (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/):

Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

“This is completely new and very much simpler than anything that has been done before,” said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.

The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression....

....The new geometric version of quantum field theory could also facilitate the search for a theory of quantum gravity that would seamlessly connect the large- and small-scale pictures of the universe. Attempts thus far to incorporate gravity into the laws of physics at the quantum scale have run up against nonsensical infinities and deep paradoxes. The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity.

Now this last, about locality and unitarity, is very important, because if the Santilli Telescope is capturing bona fide non-material entities (and if it is, maybe they need to come up with a better name than 'antimatter light' for all the reasons Aragorn has explained) then a few key - and potentially 'awareness breakthrough' questions are raised:

All calculations of the speed of light - even the idea of a (constant and therefore predictively measurable) speed of light - are predicated on 3D time and space and a predictable (in those terms) relationship between the two, as the speed of light is a measurement of a photonic movement or flow through linear time projected through 3D space. However, Einstein hypothesized that the Earth - and by inference, other planetary and indeed stellar bodies - sits within its own localized 'dimple' of 4D time and space, a hypothesis which was proven in 2011 to work something like this:

http://storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/gravity1.jpg

Localized and locality aren't quite the same thing, but they are interwoven. Again from the article:

Locality is the notion that particles can interact only from adjoining positions in space and time. And unitarity holds that the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical interaction must add up to one. The concepts are the central pillars of quantum field theory in its original form, but in certain situations involving gravity, both break down, suggesting neither is a fundamental aspect of nature.

4D time and space cannot be inferred to behave in the same way as 3D time and space. Imo, I'd go so far as to say it doesn't behave anything like it, because 4D is based on the zero point...hence its tendency to form vortices....or dimples, lol... ;) Linearity is a property (or an illusion) of the third dimension; anything measured or predicted by the linear principle loses its meaning/relevance in higher dimensions, as in the 4D vortex (which would act as a localized warping, or we could say 'moulding' or 'shaping' of space and time in a manner specific to the mass/magnetism etc of each individual planet, star, body, atom) based on the principle of the dimple (or wormhole). I base this on the perception of 3D and 4D having a dynamic interactive interface. Or in the 5D infinitely unfolding amplituhedron, for instance, which I intuit as a multi-facetted type of 'immaterial particle' interaction based on resonance/affinity - without the density of 3D materiality to impede their movement...the action is of simultaneous unfolding and enfolding which doesn't have a resemblance to time and space as we know it in 3D (yet can intersect with both the 4D time-space vortex motion and the 3D linearity motion via the amplitude of enfoldment) - at least, this is my perception.

Another question raised by this Telescope capturing non-physical entities (if that's what they are) is of great interest to me as a photographer of orbs, lightships, and subtle phenomena of a higher dimensional nature using a 3D camera, which shouldn't 'logically be possible', and also knowing that the interaction of consciousness is key to what is captured in a shot. The degree to which this is so was brought home to me and two other people, one night in 2014, when two friends (Rob and Shelley Hartland, who also photograph orbs and ships) came round one night, to experiment with swapping cameras and seeing whether it made a difference. I was keen to try Shelley's camera, knowing that in terms of shot quality it was way ahead of mine. However, what we found on swapping was that the unfamiliarity of the (different) feel of each other's cameras distracted our focus, or attunement/affinity/resonance to what we would normally sense the presence of, and attune to. I kept noticing the different weight and texture and action of her camera, and took about 40 shots with not a single orb in them. For just one moment, I forgot the camera in my hands, and that one frame had 30 or 40 orbs in it, with beautiful clarity. Then lost my focus again, and the rest were all blank. Same with Rob's camera, which was so heavy for me I'd probably need to use a tripod with it, to really be able to go beyond the camera! This is said with reference to the Santilli Telescope, and wondering about the consciousness state of the person who took the footage with entities....

Joanna
29th January 2016, 13:55
Yes, good old Nassim... And he's probably so close to the truth that Wikipedia doesn't even have a page on him — as you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=nassim+haramein&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go). Well, either that, or the page was removed, which is not uncommon, given how Wikipedia has been completely infiltrated with shills for both the US government and the corporate world. ;)




"The page "Nassim haramein" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created."

Very strange there's no page for him on Wikipedia!

Nassim Haramein; an excerpt from 'Black Whole' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd_dx-Ie1rY), speaking about the ubiquitousness of the Phi Ratio....which is a confirmation of what Einstein's student David Bohm went on the describe as the 'Implicate Order' underpinning all life.

Barbarella
30th January 2016, 11:18
Those images look like mains lights taken with an open or slow shutter. Deeply unconvincing. Anyone see any entities in the other blurry images? Is this supposed to convince us? Their best evidence?!

Why have such simple lenses not shown this before? People have been experimenting with all types of convex and concave lenses for centuries. And everyone has missed this? That's just daft.

So who's checked the pedigree of the publication that first broke this story, American Journal of Modern Physics? It's a pay to publish magazine. You can publish anything if you have the cash. The crappy MSM just regurgitate the story without giving it any thought or analysis.

Anyone checked the address of this great Thunder Energies Corporation, 1583 Rainville Rd, Tarpon Springs, Florida on Google maps? Looks like a small scrap yard to me.

Come on chaps, we're supposed to be more critical than the rest when looking at stories like this!

Babs

bsbray
5th February 2016, 07:40
Linda Moulton Howe just reported on this on her website, which brought it to my attention. Here is the pdf of the paper itself:

http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs/ITE-paper-12-15-15.pdf


And here's an article about it from Expresso.co.uk:


The incredible pictures scientists say prove 'invisible alien entities ARE here on Earth'

SCIENTISTS seeking evidence of anti-matter in space claim to have stumbled across a previously unknown "invisible life form" here on Earth, which alarmingly could be SPYING on us.
By Jon Austin
PUBLISHED: 15:50, Fri, Jan 29, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:27, Fri, Jan 29, 2016

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/Alien-Main-639279.jpg

Scientists say these are pictures of entities not visible to the naked eye

Thunder Energies Corporation, an optics, nuclear physics and energy company, claims to have detected "invisible entities" living in Earth's atmosphere.

The corporation is run by controversial Harvard-educated Italian-American nuclear physicist Dr Ruggero Santilli.

He is dismissed by many mainstream scientists as a "fringe scientist" but he has in turn branded the rejection of his work as a conspiracy against "novel science" which often conflicts with established thinking, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

The nuclear physicist says the discovery was made using the Santilli Telescope he has developed to try to discover proof of theoretical anti-matter galaxies, anti-matter cosmic rays and anti-matter asteroids.

The research team even fears the previously unknown micro-lifeforms may be carrying out covert surveillance on Earth because of where they have been found.

It uses a concave lens - the opposite to the convex lenses of standard telescopes

His telescope is still pending a trade mark and patent, but Mr Santilli is convinced it has been able to pick up a life form which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

He said: "This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are, they’re completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope.

"Since the dawn of our civilisation, all the way to the time of this breaking news, we humans have believed that everything that exists up there is only what we can see with our eyes and with our optical instruments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRC2q_VLEM

TimeSensitive
5th February 2016, 10:33
I am not sure I want a pair of concave lens glasses. Can you imagine all the loosh?

lcam88
5th February 2016, 11:29
oh that is good bsbray!

Aragorn
5th February 2016, 14:34
This "discovery" by Thunder Energies has already been posted about by Malc, here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8661-Thunder-Energies-Discovers-Invisible-Entities), and I have debunked Thunder Energies' claim in my subsequent posts on the pertinent thread, here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8661-Thunder-Energies-Discovers-Invisible-Entities?p=841945302&viewfull=1#post841945302), and here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8661-Thunder-Energies-Discovers-Invisible-Entities?p=841945473&viewfull=1#post841945473).

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
5th February 2016, 15:16
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
5th February 2016, 15:26
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
5th February 2016, 15:43
This "discovery" by Thunder Energies has already been posted about by Malc, here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8661-Thunder-Energies-Discovers-Invisible-Entities) [...]

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

bsbray
5th February 2016, 17:27
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
5th February 2016, 18:36
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.


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
5th February 2016, 19:15
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
5th February 2016, 20:20
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/ITE-paper-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
5th February 2016, 20:22
Here ya go cheers

http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs/ITE-paper-12-15-15.pdf

bsbray
5th February 2016, 20:26
Thanks Malc, I forgot about that feature. :victorious:

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

lcam88
6th February 2016, 14:36
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
6th February 2016, 15:31
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. :fpalm:


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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking). 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
6th February 2016, 23:10
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. :fpalm:


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.


:fpalm:

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking). 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.

Aragorn
7th February 2016, 16:22
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.

Voltage is not polarity. Polarity is a qualifier, while voltage is a quantifier.


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".

That's non sequitur. Gravity is a much more complicated phenomenon. Electric polarity — and please do note that I am talking of polarity, not of potential — is an elementary quality of fermions. It can't get any more elementary than that.



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. :fpalm:

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.

That was not at all what I was saying. I was trying to show you the difference between a qualifier and a quantifier by drawing a parallel between your claim that electric polarity itself would be a quantifier on the one hand, and the absurdity of the quantifying of pregnancy on the other hand. There is no such thing as a woman who is "a little pregnant", or that another woman would be "more pregnant". A woman is either pregnant or she is not. It's a binary statement.

When it comes to electric polarity, there are only two poles: positive and negative. Electrons are negatively charged, which is why they don't fly away from the atom's nucleus, which is comprised of protons (which are positively charged) and — in most atoms — also neutrons (which do not have any electric polarity). The attraction between the positive and the negative are what keeps the atoms together, unless that balance is upset by friction, chemical reactions or some other perturbing influence — e.g. proton bombardment.

(The definition of an atom is that it is the smallest unit of a material which can still be identified as being said material. A molecule on the other hand is a unit of material made up of at least two atoms — identical or not — which share their electrons.)



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.

Then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily make for correct science.


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.

The concept of antimatter already long existed as a theoretical model before scientists were capable of actually creating or observing antimatter. The theory was simply based upon math, and was a model by which to describe a form of matter which has electromagnetic properties which are the opposite of those found in conventional matter, even though this antimatter had not yet been encountered "in the wild" yet. At present time, it is even believed — based upon perception, of course — that the universe has somehow favored the creation of matter over antimatter, because otherwise, there would have been an equal amount of antimatter in the universe as there is matter, and according to spectrographical analysis, that does not appear to be the case.

As I have already stated, antimatter, as defined in the mathematical model, has in the meantime been created under controlled circumstances, but only in infinitesimal quantities, and — again, as predicted — the only way to confine it and prevent it from colliding with matter is by electromagnetic insulation. And when this insulation — a forcefield, if you will — is removed, then it does indeed collide with matter, and both the antimatter and the matter with which it collides do indeed annihilate one another, with the exact same energy yield as predicted by Albert Einstein's formula, E = mc².

Now, there is of course also the concept of dark matter, but dark matter is not antimatter, and the concept itself also has nothing to do with electric polarity. In fact, we don't really know what dark matter is, other than that it's a name for something theorized to exist and exert gravitational force upon galaxies. Since it exerts gravitational force — and this has been confirmed to be the case — it is therefore presumed to have mass, and thus be some form of matter, but we cannot observe this matter directly. In reality, it may not even be any matter at all. We don't know. That's why it's called dark matter — at least, for now.


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?

Once again: non sequitur. You are comparing apples with oranges.


First of all, in a world where people only know love, the concept of love might not even have a name, and thus the concept of hate would also be nameless, given that such people would not even be aware of its existence. But upon encountering hate, they would most probably come up with a name for it.


Secondly, love can exist without that there is hate, and hate can exist without that there is love. Electric polarity on the other hand requires the existence of the two poles. One cannot exist without the other.


Thirdly, love and hate reject one another, because the introduction of hate in a love-filled society would upset the balance, and the introduction of love in a hate-filled society would actually feed hatred. Positive and negative electric charges on the other hand attract one another, and this is why a current can exist between a positively charged pole and a negatively charged pole. The charge itself is quantifiable, but the polarity is not. Electromagnetic polarity is often reversible, but that's another subject altogether.



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.
:fpalm:

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.

When everything boils down to the simplest of principles, and these simplest of principles have proven themselves to work, and cannot be disproven, then I think it's fair enough to say that they would be correct.

If it looks like a duck, waggles like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, then it's most likely not an ostrich.


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.

Oh, but you do. You hold the logically fallacious prejudice that because there is one aspect in the very heterogeneous collective of scientific knowledge — which is comprised of both related and unrelated concepts — which you do not understand or agree with, everything else in that collective would be wrong as well.



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.

If you want to call my response quoted above ad hominem, then I consider your preceding claim equally ad hominem. I was merely bouncing back the ball — one which I perceived to have been thrown in my direction quite fiercely.


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.

Your prejudice that I would be speaking about science with a religious conviction is just as fallacious as your arguments higher up. I speak of certain scientific principles with conviction because those principles are elementary and have proven to work, plus that they simply make sense for what they were intended in every possible way.

There is no religious zeal involved with that, and I have my own criticisms and questions regarding science, politics and religious convictions. And even if I say so myself — but then again, I have to be the one to say it, as nobody else can look into my mind and ascertain it — I also maintain the integrity of scrutinizing myself to see whether I live up to my own standards. And I can assure you that I am far more lenient toward others than I am toward myself.


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.

Your derogatory inflection was perceived as directed at myself, specifically because you've known me for far longer than this, and yet you put me in the same boat with the dogmatic agents of conformity.



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.

Another thing about the Santilli claim here which I am having a hard time accepting, is that with a concave lens, they wouldn't be able to perceive anything other than those purported "entities". In other words, they wouldn't be able to pinpoint where those "entities" are, because they wouldn't even know what they're looking at, given that all other light would have been diffracted in the wrong direction. For all intents and purposes, they could merely be picking up dust on the lens of their telescope, or something similar, and nothing in the background would make any sense at all anymore, because all of the by-them-so-called "matter light" would have been refracted the wrong way by that concave lens.

I find their whole premise flawed from the onset, to such an extent that, if this really does come from people with an actual science degree, then there's almost no doubt anymore that it is deliberate misinformation.


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.

Another logical fallacy. Our universe is comprised of both simple and complex principles. The complex principles are composite interactions of the simple principles. The universe is fractal in nature.




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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking). 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.

Well, the key behind this kind of metamaterials is that they are employing meticulously engineered nano-scale arrangements of composite materials, as explained in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial). The video here-below also explains things quite well...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOqEk440JZ8



This technology is a key component in the so-called active camouflage — read: cloaking technology — already in use by the US and UK military, as you can see in this video here-below, shot by insurgents in Iraq. (With my apologies for the overly dramatic music score.)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qinQB_rwVAQ



Metamaterials can be used for cloaking, but the problem so far in that regard is that the bending of all light around the cloaked vehicle also reduces the visibility for the people inside the vehicle. One solution would be to only refract the visible light waves, so that the occupants of the vehicle would be able to use, say, infrared or ultraviolet cameras, but the downside of this then, is that the vehicle itself could also still be detected using the same kind of cameras.

This is why the US military has come up with a similar but alternative technology, in which the cloaking effect is achieved by only partly bending the light around the vehicle, while an external radiation source — e.g. from a satellite-mounted emitter — then interacts with the diffracted light through phase cancellation, making the vehicle invisible to outsiders, while the occupants of the vehicle would still have full visibility of their surroundings.

Still, that said, as I wrote higher up, a telescope with a concave lens wouldn't see anything other than whatever it is that they've photographed. It would not be able to register the background scene, because the light reflected off of anything that is not a so-called "invisible entity" (in Santilli's vernacular) still follows the normal rules of diffraction and reflection, and would as such never register as an identifiable image in the telescope.

In other words, if you were to use a pair of binoculars with concave lenses to look at a cow on a field of grass, you wouldn't see the cow anymore, and there's even a good chance, depending on the strength of the lens, that you wouldn't even see the grass. So if their premise is correct about the refraction of light being opposite to that of regular matter, then their telescope might work for objects positioned far away and against the blackness of space, but it would not work for anything at close range, and certainly not against a background that would still remain identifiable in the image.

And that is why, after having read their PDF, I myself can only conclude that they're spreading disinformation. Because if they truly are scientists and they know what they're doing, then they would never have come up with such a pseudo-scientific explanation which completely ignores the effect of standard optics. And to accept Santilli's claim for truth just because of its controversial nature — which, I'm sure, many in the so-called alternative community will be inclined to do — would then be nothing other than dogma, and would prove that the people in the so-called alternative community are no different from those in the mainstream. (Not that I had any doubts about that in the first place.)

lcam88
7th February 2016, 17:42
Aragorn:

I have read most of your reply up til when you get into the meta-materials. I'm not going to reply in detail but I'll add a couple of last thoughts.


...comparing apples with oranges.

Our exchange is the perfect example of why thing are the way they are in the world at large. An apparent lack of willingness or ability to see eye to eye.

Perhaps in support of your merits, I'll confess that terminology I am familiar with does not sufficiently address the ideas I would like to present and that issue has led to exercising a type of flexibility in augmenting terms (like "polarity") that in turn may create the "nonsequitors" that you are pointing out. Whether that is only because of an unclarified augmentation of a term, or not is unclear to me.

With that I'm throwing in the towel; I'm in doubt about the thesis I was presenting, but for other reasons.


Your derogatory inflection was perceived as directed at myself, specifically because you've known me for far longer than this, and yet you put me in the same boat with the dogmatic agents of conformity.

Oh dear friend.

You are mistaken on that part I underlined; indeed I cannot be responsible for whichever way or position you choose to take; only you can be. I only questioned whether that was where you wanted to be. I am happy to know we both agree that the inflection is indeed derogatory. I can only presume any apparent conformity of dogma was unintentional, especially since I have known you for so long.

Pardon me, if indeed something I wrote was unfair.

Lastly, principles are always simple. Even if you look at the structure of clouds, there is simplicity in them. Even if you look at a tree, the patterns of branches and leaves will not strike you as complex. And neither should anything else.

When concepts of the standard theory, however simple they may seem are presented to me, I am skeptical but not because necessarily I view them as "wrong" but only because perhaps accepting such concepts costs the revelation and further examination of a better alternative concept. Only time will tell if that consideration has merit.

The hardest part for me is not necessarily perceiving things in their entirety. It is difficult to know where to start, but certainly contemplations of anti-matter is not a good place.

...

Yeah, I don't have anything really interesting to comment on about the metamaterials relationship with this "anti-light", they seem to be two disjoined subjects. Except to say that if anti-light is possible, any telescope type instrument that detects it will be taking photos exclusively in "anti-light". Ie that background elements of fotos taken with the concave lens would also need to be reflecting this "anti-light".

Aragorn
8th February 2016, 00:21
Still, that said, as I wrote higher up, a telescope with a concave lens wouldn't see anything other than whatever it is that they've photographed. It would not be able to register the background scene, because the light reflected off of anything that is not a so-called "invisible entity" (in Santilli's vernacular) still follows the normal rules of diffraction and reflection, and would as such never register as an identifiable image in the telescope.

In other words, if you were to use a pair of binoculars with concave lenses to look at a cow on a field of grass, you wouldn't see the cow anymore, and there's even a good chance, depending on the strength of the lens, that you wouldn't even see the grass. So if their premise is correct about the refraction of light being opposite to that of regular matter, then their telescope might work for objects positioned far away and against the blackness of space, but it would not work for anything at close range, and certainly not against a background that would still remain identifiable in the image.

And that is why, after having read their PDF, I myself can only conclude that they're spreading disinformation. Because if they truly are scientists and they know what they're doing, then they would never have come up with such a pseudo-scientific explanation which completely ignores the effect of standard optics. And to accept Santilli's claim for truth just because of its controversial nature — which, I'm sure, many in the so-called alternative community will be inclined to do — would then be nothing other than dogma, and would prove that the people in the so-called alternative community are no different from those in the mainstream. (Not that I had any doubts about that in the first place.)

Yeah, I don't have anything really interesting to comment on about the metamaterials relationship with this "anti-light", they seem to be two disjoined subjects. Except to say that if anti-light is possible, any telescope type instrument that detects it will be taking photos exclusively in "anti-light". Ie that background elements of fotos taken with the concave lens would also need to be reflecting this "anti-light".

Yep, and that's the big red flag, in my humble opinion. ;)

BabaRa
14th February 2016, 16:38
https://www.youtube.com/user/DAHBOO77

For some reason video wouldn't update, sorry, but go to website, interesting, short listen.