Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Entities

  1. #31
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,975 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.
    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.)

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    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.
    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. The video here-below also explains things quite well...




    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.)




    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.)
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (8th February 2016)

  3. #32
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    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.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    ...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.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    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".
    Last edited by lcam88, 7th February 2016 at 20:28. Reason: ...

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (7th February 2016)

  5. #33
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,241
    Thanks
    88,440
    Thanked 80,975 Times in 20,256 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    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.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  6. #34
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    14th September 2013
    Location
    N. California Foothills
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    10,846
    Thanked 9,049 Times in 1,574 Posts

    Wow! New Telescope Caught Invisible Terrestrial Entities - Right Here

    https://www.youtube.com/user/DAHBOO77

    For some reason video wouldn't update, sorry, but go to website, interesting, short listen.
    Last edited by BabaRa, 14th February 2016 at 16:41.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BabaRa For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (14th February 2016), Frances (14th February 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •