Voltage is not polarity. Polarity is a qualifier, while voltage is a quantifier.
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.
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.)
Then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily make for correct science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 =
Bookmarks