The Santilli telescope and Invisible Terrestrial Entities

[dasmiller]

What happens when these anti photons pass through the lens of an eye or camera that's looking through the anti scope?

That's where anti-photons show their true amazingness. Their negative-refractivousity has been used up in the anti-scope, so they can go back to being normally-focused.

This must be the case, because a digital camera (such as the Canon* 600D mentioned in the OP's pdf file) has an array of microlenses covering the sensor to ensure that the incoming light all falls on the photocells rather than on the gaps between them. But if anti-photons still had their negative-refractivousity, the microlenses would disperse the anti-photons into the gaps between photocells and they wouldn't affect the image at all.

*Misspelled as 'Cannon' in the linked file.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That's where anti-photons show their true amazingness. Their negative-refractivousity has been used up in the anti-scope, so they can go back to being normally-focused.

This must be the case, because a digital camera (such as the Canon* 600D mentioned in the OP's pdf file) has an array of microlenses covering the sensor to ensure that the incoming light all falls on the photocells rather than on the gaps between them. But if anti-photons still had their negative-refractivousity, the microlenses would disperse the anti-photons into the gaps between photocells and they wouldn't affect the image at all.

*Misspelled as 'Cannon' in the linked file.

Perhaps a Cannon^WP might actually be a better choice?

 

[Craig4]

On page seven, he appears to have left the shutter open on the camera and bumped or moved the the telescope while taking a picture of the street lights on the Gandy Bridge.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

On page seven, he appears to have left the shutter open on the camera and bumped or moved the the telescope while taking a picture of the street lights on the Gandy Bridge.

I herby award you two pancake bunnies.



I know I said earlier I would no longer post in this thread. But. Well. Salted peanuts.

 

[Learjet]

Far out some people go to great lengths to take blurry, unsteady pictures.

 

[Alan Lowey]

That's where anti-photons show their true amazingness. Their negative-refractivousity has been used up in the anti-scope, so they can go back to being normally-focused.

This must be the case, because a digital camera (such as the Canon* 600D mentioned in the OP's pdf file) has an array of microlenses covering the sensor to ensure that the incoming light all falls on the photocells rather than on the gaps between them. But if anti-photons still had their negative-refractivousity, the microlenses would disperse the anti-photons into the gaps between photocells and they wouldn't affect the image at all.

*Misspelled as 'Cannon' in the linked file.

Thanks for the info on the Canon'a microlenses

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/capturing_the_image/microlenses.do

It got me thinking about refraction in general. I suddenly had the notion that the analogy of a supermarket trolley getting one wheel running through syrup on the floor and steering the trolley toward it, could represent the duality of a photon. The physical dynamic structure of the photon must be two entities which are tied by a bond of some kind, analogous to the two wheels joined by an axle. They could also be entities with one half that is positively charged and the other half negatively charged, giving an overall zero charge. This is why the 'anti-photon' can be considered the same as a photon. I have such a physical model in mind. It's the spinning helix with another spinning helix interwoven with it. If you get two right-handed corkscrews and turn one into the other, you can keep turning both without them ever touching. This is then the beginnings of a model of a photon.

If so, then the Santilli telescope isn't detecting anti-matter, but a negatively charged 'half-proton'.

 

[Alan Lowey]

I've just seen a video which looks a bit like an invisible entity with a long tail chasing behind another one. It reminded me of the Santilli telescope etc..

http://www.mufoncms.com/files_jeud8...kiWarriorAnnunakiKingBlueAnnunaki1..utube.mp4

Source: http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/

Here's an example of such a sighting:

November 23, 2015- At about 2 PM, a married couple was driving on a rural road about 2 miles from Ligonier. The driver noticed some movement in the bushes to the right of the road. Suddenly, an animal began to trot from right to left about 10-20 feet ahead of the car. The car was stopped as both witnesses watched something quite strange.

The animal was four legged and looked somewhat like a fox. However, they could only see the outline of the animal, as this creature was not solid, and no color or fur was observed. The husband told me that the animal had a “smoky veil shape” but his wife who had a longer look at it stated that she could “see through it.” She also said that there was a specific area within the body shape that was like an energy pattern. They watched as the animal entered the woods to their left and never saw it again.

Edit: Source is Stan Gordon http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Here's an example of such a sighting:

The quoted example does not say, "So we got out of the car to see if the creature had left any tracks".

 

[barehl]

I've just seen a video which looks a bit like an invisible entity with a long tail chasing behind another one. It reminded me of the Santilli telescope etc..

http://www.mufoncms.com/files_jeud8...kiWarriorAnnunakiKingBlueAnnunaki1..utube.mp4

It looks like the camera is compensating for the low lighting by recording with a slow shutter speed. So, I don't think the video is being captured fast enough to keep up with the animals' movements. I would say that the animals were ordinary house-cats.

 

[barehl]

Why exactly? Be specific and use some content of one of the scientists in the video to make your point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRC2q_VLEM

The fool in the video doesn't seem to be aware that we do experiments with anti-matter all the time. Anti-matter doesn't create a special kind of light; it creates the same kind of light as ordinary matter. In other words, any electromagnetic radiation (radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, or gamma) produced by anti-matter is indistinguishable from any other electromagnetic radiation. It has identical focal properties rather than opposite properties as he is claiming. Presumably these Invisible Terrestrial Entities hang out with Flying Rods.

 

[Alan Lowey]

The fool in the video doesn't seem to be aware that we do experiments with anti-matter all the time. Anti-matter doesn't create a special kind of light; it creates the same kind of light as ordinary matter. In other words, any electromagnetic radiation (radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, or gamma) produced by anti-matter is indistinguishable from any other electromagnetic radiation. It has identical focal properties rather than opposite properties as he is claiming. Presumably these Invisible Terrestrial Entities hang out with Flying Rods.

If a photon is analogous to two interwoven right-handed corkscrews, see post #26, then an anti-proton would be two left-handed corkscrews interwoven. They are two different things. One is just the mirror-image of the other.

 

[Alan Lowey]

If a photon is analogous to two interwoven right-handed corkscrews, see post #26, then an anti-proton would be two left-handed corkscrews interwoven. They are two different things. One is just the mirror-image of the other.

I should have said "anti-photon" of course and not 'anti-proton'. An anti-photon is equivalent to a photon which has 'magically' slowed down and gone into reverse, so it is traveling in the opposite direction.

Edit: In theory, the light particle could slow down and change direction without changing it's direction of spin. So the photon interwoven spinning helices model has 4 types, because direction of travel as well as chirality is important to describe it's interaction with other matter.

 

[dasmiller]

I should have said "anti-photon" of course and not 'anti-proton'. An anti-photon is equivalent to a photon which has 'magically' slowed down and gone into reverse, so it is traveling in the opposite direction.

They've invented a device which does exactly that.

 

[Alan Lowey]

They've invented a device which does exactly that.

Ha! Yes, the detail of how a photon is reflected in a mirror is indeed of importance. Chirality is preserved though, so a right-handed photon reflected off a mirror remains right-handed.

How do mirrors reflect photons?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-mirrors-reflect-ph/

It's similar to the double-slit experiment where Jim Al-Khalili forgets to mention the interaction of a photon (etc) with the electron 'shell' of the metal strip which has the narrow slit. Surely it's this detail of interaction which gives the wave-nature to the diffraction pattern?

Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili - YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ