Detection of Antimatter Galaxies

[donborghi]

S. Beghella-Bartoli, P. M. Bhujbal, A. Nas
Confirmation of Santilli’s Detection of Antimatter Galaxies via a Telescope with Concave Lenses
American Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 4, pp 34-41 (2015)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs ... t-2014.pdf

NOTE: Since many of us, myself included, sometimes seek a general overview about a scientist/theory on Wikipedia before diving into a paper – here is a quote about Ruggero Santilli from Karl Popper that a few wiki editors won’t allow to be included in the article.

‘Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics’
Read the 1982 Preface: ‘On Realistic and Commonsense Interpretation of Quantum Theory’

“I have mentioned Santilli, and I should like to say that he-one who belongs to a new generation - seems to me to move on a different path. Far be it from me to belittle the giants who founded quantum mechanics under the leadership of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac. Santilli too makes it very clear how greatly he appreciates the work of these men. But in his approach he distinguishes the region of the ‘arena of incontrovertible applicability’ of quantum mechanics (he calls it ‘atomic mechanics’) from nuclear mechanics and hadronics, and his most fascinating arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics should not, without new tests, be regarded as valid in nuclear and Hadronic mechanics, seem to me to augur a return to sanity: to that realism and objectivism for which Einstein stood, and which had been abandoned by those two very great physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr.” – Karl Popper 1982

In case you were wondering, Santilli’s new species of Magnetically bonded fuels mentioned in the article, were tested by CCNY to have over a 10,000 F flame temperature, verified by the Edison Welding Institute to cut metal 38% faster than acetylene while using LESS 02, and in Jan 2015, the New York City Fire Department approved the fuel as their new metal rescue cutting fuel of choice.

None of those facts are allowed Santilli’s article by the editors in control.

History tends to repeat itself.

“My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?” - Galileo Galilei

[Zyxzevn]

I first thought this was a 1 april joke.
They used wrong lenses in their telescopes, that are supposed to see anti matter light.
Something that can be tested in laboratory.
And is, as we know, just like normal light.

But I have a new project for them:
Someone should tell them you can see dark matter best if you close your eyes.

[donborghi]

Unlike the “big bang”, “dark energy”, “Quarks” and other imaginary fabrications conjured up to fit nature to our beloved theories, Dr. Santilli and light from antimatter is no joke Zyxzevn.

Perhaps I should have started with something everyone is more familiar with like ‘normal’ light.

The evidence presented in following paper (2015) is by far, IMHO, the most comprehensive and undeniable case for the supremacy of the intuitions of the Thunderbolts group.

American Journal of Modern Physics 2015; 4(2): 26-43
Representation of galactic dynamics via isoshifts without universe expansion, dark matter and dark energy

Important to note: Santilli is in 100% agreement with Einstein’s theory of SPECIAL relativity (for the conditions it was conceived and verified for – eg dimensionless points in vacuum) which he calls the “ROCK” (foundation) that he constructed his non-unitary, axiom preserving covering of QM upon; known as Hadronic Mechanics.

General Relativity on the other hand, …(a departure from Poincare and Lorentz symmetry of SR).. NOPE. Not a fan of this theory. You can watch him argue that point here (spoiler: the origin of the gravitational field is the “energy” and NOT the “mass” )

Here is a comprehensive overviewof Santilli's work.

With the utmost respect for the man, he is frankly a bit NUTTY. Like most geniuses, they are different then us and are easily misunderstood. You will see him often reference the “Organized Interests on Einstein’s theory”. What he means by that though, is a collection of his former colleagues (very POWERFUL ones like Steve Weinberg ) who REALLY went OUT of their way to interfere with Santilli’s research grants, seminars, and the publication of his papers over the last 30 years.

Dr. Santilli wrote a tell-all book back in 1984 about this after he left academia - complete with 3 volumes of correspondence documenting the interference. You can still find the 1984 Book review on the Harvard Crimson server today here:

The Politics of Science II Grande Grido Ethical Probe on Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A.-An Insider's View
By Ruggcro Maria Santilli Alpha
By John Ross, March 20, 1985

That Basically got Santilli labeled as being anti-you-know-what-ish. Which isn’t true (ask Karl Popper) but once that label is attached, it’s all over in the orthodox scientific community for you – many scientists today won't even glance at any of his papers. Which is such a shame but the simple reality since politics infested the scientific process.

Santilli is a modern day Galileo story. Complete with a new type of Telescope

Please give him a chance. The guy is like the HONEY BADGER of science , you guys are going to love him if you just hear him out - which I hope some of you do.

Thanks!

[David]

Santilli is a modern day Galileo story. Complete with a new type of Telescope

Please give him a chance. The guy is like the HONEY BADGER of science , you guys are going to love him if you just hear him out - which I hope some of you do.

Oh yeah, let’s fully delve into Ruggero Santilli’s background and associations. I can guarantee you that many prominent EU names will be brought to the fore.

[donborghi]

Actually I came here in hope of discussing the scientific evidence and theory. I did add that quick introduction about him just to initiate people’s interest to look past the label. You might be surprised how difficult it actually is to get people to look into the telescope of someone branded as a blasphemer and heretic by the establishment.

Hopefully we can stay focused here going forward on the things that matter, like science.

[David]

Actually I came here in hope of discussing the scientific evidence and theory. I did add that quick introduction about him just to initiate people’s interest to look past the label. You might be surprised how difficult it actually is to get people to look into the telescope of someone branded as a blasphemer and heretic by the establishment.

Hopefully we can stay focused here going forward on the things that matter, like science.

If you are going to look through Santilli’s telescope with its ass-backwards concave lens, point it in the direction of his purported gaseous and combustible new form of water (HHO). Yep, the classic hoodwink; cars fueled by water:

“Santilli provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called ‘HHO gas’. From the data presented, the gaseous product from the electrolyzer behaves in the same manner as would be expected of a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and water vapor… This is pseudoscience…”

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Calo.pdf

[Albireo]

It's not really clear from the paper what they actually did and how the data was analysed. For example they show two sets of pictures but were these any two images? Were they at the same time? Were they related in where in the image they were? Were they rotated? Not clear and it totally changes what is going on. They later claim the telescopes aren't actually aligned with any reasonable precision, so how can they relate light streaks to anti-light streaks?

They don't seem concerned by a wonky streak which they claim is "a small antimatter asteroid annihilating in our
atmosphere " but where was the normal light detection of this incredible event? It takes two to tango and annihilation requires regular matter as well as anti-matter, if this anti-light is to be believed it would produce normal light. That seems to be poor explanation for something that pointed to issues for their claim that these streaks is anti-light.

It seems to me that some deeper testing is needed. For one steaks in a camera make me think of damage to the film or cosmic rays, they should really try the experiment with the cap on the telescope (or lightly illuminated) and not tell the data analysis which is which. If you still claim detection it is not astronomical. There would be more ways to check for errors but they used film (bad choice).

The experiment needs a lot more work and I agree something like this is better suited to a lab.

[Zyxzevn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–p ... nihilation
It looks more like normal light.
And even if some strange light goes backwards instead of forwards,
a concave lens does still not produce any focus.

[donborghi]

Yep, the classic hoodwink; cars fueled by water

Anyone who has been convinced that Dr. Santilli & Hadronic Mechanics has all just been some elaborate scheme over the last 40 years (involving the likes of the “greatest scientific philosopher of the 20th century”, Sir Karl Popper) to all just ultimately hawk some “fuel your car on water” / “perpetual motion” scheme, has without question been HOODWINKED.

Since Dr. Santilli’s paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (presenting the evidence which supports his theory of magnetic bonding ) was published in 2006, numerous actual ‘snake oil’ peddlers quickly rebranded their ‘fuel your car on water’ kits to be new & improved with “HHO gas”.

That however does NOT mean magnetic bonding is “pseudoscience” - but a few Wikipedia editors years ago assumed it was and with the help of J.M. Calo’s “comment”, they were able to convince the world to dismiss Dr. Santilli as a “pseudoscientist” and his new “miracle fuel” as nothing more than a "coventional mixture of hydrogen and oxygen"

Let’s see how J.M. Calo’s claim (with NO physical testing) from 8 years ago that there was “absolutely no scientific evidence” to support Santilli’s theory of a new atomic bonding mechanism, stands up today.

(keeping in mind, magnetic bonding entered "mainstream" science back in 2012: Chemists discover new type of molecular bond near white dwarf stars )

March 5, 2012 - In a signed report from Robert R. Alfano, founding Director of the Institute for Ultrafast Spectroscopy and Lasers of the City University of New York (CCNY), measured the flame temperature of Dr. Santilli’s magnetically bonded gas derived from crude oil+oxygen = 10,578 F and the version of the gas derived from antifreeze+oxygen = 10,506 F.

Here is the REPORT

(note: that is about 4,000 degrees F HOTTER than ANY hydrogen containing ‘mixture’ of gas listed on Wikipedia and COMPLETELY outside of the predictions of the THEORY of quantum chemistry ) --- also, note the lack of mention of any WATER as a feedstock – also, NOTE the lack of inclusion of this report in the article about Dr. Santilli and his magnetically bonded fuel on the #1 encyclopedia reference in the world (Wikipedia) - isn't that strange? btw, CCNY has had 10 alumni which have won the Noble Prize fyi)

March 25th, 2011 – The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) selects Dr. Santilli’s magnetically bonded fuel for further testing by the US Navy in their “Environmentally Friendly Hot Cutting Solutions” (project 480) program for possible use in the demolition of the USS Enterprise.

July 17th, 2012

GM tested MagneGas, assessing its environmental, health and safety impacts. It found it cut cleaner, faster and is more cost-effective than acetylene.”

"We are always in pursuit of technologies that enhance quality and efficiency while also performing well on a holistic business case," said John Bradburn, manager of waste-reduction efforts at GM. "In its current state, this technology does just that. We're working closely with MagneGas to discuss possible future applications with potential to reduce our environmental impact" - Link

(note: John Bradburn is the NATIONAL WASTE (as industrial WASTE, NOT WATER – nor “water powered cars”) MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR for General Motors.)

Jan, 2015 – The Navy 480 Project results were released. Findings showed that Dr. Santilli’s magnetically bonded fuel (version tested was derived from methanol feedstock (again NOT WATER) that resulted in gas with no carbon monoxide (per request of the Naval shipyard) emits LESS particle emissions in the process of heating metal in cutting operations over propane (although it was not by a large margin according to report). Also stated was that Santilli’s fuel releases LESS greenhouse gases than propane/natural gas!

The objective of the Navy 480 project was to find a cutting fuel that met the clean air standards of Puget Sound Naval Yard.

Even though the tests were positive, the Navy however declined to select Dr. Santilli’s fuel (again, the version derived from a methanol feedstock) for the project on the basis that their internal testing (which consisted of giving a 22 year thermal-cutter a torch to make 16 test cuts and timing it) didn’t cut as fast as propane. They did note in their report that this was in DIRECT contradiction to the testing results of their lead contractor and consultant on the project, Edison Welding Institute, who performed extensive track mounted tests comparisons showing all versions of Santilli’s fuels tested cut significantly faster (30-40%) than propane.

(Note: Prior to the release of 480 report, Navy officials at a separate Naval base had already requested on-site testing for Dr. Santilli’s most recently developed, and fastest cutting version of his fuel yet which is derived from USED VEGETABLE oil. Naval testing is in process as of 4/15/15 )

Jan 7, 2015 – Edison Welding Institute Report<-READ IT) is released which shows that Dr. Santilli fuel derived from USED VEGETABLE oil cuts 2” inch steel plates 38% FASTER than acetylene while also using LESS oxygen (as Santilli’s magnetically bonded fuel combusts with a 9-12% surplus of oxygen)

Jan 15, 2005 – After 18 months of testing, the Special Operations Command of the Fire Department of the City of New York ("FDNY") officially selects Dr. Santilli’s new fuel for metal rescue cutting operations stating (in writing) their reasons behind their choice were:

1. MagneGas has a hotter flame temperature than other cutting methods;
2.The tank can be used in various positions and does not need to be upright during operation unlike other fuels;
3.It is a stable gas making it safer for deployment in harsh conditions, unlike acetylene;
4.MagneGas is contained in lighter tanks making for faster deployment;
5.Off gasses have less toxicity than other alternatives;
6.MagneGas is made locally from renewable waste liquids.

Feb 17, 2005 – One of the five largest electric utilities in the U.S. has approved Dr. Santilli’s magnetically bonded fuel to replace the use of acetylene at their power and repair facilities. The name has been kept confidential but I am pretty sure (though I could be wrong) it’s a little company by the name of DUKE ENERGY.

There is ZERO doubt that Dr. Santilli has been able to devise a new species of fuel with weaker, magnetic bonds that decompose at a lower threshold energies (see: Curie Temperature) than conventional valence bonds, resulting in higher overall energy output. There is no other explanation for the evidence.

Unless someone can list the atomic configuration using quantum chemistry between hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms which can cut metal 38% faster than H2C2 (acetylene) + O, while also using LESS tanked oxygen, Santilli’s theory IS credible.

Here is more recent (2013) paper on MagneHydrogen published in the Oxford International Journal of Hydrogen.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319913003819

Yep, so not only is there HxH-O, but is also H4, H5, H6 etc

NOW when Dr. Santilli explains how we wouldn’t be able to ‘see’ a potential antimatter asteroidon a trajectory to Earth, as light would be annihilated on contact with the asteroid surface and NOT be reflected back to our eyeballs – it is TIME to look through the telescope!

Or do you think the Tunguska Event of 1908 was just an “air burst” from a normal asteroid? Ya right.

[David]

There is ZERO doubt that Dr. Santilli has been able to devise a new species of fuel…

The best thing about Santilli’s miraculous new fuel, “HHO”, is that it tastes remarkably similar to Kool-Aid. But don’t drink too much of it; it can cripple sound judgment.

[Albireo]

NOW when Dr. Santilli explains how we wouldn’t be able to ‘see’ a potential antimatter asteroidon a trajectory to Earth, as light would be annihilated on contact with the asteroid surface and NOT be reflected back to our eyeballs – it is TIME to look through the telescope!

But that's not what he said. He said the streak was an anti-matter asteroid annihilating in the atmosphere, that would produce light. If these anti-photons are reflected what is the source of the light? The Sun emits photons, what is illuminating the body with anti-light?

There are just a few too many assumptions going into this. Anti-light is assumed to be a thing (light is it's own antiparticle in standard em) and anti-light sources exist. That's tested with the "anti-telescope", but you find streaks which cannot be sources. So you can assume all of this is true and add on anti-matter asteroids which are invisible or this is some sort of artifact. One assumption vs many. That's what you have to beat in experimental science, it hasn't been done. Too many assumptions for this to be valid. It needs less convoluted testing.

How can this explain PET scanners? Positrons annihilate with electrons producing two 511 keV photons which are detected with instruments built of matter. The rest mass energy of the electron is well known too, undergraduates measure it, 511keV/c^2. So why does it seem all the energy goes into regular photons?

[Zyxzevn]

NOW when Dr. Santilli explains how we wouldn’t be able to ‘see’ a potential antimatter asteroidon a trajectory to Earth, as light would be annihilated on contact with the asteroid surface and NOT be reflected back to our eyeballs – it is TIME to look through the telescope!

From experiments with antimatter we can see that antimatter produces normal light.
Dr Santilli is clearly wrong on this subject.

[David]

That 70’s Show -- "And it runs on water MAN!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIqKS6YQYtQ

[querious]

It is very easy for anybody to verify that "American Journal of Modern Physics" is a fraudulent publication.
Read this post and do the comparison of the papaers mentioned. I did, and it's shocking.

I'll save you some work...

Here's the paper from the fraudulent "American Journal of Modern Physics"

The text was lifted almost wholesale from this paper, and this paper.

[David]

It is very easy for anybody to verify that "American Journal of Modern Physics" is a fraudulent publication.
Read this post and do the comparison of the papaers mentioned. I did, and it's shocking.

I'll save you some work...

Here's the paper from the fraudulent "American Journal of Modern Physics"

The text was lifted almost wholesale from this paper, and this paper.

Here is a very fascinating article about Ruggero Santilli that delves into his myriad hijinks. It even includes a video clip of the 2008 Santilli-Galilei Academy Award ceremony, where the recipients each received a Gold Medal. Do you notice any familiar faces in the video? Hint: Mr. C and Mr. E

“Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli”

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/articles/fin ... -santilli/