reply to post by ErosA433
R: Whoops, I didn't see your post (I try to keep the replies in order).
E: Educate me, once again you miss the irony in the fact that I offered an explanation for something you stated in a previous post, showed that you
took what was written out of context and then used it to misinform.
R: On the contrary, I read your twisted misinforming explanation of the facts for the pure BS that it was; and then I moved on.
E: That is fine, but for a strong statement like "No physicists have a clue about what truly exists out there in this world" is an incredibly bold
and also incredibly shallow minded statement made by someone who claims so much.
R: Bold, truthful, but definitely not shallow minded like your snide remarks that you make throughout your posts. Can you see through walls?
through buildings? through hundreds of miles of the earth itself? You don't have a clue what is really possible to see, because you've never seen
it! Can you measure the amount of energy a tree transmitts when the wind is blowing? The list is never ending. But a child could tell you yes to
all of these answers with the technology; but you don't have the technology so I know you don't have a clue.
I'm going to use a bad example here, but its a truthful example. Your like a blind person that has never seen anything, but you believe you can
imagine them; but everyone else that can see knows that you can't really imagine anything until you actually can see stuff. Your only fooling
yourself if you think you can see any of the stuff I've seen, its another entire world to behold, and to me your a blind person that has never seen
it, so you don't have any comprehension of what exists.
E: I can make equally dismissive and degrading statements of people inside and outside the field of science, but I don't, because I know it achieves
R: Your references of your goodness is getting deeper by the minute, wait right there while I get my chest waders out, I don't want to step in
something you left behind. Let's leave your goodness and snide remarks out, I've heard about all I can stand.
E: Special optics as you say suggest it operates using light and colour, and it shows you wave patterns? So it should work by either using say for
example, polarization of the light... this can be used to observe stored energy within transparent objects.
R: That's old stuff. Everybody back in the day looked at stressed car glass windows with polarized glasses. With the sytem I use, I can change
polarization of the entire system with a simple touch.
E: Each fringe is actually an indication of locked in stress, rather than useable energy.
R: That's another incorrect statement or assumption by you. Let's look at a much larger picture that does the same thing, the energy is very
useable and can be used to destroy things that would take a well equipped army several days to destroy with a constant barrage from heavy artillery
costing them 10s to 100s of millions of dollars in ammunition.
E: But you say that you can see objects that are not directly visible, so you have to convert this energy/presents into light for it to be an optical
device, how is this done? Such a simple question and I know it wont be answered but that is ok.
R: Yes, you can see objects and other things that are not directly visible to us by their magnitudes of energy. The energy is basically already
light, that's why you can see it from all directions when the equipment is fired up, but you can only see the side that you are on; just like you can
only see one side of a light bulb when it is lit up.