Troy Hurtubise claims that he's invented a machine, dubbed the Angel Light, that can see through walls. It doesn't really matter what the wall is made of: wood, ceramic, steel, tin, titanium, even lead. The Angel Light can see right through it, just as if a window had opened up in the wall. Of course, he built this thing in his garage (where else?). The idea for the invention came to him in a dream, and he built it without the aid of any blueprints, drawings or schematics. Although Troy may hope to one day be known throughout the world as the inventor of the Angel Light, he's already well known as the inventor of the URSUS MARK VII, a suit that can help a man withstand the attack of a Grizzly Bear (see that suit in the right corner of the thumbnail? That's the Grizzly suit). So from Grizzly Bear suits to Machines That Can See Through Walls. No one can accuse him of not having an interesting resume.
Comments
If it did work he would have no problem funding his work. None at all. All he would have to do is call the discovery channel. Setup some simple experements with controls and there, instant proof, instant funding, instant wealth.
This goes for all his magical light inventions. It is convenient that he chose to stop work because of the "hyde" effect without showing any proof.
Then he claims he has made a "God" light which will reverse all these debilitating deseases. The greatest of which apperently has been shown
I thought ol' Troy was last years news, but people are still talking about him - media addiction must be a terrible thing...
and there are still people, who after reading the posts here and any of the informed media out there, actually beleive that a man who shines a light on his brothers wifes titties and claims to cure cancer is a God-like genius!
Check out the quote
'I said
Yeah -- it's called "Moulson Light" (less filling -- taste great!)
http://announce.curtin.edu.au/local/attached files/ignobelawards.pdf
It's a poster for a week-long event that was held in Austrailia:
"The Weird World of Highly Improbable Scientific Research"
A National Science Week Event
Friday 13 August, at 6pm
Elizabeth Jolley Lecture Theatre
(Building 210)
Curtin University of Technology
Kent St, Bentley
Curtin University of Technology
...it says "Ig Nobels are awarded for peer
reviewed, published, scientific research and are presented annually at Harvard University."
...I didn't know any of Troy's "research" had been published, much less peer reviewed. I'll have to check that out. Does anyone know where any of Troy's "research" has been published?
--intjudo
attached files/ignobelawards.pdf
Link didn't post correctly.
There should be a " " between "attached" and "files" in the URL
I split it in two for this post; copy and past both parts into a single URL
OK, instead do this search on google.com:
"troy hurtubise" "national science week" filetype:pdf
So instead, do a Google search on:
"troy hurtubise" "national science week" filetype:pdf
Yes intjudo, I am referring to your idiotic blathering. For Christ's sake son, go back to highschool.
Thanks for the rant! It's not at all productive but at least it's short and to the point:
1. False statement combined with an insult that applies to me, to all developmentally challenged human beings *and* to all 12 year old girls. Four for one!
2. Insult
3. Two insults in one sentence.
Very condensed rant. It really says so much with so few words. It's like Rant Poetry!
You seem to be lacking in the "facts" department, so here are a few facts to get you started:
1. There are plenty of people who use 'smileys' who are neither retards nor 12 year old girls. You can easily verify this for yourself: ask 100 random people who are neither developmentally challenged nor 12 year old girls if they've ever used a 'smiley' and collate the results. When you're finished, please post the results to this forum and we'll go from there.
2. I am not a developmentally challenged individual.
3. I am not a 12 year old girl.
4. I have graduated from high school.
And, a word of advice: an opening salvo of insults is not conducive to meaningful dialogue.
Cheers! Hope your mood improves soon! 😊 :lol: :cheese: 😊 😉 😏 😝 😜 😛 :coolsmile: :exclaim:
"I just wanted to point out that anybody who uses 'smileys' is either a retard or a 12 year old girl."
Although I am neither a "retard" nor a 12-year-old girl, I occasionally use a "smiley" because sometimes I'm not entirely sure that a point I'm making will come across as humor. Print can be a somewhat limiting medium at times. The smiley, while a wee bit dopey, is a good shorthand way to convey that you aren't serious. It sure helps to avoid extended arguments.
Thanks for the suggestion to check out Dr. Kaku.
The link you posted didn't work but a Goodle search quickly landed me on a BBC interview.
I must say I think he's getting a bit ahead of himself in the interview I saw. He says a lot of purely speculative things but phrases them as if they're practically proven, for instance:
One fine day the human race will be able to "go through the umbilical cord to travel to another universe", by "boiling space"
Claims that "listening" to the "songs" of sub-atomic particles (strings) is equivalent to "reading the mind of god"
Utilizes a double-standard approach to Intelligent Design: claims it's invalid when you apply it to eyeballs but is valid when you apply it to the overall architecture of laws of physics
States that science predicts that there "should" be abundant intelligent life easily detectable by our technologies. The reason it's not: other intelligences keep on self-destructing with wars before they can make themselves known to us. The unprovable assertions are really stacking up here.
Describes the universe as a physical manifestation of the resolution of the conflicting views of Christianity and Buddhism. (So...science is merging, marrying and providing resolution to the discrepancies between two mutually exclusive null theories? Wow.)
The only supporting theories he mentions have been old hat for a long time now: dark matter, the accelleration of the universe, the "membrane" theory of multiverses, white holes etc. None of these substantially support any of the wild claims itemized above.
This guy is smart, but from that interview I'd say he's not necessarily to be trusted with all of your metaphysical eggs, despite his contributions to science.
Remember the logical fallacy of appeal to authority: a position of knowledge and/or authority does not exempt anyone from the requirement of providing independantly verifiable facts to double-check their observations and confirm the results of supporting, repeatable experiments.
Personally, I'd like to see the experiment that proves that "listening" to subatomic particles is equivalent to "reading the mind of god."
Dr. Kaku is not famous because he's the only one who works in String Theory -- but because he's made it his business to "bring it down" to interested laymen -- kinda like Carl Sagan did.
So, his analogies like "the music of the Universe" are really just a way for "the rest of us" to get an intuitive notion of what might be happening in quantum physics. As far as "reading the mind of God" -- that's a direct quote of Einstien. I think Kaku seeks to honor Einstien by inferring that at last maybe his dream is coming true.
Dr. Kaku's book "Parallel Universes" walks us lay-people all the way from high school physics to bleeding-edge quantum string theory (M-Theory).
It's VERY difficult for our 3-D carbon brains to concieve of a 12-D Universe in which we may be transmuting thru other instances of reality based on observer-based collasping wave functions. It's *SO* complex that Dr Wheeler and others offer "virtual" explanations. That in turn makes one wonder if holographic or simulation based realities should be considered. Either way -- a Theory Of Everything (TOE) is at least being sought. Meanwhile maybe some guy like Troy could still get lucky -- there's plenty of ignorance to go-around.
No, Kaku is a real Phd Physicist. The real thing. Metaphysical folks do like him because they can get some good quotes from his distillations. Any Scientist would have the same problem with respect when trying to interpret Physics to laymen. His books are "hard-science" -- his interviews are "soft science". Hope that helps.
A new optical effect has been created in a London laboratory that means solid objects such as walls could one day be rendered transparent, scientists report today in the journal Nature Materials.
Researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Neuchatel, Switzerland, have pioneered the technique which could be used to see through rubble at earthquake sites, or look at parts of the body obscured by bone.
The effect is based on the development of a new material that exploits the way atoms in matter move, to make them interact with a laser beam in an entirely new way.
The work is based on a breakthrough which contradicts Einstein's theory that in order for a laser to work, the light-amplifying material it contains, usually a crystal or glass, must be brought to a state known as 'population inversion'. This refers to the condition of the atoms within the material, which must be excited with enough energy to make them emit rather than absorb light.
Quantum physicists, however, have long predicted that by interfering with the wave-patterns of atoms, light could be amplified without population inversion. This has previously been demonstrated in the atoms of gases but has not before been shown in solids.
In order to make this breakthrough, the team created specially patterned crystals only a few billionths of a metre in length that behaved like 'artificial atoms'. When light was shone into the crystals, it became entangled with the crystals at a molecular level rather than being absorbed, causing the material to become transparent.
This new transparent material created by the entanglement is made up of molecules that are half matter and half light. This allows light to be amplified without population inversion for the first time in a solid. Professor Chris Phillips, of Imperial College London, says:
"This real life 'x-ray specs' effect relies on a property of matter that is usually ignored
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7487.htm
(I'm not saying that Troy accidentally obtained direct matter-wave interference, but this shows that a theory does exist that would make solids "photon friendly")
If I'm reading the press release correctly, they've apparently engineered a crystalline nanomaterial that can be rendered "invisible" to laser light. Unfortunately this is a rare, not a pervasive substance. Earthquake rubble, etc. would have to be made out of this stuff in order to be suseptible to the effect described.
It looks to me like an unfortunate choice of words on part of the Professor Chris Philips that was taken out of context and then exaggerated.
If I'm reading it correctly.
At this stage of this technologie's development I'd say grandiose headlines like "New optical effect renders solid objects transparent" and "New material means 'x-ray specs' no longer required" are premature, and somewhat irresponsible.
At this point I'd say the title of the original paper says it best: "Gain without inversion in semiconductor nanostructures." Note the words "semiconductor nanostructures," as opposed to "any and all solids."
That being said, the visual similarities between Hurtubises' contraption and the equipment pictured in the article referenced are quite striking (though purely visual and otherwise inconsequential, I'm sure). I would *love* to see and hear Troy's reaction to this.
So the real question for me is -- do they realy think they are "interfering" with matter waves? That would be a Nobel Prize winner all by itself. Of course we're also dealing at the scale of "String Theory" here -- branes and all that -- so there may be some supporting work from that field here too -- if its real (remember cold fusion?)
As far as being irresponsible in their claim -- I'd have to read the actual paper. If they really think they can manipulate matter waves -- then they are correct to assume the method will eventually be extended to all matter. That is MAJOR!
<b>When Einstein showed that light amplification needed a collection of atoms in 'population inversion' (that is, where more than half the atoms are in an excited state, ready to emit light rather than absorb it) he was using thermodynamic arguments1. Later on, quantum theory predicted2, 3 that matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency
..."blue lasers" in PlayStations, "solid state quantum computation," quantum calculations, flourescence spectroscopy (detection of tumors), improved solar cells...quantum dots kick serious A**
It looks like the study at Imperial College basically involves the interaction of lasers and quantum dots under very specialized conditions.
Thanks for posting this Anywho! I'm not anticipating 20%-off-sales of Angel Lights at Radio Shack anytime soon but this stuff is damned interesting any way you slice it.
Now, if we could only get Hurtubise and Kaku, with about a six-pack of Moosehead in each of them, in the same room, talking about quantum dots.
Clearly science is about to create matter from its fundamental matter wave components. That matter can be made EIT compliant from the get-go -- transparent matter. It'll cost about a billion dollars per ounce and may be unstable -- but hey it's a start.
Troy may or may not have done anything other than stimulate some searching on our part -- but that alone has been very useful. I'm still reeling over the magnitude of whats happening in quantum condensed physics nowadays. This is Star Trek stuff.
(when matter can be manipulated as de Broglie matter waves -- we can start asking philosophical questions about the nature of our [4.5% baryonic] material universe.
How about if i were to say that the Mass in our universe was not what produces gravity, even though mass and gravity ARE intertwined.?
I do understand the fact that people WANT TO SEE PROOF, but no proof does not mean that the info or technology is bogus. I myself am skeptical about his claims of the angel light. I want to see a demo too. but i am willing to give the benifit of the doubt. For a time anyway. If the device is indeed dangerous, as claimed, then he is smart to dismantle and discontinue his work on it. remember what happened to the Curie's
Of course, without any additional evidence, yes i would have to say, "in all probability this device is a hoax"
Hell, i will say right now that it probalby IS a hoax, but there is the SLIM chance that he actually stumbled accross some type of revolutionary discovery...
Now, that being said, someone said in a earlier post that if someone claimed that teleportation or star trek type beaming were real they would be a crank or loon( i am paraphrasing here, that is the gist of the post or at least part of it) Well, look up teleportation on google.
Scientists have successfully teleported photons from on place to another. Yes, a far cry from star trek, but the tech has to start somewhere...Oh and as for my first question, if you think that it is not possible and would violate the laws of physics, look up Quantum Entanglment on google. The military and nasa are currently researching both technologys(teleportation and quantum entanglement) for both travel and information transfer respectively.
And my second question, well that is something that is not currently provable with our tech, but it IS a intrical part of current theory(M-Brand theory) which states that gravity is actually leaking INTO our Brane(universe) from another Brane(universe). Why the gravity leaks more in a space occupied by mass is over my head, but it is part of current theory....
just a couple of thoughts and or points....
and speaking of star trek, i saw a article on transparent alluminum not too long ago...don't know the link, but u can look it up..
Getting back to Troy and speaking of quantum entanglement, here's a funny quantum thought experiment:
Imagine what it would be like if Troy was offered $20,000 to prove or disprove this (his choice):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Seriously now. I challenge anyone who has observed (or listened to) Troy in his natural habitat, and has read more than three paragraphs of the above link, to make a compelling case that Troy has a snowball's chance in hell of impacting the field of quantum mechanics in any way whatsoever.
Using anything besides truisms, tautologies and cliches ("TTC") to prove your point.
Preferrably with any sort of concrete basis in Troy's accomplishments.
Without making me laugh at you.
Building on my Rant Analyzer, I'm going to add a TTC analyzer to this thread.
You are warned.
read this:
http://www.royalsoc.org/exhibit.asp?id=4659&tip=1
First, that article is rather poorly written. Nowhere in it does it say that the scientists have actually produced a working model based on their "discovery." It's very unclear about exactly what they have accomplished.
Second, since Troy has been very secretive about things, how do you know that he even says that his device works along the same principles that these scientists claim to have discovered?
If Troy Hurtubise really HAS invented something that can see through solids (without using X-rays, of course), then he deserves all the acclaim he can get. It remains to be seen that he has done anything of the kind, though.
i'm guessing that #1) stuff like this has sorta been researched towards, but with failure
#2) that this guy & namely bay or whatevr is fraud
#3) the illuminati have planted this to find make intelligent people who ARE paying attention to look like gullible morons who listen & believe everything they hear.
#4) if you haven't noticed yet, you should definitely check out the game 'Illuminati - New World Order' that was PRINTED in 1995..
#5) also watch 'Loose Change 2'
#6) watch the pilot episode of 'The Lone Gunmen' (which aired 6 mos before 911)
#7) masonry has created mormons, jehovas witnesses, christian science & scientology (dont take my word for it, and dont be a moron - check it out) the illuminati use the masons alot.
#8) 'cyber wars' is sorta decent.. 'the legend of zoro' mentions the 'knights of aragon' who are trying to take over the world
alex jones i respect... thus far.
EVERYONE should see 'LOOSE CHANGE 2'.
"the illuminati have planted this to find make intelligent people who ARE paying attention to look like gullible morons who listen & believe everything they hear."
Uh oh, *someone* lost his tin foil hat!
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Posted by Bob Fraples on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:27 PM"
The military already does built vehicles from blast-resistant materials. But the problem is that the angel light supposedly messes up electronic equipment, and in a tight space like a tank you can't really afford to clear space out for a possibly dangerous, undeveloped angel light when you need as much space as you can get for complex electronics. You also run the risk of power failure, and in such a situation you find yourself in a locked box with no way to see what's outside.
If you have a duplicate light that "destroys" stuff outside, that immediately implies that the light inside would do the same. To your stuff.
And then there's the question of switching it on and off; if you have an angel light continually turned on, and it poses a danger to people, you could harm civilians really easily in a combat situation, and friendly fire isn't out of the question if things get messy. Something that is supposedly as innovative and new as the angel light must be handled with a lot of caution.
I can understand a lot of the doubt here but some of it is coming off as snotty, whiny remarks made by jerks who feel that they can pass judgement on something that they know relatively little about. It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other.
"It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other."
That's not correct. We absolutely CAN know if the thing works. The "inventor" just has to submit his "invention" to proper scientific testing. As has been said several times, if it works, Troy Hurtubise will be hailed as one of the greatest inventors of all time and mankind's knowledge base will be advanced.
*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!
I, for one, no longer care what happens with Angel Light anymore. You guys killed it for me. Congrats.
Oh, and Happy New Year y'all!
"*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!"
So, this board is all about YOU? Sorry, Dude, you don't have the power or authority to tell me or anyone else here what they can or can't do.
I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to stop dreamers from dreaming, but that isn't what this about at all. The discussion is about whether or not Hurtubise's invention can or can't do what he claims it can.
If your little balloon was punctured by REALITY, it's YOUR problem, not mine.
I used to be like that too. Then I grew up.
Cranky Media Guy, glad to see you're still posting.. As for your 2 responses to bored spectator, I invite you to consider the possibility that you may be held in the same view.
I came here to read intelligent discussion & found what I considered to be mainly bashing.
OK, so people don't believe him. OK, so some may.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but when I do not believe someone I simply say I do not believe and give my points (no need to shout). I do not go calling the man a liar because he hasn't proved himself.
I agree in principle to the indisputable proof of demonstration and its need in science, but to gain a direction in research you must either have a known technology to evolve from or (and this is the point) an idea to theorise.
Troy may believe that he has something groundbreaking.
He may believe he's onto something, but can't fully turn theory into fact.
Or maybe it is a complete hoax.
Maybe he once thought he had it working, shot his mouth off then found it didn't work like he thought and has to bluff..
To justify himself, I agree that proof it currently works is required.
On the other hand, to justify calling him a liar I say prove that it doesn't.
Absense of evidence is not evidense of absence.
I personally believe that Troy has a passion for inventing, probably nothing more. But to brand him a hoax without disproving him is wrong.
There is precious little proof either way at this time. Maybe in 200 years someone will pick up his failed work and apply it to science currently out of our grasp, who knows? The concept is already being explored more widely than one lone "cracked-pot"
Correct me if I'm out of line, but 360 pages is a bit excessive to say (and shout) "show me proof"
And to have the stamina to wade through such a massive post implies a need for proof, or at least affirmation of some kind 😉
Contact him directly and demand he demonstrates the device to you if so vehemently skeptical.
To believe something is possible is not the same as know it is fact.
As for Troys claims, I do not currently believe his gun works as he says but I feel he believes it could.
At least he is applying himself and highlighting the concept, albeit if only met with derision.
Unfortunately I cannot remember the precise instructions once I wake up.
I have been in touch with "Japan" and the French Government and they understand the importance of obtaining the contents of my dreams. They are working on technology to implant into my brain to record the dreams. Unfortunately the current version of the dream recording technology will destroy my precious brain in the process.
I can't say anything more about it except that "Japan" and the French Government have put the technology behind closed doors, and they're trying to find a way to record my world-saving dreams without destroying my amazing brain.
One day, when the technology is perfected, my dreams will be recorded, we'll get the instructions from the Invisible Pink Unicorn and I will thus save the world.
Until then, I'm simply going to ask all y'all to take everything I say at face value. You can't disprove me, so if you have any doubts about my story you are obligated to withhold judgement until someone proves me right or wrong.
NO FAIR MAKING FUN OF ME!!! If you do you're a negative, defeatist, cynical party-pooping poop-head.
And to all the hopers, dreamers and positive thinkers out there with the "can do" attitudes and the open minds: speculate away, and stay tuned! The instructions from the IPU may someday make all of your hopes and dreams come true.
You are correct. You don't have to prove anything; your word should be enough. It's up to the skeptics to DISPROVE your claims.
Since it's virtually impossible to completely disprove the existance of something, you win by default. It's SO obvious!
Now that's what I call a post! 😉
Making fun don't have to be slander..
These IPUs intjudo, you've spoke of them before..
You never said how big they are, or exacly how pink?
If they're real, can I buy one?
If they're not, can I help fund you anyway? All I want is one when you finally remember the rest of the dream. Oh, and a sliver of the percentage?
I remember a dream about purple rhinos once and I get a gut feeling when I think "silly putty", but then again I have a thing about putty..
http://www.ufologie.net/press2/northbaynews14feb2004.htm
No one saw anything.
I don't exist.
lol, what's new?
""I quote from Hoofprints 4:14 (by the prophet Ixian):
Yea, and I was given by inspiration that She was
next to me, and I could touch Her, being the loyal
servant, and I laid my hand upon Her mane, and
She *was* Pink. She was not pink, She was not
colourless, but She *felt* Pink, and I was thus
overcome. I awoke later with a hangover, but I
knew She was *yet* Pink, but invisible.""
No, you can't buy one, and it turns out there is only one IPU...alas for my naivet
Angel Light has had some effect after-all eh? Also, what-with 11-D string-theory, parallel universes, Universal Branes -- I now know that We don't know much of anything at-all. Only 4.5% of the Universe is what we know as matter (95% is currently undetectable and unknown stuff!) The list goes on.
Still, We feeble humans can't progress without some means of sharing and verifying our discoveries. That's currently called "The Scientific Method" -- and Troy refuses to play that game -- so we'll never know if he stumbled onto anything. Still I'm too humbled by real science to mock even fake science. Troy caused me to explore a bit more.
IPU.. Faith & Logic beautifully balanced.
It does seem that IPU does slip into the plural sometimes. Are these translation errors from the first writings?
I Saw Her. I Kinda Saw Her. I Definitely Saw Something. I Believe.
http://crunchgear.com/2007/02/06/grizzly-man-in-financial-ruin-selling-halo-suit/