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
Why can't you let people discuss it? Not only must you insist it is bullshit, you deny anyone else the ability to consider it. What nerve you have to interrupt other people conversing.
I understand that people will not believe it until they see a demonstration, who would? But why are you all so hostile and unbelieveably rude? This is unprecedented - you are the rudest bunch of doubters I have ever seen. It just makes me cringe, that anyone could think or write the things you say.
You made your point, you don't believe it, and you want proof. 1 sentence. Why are you still here posting? For the love of god go away! Some people actually want to learn and better themselves through intelligent discussion, you have no right to interfere with that, so be polite or fuck off!
http://www.improb.com/news/2002/jan/troy-bear3.html<< :lol:
I hadn't seen this one yet. Add "Fire Suppressant Agent 333," the amazing sand/oil separater, to the list!
Score a hat trick for Troy; this is the third semi-credible news source he's slipped into. He and Phil and TDC sure have the formula down:
1. A claim that the world could be better off if only Troy's amazing "invention" was utilized,
often coupled with Troy's "anger" over this oversight and the revelation that he wants his
"invention" to protect someone intensely close to him.
2. A bunch of unsubstantiated claims by Troy and/or the "reporter" regarding the "invention."
3. A logically/semantically neutral statement by an authoritative (or not so authoritative) voice
that says Troy's "invention" *would* be amazing *if* it worked.
4. If the invention is liquid: the revelation that the "secret ingredient" is Diet Coke.
5. A bunch of unsubstantiated claims concerning powerful people purported to have an interest.
6. Wild speculation about the "invention's" possibilities.
I'd like to emphasize that though I do regard Troy H. as a source of entertainment and not of
scientific endeavor or inventions, I don't feel any animosity towards towards him for his
"inventing" or for his hilarious attempts to market his stuff.
However, irresponsible journalisn is another matter. Phil Novak, TDC, BayToday and The Nugget
ought to be ashamed.
That being said, I think the funniest part about this whole thing is that stories about Troy's
"inventions" ACTUALLY GET PUBLISHED!!! :lol:
FYI. Phil defending Troy:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tuber/1935/#54753
I hereby nominate Phil for a P-U-litzer prize for investigative reporting!
So heres my two penneth (for what it's worth)
I think the general consensus that this is some sort of hoax is spot on, all the references to 'they laughed at edison' etc seems to have missed the point that in the 1800's there were no multi national companies spending billions of dollars on research and development, only amateur regular people experimenting with electro magnetism, heavier than air flight etc so I would suppose all of the innovations pre WWII were of this nature HOWEVER - post WWII governments in general (and by that I mean US and Soviet) have poured trillions of dollars into finding new ways of killing people. Remember remote viewing? Goat staring? So how come they haven't found this magic see through machine? Or at least the principle behind it. It is virtually impossible to imagine someone like Charles Babbage inventing the Mechanical Adding Machine (fore runner of the computer) in this day and age. You want cutting edge technology, look at the US Air force or NASA, not some hick who makes magic paste out of diet coke.
"You know what? Nobody ever said they believed this. People said "That sounds interesting, let's discuss it."
Well, I guess that's why they call you "Lucky" rather than "Observant." Go back and check the posts if you seriously believe that no one has said that they believe in the device. I've quoted directly from posts that said just that several times now. I guess you just somehow managed to miss both the original postings AND my posts which directly quoted from them. Oops.
"Why can't you let people discuss it? Not only must you insist it is bullshit, you deny anyone else the ability to consider it. What nerve you have to interrupt other people conversing."
In what way am I, or anyone else for that matter, denying anyone the ability to discuss this matter? Please be specific. How can you "interrupt" people from conversing on a bulletin board?
"You made your point, you don't believe it, and you want proof. 1 sentence. Why are you still here posting? For the love of god go away! Some people actually want to learn and better themselves through intelligent discussion, you have no right to interfere with that, so be polite or fuck off!"
Well, if you're being silly, congratulations! If not, you have obviously contradicted yourself with your last remark. For the record, I believe that pointing out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof IS contributing to intelligent discussion--as opposed to stupidity like people saying that even though there is NO evidence that this stupid "machine" can see through walls and the "inventor" refuses to provide such evidence, they believe in it anyway. Now THAT'S dumb!
When and if Hurtubise claims that he can fly under his own power (with the aid of Diet Coke, no doubt) will that, too, be reported without any requirement for proof of performance?
Maybe the guy's just a wacky conceptual artist and he's pulling our collective leg. In that case, I congratuate him and anxious await the press conference in which he reveals what he's been doing and shames the press in the process.
Your argument that governments would use it if it worked are sort of false. Mitchell ruined a fine navy Career because he believed that Naval Aviation was the way of the future. Enrico Fermi tried to explain the significance of nuclear fission, and was laughed away as a 'crazy WOP'.
Besides, the article does claim that the French govt did witness a demonstration and are interested.😊 Lol, I admit that without any corroborating evidence it's not to be believed.
You saw how rude and personally insulting people on this board became, to a person they never met! If one of these rude people works at the DOD and takes the phone call from this Troy person, they will not follow up on it, and they will put him on the 'crazy black-list' of people who's phone calls should be ignored in the future.
On this board the majority of posters are of the Rude and Angry ilk, but I don't know if that percentage is relevant in the real world. What is known is that military establishments are conservative, and resist new technologies by nature.
"Your argument that governments would use it if it worked are sort of false. Mitchell ruined a fine navy Career because he believed that Naval Aviation was the way of the future. Enrico Fermi tried to explain the significance of nuclear fission, and was laughed away as a 'crazy WOP'."
You are aware, are you not, Lucky, that governments all over the world use Naval Aviation and nuclear fission?
You may be correct that they weren't adopted immediately, but they ARE in use (and have been for decades now), so your "point" seems to be at least semi-moot at this point in history.
Getting past that, your argument seems to be a variation on "They laughed at the Wright Brothers" which has been made before.
As I pointed out at the time (go back and check), people STOPPED laughing at Orville and Wilbur when they actually FLEW THEIR PLANE. Claims prove precisely nothing; demonstrations under scientifically controlled conditions prove (or disprove) all. All we have from Hurtubise so far are claims.
Please explain, using logic if possible, why you are willing to believe the unproven claims of a man who says he has broken the known laws of physics (and who seems unwilling to back up those claims).
Secondly, the story about Fermi is not so accurate, either. The US was already developing the Bomb when an uninformed and ignorant army officer made that assesment about the physicist. At that time, Fermi had already made a working reactor and demonstrated it to MANY other scientests, none of whome felt the need to "rewrite the laws of physics" after seeing it.
Thirdly, military establishments may be conservative, but all of the cutting edge technology that has been developed since the second world war was developed as a result of military spending. Nuclear power, advanced electronics, and avaition. Having worked on classified projects for defense contractors, I can tell you that the military is VERY interested in new ideas. I've worked on a few, and none of them "defied the known laws of physics".
And finally, many of the rude people on this list are Hurtibise BELIEVERS, not just the sceptics
I hear the French Army is very interested so that they can look through the walls of their hidey holes and see who they are surrending to.
It is made from a revolutionary fire proof paste made only from SAND, that can also miraculously prevent water from passing through it yet allows all light through. I call it GLASS.
I have also invented a substance that makes OIL float to the top of water. I call it 'relative density'.
Any gullible reporters looking for a new story are more than welcome to contact me and bring envelopes full of shiny pound coins.
...Ooooorrrrrrr we could CONSIDER the possibility that they did what they clam, and possibly discuss the physics which might apply, maybe specuiate and have fun with it, and possibly learn a thing or two while we are at it.
What bothers me is that no educated and informed people are going to post here because it is just a bunch of kids who learned a few dirty words and like to use them. Thanks to them anyone who possibly would have posted substantial and interesting information won't bother with this sand-box.
Good point about Mitchell being in Army not Navy, my mistake and poor memory.
-Cranky and Matzus:
I think we are arguing the wrong thing. I don't want to argue whether we should believe this guy's claims, I admit over and over that no-one has to, or has much reason to. I post examples of 'fringe' science that were not accepted, solely to stimulate you to open your minds to *Consider* new possibilities. People debate Star Trek for Christ's sake, they know it's fake but they debate it! People write essays and critiques on all sorts of fiction, why can people not discuss this article which claims to be real? Why???
Unfortunately there is no point looking here for information or entertainment anymore, what scientist would waste their time. Any person who posts even speculation of how the machine MAY operate meets multiple replies that it cannot exist and cannot operate. This KILLS open discussion, it is unjust cencorship to serve the pusposes of your dogma. Furthermore I suspect it strokes your ego.
It seemed obvious to me (and I don't think I was alone) that this subject was unprovable. It, by nature, could not be proven true or false. If it is true then he sold it to France and won't disclose anything. If it's false he won't disclose anything because it is false.
What you fail to understand is that one can discuss something despite it not being provable. Well, it is possible, but not here, because you shout down anyone who tries.
Thanks for that. Maybe you should go to a bible-study website where they are debating the meaning of a passage, and shout them down, because they can't prove the passage ever happened.
But wait a moment here, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. lets look at a couple of things carefully.
Firepaste, does it do what it is supposed to do?. Yes and no. I don't think for a moment that given this guys money problems that any respected fire retardant/proofing comapany thowing a wad of money his way would have been turned down. The problem is , I belive they have allready looked at it and decided they probly have somthing better allready availble with less cost to manufacture. Plus there is the fact we don't know about the bromine in the stuff, does it break down? If you sprayed this stuff on the side of a house and washed it off, Oh yess, you saved the house but now the water table is poisoned with bromine.
Not good.
The blastproof bags .. Yes they work , and NO they wont be used in Iraq or anywhere else. WHY? well at 300.00 a pop they will never be used. this is old technology. and yes I could build the exact same thing (mabey better) for about the same sort of money. But if the millitary was so interested in saving lives they would have been willing to spend the few dollars per humvee for plain ol steel plates and doors. And outfit every soldier with class three body armor with ceramic rifle plates .. But no , they don't I just had to go out and buy EXACTLY that for a friend who was shipped of in Dec to Iraq. They just dont have the body armor they should , and you expect the millitary to shell out wads of cash for bags that dont cover the whole door or window? give me a break.
Support our troops, Hell yes, fug the little fuggin ribbons and magnetic flags and shat. buy BODYARMOR , the dirty little secret is that even now , when the millitary was supposed have body armor for every soldier in the theater by nov 04 is a LIE , talk to soldiers , talk to the national guard and reservists and you will have a REAL fuggin story of lives lost for a war on the cheap.
This is bullshat
Lucky, I agree that we kill off things without giving them the proper consideration and that is wrong, but I know from experience that everyone who hears for the first time about a death ray or an anti gravity machine or whatever goes 'cool!' and then when it turns out to be an industrial laser that can cook and egg in twelve minutes but can be deflected by a mirror, or super conductors that have magical properties for fractions of a second or whatever it upsets people - it upsets me, I want it to be true and it turns out to be some backwater publicity stunt.
you give me one example of an amateur scientist discovering something new in physics or chemistry in the last twenty years? - I bet you'll be hard pressed. The reason why, I think is that all these private companies, governments and the military spend alot of money on R&D?
So yes, this guy is a publicity hunter and I think that is why people get cross.
As to the physics behind the claims, you are looking at some pretty hefty violations of energy laws at quantum levels - cutting edge stuff from the bear suit/ fire paste / diet coke guy.
I believe that in order to get new directions in science you need to overthrow old laws - look at Newton and gravity - good guess, but wrong and it took 250 years to find that out.
David, I was discussing the armour sitation with some other people, and they felt everyone had interceptors. Could you point me to a link I could show them? As for armouring the HMMWVs, a Marine mentioned that the officers who never leave the base cruise walking distances in the up-armoured vehicles, while the patrols get what's left.
"Cranky - How many people witnessed the flight? I'm 500 miles away and I 'hear' or 'read' that they flew and I'm supposed to believe it? Well obviously the fucking ugly barbarian lunk heads with blood trickling from their hollow skulls where they smash their heads against walls are lieing, and I won't believe it until they come to my house and knock on my door and prove they flew, and I know a magician who can do the same thing because it's a trick."
Duh, what was I thinking? Yes, I totally forgot that there is NO evidence that planes can fly! In the year 2005, do you honestly believe that there is no way to demonstrate that airplanes can FLY??? By the way, please show me a magician, ANY magician, who can convincingly simulate a plane flying at 25,000 feet. What, exactly, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
"...Ooooorrrrrrr we could CONSIDER the possibility that they did what they clam, and possibly discuss the physics which might apply, maybe specuiate and have fun with it, and possibly learn a thing or two while we are at it."
Well, that's KIND of what we ARE doing here. What bothers me is people (and there have been several here, despite your previous claim that there weren't) who totally and uncritically accept Hurtubise's claim of having changed the laws of physics without the slightest shred of evidence. Speculate all you want, but until and unless Mr. Bear-proof Suit produces actual EVIDENCE that his machine can see through walls, all the speculation amounts to mental masturbation.
"People debate Star Trek for Christ's sake, they know it's fake but they debate it! People write essays and critiques on all sorts of fiction, why can people not discuss this article which claims to be real? Why???"
The salient point in that last paragraph is, "they know it's fake." People KNOW Star Trek is a work of fiction and discuss it in that light. Show me someone who thinks that "transporters" really exist and I'll show you a moron. Until evidence is produced, "Angel Light" is also from the World O' Fiction. The difference is that Hurtubise claims that it's REAL while Gene Roddenberry never made such a claim for the Enterprise, Vulcans or dilithium. See the difference?
"Unfortunately there is no point looking here for information or entertainment anymore, what scientist would waste their time."
I find it hard to follow your point here. Since the burden of proving the reality of the machine is completely on Hurtubise's shoulders, what COULD a scientist get from this discussion other than learning that a guy in Canada is making a wild claim? No one here can possibly prove that this thing works.
CONTINUED
"Any person who posts even speculation of how the machine MAY operate meets multiple replies that it cannot exist and cannot operate."
Anyone posting speculation about how the machine MIGHT work is engaging in fantasy. Yes, that's entertaining, but it proves precisely nothing. Why don't we talk about how porcine aviation MIGHT work?
"This KILLS open discussion, it is unjust cencorship to serve the pusposes of your dogma. Furthermore I suspect it strokes your ego."
Where is the "censorship?" How is discussing this subject "killing" anything? What bothers you, I suspect, is that I am not willing to engage in the mental masturbation of fantasizing about how the machine MIGHT work. The bottom line, as I have pointed out before, is simple: HURTUBISE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT IT WORKS! Period. Any discussion of how the thing "might" work is a waste of time. Either it does or it doesn't.
"Thanks for that. Maybe you should go to a bible-study website where they are debating the meaning of a passage, and shout them down, because they can't prove the passage ever happened."
I debate religious people all the time. I don't "shout them down" and I've learned that true believers aren't ever going to be swayed by something as Earth-bound as FACTS, but it's fun anyway.
Something you might consider: it's the person who makes an assertion (like the notion that Hurtubise's machine might actually work) who has the burden of proof. One cannot prove a negative.
Just to throw you a curveball - you do realize that this is a false statement. It is, in fact, very possible to prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that I am not currently sitting in a bar in San Diego having a drink with Alex.
With regards to the rest, I gather that what Lucky wants to discuss are new theories of science that can be used to explain this invention. I don't believe that this is quite the place for it.
This invention is extremely likely to be a hoax. Modern physics supports this. Others may disagree. Fine. But this isn't the place to have involved theoretical discussions involving new physical laws or "mystical" energy sources to try and rationalize a way for this device to be real. There are far too many websites devoted to this sort of bad science already. If you can come up with a way for this to work without changing the laws of physics, great. Otherwise, try and remember that this is not, in fact, a website for the greatest theoretical physicists of our time to hash out new ideas. Most of us aren't string theorists and can't argue intelligently about the fundamentals involved here. However, it doesn't take a genius so recognize something as likely being a hoax. Just a healthy level of skepticism and lots of experience. We come here because these sorts of things interest us and we like discussing them and even making fun of the more outlandish ones such as this. We're not terribly highbrow around here.
If you want someone to blow your mind with far more information that you can possibly understand or digest then I suggest you try posting to the straightdope forum. I'll warn you, though. They won't be anywhere near as polite.
"Just to throw you a curveball - you do realize that this is a false statement. It is, in fact, very possible to prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that I am not currently sitting in a bar in San Diego having a drink with Alex."
Well, you probably couldn't prove that to an absolute certainty, but that's beyond hair-splitting (besides, I'm kidding).
What I probably SHOULD have said is that it's impossible to absolutely prove that something doesn't exist. If you claimed that there were flying monkeys on the dark side of the moon and I went to investigate and reported back that I couldn't find any, you could always say that they were hiding and I just didn't find the hiding spot. You get my point, I'm sure.
Hurtubise is working a variation of this scam.
"So, where's that see-through-walls thingie, Mr. Hurtubise?"
"Oh, the French won't let me show it to anyone yet."
OR:
"It isn't working at the moment, but I'll have it fixed REAL soon."
OR:
"It doesn't work if there's a skeptic in the room." (an excuse used by many a "psychic")
And so on and so on.
He has re-assembled the Angel Light! but still hasn't worked out the "Hyde" effect. His latest grandoise claim is that the machine will destroy pollution. i wish i had taped the news clip and could give an exact quote but the example he gave had something to do with destroying methane with the contraption. The interesing aspect of the interview from my point of view was his reference to "His guidance" or something of that sort. The inference was that Troy is creating under some divine guidance, that thru his dreams a Higher_Power is guiding his hands. He also claimed that his machine could save "millions of lives". I suppose thru the anti-pollution application. Now lets recall that his oil-sand separation process would end the world oil crisis by unlocking the oil in the Alberta oil sands and U.S. oil shale at rock bottom prices. And that the fire-retardant he invented would have saved the world trade centres during 9-11.
I know nothing of theoretical physics so i don't comment on that. But i believe the progressivly messianic quality to Troy's claims reflect an alarming detachment from reality. The man who grizzly-proofed north america was an obsesive EXCENTRIC. The man who built the Angel Light is a CRACKED POT. And cracked pots do not hold water.
Here's an interesting article about different flavors of "documentaries" and how they vary in factual content, including a reference to a scene in our man's bear-suit "documentary":
http://www.ryerson.ca/rrj/archives/1999/anspr.html
Here's some great pot-calling-the-kettle-black commentary from BayToday:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/editorials/recent.asp?w=3
Petty disputes aside, I apologize to any who I offended.
What do you all say we make a collective effort to find out how to reach this Troy guy, and ask him to record on video his Angel Light working? Does this sound reasonable to everyone? If we all put our signatures on a petition then 50 people asking for a demo may be reasonable.
And just to show that I can be skeptical, we could consider that he may be schizophrenic. He thought the wall was invisible, the mind could be playing tricks. It happens all the time to people.
"It doesn't work if there's a skeptic in the room."
Thanks for the laugh. Haven't heard that one before. Pure genius. I have never laughed out loud while reading, rarely when I watch a comedy, but this time I actually did LOL! Nice one. Thanks for that
Theres no difference in believing that this thing works (without proof) than believing in UFO's. Its a thing you choose to believe because you WANT to.
Then again, why (when Mr. Hurtubise "nearly broke his knuckles on 3 to 4 occasions" while nearing the wall that was rendered invisible), had he not been rendered transparent himself, or cast a "shadow" of "visible wall" in front of his body or at least near his hand?
"To Cranky media guy,
"It doesn't work if there's a skeptic in the room."
Thanks for the laugh. Haven't heard that one before. Pure genius. I have never laughed out loud while reading, rarely when I watch a comedy, but this time I actually did LOL! Nice one. Thanks for that"
Well, I'm certainly glad to have provided you with a laugh, but I really can't take credit for that line. Believe it or not, it has been used many times in the past (and will be again, I'm sure) by "psychics" being tested under scientific conditions. It makes me laugh, too, but with derision.
If you'd like examples of people actually using that silly excuse, check out randi.org. Use the search engine; I'm sure you'll find enough variations on that old ruse to amuse you for hours.
"Theres nothing to talk about really, either he demonstrates it properly or theres no proof that it works, in which case i dont believe it.
"Theres no difference in believing that this thing works (without proof) than believing in UFO's. Its a thing you choose to believe because you WANT to."
Extremely well said (and using far fewer words than I would have employed to say the same thing. OK, I'm verbose.) Good job!
I believe it might be possible to excite matter to a resonant frequency, similar to the way a guitar string vibrates, this resonant frequency could result in allowing light to scatter in a non-uniform manner that might create the optical illusion of translucency.
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics507/modules/m10/laser_cooling.htm
As for the fish that died when the device was aimed at them. I think Mr. Hurtubise may have simply microwaved them to death, water is an efficient sink for microwave radiation.
http://web.mit.edu/mwpstr/www/foto/node6.html
The electronic interference is most likely from intense microwave radiation as well.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99331.htm
Finally as for the RAM ( stealth material ) the microwaves emitted by the angel light may have attenuated the material so that it no longer absorbed the engery wavelengths of the radar gun, thus allowing the radar waves to bounce back to the radar gun.
(sorry no link for this one )
I would be very intersted to see this device work. If this device could be tweaked to reliably resonate matter to the point where molecular bonds break down. It would be the greatest boon to mankind since fire. Hydrogen could be easily produced from water, bringing about the so called hydrogen economy. It would also make a formidable weapon, just imagine if the device were tuned to shatter the molecular bonds in any type of matter.
"I believe it might be possible to excite matter to a resonant frequency, similar to the way a guitar string vibrates, this resonant frequency could result in allowing light to scatter in a non-uniform manner that might create the optical illusion of translucency."
No offense, Pro, my man, but it doesn't really matter what you think *might* be possible. I mean it's fun to speculate and all, but either the thing works or it doesn't. It's really just that simple. I'm voting for "doesn't."
"I believe it might be possible to excite matter to a resonant frequency, similar to the way a guitar string vibrates, this resonant frequency could result in allowing light to scatter in a non-uniform manner that might create the optical illusion of translucency."
Yes it is possible to excite matter to a resonant frequency, but it doesn't make it transperent or translucent. The link you provided doesn't support that theory in the slightest, either.
"As for the fish that died when the device was aimed at them. I think Mr. Hurtubise may have simply microwaved them to death, water is an efficient sink for microwave radiation."
Well, I may give you that one. If the thing DID produce microwaves at the right frequency it would cook the fish by heating the water. I don't need a link to MIT to figure that out.
"Finally as for the RAM ( stealth material ) the microwaves emitted by the angel light may have attenuated the material so that it no longer absorbed the engery wavelengths of the radar gun, thus allowing the radar waves to bounce back to the radar gun."
What the hell does "attenuate the material" mean? It shrunk? Maybe you mean it 'saturated' the material, in which case it would have become hotter and maybe melted or combusted. No mention of that in the article.
I'm with Cranky, There is no need to rationalize how this thing "might" work when it clearly doesn't. A working device is a demonstratable device, by definition. A device that can't be demonstrated is one that doesn't work, and that's what we have here
I'm impressed that you know your greek mythology.
Not really.
As for schooling you in the English vernacular. I am using the term attentuation in the context that the materials absorptive properties were weakend or attenuated.
But seriously, Cranky Media Guy your point is well taken. I agree the probability of Mr. Hurtubise stumbling across a device like this is astronomical, though not impossible just highly improbable.
Finally, it is possible to induce transparency in certain mediums (ie. rubies can be rendered tranparent using microwaves). The document that I linked to prevously on laser cooling is the same phenomena that would allow for transparency. However since you are obviously not a physics expert I am wasting my time talking with you, this conversation is finished.
Anyone, else interested in the phenomena of electromagnetically induced tranparency would find the following aticle interesting. It is an overview of current research taking place in EIT. (warning it contains highly technical language and is not an easy read).
http://www.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk/EIT/publications/papers/JMOrev/JMOrev.pdf
"However since you are obviously not a physics expert I am wasting my time talking with you, this conversation is finished."
You are? I think I smell fertelizer.
The "optical transparency" refered to in the report has to do with the laser mediums ability to lase, not a person's ability to see through it. I can see through a tube of sodium gas, but it's not able to emit laser light untill the number of atoms in the excited state is greater than those in the ground state. When they are equal, the medium is said to be "optically transparent". I don't think that is anything remotely similar to making a sheet of dry-wall as clear as glass as Mr. "Angel Light" seems to say.
You're right in that I'm no physics expert, but I know how to spot crap when I hear it
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise.wma
Based on this interview I'm willing to say he seems like a straight up, no BS guy - if he has an agenda, it's not apparent. I'm saying straight out I believe him - decide for yourself.
Also, as I talked about in an earlier post, he discusses how someone like him is more apt to discover something like this simply because he did something in the development process a "true" scientist/engineer would never attempt, already assuming it's impossible.
If nothing else I hope it opens people's minds to the fact that an education actually applies a limiting factor to knowledge and discovery - BUT, the downside of that is you remove a vital safety factor. Suffice it to say there were also guys like Troy who are now in that great "labratory in the sky."
For those who already have their mind made up that this is a hoax and don't want to listen to the interview - the premise of the invention is that it "fuses light" as in the different spectrums. Different apertures can be applied to widen or concentrate the beam as well as applied power variance to control depth.
Yes, there's a place for skepticism, and yes, Mr Hurtubise is most likely a hoaxer, but these rabid rants -- except for the occasional measured comment by such people as Neutral -- tell the rest of the world far more about yourselves than they do about Mr Hurtubise's science.
Time and again you attack character and not logic. I'm sure this post will attract the same response, but really guys, if you sit down, just for a moment, and look at yourselves good and hard, what do you see?
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise.wma<<
He offers no "explanation" whatsoever. All he provides is the same thing he provides in all his marketing: un-verified (many un-verifiable) claims, and unintelligible ramblings about the "explanations" his interminable list of undisclosed "scientists" have supposedly given him concerning the workings of is "inventions." This interview is completely void of verifiable facts.
It's perfectly possible to *sound* sincere while being completely delusional.
But thanks for the link anyway, it's quite enjoyable! :lol: BTW, here are some other "great" links from the same site:
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Coanda-UFO-Overview.wmv
http://www.intalek.com/AV/DrWho.wav
...or maybe the most telling of all:
http://www.intalek.com
"For those who already have their mind made up that this is a hoax and don't want to listen to the interview - the premise of the invention is that it "fuses light" as in the different spectrums. Different apertures can be applied to widen or concentrate the beam as well as applied power variance to control depth."
Um, why do you accept the word of a man who apparently lacks the ability to simply DEMONSTRATE his "invention?" Of course he says it works. Would you expect anything else from him?
The simple fact is that NO ONE has EVER demonstrated the ability to "fuse light." Period. All he has to do to convert skeptics like myself is DEMONSTRATE that the thing works. Words don't cut it. Sorry.
"Cranky Media Guy! Where the hell have you been? We're being over run by the credulous here, and you take a holiday."
Sor-ry! I was in Vegas with Alan Abel and a few other like-minded individuals for the first ever meeting of the International Association of Professional Pranksters (yes, really). Also, I wasn't entirely sure that my meager efforts at injecting sanity into the easily-convinced were appreciated. What did I miss?
If the device (hypothetically Im saying here, I don't know if this is a credible experiment, but it raises interesting questions) could entangle photons across wavelengths so that they traded properties and exchanged information at a distance, could the penetrating wavelengths relay information to the visible spectrum photons which reflect back to the viewer?
What would I say to convince you that his invention works? Nothing.. I don't know if it does. I have not seen it yet. But what can I say about Troy?
Fire-Paste works just as he claims.
LIMBC (armor cushions) stand up to 4 sticks of dynamite/rifle fire/shotgun blasts
His Ursus Mk VII Is possibly the greatest contribution science has had to physical comedy ever.and it looks cool.
His planned G-Man suit could save countless lives of battlefield soldiers if properly developed.
He is a freakin' weirdo.
All I am saying is that this man has made outlandish claims in the past and has been proven right.
Now he has made the most outlandish claim of his career.
I can't believe this thing works exactly the way he says it does. But I will wait untill the demonstration on the 17th of this month to give him the oppourtunity to prove his claims.
Do you know the entanglement mechanism? Can you enlighten us?
Formulate a hypothesis, and the try to disprove it through experimentaion?
The two photons have to start out as one, and then decay into two lower energy photons through interaction with an atom.
Mr Angel light isn't doing anything of the sort. He's made a big prop and is making claims about it that he can't back up. You're formulating a hypothesis to explain the principles behind a non-working item. You may as well try to figure out how a perpetual motion machine works. In two words, it doesn't.
"Isn't this how science works?
"Formulate a hypothesis, and the try to disprove it through experimentaion?"
OK, so what's Hurtubise's hypothesis? Near as I can tell, he doesn't have one. Doesn't he claim that he doesn't know how the device works and that it came to him through recurring dreams? Uh, exactly how does one test THAT?
Besides, all this theorizing about how the thing *might* work amounts to nothing but mental masturbation unless and until he actually DEMONSTRATES that the thing is something other than a big fake prop.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Amen, Brother Sagan.