Sorry, but I got to the 50-minute mark and started watching. Nothing but mumbo-jumbo and self-righteous pontificating. The technology he was brandishing (but not explaining) was so obscure, it could mean everything or nothing. I've been granted more than a few patents in technology and there is a big difference between a patent on paper and proven technology in the laboratory. If he wants to warn "beware of fakes!", I will be glad to include him in the warning.
Don't be sly. I'm familiar with a lot of technical literature and the introduction of entirely new nomenclature is not just "research," it is a kind of wall against understanding. Photons are bosons, and coherent photons describe lasers, which absolutely cannot propagate beams through solid matter as though the matter were invisible. One would have to read the entire patent in order to understand what the inventors were talking about---including the "thermal bath" that he took to be so tremendous. A little explanation would have clarified the subject and added to his credibility. Absence of which does the opposite.
Watch the whole video. There is a new type of physics being researched so new names for it are mandatory. Its not my fault you couldn't understand it.
If you would like to talk to Mr Greenyer in order to know what he is saying you can email him on http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/
No. I place value on literacy and being able to write things down so they can be read (and cross-checked). I've seen too much fake science under the guise of videos, and I don't have time to waste waiting for the punch line. Especially when the narrator spends 5 minutes in melodramatic posing.
You want interesting physics and nomenclature, tuck into "Information Mechanics" by Frederick Kantor. But the odd nomenclature is not helpful.
Sorry, but I got to the 50-minute mark and started watching. Nothing but mumbo-jumbo and self-righteous pontificating. The technology he was brandishing (but not explaining) was so obscure, it could mean everything or nothing. I've been granted more than a few patents in technology and there is a big difference between a patent on paper and proven technology in the laboratory. If he wants to warn "beware of fakes!", I will be glad to include him in the warning.
Of course its obscure, its research.
Don't be sly. I'm familiar with a lot of technical literature and the introduction of entirely new nomenclature is not just "research," it is a kind of wall against understanding. Photons are bosons, and coherent photons describe lasers, which absolutely cannot propagate beams through solid matter as though the matter were invisible. One would have to read the entire patent in order to understand what the inventors were talking about---including the "thermal bath" that he took to be so tremendous. A little explanation would have clarified the subject and added to his credibility. Absence of which does the opposite.
Watch the whole video. There is a new type of physics being researched so new names for it are mandatory. Its not my fault you couldn't understand it. If you would like to talk to Mr Greenyer in order to know what he is saying you can email him on http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/
No. I place value on literacy and being able to write things down so they can be read (and cross-checked). I've seen too much fake science under the guise of videos, and I don't have time to waste waiting for the punch line. Especially when the narrator spends 5 minutes in melodramatic posing.
You want interesting physics and nomenclature, tuck into "Information Mechanics" by Frederick Kantor. But the odd nomenclature is not helpful.