New Type of Lens Detects Entities Invisible to Humans

[singular_me]

i like Dahboo777, his materials always offer an excellent edge and are out of the box. I call this being diversified.

wonder what aeon will say about this. Didnt read the paper and not in the hurry and I always have believed that our perceptions are extremely limited.

-----------------------------------
New Type of Lens Detects Entities Invisible to Humans
DAHBOO777

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsoDFQsL7lw


Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies).

Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.


VIDEO/scientists interview
http://yournewswire.com/new-type-of-lense-detects-entities-invisible-to-humans/
Technical information can be obtained from the scientific paper R. M. Santilli, “Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with Concave Lenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE),” American Journal of Modern Physics (in press).


American Journal of Modern Physics
2015
Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with Concave
Lenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE)
Ruggero Maria Santilli

Abstract:
By using telescopes with concave lenses, known as Santilli telescopes (trademark
and patent pending by the U.S. publicly traded company Thunder Energies
Corporation), we review preceding evidence for the apparent existence of
antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays. Independently from these astrophysical detections, we present for the first time evidence for the apparent existence of entities in our terrestrial environment that are solely visible via telescopes with concave lenses, while being invisible to our eyes and to conventional Galileo telescopes with convex lenses, which entities leave
dark images in the background of digital cameras attached to the Santilli telescopes. These entities are here called Invisible Terrestrial Entities of the
first kind (ITE 1) or dark ITE. We then present, also for the first time, evidence
for the apparent existence in our terrestrial environment of additional entities that are also visible to telescopes with concave lenses while being invisible to our eyes and to conventional telescopes with convex lenses, which entities leave bright
images in the background of digital cameras. These additional entities are here called
Invisible Terrestrial Entities of the second kind (ITE2) or bright ITE. It is pointed out that both types of entities gene rally move in the night sky over sensitive areas, and
their behavior generally suggests unauthorized surveillance. This paper has been motivated by the significance and diversification of the collected evidence, as well as available independent confirmations, that warrant systematic inspections of the sky over our sensitive civilian industrial,and military installations via telescopes with concave lenses, so as to detect possible unauthorized surveillance.
http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs/ITE-paper-12-15-15.pdf


Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Terrestrial Entities Using Santilli Telescope
Columbia, Jan. 20, 2016 /PRNewswire/ - Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/thunder-energies-discovers-invisible-terrestrial-000000459.html

[Shami-Amourae]

Article is referring to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRC2q_VLEM

Looking into it now.

[Shami-Amourae]

https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=5736

I don’t normally comment on crank science that finds its way into my Inbox, but this morning I got a really good laugh.


The announcement was dramatic enough: the e-mail bore the title, “Apparent detection of antimatter galaxies”. It came from the “Santilli foundation”, who sent me some eyebrow-raising e-mails in the past, but this was sufficiently intriguing to make me click on the link they provided (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Detect-Ant-Galaxies.php). So click I did, only to be confronted with the following image:


https://spinor.info/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gal-sant-teles.png (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Detect-Ant-Galaxies.php)
What’s that, you ask? Why, a telescope with a concave lens. Had I paid a little bit more attention to the e-mail, I might have been a little less surprised; they did include a longer title, you see, helpfully typeset in all caps, which read, “APPARENT DETECTION OF ANTIMATTER GALAXIES VIA SANTILLI’S TELESCOPE WITH CONCAVE LENSES”.


Say what? Concave lenses? Why, it’s only logical. If light from an ordinary galaxy is focused by a convex lens, then surely, light from an antimatter galaxy will be focused by a concave lens. This puts this Santilli fellow in the same league as Galileo; like his counterpart five centuries ago, Santilli also invented his own telescope. But wait, Santilli is also a modern-day Newton: like Newton, he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, which he calls “isodual mathematics”. Certainly sounds impressive.


So what does Einstein’s relativity have to say about all this? Why, it’s all a “century of scientific scams by organized interests on Einstein […] to discredit opposing views”. It’s all “sheer dishonesty and scientific gangsterism”. But it is possible “for the United Stated of America to regain a minimum of international scientific credibility”. All that is needed is to “investigate the legality of the current use of public funds by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on research based on the current mandate of compatibility with Einstein’s theory” and the US of A will cease to be bankrupt.


Oh, and you also need some telescopes with concave lenses.

[Shami-Amourae]

Here's there scientific paper the company claiming this published.

http://www.thunder-energies.com/docs/ITE-paper-12-15-15.pdf


I'm not taking a position on whether I believe this or not. I think I'm going to be skeptical, but open minded.

[singular_me]

the PDF is in the OP

I knew you'd attempt to derail it. based on your stance that anything is touching the paranormal is crap , science will never be able to prove the supernatural. Einstein plagiarized but behind closed door he was in support of the ether theory.

considering that the santelli's telescope project was designed for military purpose, I dont expect to get all the truth from those few links. Some missing data about this telescope might be secret/classified, some technical aspects might not be shared with the public

OP: the sky over our sensitive civilian industrial,and military installations via telescopes with concave lenses, so as to detect possible unauthorized surveillance.

remind me on your stance about CERN, which many believe to have a secret esoteric agenda.

[Santa]

I have an early 70's concave lens Canon 35mm f2 wide angle that mysteriously lets me see through women's furry clothing.

[Glass]

I have an early 70's concave lens Canon 35mm f2 wide angle that mysteriously lets me see through women's furry clothing.

I was talking to some about this this morning. The old Sony handycams. I've heard You can still do it with the new ones with the right filter.

As for the OP, I've made this contention several times here there are things just outside our visual range. you get glimspses of something being there. Just a whisper, like a veil, ghoul like. Sometimes there is a lot going on, a lot of movment, multiple things, entities, what ever they are, sometimes very little activity.

edit to add: will reserve judgement about these guys. lets see what unfolds. I think the military base thing at the end is a bit out of place. Did they do hospitals or schools or filled sports arenas? For a comparison.

will read the pdf

[Glass]

Has these been shown up as a hoax yet?

ok, read the PDF. mostly the same information as the video but with a little more explanation. Interesting topic.

My thoughts:
1. Some of the images appear to have been taken in random places. Not sure is there was a plan involved in picking locations but seems not.

2. The images were taken with the scientist or discoverer, his wife and a friend (independent 3rd witness) doesn't seem like controlled conditions, repeatability, falsifiability were given much thought. BUT hard to tell from material provided

3. If the light is anti matter light, and to see it you need to reverse the lens structure and the only way to capture it is on a digital camera, my question is, how can the camera, which is designed to work in our matter world ABLE to detect these things. To my way of thinking it should not be possible unless you have an anti camera matter device. just tickles my illogic bone a little bit.

4. I would love to see what Crrow77 could make of this with his moon waves. I would expect that he could suddenly find a ton of new objects transiting the moon.

5. Is the moon pumping in anti matter? It is contended in FE theory that the light of the moon is actually cooling. So if you have a glass of liquid and it is X degrees, lets say 77F/25C and you put is in the moon light to stand a few minutes, it will drop temp quite quickly and show a several, (measurable) degrees difference. The FE Contention is, if the Moon reflects Sunlight as science says it does, it should be warm in temperature not cold. Not sure I grasp that logic but sure.

6. Is this the reason we cannot see this unknown solar system object directly? Because it is in the Anti matter state? We can feel it's effects but not see it?

7. Final one. Does this explain the issue with the electron. Where is comes from, where it goes and why it seems to skip some degrees, I think it is 270 degrees and then revert back to where is started. It's flipping in and out of different matter states?

Of course this is straight from the They Live plot. Would be a thing, if it were just like the movie.

I remember doing lenses and focal lengths experiments and calcs etc in physics classed back in highschool. The convex lens Vs Concave lens was a question I asked back then.

I've often wondered if our eyes being convex, looking through convex lenses, what the compounding effects would be. How would it distort the appearance of the world we find ourselves in.

[Glass]

So they are looking closely at Protons now.

This needs to go in several threads. the Harmonics thread I started. The scientists catching up to the bible. Probably several of singulars threads.

Interesting times in deed. The pieces keep falling... looking for new places to settle.


'Sacrilegious' physics theory tested

A "sacrilegious" physics theory could change everything scientists know about one of the basic building blocks of the universe, an Adelaide researcher says.

An experiment in the US, involving a scientist from the University of Adelaide, is now underway to prove the structure of protons can change inside the nucleus of an atom under certain conditions.

If proved correct, the theory could rewrite scientists' understanding of nuclear physics, University of Adelaide physics professor Anthony Thomas says.

"For many scientists, the idea that the internal structure of protons might change under certain circumstances can seem absurd, even sacrilegious," he said on Wednesday.

"To others like myself, evidence of this internal change is highly sought after and would help to explain some of the inconsistencies in theoretical physics."

While there are no immediate real-world applications, the ramifications for the scientific world are significant, Prof Thomas said.

"This is about as high stakes as it gets in science. It could represent a new paradigm for nuclear physics."

story @ the West. (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/30667896/sacrilegious-physics-theory-tested/)

[Horn]

This thread is useless without entity pics.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8479/8159080448_dc120e9a26_z.jpg

[Glass]

An interesting thing is the Proton, from wiki:


The proton is a subatomic particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle), symbol p or p
+
, with a positive electric charge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) of +1e elementary charge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge) and mass slightly less than that of a neutron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron). Protons and neutrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron), each with mass approximately one atomic mass unit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit), are collectively referred to as "nucleons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon)". One or more protons are present in the nucleus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus) of every atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom). The number of protons in the nucleus is the defining property of an element, and is referred to as the atomic number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number). Since each element (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) has a unique number of protons, each element has its own unique atomic number. The word proton is Greek for "first", and this name was given to the hydrogen nucleus by Ernest Rutherford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford) in 1920. In previous years Rutherford had discovered that the hydrogen nucleus (known to be the lightest nucleus) could be extracted from the nuclei of nitrogen by collision. The proton was therefore a candidate to be a fundamental particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_particle) and a building block of nitrogen and all other heavier atomic nuclei.

In the modern Standard Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics, the proton is a hadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron), and like the neutron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron), the other nucleon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon) (particle present in atomic nuclei), is composed of three quarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark). Although the proton was originally considered a fundamental or elementary particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle), it is now known to be composed of three valence quarks: two up quarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark) and one down quark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_quark). The rest masses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass) of the quarks contribute only about 1% of the proton's mass, however.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Mass-2) The remainder of the proton mass is due to the kinetic energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon) fields that bind the quarks together. Because the proton is not a fundamental particle, it possesses a physical size; the radius of the proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtometre).[3]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-PSI-3)At sufficiently low temperatures, free protons will bind to electrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron). However, the character of such bound protons does not change, and they remain protons. A fast proton moving through matter will slow by interactions with electrons and nuclei, until it is captured by the electron cloud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud) of an atom. The result is a protonated atom, which is a chemical compound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) of hydrogen. In vacuum, when free electrons are present, a sufficiently slow proton may pick up a single free electron, becoming a neutral hydrogen atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom), which is chemically a free radical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical). Such "free hydrogen atoms" tend to react chemically with many other types of atoms at sufficiently low energies. When free hydrogen atoms react with each other, they form neutral hydrogen molecules (H2), which are the most common molecular component of molecular clouds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clouds) in interstellar space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium). Such molecules of hydrogen on Earth may then serve (among many other uses) as a convenient source of protons for accelerators (as used in proton therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy)) and other hadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron) particle physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics) experiments that require protons to accelerate, with the most powerful and noted example being the Large Hadron Collider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider).



link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton)

So the proton is called a Hadron, which is what the hadron collider is working with. Proton smasher.

What is interesting is that this affects things like carbon dating. The insinuation is that protons are changing physical structure in an intermittent way. Not changing from one thing to another thing, but changing in some structure. It might affect visibility OR it could be that something else is happening which is being detected and looks like a structural change.

I wonder if it is affecting visibility, maybe the proton is there, then not there. Like the electron is. Definately need to know more about what specific changes they are talking about

[singular_me]

glass, thanks for your time to research so much... and I will for sure follow your discovery process. The time is not right for me to start another marathon at this time, as I have personal stuff going on. I didnt know that a hadron is a proton either by the way.

[Spectrism]

Withholding opinions on this until there is something substantial.

As for Dahboo7- he is a whiny punk who is so low in the ignorance class that he should not be trumpeting anything new or scientific. I used to subscribe to his channel but he got soooo many things wrong and hyped so much over nothing that it was pointless even listening to him.

anti-matter, dark energy, dark light.... we are now talking in realms of the spirit. Yes, there are entities around us that are not normally seen. I will accept that. But there had better be some decent images to verify this concave lens concept. Frankly, it sounds stupid but I will consider all options.

If you look at infrared telescopes, they use concave lens reflectors because the IR will not pass through the lens. The mirrored concave provides a reflective surface to focus all the light of the reflected wavelengths onto a sensor array. The concept of this Santilli system is that anti-matter light (anti-light?) works reverse of normal light. Instead of focusing to a point through a convex lens, it disperses. Hence, a concave lens disperses normal light and anti-light would converge. Does it really work like that? Not that I know of.

[Neuro]

Here is his paper claiming to show evidence of antimatter galaxies...
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Antimatter-telescope-2013-final.pdf
I guess it could be, but on the other hand it could be anything else too, the images are not really clear at all, concave lenses should be able to collect light from pretty much anything around the "telescope", but most of it from the inside wall of the telescope tube itself. My best guess would be terrestrial light pollution reflected on the inside wall of the telescope tube created these images... :)

[singular_me]

if I had known that the paper had pix in it, I would have added an interrogation mark to the subject line. Regardless of the theory, I dont find these pix conclusive.

yet again, if true, I dont think the military/darpa would allow the release of the all the technical details related to this telescope

[Shami-Amourae]

the PDF is in the OP

I knew you'd attempt to derail it. based on your stance that anything is touching the paranormal is crap , science will never be able to prove the supernatural. Einstein plagiarized but behind closed door he was in support of the ether theory.

considering that the santelli's telescope project was designed for military purpose, I dont expect to get all the truth from those few links. Some missing data about this telescope might be secret/classified, some technical aspects might not be shared with the public

OP: the sky over our sensitive civilian industrial,and military installations via telescopes with concave lenses, so as to detect possible unauthorized surveillance.

remind me on your stance about CERN, which many believe to have a secret esoteric agenda.

I didn't derail it. I'm neutral until I find evidence proving/disproving it either way. I provided both pro and anti stances so people could make up their own mind.

[Neuro]

if I had known that the paper had pix in it, I would have added an interrogation mark to the subject line. Regardless of the theory, I dont find these pix conclusive.

yet again, if true, I dont think the military/darpa would allow the release of the all the technical details related to this telescope

What does the so called 'telescope' have to do with military DARPA? It seemed like Santilli had applied for a patent for it... Is he also military intelligence agent? It is not like the telescope has any extreme high tech in it. The Galilei telescope had their convex lenses exchanged for concave lenses and it has a standard digital camera attached to it... Anyone could make it if they can afford $50 or so...

[Glass]

yes I looked at those images. I was struggling to see what they were talking about in a couple of them.

The image of the bridge, I think it was a bridge in the distance didn't look that different to me. The anti matter light image had some lights visible that corresponded perrcectly with some of the lights seen when looking via a regular telescope. a lot of lights were missing in the second image but the ones that were there seemed to be in the same place, same colour.

As Neuro suggests, it could just be light pollution.

Is it easy enough to get concave lenses to go into a telescope? I don't know. Seems like you would need to get them made.

These guys say they are giving them away free to people in the US. Anyone want to try and score one?