Nieuwe Telescoop detecteert ‘onzichtbare intelligente alien entiteiten op Aarde'

[hypergiant]

Ik volg de elictric universe model, dus ik ben niet volledig overtuigd mbt het anti-materie theory zoals anti-matterie asteroïden, maar de ontdekking van 'intelligente alien entiteiten' (of interdimensional wezen) op en rondom de Aarde, is bijzonder. Aliens uit deep space...nee...interdimensionale wezens die hier op aarde leven..vul het maar in. Dat zou ook kunnen verklaren wanneer men, in alle culturen en beschavingen, spreekt over geesten, spirituele wezens, jinn, entiteiten, engerie enz.


Dr. R. M. Santilli, Chief Scientist of Thunder Energies Corporation (see his Curriculum , Prizes and Nominations , Publications in antimatter , and the General Archives) has conducted three decades of mathematical, theoretical and experimental studies on antimatter initiated in the early1980s when he was at at Harvard University under DOE support.

This extended research has produced basically new telescopes, today known as Santilli telescopes, which have been conceived, designed, constructed, tested and produced to detect antimatter galaxies, antimatter cosmic rays and antimatter asteroids (international patent pending irrevocably owned by TEC without royalty payments).

The detection of invisible terrestrial entities was published in the paper: Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with Concave Lenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE).

In the study, Santilli states:

While it's deep space capabilities are well documented in scientific journals, it was only by chance that our telescope detected invisible terrestrial entities within the earth's atmosphere. Scientifically, this should be impossible because when ordinary matter and anti-matter come into contact, the annihilate one another.

So, what are these invisible terrestrial entities (ITE) that have been observed and photographed? These entities defy our current scientific knowledge. Some appear to move at highly erratic speeds while others appear to be almost stationary. Some ITE appear as dark entities (Figure 8) while others give off a luminous glow (Figure 9). To say anything beyond this would be speculation. What I can say is that these entities are invisible to the human eye and to conventional telescopes and binoculars; they can only be observed with our telescope.

Dr. Santilli has developed his telescope with concave lenses also for the study of other forms of light besides antimatter light. Thunder Energies Corporation is supporting research for the possible conversion of matter-light, from its conventional form with positive index of refraction, into a form with negative index of refraction without its necessary origination from antimatter (TEC international patent pending).

The first type of ITE is defined by Dr. Santilli as entities that:

• Are not visible to the human eye or to conventional optical instruments with convex lenses, but are otherwise fully visible via Santilli telescopes with concave lenses;
• exist in our terrestrial environment, rather than in deep astrophysical spaces; and
• Leave “dark images” in the background of digital cameras attached to Santilli telescopes.

According to reports, these entities moved slowly and rotated. Dr. Santilli states that this particular type of movement excludes impurities in their telescopes since some have already speculated that these entities were actual errors in the telescope lens or in the camera.

Santilli notes that the emission of antimatter-light does not mean that the entity is made up of antimatter because the existence of the entities within our atmosphere would imply a cataclysmic explosion due to matter-antimatter annihilation. (Source)

[B]Santilli writes that:

ITE-1 consist of matter-entities in our terrestrial environment achieving locomotion via the acquisition of antimatter in their interior with consequential use of matter-antimatter propulsion and achieve invisibility via the emission of antimatter-light as a sort of exhaust. (Source)

In post-observations, Dr. Santilli identified two different types of Invisible Terrestrial Entities or ITEs, acknowledging that further types of entities may be identified in the near future. Dr. Santilli states that both types of ITEs have been independently verified by fellow scientists and their existence was confirmed in a lecture at the St. Petersburg Astronomy Club on September 25, 2015.

Santilli defines the Second Type of Entities (ITE-2) as:

• Are not visible to the human eye or to conventional optical instruments wish convex lenses, but are otherwise fully visible via Santilli telescopes with concave lenses;
• Exist in our terrestrial environment, rather than in deep astrophysical spaces; and
• Leave “bright images” in the background of digital cameras attached to Santilli telescopes.

Santilli continues in his study stating:

“Consequently, both ITE-1 and ITE-2 have a negative index of refraction when propagating in a matter medium such as glass. Their main difference is that the former entities, also called dark ITE, carry negative energy, thus causing dark images in the background of a camera attached to Santilli telescopes, while later entities, also called bright ITE, carry positive energy, thus causing bright images despite their negative index of refraction.”







http://www.thunder-energies.com/inde...s/17-article-8

[LightHeavyWeight]

Weet je wat lastig is met materie wat niet onomstotelijk bewezen is, het is uiteindelijk een kwestie van hoe de feiten geïnterpreteerd worden. Met exact dezelfde feiten kun je totaal tegenovergestelde meningen krijgen. Wij staan hier thuis zeker open voor veel kwesties (conspiracy genoemd door sommigen) maar ik vind het vaak lastig om een definitieve mening te vormen.

[e-type]

Santilli is een fraud.

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/02/t...gero-santilli/

This claim by Santilli might be the easiest to debunk of all the extraordinary claims he has made (like the existence of magnecules and his alternative explanation for why the sun colors red when it sets). The whole concept of antimatter-light is bullshit, because the anti-particle of a photon is simply a photon. So if you want to speak of antimatter-light it’s no different than ‘normal’ light. ‘Antimatter-light’ will therefore not focus with a concave lens. I will not even bother trying to give explanations for the grainy images he took with his Santilli-‘out-of-focus’-telescope which he claims show Invisible Terrestrial Entities …


Verder: Licht heeft geen anti-materie.


Why doesn't the photon have an antiparticle? The answer is that the photon is its own antiparticle. For instance, two (high energy photons) can annihilate and create a pair of electrons.

The deeper reason behind this goes to the heart of what we mean by an antiparticle. Antiparticles (that are distinct from particle itself) exist for particles that are charged under a symmetry. Special relativity combined with quantum mechanics forces mandates that for every charged particle there must be a particle with opposite charge and equal mass [1]. For instance, an electron is charged under electromagnetism with charge qe=−e=1.6×10−19Cqee1.61019C. The positron is a particle with a charge of equal magnitude but opposite sign.

Now the photon does not have a charge under any symmetry. Therefore, when you reverse all the charges, you get the same particle back again.

This argument is viable for global symmetries such as strangeness where new effects can occur if the symmetry is broken. See Standard Model of Particle Physics: What is K-Kbar mixing?

[hypergiant]

Iemand die bij Harvard heeft gewerkt een fraud noemen gaat wat ver. Controversieel lijkt me een betere benoeming. Maar zoals ik in mijn openingswoord heb aangegeven, dat hele anti-materie theorie is niet te bewijzen en ver gezocht. Echter, wat de telescoop 'bij toeval' heeft gedetecteerd' blijft lastig te verklaren.

[hypergiant]

Weet je wat lastig is met materie wat niet onomstotelijk bewezen is, het is uiteindelijk een kwestie van hoe de feiten geïnterpreteerd worden. Met exact dezelfde feiten kun je totaal tegenovergestelde meningen krijgen. Wij staan hier thuis zeker open voor veel kwesties (conspiracy genoemd door sommigen) maar ik vind het vaak lastig om een definitieve mening te vormen.

Klopt, vandaar dat ik ook aangaf dat zijn theorie controversieel is en zeker niet bewezen. Ik volg de electric universe model waar anti-materie niet van toepassing is.

Ik geloof wel in spirituele wezens, geesten, entiteiten, jinn, demonen, interdimensionale wezens die wellicht uit een lichtere vorm van materie bestaat. Alle beschavingen en culturen door de historie heen, geloofden/geloven dat er in een andere vorm van intelligente wezens bestaan. Of ze nu offers voor hun uitvoeren om een plek te zegenen, of bepaalde plekken vermijden of er niet op willen bouwen (zoals ze bijvoorbeeld in IJsland doen), of ze hun als half goden zien, positieve energie, demonen, jinni enz.

[e-type]

Iemand die bij Harvard heeft gewerkt een fraud noemen gaat wat ver.

Puff, dat is nogal een statement. Google Marc D. Hauser maar eens.

[hypergiant]

Als dat het referentiekader is dan kun je twee derde van de wetenschappers opzij schuiven aangezien ze bijna allemaal wel beïnvloedbaar en financieel afhankelijk zijn van derden. Is de bing bang theorie bijvoorbeeld geen scientific misconduct? Ik ga de theorieën van de beste man niet verdedigen, noem hem een fraud, controversieel, of een 'fringe scientist. Ben wel benieuwd wat die 'entiteiten' op zijn telescoop zouden kunnen zijn.

[e-type]

Dat zullen we nooit weten, aangezien niemand dit zal kunnen reproduceren.

[hypergiant]

Wat niet, die beelden? Weet ik niet, de telescopen en satellieten van Nasa nemen regelmatig onverklaarbare objecten waar. Het is vaak gissen wat die objecten zijn.

[Brainthief]

Overal is fraude. Ken je Diederik Stapel nog bv. Om het maar dicht bij huis te blijven. Voor de rest heb je ook types als Deepak Chopra die bs verkopen. Eerst maar wat meer studies en bevestiging door derden.