Thunder Energies Corp Discovers Invisible Terrestrial Entities

Now this is interesting. Using a new types of lenses, we can now see "entities" or "anomalies" both in space and our terrestrial environment. According to the scientist, these Entities are being detected around military installations and industrial sites.

Video at link.

www.b-tv.com...

Thunder Energies Discovers Invisible Entities
By Editor • January 18, 2016

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.

“This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they’re completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope,” stated Dr. Ruggero Santilli, CEO Thunder Energies Corp.

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), www.thunder-energies.com... or from the scientific archives of the R. M. Santilli Foundation. www.santilli-foundation.org...

a reply to: infolurker

Well, it's about time science finally caught up.

So, I'm not seeing things?

That's a relief.

Right under our noses this whole time, hope they don't get too mad when they realize we see them!

a reply to: salival05

Now wouldn't that be something..a literal invisible war for most people.

I'm a bit confused about why this story is on. both YahooFinance and CNNMoney, but not listed on more scientific outlets.

These invisible entities are what talk you into getting drunk, they like the alcohol on your breath.

They make you do things you wouldn't normally do if you didn't have to, like drag yourself to work a second job so you can buy a new four wheeler to get out on trails with your friends between taverns.

I can go on and on with things to blame on these invisible entities.

Just because we can't see something does not mean they do not exist. We have a very limited frequency range that we can see. Our senses are severely limited.

Without me having to download the pdf, can anyone give me an idea of what these "entities" are...

This seems rather vague, and given the info on the link it seems like a ploy to reel in investors...
Call me a skeptic, I guess but, I'm truly hoping for something to feed the imagination.

So Santilli is a scientist, and actually has some training and education that would seem to give him chops. Despite that, he is heavily knocked by the broader scientific community.

The video....the images in the opening of the video almost made me click away. The images that the device actually takes....are not those. And it looks interesting. If his methods can be reproduced and verified, its at least a question that needs to be answered ("What are those blobs?").

For now, im skeptically reserved.

a reply to: Chickensalad

There have been stories of "critters" for years, with one dude taking pictures that look like shiny, metallic, black blobs.

It would seem reasaonable that, given the efficient way of nature, something could be there to feed on various energy. Our atmosphere is alive with energy.

But something that extraordinary would require something more than some dude in a nice suit, sitting in front of cheap furniture, to convince me.

a reply to: infolurker


Wow that is some bang for your buck.

www.thunder-energies.com...

It is pointed out that both types of entities generally 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.

Need to look for more sources and finish reading the artcle but Tomorrow is not April 1st , right. Lol


It looks like science publishing group might be a scam. That's supposedly where the paper was published

scienceblogs.com...



Looks like Ruggero Maria Santilli might have some explaining todo.

He has complained that papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg.[28]

This has scam or hoax flags going off

A statement like this cries for scientific peer review, of which currently, I see nothing.
Where did media pick this up, or was it dropped in their lap by the company?

From the abstract:

"It is pointed out that both types of entities generally move in the night sky over sensitive areas, and their behavior generally suggests unauthorized surveillance."

Does anyone know if the American Journal of Modern Physics is a reputable scientific publication?

Just skimmed through the paper and something about it seems not-entirely-professional, although maybe I just don't read enough physics journals.

Santilli got removed from Magnegas as chief scientist. Santilli is now running another smaller scheme called "Thunder Energies Corporation" which reintroduces his pseudo science.

Have a look at the massive operation that is Thunder Energies Corp. Google Maps Thunder Energy

It's a tin shack.

Santilli has already been known for the old "pump and dump" strategy where stocks concerning his ventures are concerned and that's assuredly what this is.

Probably why you'll see this under "FINANCE" and not "SCIENCE" on Yahoo.

a reply to: infolurker

The premise that you bend conventional light through a different lens (a concave lens with negative refractive index) and you see something that you can't see with a conventional convex lens makes no sense.

Regardless of the device that you use to refract the light, it is exactly the same light that is being refracted.

I would suspect that the images are of dust particles affecting the image by back-scattering into the metamaterial array that created the negative refractive index "lens".

In other words, this smells much like bovine excrement.

a reply to: infolurker

I smell bull#e...

originally posted by: BiffWellington
From the abstract:

"It is pointed out that both types of entities generally move in the night sky over sensitive areas, and their behavior generally suggests unauthorized surveillance."

Does anyone know if the American Journal of Modern Physics is a reputable scientific publication?

Just skimmed through the paper and something about it seems not-entirely-professional, although maybe I just don't read enough physics journals.

I did a little digging, it appears that the American Journal of Modern Physics is a "pay to publish" journal with little editorial integrity.

Several of the papers they published have been found to been plagiarized and would not be accepted for publication in accepted scientific publishers. For instance, the papers are not in arXiv and this is most likely due to the plagiarism identifying software used at arXiv.

I call bull.. There is no clarity on how this "telescope" works or perceives these entities. Some crazy Italian in a flat cap claims this is how we see dark matter? or light passing through dark matter? They do not clarify.

Not only that, but they keep repeating that our traditional methods can't detect these entities while showing a nice diagram of 2 different telescopes BOTH WITH OPTICAL LENSES, which seems pretty standard to me. They better start explaining real fast and stop showing pictures of light trails.

I mean c'mon, there are spectrums of light which we can't see, but we have the tech to do so, so I just don't understand what these 2 quacks are on about.

just my opinion, thank you for giving me a platform to express it.

Either
1) A great idea for a bad marketing ploy or
2) A bad idea for a great marketing ploy

I vote both

Since we are dealing with
two different photos each taken with 15 seconds exposure, the entity moves
at a relative small speed. Note the ridges of ordinary light surrounding the
entity, which can only be explained quantitatively via the gravitational
repulsion of ordinary light by the entity because, in the absence of such
repulsion, ordinary light should merely experience diffraction. Note
additionally that the entity “cannot” be composed of antimatter because,
being within our atmosphere, it would annihilate with a cataclysmic
explosion.

This is not science.