It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yeah thats the point where is the other electron in your explanation?? Thats the point Arb was trying to make and you just tried to gloss over it. Qm can explain it but id be interested in any other theory you have.
Hessdalen lights and Earthquake lights may not be explained, but there's nothing about either one that violates the laws of physics, as would say, a craft going 5000 miles an hour making a right angle turn with no turning radius that would tear the aircraft apart and kill any occupants which would be like bugs splattered on the windshield of a car going 60mph.
If that's your explanation, then why doesn't H2 also get rid of one electron and look like this:
originally posted by: KrzYma
so H3+ looks something like this
( + )(-)( + )(-)( + )
slightly juggling chain with no place for another electron
originally posted by: Choice777
I've just read some topics on ats and on the Internets about this so called mercury plasma engine which is apparently first described by some guy Fouche, and also appears on the website of some Hungarian company.
Apparently it used a mass of mercury or some sort of monoatomic element sometimes?!? and apparently it spins it at about 50/60000rpm and the electrons inside spin at in some sort of vortex or screw like fashion and the whole thing has a pressure of about 250.000 ATM. Is there even such an enclosure possible ?
It is said that this plasma torus engine thingy reduces gravity/inertia by 89%.
Do you know anything about it ? There's talk of the electrons moving together in such a manner in their screw trajectory that they behave like a Bose Einstein condensate.
This explanation has a huge problem.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
there is no H2 in the beginning, there is plasma, Ions and free electrons.
they are the building blocks for H3+
Not true in fact H2 is more abundant in the ISM than H3+:
H2 is here on Earth and not in (ISM)
I think you may have misread the source saying H3+ was one of the most abundant ions, which is true, but H2 isn't an ion. H3+ is more common in lower density gas clouds, and H2 is more abundant in higher density gas clouds, so by mass, or number of molecules, H2 would be the more abundant molecule.
H2 is the most abundant molecule in the interstellar medium
It's highly reactive in the ISM too, and when it gets a chance to give up the third proton to something else, it does:
H3+ is unstable here because of the interaction with the surrounding atoms.
( vacuum chamber has walls to )
A highly reactive molecule, H3+ is composed of three hydrogen atoms linked in the form of an equilateral triangle - three bare protons enveloped in a cloud of two electrons. H3+ readily donates an "extra" proton to other atoms or molecules, leaving behind a hydrogen molecule, H2, the main component of molecular clouds. The molecule that accepts the proton is then activated, itching to start another chemical reaction.
"H3+ acts like a strong acid," McCall said. "It's very happy to give up one of its protons to any molecule it runs into."
If you are really here to examine this concept scientifically, the first thing a scientist needs is some evidence. Since there is no reliable evidence of such turns, then it's not scientifically necessary to work too hard to explain them scientifically, and especially we don't want to compound a misperception problem by the person who thought they saw such a maneuver, by piling on additional made up false claims.
originally posted by: ken10
I don't think you got the gist of what I was asking, For if a craft and its occupants had Zero Mass then it could take a sharp right turn at 5000 miles per hour and not have its occupants splatter against the walls of the craft.
We can study plasma and know it has mass, so I see no reason anybody would assume plasma balls have no mass.
Further here is my train of thought in very basic explanation...with the assumption that plasma balls have no mass.
~ A Plasma ball has no Mass and as such would not be affected by Gravity, Inertia nor the speed of light limit
Yes this much is consistent with modern physics provided the plasma ball is rotating or otherwise moving, moving electric charges create magnetic fields.
~ A Plasma ball can create its own magnetic field (Apparently)
~ Any object within that Plasma ball would be under the influence of the Plasma balls magnetic field totally, and isolated from from any outside forces.
~ Therefore a craft within a Plasma ball would also not be affected by Gravity, Inertia or the speed of light limit. ?
Until we find the missing mass I suppose we have to consider various options. ErosA433 posted a chart of many different ideas about what might explain the missing mass, but to my knowledge plasma hiding mass wasn't one of the possibilities, though I didn't fully understand every acronym on the chart.
Also with most of the universe missing (Apparently) and the universe being 99.999% Plasma..Source...Could this be a possible explanation......That plasma is hiding the missing mass.?
originally posted by: Nochzwei
It is speculated that the alleged TR3 B uses such a drive. But both tr3b and this mercury plasma are best in the realm of a remote possibility. Engineering wise such pressures and rotations are difficult to create and even dangerous if created and put on board a flying machine.
a reply to: Choice777
Not only will it not work to create anti-gravity, but I doubt mercury will form plasma under those conditions, will it?
originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok first ignore all that sinning mercury to create anti gravity doesnt work.
150 degrees Kelvin is -123 degrees Centigrade. If my info is correct the melting point of Mercury is -38.87 degrees C, so -123 is way below the melting point.
The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.
Great questions but not easy, some may not have answers.
originally posted by: tauristercus
A few "easily answered" questions:
I've never read about any experiments which would tell us how this works, but then there are a lot of experiments I don't know about so that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. My guess is that there's not really any good answer to that question, since it's hard (maybe impossible?) to "watch" a photon being created to see how it's done. If someone else is aware of experiments I'm not they can cite them and we'll see what they tell us.
1. Physically creating a photon.
I'm not referring to the oscillating magnetic/electrical fields making up a photon ... rather I want to know HOW a photon comes into existence in the 1st place. What mechanism does nature use to build a photon and how does this mechanism "stitch" a magnetic and electrical field together ?
In a vacuum the speed of light is always c. There is no reason to assume any acceleration, since the photon has no mass it's not like trying to accelerate a car or other massive object.
2. Speed of a photon when created.
I'm assuming that because a photon travels at the speed of light that one of two possibilities exist: (a) at the "exact" moment that a photon comes into existence, it's already traveling at the speed of light or (b) the photon comes into existence with velocity >= 0 but < light speed and then over time, accelerates up to light speed.
Which option is it ?
If (a), how can something come into existence ALREADY moving at light speed ?[
If (b), how long, from the instance of creation, does it take the photon to accelerate and reach light speed ?
On page 41, (see link below), mbkennel explained that when a photon interacts with an atom to absorb the photons energy, the time it takes might be about the time it takes light to travel across the width of the atom. If you wanted more precise timing I think there are clues in Compton scattering experiments. I'm not sure about emission but if the process of photon emission and absorption is somewhat symmetrical, then you'd be dealing with a similar time frame, though I don't know what experiments have measured this, if any.
3. Time to create a photon.
I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that the process of photon creation takes zero time ... so I have to assume that a minimum amount of time must elapse between when the photon did NOT exist and the moment that creation has finished and the new fully formed photon comes into existence.
So how long does it take to create a photon ?
This is related to question 1 and the answer is similar, we can't really observe the process of photon creation, but you can't have half a photon.
4. Photon "assembly".
Because a photon is not a zero-point entity and has dimensionality and therefore has length ... and assuming that it takes some "minimum" amount of time to create a photon ... does the photon creation mechanism create the photon "fully assembled" so to speak, or is a photon assembled "bit by bit" over time ?
mbkennel partially addressed this previously here. I suggest reading that and if you want to refine your question in light of that answer, feel free. What I'll add is that the "grazing" question is difficult to answer because the wave function of the photon and related theory says that the actual position of the photon is indeterminate (until it's not), so we don't know precisely where it is just prior to the interaction, only where it's likely to be. So for example the highest probability might be a "grazing" trajectory but in actuality the photon may have been located elsewhere in a lower probability but still possible location.
5. Photon / electron interaction.
Here I would like to know what mechanism transfers the energy carried by the photon across to the electron ?
Does the photon have to be in "physical contact" with the electron before the energy transfer can take place or does the energy transfer begin to take place as the photon is approaching the electron but with some distance still separating them ? In other words, does the energy transfer initiate when the photon and electron are within a minimum distance of each other or only when they "contact" ?
How about the energy transfer itself ... does the energy transfer take "zero time" or is a minimum amount of time required to transfer all the photons energy ? Again, I can't wrap my head around an energy transfer taking "zero or no time at all". So I assume that some "minimum" amount of time is required.
If the photon and electron can initiate energy transfer between them across the space separating them as the photon continues to approach the electron, what mechanism notifies the photon that it has reached a minimum or "optimum" distance and can now begin to transfer energy to the electron ?
Does the photon have to be approaching the electron directly head-on for energy transfer to take place ... or can the photon pass by the electron without directly approaching it and STILL transfer it's energy to the electron ? In other words, a grazing or near-encounter.
Like photon emission, photon absorption is not easy to observe directly and I don't see how we can say what the state of a photon which is 50% absorbed by an atom would look like because to my knowledge that hasn't been observed. I'm not aware of any experiments that even suggest such a concept as 50% of a photon (or 99.999999%) would be a useful concept.
6. Photon structure and stability.
What happens to the photons structure and stability during energy transfer to an electron ?
If it takes time (no matter how small) for the photon to transfer all of it's energy to an electron, what happens to the stability of the photons structure during the transfer process ?
In other words, if at time t1, the photon has transferred 25% of it's energy to the electron, is the photons structure still physically identical to it's structure before it's encounter with the electron. Does the photons original structure continuously change as it gradually transfers all of it's energy ?
What is the photons structure like at the point in time when it has transferred say, 99% of it's energy. Does it still retain the same original structure ? What about when it's transferred 99.999999% ?