Black Triangle UFOs and an Alleged Breakaway Civilization- Discuss

a reply to: Phage

Yes I do.

What I was trying to point out was there is more to matter then meets the eye (of science).

a reply to: AlanHenderson

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.


The best science fiction is based on science. Otherwise, it's fantasy.

But this little chat started with your misconception of what plasma is.

a reply to: Phage

Plasma, this was the definition I was using from three pages back.

What is plasma?

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. Many places teach that there are three states of matter; solid, liquid and gas, but there are actually four. The fourth is plasma. To put it very simply, a plasma is an ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms or molecules and to allow both species, ions and electrons, to coexist. The funny thing about that is, that as far as we know, plasmas are the most common state of matter in the universe. They are even common here on earth. A plasma is a gas that has been energized to the point that some of the electrons break free from, but travel with, their nucleus. Gases can become plasmas in several ways, but all include pumping the gas with energy. A spark in a gas will create a plasma. A hot gas passing through a big spark will turn the gas stream into a plasma that can be useful. Plasma torches like that are used in industry to cut metals. The biggest chunk of plasma you will see is that dear friend to all of us, the sun. The sun's enormous heat rips electrons off the hydrogen and helium molecules that make up the sun. Essentially, the sun, like most stars, is a great big ball of plasma.

source

The last line.

"Essentially, the sun, like most stars, is a great big ball of plasma."

Misconception? Or a difference in definition?

a reply to: AlanHenderson

Misconception, yes.

Your statement:

If the fourth state of matter is plasma where the bonds holding atomic partcles together are no longer present, one can disassemble and reassemble any elements you desire.

My response:

No. It is a state of matter in which electrons are separated from their nuclei. Which remain intact. Ionization is the term.

Your source:

A plasma is a gas that has been energized to the point that some of the electrons break free from, but travel with, their nucleus.

It has nothing to do with disassembling or assembling elements. At will, or otherwise.

a reply to: Phage

Okay. Let me suggest this.

Stars just do what they do. Very stable. Yet within stars changes occur to the elements. Atoms are being built. Yes?

In conventional science there is some success in crudely dismantling matter. There is also some success in building matter using particles. Yes?

My contention is that within the concept of plasma being a fourth state, there is much to learn.

I will also contend that it will probably be within that fourth state that fission and fusion will really come into it's own. Without the violence seen in atomic bombs.

It may be science fiction to us now, yet if others have done it that way already. Just maybe there are folks who can manipulate atomic particals as we manipulate solids, liquids and gases.

So phage, a question; Take away the particles from an atom and what do you have?

A rhetorical question to suggest looking beyond the particles into what lays beyond.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

So phage, a question; Take away the particles from an atom and what do you have?

If you take away electrons, as in plasma, you have a positive ion.
www.google.com...

a reply to: Phage

Yep, so now take away the neutron and the proton.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

Hey man. Now I've got nothing.


But you know that most hydrogen doesn't have a neutron. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Yes I know hydrogen has just the two. Hmmm, well hydrogen probably shouldn't be a legit element then?


Heh heh, I like that. "Nothing".

Allow me to go back to our diesel analogy for a moment.

Let's say our diesel scientist is "perceptually challenged" (I understand that is the PC term for physicists and chemists ; ).

He can see the diesel being compressed and oxidising. He understands "compression" too.

He knows other facts such as ambient temperature for diesel combustion. He can measure that.

But he doesn't understand the mechanism of what is doing the compression, he can't see the piston nor the cylinder.

Nor can he see the engine that surrounds the combustion chamber.

A long way to go science . . . .

a reply to: AlanHenderson

But he doesn't understand the mechanism of what is doing the compression, he can't see the piston nor the cylinder.

Why not?




Indeed. A long and winding road.
Know any shortcuts? How 'bout we just make stuff up.

a reply to: Phage

Who knows what is beyond . . .

Shortcuts?

Only one shortcut. And that shortcut is that it can be done. That matter can be disassembled and assembled in the right environment. You can't make a snowman when water is in its liquid or gas state.

"Plasma" is perhaps the wrong word for a fouth state of matter. But the principal remains.

I am fairly sure someone has already done that in the past. The greys know how too.

Pure scifi: If the moon has an old "matter conversion machine" inside a Dyson sphere, perhaps it just needs ignition to start the process and bring it to life again.

I wouldn't bother trying to understand the science. But I would ask a grey if they knew how to start the ignition.

What a roadtrip that would be phage : )

Like the movie "Paul" with a better car.

And beer, roadtrips are more fun with beer.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

"Plasma" is perhaps the wrong word for a fouth state of matter.

You should talk to these guys about that.
pluto.space.swri.edu...

I wouldn't bother trying to understand the science.

You should make the effort. It's usually worthwhile.

a reply to: Phage

I think the conventional definition of "plasma" is a bit limited. I did read that link and (hopefully) understand what they mean.

What holds matter together? If I were to put a personal definition on what I am trying to describe, I would say "the forces that bind particles and it's controlled nullification".

But what is a particle? If we think of particles as objects we think in a certain way. If we think of particles as effects we think in a different way.

Hypothetically, if I knew an alien and asked her about physics using partical theory, she might respond with the question from earlier.

"Take away the particles and what do you see?"

The answer to that would be "the machinery of the universe".

I do learn a bit of science when I can use it. Water chemistry for my little aquarium fish and so on.

But really, other folks are so beyond me it is embarrassing. I asked them once, I felt like a very small child.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

I think the conventional definition of "plasma" is a bit limited.

Then subsitute your own, by all means.

What holds matter together? If I were to put a personal definition on what I am trying to describe, I would say "the forces that bind particles and it's controlled nullification".

Gravity holds matter together. The strong force holds nuclear particles together and electical forces keep electrons close to the nucleus. Unless something stronger moves them far enough away.

The answer to that would be "the machinery of the universe".

Where is your favorite cow pasture?

But really, other folks are so beyond me it is embarrassing. I asked them once, I felt like a very small child.

Gotta start somewhere. If you ask an honest question of the right person, you might learn something. Then ask another question.

a reply to: Phage

So what is gravity phage?

I once saw a TV show with some scientist using a marble and cloth to describe gravity causing a warp in space.

Sure the weight of the marble on the cloth caused a depression and other stuff would roll into it. However, the gravity already existed so the warping of 2D space proves nothing and in a 3D model there would be a reverse warping that would counter. Probably an infinate 2D cloths to warp.

Sounds like science is just guessing theorizing to me.

One thing though phage. I don't need to know electrical theory to turn on a light. I just need to know how to tell my kids "turn on the light would you please".

No science required.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

So what is gravity phage?

According to Einstein's model, a warping of space and time. That model seems to hold up pretty well, so far.

I once saw a TV show with some scientist using a marble and cloth to describe gravity causing a warp in space.

Yeah. Simplistic. The effect is three dimensional, not two like in the demonstration. Four dimensional of you include time as a dimension.

Sounds like science is just guessing theorizing to me.

Sounds like you don't really know what a theory is.

One thing though phage. I don't need to know electrical theory to turn on a light. I just need to know how to tell my kids "turn on the light would you please".

Or, you could "clap on, clap off." Magic.

a reply to: Phage

Like a lay person would understand relativity . . . .

4 dimensions I can grok.

Understand what a theory is? You're probably right there phage. I'm no scientist.

Have you ever had one of those clapoing lights? Sharp loud noises scare cats and then there is mayhem. The contents of tables go everywhere.

But to get back on track.

I would wager that one of science's dreams is to disassemble and assemble matter.

I'll just suggest that nullifying what holds matter together is perhaps the way to go.

a reply to: Phage

Just a thought phage.

With the warped space concept. I can see how every object would create it's own gravity and exert an attraction to other objects by exerting a field. Binary stars for instance.

I would suggest though that this "field of space" would define the object and nullifying completely the said field would perhaps cause the object to cease to exist but not destroy it.

The existence of the object would depend upon the field.

One would have to learn exactly which field holds two particles together as a hydrogen atom and nullify that.

This is unlike physics smashing atoms together, like children playing marbles where they flick a marble with enough inherant inertia to overcome the opponents marble's inertia and sending it out of the ring.

One is violent, and one is very gentle.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

I always thought gravity was the ONE OF the weak forces pulling on the matter that makes up said object but hey what do i know right?

Although the main weak force just deals with radiaoctive decay.

a reply to: yuppa

Jeez, I wouldn't know yuppa.

Phage looks at things from his point of view, so that was the context. It is interesting though.

Last night I played with what phage said about gravity being the warping of three dimensional space. I get it to the degree (maybe). I can live with it and it seems to work with six dimensions. But it gets really complex once I try to visualise it beyond the molecular.

Phage will correct me, I am sure, yet inertia seems to coincide with phage's fourth dimension of time/motion.That is if you think in terms of inherited inertia.

The warping of space would perhaps start to build the "machine" around what's happening in the "combustion chamber" in the diesel analogy. The unseen machinery behind reality?

Poor phage, he probably pulls his hair out by the roots in frustration when amatures start playing with theoretical science.

I don't know much about atomic decay either in physics terms.

But I get that if you think in terms of the complexity of warped space one gets the impression that warping space artificially might cause a lot of unintended mayhem and consequences.

The atomic idea of violently smashing atoms isn't probably not the best either.

Something in the idea of plasma being a state where the atomic bonds (gravity?) are nullified to a degree where electrons continue to accompany the nucleus suggests that inertia is still in place unaffected.

Take that a step further in thinking and achieve a state of matter where the protons and neutrons also simply accompany each other might give a state of matter where disassembly and reassembly might be achievable. (Sorry phage for mucking with science, but on the bright side you might have taught me something that changed my point of view)

But all that is just my opinion. That crazy Australian from a while ago used to go on about these "reactors" the greys supposedly had.