It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Large Hadron Collider peaceful research cover for advanced nuclear weapons research

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Well, with enough antimatter, you could literally and completely destroy the planet. Nothing but photons left.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
yes, good point, pfishy. But i was thinking more about altering it, or the perception, thereof…..
I added a link since my post. Fascinating reading the Tunguska event….



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
the standard model says antimatter acts the same way normal matter does WRT gravity. They want to check but no one seriously expects it to fall up. they just want to do basic science on the question. We also haz no neutrino devices other than humongous indirect detectors. for there to be neutrino based tech would require some sort of material that could directly interact and yet be portable or semi portable. for example non baryonic matter made without protons and neutrons and being of extreme density. a neutrino scanner or camera would be an extremely useful type of thing though. you literally could not hide any radioactive material from it. and it is possible that there might be signatures in the neutrino streams that could be used to determine what it passed through. things like altered oscillation between species, odd ratios of species, occasional collision or near miss effects like changing polarizations or something like that.

any time anomalies would arise from either wormhole shenanigans or even more remotely arising from the relativistic motion of the particles. and none of that is likely to happen at a mesoscopic or macroscopic level. that does not mean they can't be looking for something like that. but it would be at a fundamental level and not the sort of thing you can step through. It's utility would be in verifying discarding or elaborating on theory. it might also point to some future utility.
edit on 8-4-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
LINK

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the standard model says antimatter acts the same way normal matter does WRT gravity. They want to check but no one seriously expects it to fall up. they just want to do basic science on the question. We also haz no neutrino devices other than humongous indirect detectors. for there to be neutrino based tech would require some sort of material that could directly interact and yet be portable or semi portable. for example non baryonic matter made without protons and neutrons of extreme density.

any time anomalies would arise from either wormhole shenanigans or even more remotely arising from the relativistic motion of the particles. and none of that is likely to happen at a mesoscopic or macroscopic level. that does not mean they can't be looking for something like that. but it would be at a fundamental level and not the sort of thing you can step through. It's utility would be in verifying discarding or elaborating on theory. it might also point to some future utility.

Respectfully, the standard model is dead….
I should know.
I'm the standard model….
LOL
edit on 8-4-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

The tunguska event was indeed fascinating. But why would you say the standard model is dead?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
LOL. the standard model does not die; It multiplies. or rather it mutates or is expanded. you can be friends with it and still hope for exotic discoveries that it does not cover. that's a hobby for millions of scientists.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Exactly



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
new question: if unparticles have zero mass can some other configurations display negative mass?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Every mass I've been to was pretty negative.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Every mass I've been to was pretty negative.
You need a new parish then.

but what I mean is the nature of un particles is really an aggregate of particles who possess positive mass. but the over all group mass sums to zero for some reason. normally in classical or even quantum electrodynamics normal particles sum to a slightly positive mass but the sources part has a negative bare mass that is "overwhelmed by" the various positive mass energy equivalent contributions such as electric dipole, magnetic moment, angular momentum and so forth during renormalization. but how is the positive mass of the contributors to an unparticle converted to enough negative mass to balance at zero over all mass without negative mass being a part of the process again? it seems to me either the negative bare mass is uncovered again somehow or an additional source of negative mass must be invoked.
edit on 8-4-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I know what they are. And I solved the negative mass conundrum by leaving Catholicism.
Unparticles are some strange stuff. As they are found only in exceedingly rare circumstances, perhaps there are instances where a seemingly negative mass could be affected. But I couldn't possibly posite what those instanced would be.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Well if the UFOs are real and Nukes bother them I wonder what THAT would be for them?



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: sy.gunson
The real purpose behind CERN is the harvesting of anti-protons for development of fourth generation nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at Los Alamos. Anti-protons are slowed down at CERN on a smaller ring until they can be cryogenically stored in magnetic confinement bottles for transport to the United States.

European taxpayers are footing the bill for this nuclear weapons project under the guise of peaceful research. The real project is a covert joint venture by Rand Corporation and the USAF.

Andre Gsponer's Report


I see a very serious issue here, and even before reading your PDF...

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is in Northern California.

Los Alamos...is in New Mexico.

Seems as though somebody is a bit confused...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Uh, there are some other even bigger holes.

a) LHC doesn't use anti-protons. It collides two regular proton beams.

b) if you wanted to contain anti-protons for technology, you sure as heck would not accelerate them to 7 TeV! You want them as cold and stationary as possible. Since it takes a couple of GeV to make an anti-proton you're wasting a huge amount of energy and cash.

Survey Says?

XXX



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Why wouldn't the USAF use one of the colliders here in the United States? Why take this super secret weapons research out of our country?
Fermilab, Oak ridge laboratory, MIT that's three right there. Another's at Berkley. CERN May be the largest but it's certainly not the only particle collider in town.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, that's what a photon torpedo is -- a matter/antimatter reaction.



According to the TNG Technical Manual, photon torpedoes use 1.5 kg of matter and 1.5 kg of antimatter

Wikipedia



Holy crap! 1.5 kilograms of matter and antimatter colliding?! I don't know how to do the calculations to figger it out, but the explosive yield of a real life "photon torpedo" would have to be in the Gigaton range, if not greater than that. Whew. BTW, does anyone know why the ahem, "Federation" called them "photon torpedoes" when they are actually "matter - antimatter torpedoes"? My guess is the term "photon torpedo" was a Churchillian maneuver to throw off Romulan spies, who of course could pass for Vulcans and thus move about rather freely in Federation society.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: sy.gunson

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: sy.gunson




A man named Dirk Finkemeier from Espelkamp uncovered evidence from the Library of congress that the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima was actually manufactured in Germany and captured by US forces near Goslar in April '45.


Are you implying that although we were experimenting with nukes at that time, that the Germans already had them? Not unbelievable by any means.. just look at the minds behind the Manhattan project.

Like i said. found a new hobby!


I think you need to research FAT MAN and Thin Man.

Thin Man was a failed attempt to develop a gun barrel style Plutonium weapon. It was (and always will be) defeated by the presence of Pu240 contamination, which caused pre-detonation problems.

By the time they realised in April 1945 that they could not develop a Plutonium gun barrel device, there was a panic that not enough Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) could be produced at Oak Ridge. The official history fudges the issue of how they obtained enough HEU for the Hiroshima bomb.

In fact the Germans had an enormously efficient ultracentrifuge project way more advanced than the manhattan project. It was so advanced in fact that when they captured Espelkamp near Hannover and found an underground Uranium Enrichment plant there with a working nuclear reactor, the British clandestinely kept it in operation until 1948. Nazi scientists interned at Farm Hall including Heisenberg himself were kept at Aswelde just a short distance from Espelkamp. Britains refusal to close the Espelkamp facility led to USA expelling the UK from the Manhattan Project in 1947.

Incidentally none other than James Bond author Ian Flemming was involved in the capture of Espelkamp with his special forces unit 30AU Commando. SS Lt General Dr Hans Kammler was captured at Espelkamp along with a retinue of his personal staff plus five staff cars. Fleming used this opportunity for a daring raid deep into Germany with Kammler as his willing hostage to gather nuclear intelligence. Kammler was already authorised by Hitler to round up and arrest all the nuclear scientists to prevent capture by the Soviets and Fleming used this to his own advantage. Kammler was promised his freedom after the war for co-operation, however upon their return, Fleming drowned Kammler in a vat of water at Espelkamp where his body was later discovered by British troops about 5th May 1945. All of these events of course remain classified.





I hadn't heard this version of the fate of SS General Ing Hans Kammler prior to reading it in this thread, but it would not surprise me if it turned out to be true. I know that there are several versions of Kammler's death, alleged death, allegedly faked death, and many variations thereof, floating around in various places, so I must ask: what is your source or sources for the Kammler-as-hostage-and-later-murder-victim-of-Ian-Fleming story? BTW, there are certainly echoes of Kammler and other German scientists in Fleming's James Bond novel, Moonraker (the novel, not the silly movie that had next to nothing in common with the novel).


Also: Where did you find the diagram for the anti-hydrogen bomb? And, while I can well believe that competition (in the shadowy ruins of late 1940s Germany) for German superweapons technology between the UK and US could have led to the US more-or-less expulsion of the UK from the Manhattan Project (in its immediate postwar form), here again I would like to learn of your sources so I can read them, and others, for myself. Many thanks for your good work.
edit on 21-4-2015 by williamjpellas because: added text



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

Regarding the superefficient WWII German uranium centrifuges, are you referring to the Zippe centrifuge, or to the Paul Harteck machines and pilot plant? Or are these one and the same? I think Mark Walker discusses these matters in his book, National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, but I have yet to read that book in its entirety.


edit on 21-4-2015 by williamjpellas because: corrected typo



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join