Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Element 115 - Ununpentium

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ok, I want to hear what everyone thinks about this element. Did we learn of it from Aliens, or did we discover it ourselves? Bob Lazar claims to have known about this element in the late 80's due to the military's possession of Alien crafts. Element 115 was formally introduced to the public around 2004, supposedly being discovered by Russian and American scientists who claim each time the element decayed in less than 2 seconds.

Maybe the scientists who discovered the element simply do not know how to keep it stable? Bob Lazar might actually know how Element 115 works in a spaceship, or maybe he is making up his story. I am sure some of you have done more research on this subject than me and I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts...




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Bob obtained 3 arrowhead shaped pieces about 2 inches long of what he said was Element 115. Although I have said that Bob took them from the test site, this was a cover story. They were taken from Los Alamos National Laboratories. The ET's gave us 500 pounds and apparently we are the ones that had to mill and cut them into the arrowhead shape. Bob obtained these during the summer of 1989. The first time I saw one of the pieces was over at Bob's house. He had placed it in a lead container that looked like a hockey puck but was cut in half so that you could take the top off and retrieve the 115. One evening Bob, Joe Vananitti (sp?) with me watching as I am not a scientist bought some dry ice and covered the dry ice with a bell jar. From the top of the inside of the bell jar they hung a Coleman lantern mantle so that it was suspended several inches above the arrow head shaped piece of Element 115 which sat on top of the block of dry ice. As the bell jar fogged up you could see the alpha rays leaving the radioactive mantle headed out into space at a high rate of speed with a few (not many) doing a u-turn back into the 115. A video tape was made of the experiment and I believe Bob still has the original tape. I don't believe any copies were made. About that time Bob's house was broken into and 2 of the pieces were stolen by persons unknown. A third piece was hidden elsewhere and there are only 3 people that know where that is. As far as I know it is still there but it would be very difficult to check because of its location downtown Las Vegas. This is the story as best I can remember. A few years ago on ATS I told the story about how 115 was created, I forget the name of the thread. The 2 inch piece of 115 becomes 116 when a proton plugs into it. It instantly decays back to 115 throwing off anti-matter and permitting access to the gravity A wave, the amplification of which allows the ET's to travel much, much faster than the speed of light.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
John,

What about that pesky problem of growing mass whilst traveling at this high rate of speed? Did I miss how that problem was solved?

Besides, wouldn't the wormhole theory of travel be much more feasible than traveling at or faster than TSOL?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I thought the whole deal of using 115 was that you can curve space in such a way that you "pull" your destination towards you and restore space once you are at the apex of the curvature, having effectively arrived at your destination without moving. Pull and hop.

John, did Bob ever discuss that with you?

EDIT: Described here

User: papoose
Pass: sector

[edit on 7-7-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
John,

What about that pesky problem of growing mass whilst traveling at this high rate of speed? Did I miss how that problem was solved?

Besides, wouldn't the wormhole theory of travel be much more feasible than traveling at or faster than TSOL?


jbondo,

You didn’t miss anything. You are thinking about traveling in a linear direction. We all normally consider space as a ‘nothing’ considering it contains 1 hydrogen atom per square meter. But actually space is a ‘fabric’. It can be pushed or pulled or warped. Let’s say we had a gravity amplifier that could amplify the effects of an intense gravity wave. And let’s say we could aim that intense gravity wave and focus it on a block of space that we wished to occupy, maybe a mile, maybe a hundred miles, maybe hundreds of thousands of miles away. We focus and amplify our gravity amplifier on the block of space where we want to go and ‘pull’ or ‘draw’ or ‘warp’ or ‘bend’ that Space/Time with our gravity amplifiers so that it envelopes our disk (or favorite vehicle of space travel). We then turn off the gravity amplifier and we ‘unite’ or ‘coalesce’ or ‘fuse’ with that Space/Time that we have pulled toward and wrapped around our disk. We are then almost instantly (a fraction of a second) at that block of Space/Time that we focused on and amplified around our disk. Remember, we didn’t ‘travel in a linear’ direction to that block of Space/Time; we ‘fused’ or ‘coalesced’ or ‘united’ with that block of Space/Time. The distance you can travel or ‘distort’ Space/Time is wholly dependant on the intensity of the gravitational field that can be produced. The regeneration/recharge time of the gravity amplifiers is 12 milliseconds so if you divide 1 second by 12 milliseconds and then multiply by the number of miles that you are able to distort Space/Time you have the distance you can travel in one second. Then times that by 60 for one minute and times that by 60 for one hour. Pretty soon you’re going faster than a speeding bullet.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
I thought the whole deal of using 115 was that you can curve space in such a way that you "pull" your destination towards you and restore space once you are at the apex of the curvature, having effectively arrived at your destination without moving. Pull and hop.

John, did Bob ever discuss that with you?

EDIT: Described here

User: papoose
Pass: sector

[edit on 7-7-2006 by HardToGet]


Yes HardToGet, that is essentially it. What we don't know for sure is the maximum distance for the gravity amplifiers. But whatever the distance, its about 298,800 times that for miles per hour.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Hey john ..Glad to see you,re ok

Sorry if I freaked you out a few days ago..I just got the most unbelievable vibe when I read your post..

That usually happens before an incident in real life.. not from just reading something...

annyyyyyyyyway


Two questions..

1.Does the density.. or almost lack of it.. in space have an effect on the human body.ie momentum .when these single hydrogen atoms are so compressed that 1000, of miles of ''space'' are sucked into a small area the released instantaneously..I thought the compression of the atoms would maybe cause a ''gravity well'' maybe a few G,s anyhoo.

2.Do you give PPL flying lessons..Currently swotting up on my FAA rules and regulations while i,m over here. but want to take test in USA cuz it,s a lot cheaper.!!



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by AGENT_T


1.Does the density.. or almost lack of it.. in space have an effect on the human body.ie momentum .when these single hydrogen atoms are so compressed that 1000, of miles of ''space'' are sucked into a small area the released instantaneously..I thought the compression of the atoms would maybe cause a ''gravity well'' maybe a few G,s anyhoo
.

The atoms aren't compressed. The 'block of space' that you are 'coalescing' with is the exact size of your craft.


2.Do you give PPL flying lessons..Currently swotting up on my FAA rules and regulations while i,m over here. but want to take test in USA cuz it,s a lot cheaper.!!


sorry, retired 6 years ago. Let all my certificates lapse, my medical lapse, my bienniel lapse, all my aviation subcriptions lapse...heck I don't even look up anymore...



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
sorry, retired 6 years ago. Let all my certificates lapse, my medical lapse, my bienniel lapse, all my aviation subcriptions lapse...heck I don't even look up anymore...


Man..sorry to hear that..You must really miss it.. I couldn,t imagine life without flying now

Another question..

Are there any terrestrial elements that could be used to re-create the rapid antimatter discharge..Would love to set up a few tests myself...

..puts fingers in ears and presses the green button...


Also I have been following areas of a certain John Hutchinsons work for a few years now and how POSSIBLY.. I,m no expert scientist..I could explain a few of his inconsistent results regarding his work on anti-gravity and cold fusion home experiments.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
An aside first: Why an arrowhead shape in Bob Lazard's story? A very interesting shape for a scientific experiment, or did he just use it to dramatize it a little?

An alpha particle is made up of 2 protons and 2 neutrons which is thus a helium nucleus. When a radioactive material emits an alpha particle it thus loses a helium nucleus and decays into an isotope of the next material with 2 fewer protons (for example radium-238 [this is the total atomic weight of its of protons and neutrons; it has 92 protons] becomes thorium-234, which has 90 protons). On the other side, whichever material gains this particle similarly becomes an isotope of the material with correspondingly more protons. Ununpentium 115 supposedly would become ununseptium 117. Since the claim is that 115 transformed into 116 it implies that only one proton attached to 116 and the other one streaked off as energy, the flash of light observed, and supposedly antimatter created. This would be the more likely process than the earlier stated decay back to 115 for which there does not appear to be any logical catalyst, something would have to exert significant force to the new proton to push it again out of the nucleus. (Under that scenario the emitted particle would have to be beta (hydrogen) with one proton and neutron, not alpha; a little surprising that Bob Lazard would miss that.)

Now the problems.

Antoine Becquerel did find in 1899 that when an alpha particle (helium nucleus) strikes zinc sulfide, tiny but visible flashes of light ('scintillations') can be observed even with naked eye under dark conditions. This was later put to use in such objects as watches with luminescent dials, I had one when I was a kid, it was kind of a status symbol back then (no, that wasn't in 1899). It is possible that the combination of dry ice and lantern mantle could work along similar lines. Some alpha particles even make sudden 90 degree turns when accelerated through gold foil so there is a possible vague basis in fact for Lazard's show but I am convinced that it was more like a magician's parlor trick and nothing to do with ununpentium.

Ununpentium belongs to a group of elements in the periodic chart which starts with nitrogen (7 protons, 7 neutrons and 7 electrons), then phosphorus (14), arsenic (33, metalloid), antimony (51, metalloid), bismuth (83, metal) and ununpentium (115 electrons, metal). You can kind of see the types of properties that these materials have. None of the better known radioactive materials have been shown to produce antimatter as a side reaction and I wonder if the decay of element 115 would be that much different. Maybe it would have to be some radically different one, magical element 815?

An alpha particle and proton/atomic nucleus are both positively charged and thus strongly repel each other. It would thus take a tremendous level of energy for the ap to first penetrate the electron shield and then to even strike the nucleus, let alone penetrate it and become part of it. This is done in particle accelerators, not in a jar with a lantern mantle. In fact, radioactivity as a means for having an alpha particle strike a nucleus is completely ruled out for atoms beyond potassium (with a much weaker charge of 19, ie 19 protons). (For a good source on this see for example "Understanding Physics" by Isaac Asimov, 'Nuclear Chemistry', p 154-.)

And the bigger problems.

Already mentioned by someone, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, as long as e=mc2 holds.

I have to look up my Gravity Amplification 101 text book, I just can't remember how its done. The 'speed' of gravity increases 32ft/sec/sec until terminal velocity is reached and I am not sure how antimatter would get it even up to the speed of light.

And there is the general problem with Bob Lazard's credibility, I don't think that any of his past claims have really been able to stand up to honest scrutiny.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
posted by blackbayou


And the bigger problems.

Already mentioned by someone, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, as long as e=mc2 holds.

I have to look up my Gravity Amplification 101 text book, I just can't remember how its done. The 'speed' of gravity increases 32ft/sec/sec until terminal velocity is reached and I am not sure how antimatter would get it even up to the speed of light.


Thanks for the post blackbayou.

The 'speed' of gravity is instantaneous throughout the universe. But since neither of us has a way of measuring that gravity is 'instantaneous' throughout the universe we'll just have to wait, as did the 'flat earth proponets' until its proven one way or the other. I'll keep my money on 'instantaneous gravity'. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
A lot of Bob Lazars info about Element 115 is found at www.boblazar.com



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

The 'speed' of gravity is instantaneous throughout the universe. But since neither of us has a way of measuring that gravity is 'instantaneous' throughout the universe we'll just have to wait, as did the 'flat earth proponets' until its proven one way or the other. I'll keep my money on 'instantaneous gravity'. Thanks.



you mean the force not the speed. (The speed is most probabily instantanious)

Well you know this contradicts the todays science 'believe' in general relativity theorie (Einstein).

There was one measurment:
www.newscientist.com...
www.nrao.edu...

edit: add wikpedia link: en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 8-7-2006 by g210]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by g210

Originally posted by johnlear

The 'speed' of gravity is instantaneous throughout the universe. But since neither of us has a way of measuring that gravity is 'instantaneous' throughout the universe we'll just have to wait, as did the 'flat earth proponets' until its proven one way or the other. I'll keep my money on 'instantaneous gravity'. Thanks.



you mean the force not the speed. (The speed is most probabily instantanious)



g210: I would respectfully request that you do not attempt to put words in my mouth. It’s demeaning. It implies that I am mis-stating myself. If you wish to ask if I meant to say a particular thing then please do so. But do not say “You mean the force not the speed.” The implication being that you know better what I am trying to say.

It is my opinion that the gravitational flux is instantaneous throughout the universe. The gravity of earth has an instantaneous effect on a star in the farthest reaches. That’s how a gravity phone works. A gravity phone is hooked up to the gravity wave or flux and you can talk to someone a thousand light years away instantaneously. That’s how ‘remote viewing’ works. You are ‘hooking up’ to the gravitational flux throughout the universe. There is no current, mainstream, scientific way of measuring the speed or flux of gravity. Or, put another way: the way we are currently measuring the speed of gravity is similar to a proponent of ‘flat earth’ taking you on a walk around earth. “See! See! I told you, everywhere you look the earth is FLAT!” These are my opinions and they are based on things I have heard and seen. They are not ‘scientific fact”.

‘Scientific Fact’, in my opinion, is the psychological prison that keeps new and wondrous ideas from emerging. With few exceptions, scientists are not willing to discuss theories and ideas that are not signed, sealed and stamped by their peers. They are afraid of ridicule, including unfavorable peer review and which includes a diminishing paycheck.

Thanks for your input on this thread.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
John, that view is fascinating. I once postulated a while back that perhaps there were such 'strings' that did indeed connect celestial bodies in one place to similar celestial bodies far far away. I suppose such a gravity flux was the term I was looking for when I was trying to make sense of that theory. Thank you for sharing this idea.

And yes, very good point indeed about the hypocrisy about the modern scientific community. It's a real shame they limit themselves like that, but at the same time, it's not their fault, I think.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The article in Newscientist.com referenced by g210 quotes test results that claim that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light, thus not instantaneous. They say if the sun was suddenly removed, the earth would continue on its course for 8 more minutes. If true, this confirms Einstein's theory. It would also raise doubts about ununpentium's ability to amplify gravity waves to allow travel at more than the speed of light. And yes, I am sure that there will be many other articles that claim proof that ununpentium will do just that, AND grow hair and get rid of cellulite as well.

And I did have 'inflation theory for dummies' but it was too advanced for me.

There is still the problem of Bob Lazard's - sorry, PHYSICIST Bob Lazard's, I didn't mean any disrespect (or did I??) - claims about an alpha particle shooting off from the lantern mantle and entering 115. Did he have a really big hammer to pound it into ununpentium nucleus? Help me out here!



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
posted byblackbayou



There is still the problem of Bob Lazard's - sorry, PHYSICIST Bob Lazard's, I didn't mean any disrespect (or did I??) - claims about an alpha particle shooting off from the lantern mantle and entering 115. Did he have a really big hammer to pound it into ununpentium nucleus? Help me out here!



I am sure that you meant this comment in a facetious manner but no, Bob had no hammer. And as far as your disrespect for Bob, it seems that once you've run a cathouse nobody ever forgets no matter what else you did. You could at least spell Bob's last name correctly...Lazard are the investment guys, Lazar is the nuclear physicist. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied

Just to give you an example, a couple of the scientists I work with are involved in the newly formed Tau Zero Foundation who's goal is exploring enabling technology for interstellar flight...



Thats my point. These well meaning scientists are essentially on KP and don't even know it.

Our secret government has been zipping around the solar system in anti-grav vehicles since the early 60's.

These 'well meaning' scientists are locked in the psychological science prison because they can't accept and/or realize, 'Hey, we've already been there...done that!"

And they're kept there by fear of ridicule, like "Did Bob have a hammer....help me out here?" They are not secure enough in their own knowledge. They don't want the joke to be on them. In fact, the jokes on 99% of our scientists, those who are not on the 'inside'.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Seems to me(imho) that John Lear is simply saying that much of modern science is keeping itself "locked in a box" due to conforming to the "norm".


Now that seems like a big statement but...


Conformity is a prison. And you can see it in many aspects of life. When people conform to rigidly held/enforced beliefs, they give up much of their freedom in order to be part of that conformity(status quo).

Why should science be any different? Is it not susceptible to "elitism" and making most conform to rigid standards?


I personally am undecided, but I can see the man's point of view(I think), and it isn't totally outlandish to at least some part of me.

X



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
g210: I would respectfully request that you do not attempt to put words in my
...


Sorry, didnt want to sound respectles. I was in a hurry when I posted it and skipped the first half of the setence: I guess you mean..

English is a foreign language to me, so it's not that simple for me to express myself always the correct way.

I thought about that something instantaneous beeing everywhere has no speed anymore but is instantanious. But what is everywhere? Not the speed but the force or action. And I asume you meant that and not that the speed of the wave itself is build up instantanious which is probabily the case (like the light) but doesn't tell anything about how fast the waves travels.

I am open to new concepts as long as they not contradict observation.
Certainly that one measurement is not enough and more and different ones have to be done and will be done.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join