Element 115 - Ununpentium, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 8-7-2006 @ 09:20 PM by blackbayou
Thanks for the correction John, I have seen Bob's name a hundred times but it was stuck in my head as Lazard!

And yes, I was facetious about the hammer in the hope that someone would either defend his account of how he created 116 out of 115 with a lantern mantle or prove it false. In my original post I gave some reasoning why his story is impossible but I would like to hear opposing views based on some scientific reasoning. My claim is still that Lazar does not understand the most basic facts about nuclear physics - neutron, proton and electron and how atomic nuclei can be re-arranged etc - so there is no way on this earth that he is a physicist. He could be one from another planet but if so, let him explain this completely new physics. There we go again with the facetiousism!

I understand that this site would not exist if we did not kind of wink at the proof for all kinds of incredible theories, and most people here are not scientists but for heaven's sakes, what's the point in saying
'Lazar changed ununpentium into ununhexium in his living room'
'Yeah, cool'
'That's how flying saucers warp space-time'
'If he says so it must be so'
etc etc! I am as interested as anybody in exploring what might be out there but I get no pleasure out of putting blinders on and accepting any house of cards that can be blown down with one puff. If all the evidence says BL is not a physicist then what is the benefit in continuing to profess otherwise? If his claims fly in the face of Newton and Bohr and Einstein, let's find out one way or another. What are you afraid of? The truth?

On that note, there is some truth to what some have expressed here, that scientists are not always necessarily pursuing truth as they see it either and here's why. For example, if you are an astronomer or physicist who doesn't really believe in string theory, you might still continue working on it instead of whatever else you think might be the right theory. Strings and branes are the hot topic today and it is more difficult to find backers and grants and jobs if you are not into the mainstream. Money and reputations and jobs are at stake so many have to go along and maybe just pursue other theories on the side. I can't blame them. It is not much different from other professions. You might think you are a great actor but if you have to wait tables to survive, what are you going to do?

For those who might be interested, here's the background on ununpentium: at some point the scientific community started speculating that there were a bunch of elements which had not been discovered yet so they added placeholders in the periodic table for elements 110 to 118 and named them from ununnilium to ununoctium (that's the latest table I have, I don't know if any more have been added starting with 119 yet). Once any of these are confirmed they will be given permanent names, 115 might be Lazarium if he can prove it. He claimed initially that scientists had worked unsuccessfully for years to find it and he did so in the one week that he worked at Area 51. Then he backed off saying that he just made the right inferences from the research that others had done and I don't know what his current claim is. I just suggest that everybody check the sources that Access Denied provided, if you dare.


reply posted on 9-7-2006 @ 09:18 AM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Originally posted by johnlear

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'.


I tend to agree with John here, at least in principal. While I do not believe we are necessarily zipping about the solar system in anti-grav machines and breaking the light barrier, the spirit of the arguement is essentially correct.

In the world of black projects, they are WAY ahead of current scientific knowldge and devlopment about alot of things. Its often been said that the US government in its ultra secret "non-existant" black world has technology decades ahead of the most cutting edge stuff that the mainstream scienctific establishment thinks up. So it is not implausible at all that currently, we might have craft that are more than capable of reaching Mars within a reasonable time frame and the tech to actually sustain a small colony of sorts.

Anti-grav and warp/faster than light tech, however, is more than likely centuries beyond our current capabilities. Not impossible, but just not likely at this time.

But you never know. Id be happy to be proven wrong in this, as it would certainly be great if we could. It gives humanity a better chance at survival.


reply posted on 9-7-2006 @ 11:40 AM by johnlear
Originally posted by Cabanman
Ok, the guy not only introduces the most secret and guarded base in the world, but then he talks about an element #115 which has antigravity properties in the 80's and 90's and it turns out to be true? I say that he must be geting info from a pretty relaiable source or that indeed he probably worked at the base. Unless he is psychic.



Thanks Cabanman. Bob also talked about SMU's (singular mass units) the smallest unit of matter known. Chargons, which have a charge of -1/3 or +1/3 bind to SMU's by the Gravity "A" wave of 7.46 Hz in orbits separated by 120 degrees. All full atoms have exactly the same number of positive chargons as negative chargons. All matter is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which themselves are made up by quarks. The quarks are either an up quark or a down quark and themselves are made up of one smu and 2 positive chargons for the up quark and 1 smu and 1 negative chargon for the down quark.

An electron is made up by 3 negative chargons by themselves (without an smu) which gives it a net charge of minus 1. (3 x -1/3).

A neutron is made up of 1 upquark and 2 down quarks. The up quark is made up of 1 smu and 2 positive chargons. The down quark is made up of 1 smu and 1 negative chargon. So for the neutron we have:

1 up quark=2 positive chargons (2x +1/3) and 1 smu
2 down quarks=2 negative chargons (2 x -1/3) and 2 smu's
for a total of 3 smu's

This gives us a net charge of 0 and a net mass (at rest) of 3.

The proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, which gives us:

2 up quarks=4 positive chargons (4x +1/3) (2 smu's each with 2 chargons)
1 down quark=1 negative chargon (1x -1/3) (1 smu with 1 negative chargon)
for a total of 3 smu's

This gives us a net charge of +1 and a net mass (at rest) of 3.

A neutrino has 3 negative chargons and 3 positive chargons for a net charge of 0 and a net mass (at rest) of 0. Like the electron it has no smu.

These are from notes I kept when Bob worked at S-4. I have drawings he made of all this which make it easier to understand, at least for me. Maybe some day I'll drag them out and post them. I am not a physicist. I could understand when Bob explained all this but I doubt whether I could hold forth in a debate with a 'real' physicist.

I am sure to get hammered over this but here it is.



reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 01:17 AM by RiotComing
Originally posted by johnlear
‘Scientific Fact’, in my opinion, is the psychological prison that keeps new and wondrous ideas from emerging.


Now I realise David Icke isn't very well-regarded in general around this forum, but DI says precisely the same thing.. and he's right. John Lear is totally spot-on.

If you haven't done so already, listen to this David Icke radio interview with ATS member Ross Hemsworth.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I realise you hear all the weird Reptilian talk and crazyville loopy theories, but the stuff Icke covers here is down-to-earth common sense and it ties in well with the criticism of the scientific community under discussion. Icke goes further and says everything is rooted in our education systems, the way we are conditioned to think. He certainly provides food for thought.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by RiotComing]


reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 02:02 AM by obsidian468
I'm honestly not sure what to make of this information. If true, it's a REALLY big deal in the scientific community. If false, it's just simply more fuel for the popular anti-Lazar fire.

I am not qualified to make such a judgement, even with having a general understanding of both classical and quantum physics. This information, as far as testing, of even seeing how it looks on paper, is well out of my scope of knowledge.

Fact is though, there is a bit of plausability behind it, especially given the small percentage of everything there is to know that humans (as a collective race) actually know (the last estimate I heard was roughly 0.1% of everything, and that may even be liberal). The more our technology grows, the more we prove old scientific theories and well respected facts false. Any time I make this statement, I'm reminded of the speech that Tommy Lee Jones gave to Will Smith in "MIB" just before Will Smith joined: "1000 years ago, everyone "knew" the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone "knew" the Earth was flat, and just ten minutes ago, you "knew" humans were alone on this planet. Just think of what you'll "know" tomorrow." Even though it's a quote from a work of fiction, there is a very real ring of truth to the statement. Even with the rumored ultra-high advancements in black-ops technology, the human race still knows next to nothing about the universe as a whole.

One statement I will agree with is that science is actually standing in the way of stepping forward. This has been the case for most of human existence. When we were living in caves, fire was brought by the gods through the lightning and could not be harnessed. It took a "revolutionary" to say "look, I can make fire, just by rubbing these sticks together." Likely, he was persecuted for shattering the beliefs of others. Columbus had an extremely hard time finding ships and funding for his exploration of the Atlantic, in hopes of finding a new trade route to India. This was because he was thought to be crazy for actually thinking the world was round. He was finally able to dupe Spain into giving him the ships and funding. Even though he never found the trade route he was looking for, he did "discover" North America for the Europeans. He thought that he had landed in India, which is why the North American indigenous peoples are known as "Indians." Nikola Tesla had created some very revolutionary advances in the world of electrical physics, yet died broke because people refused to believe that he had been able to break scientific laws regarding electrical engineering. Even I myself have faced unwilling scientists and funding groups in my own electrical research. I believe that I have actually developed a "free energy" device, though only on paper, as the needed materials to build it properly are rather expensive (at least in the quantities needed), and I have been unable to afford to build one on my own. When approaching people for funding for further study into the device, I've been greeted with many closed doors and much scorn, even though the device works on paper, and through computer models has been shown to be at least feasible.

The world needs more radical scientists, willing to look outside the scope of known science. We, as a race, know next to nothing about the universe, and in that limited knowledge, most scientists have neglected to realize the simple theory that in an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities. Just because we don't "know" it today, does not mean we won't "know" it tomorrow.

After that extended diatribe, I'll sum up. Humans know almost nothing. Anything is possible. Step outside the laws of science, and accept that something other than what we "know" may be true. Lazar may be hokey in some (or many) regards, but at the same time, we really don't know.

The "agnostic" approach to science is the best one: There's more to know, but we don't know what.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by obsidian468]


reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 04:27 AM by FatherLukeDuke
First of all, welcome John. I believe you are probably sincere in your beliefs, however I've got to say that this is all a load of pseudoscientific hokus-pokus.

The whole thing with the mysterious substances in arrow-head shapes and dry ice sounds more like a vaudeville act or the work of a 19th century "medium" rather than science.

Originally posted by johnlear
In any case what I said was that Bob put a piece of the 115 on top of the dry ice.

How do you know that it was 115? Are you absolutely sure? If so, why? What differentiates it from other, similar, substances?


With the mantle suspended above, the alpha particles were drawn into the 115.

How do you know they were alpha particles?


It was a simple experiment to prove the properties of the 115.

And this bit really gets me. I am baffled as to how you could infere these properties from the experiment.


Plugging a proton into 115 and creating 116 with the resulting total annihilation should be done in

It's probably a bit of a moot point, as we are unlikely to get hold of any 115. But thanks for the tip.


People keep talking about how scientists are constrained in their work. Well yes, they are - they are constrained by science itself. To be doing science you have to be doing 2 important things (amongst others):

1. Your theories have to be testable or falsifiable. Oher people should be able try and prove you wrong through counter theories and experiment.

2. Your experiments must be repeatable. They should be a recipe for anyone else wishing to carry it out and seeing if what you claim is true.

Doing science is not about using "sciencey" words, such as gravity flux and quark, but about following these principles.

If I say that I took some dust from saturn's rings, ran it through a proton reverse field transcriptor and created a black hole it would not be science, as it would not fulfill the above principles. What I would be claiming would be closer to magic or alchemy, the systems that science (largely) replaced. Unfortunately alchemy is a better description of what Bob Lazar does than science.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 16 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 1 days ago with 27 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 189 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 107 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 8 hours ago, 80 replies