It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Element 115 - Ununpentium

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:08 PM
John, thank you so much for discussing these matters.

If you can please answer the following:

Is Bob still actively researching this technology? Any breakthtoughs?
I heard he built a particle accelerator in his backyard, did you hear of that?
Is he still harrassed by the government?

I´m asking because you know him, and hopefully can answer these?

Also, do you think Bob might be interested in a guest appearance on ATS?

That would be OUTSTANDING.

Thanks in advance!

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:20 PM
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.

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:44 PM
Originally posted by blackbayou

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.

Blackbayou, to make 116 out of 115 you must plug in a proton. It is unlikely that anyone could do that in his living room. In any case what I said was that Bob put a piece of the 115 on top of the dry ice. With the mantle suspended above, the alpha particles were drawn into the 115. It was a simple experiment to prove the properties of the 115.

Plugging a proton into 115 and creating 116 with the resulting total annihilation should be done in very controlled conditions and certainly should not be tried at home without adult supervision. Should you try this anyway and be successful it is unlikely your celebration will last very long.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Access Denied

I think you owe the people here you lied to an apology.

I didn't lie about what I witnessed. If I am wrong about the properties of 115, I apologize. Since neither of us can prove our positions I would sincerely appreciate your moderating your accusations. Thanks.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:18 AM

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 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.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:56 AM
Minoq question and a bit of a digression, how can we be sure that earth physics will apply anywhere else?

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:36 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:40 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:06 PM

originally posted by John Lear
I am sure to get hammered over this but here it is.

Oh NO you WON'T... You may get challenged in a civil and grown up way but you will NOT be "hammered" or insulted or called any childish names.

This is the work of another (Bob Lazar), that you are sharing with our Members because they are interested in this topic and you are the single closest person to the source other than George Knapp, (who will be on our "Guest Speaker and Interview forums shortly) there is.

So, that being said anyone who takes "issue" with this is TOTALLY WELCOME present their "issue" in a CIVIL and very POLITE way like people with Social Grace do or they will be banned from ATS period.

There is absolutely NOTHING to be gained from childish name calling or un polite behavior and it simply won't be tolerated. The FREE exchange of concepts and the challenges to them is what we are here for.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Springer]

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by johnlear...had to mill and cut them into the arrowhead shape.

Wow John, what an honor! welcome aboard! As you are pretty much aware I have heard much about you.

Regarding arrowheads, from my own experience I discovered that the arrowhead is the ideal shape to slow down neutrons from a point source. In essence, the element can be "recharged" in this fashion. Just don't throw in too many and you won't get a meltdown or supercriticality

BTW, I am looking for a progressive nuclear physicist. Know of any?

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:17 AM

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.

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]

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:02 AM
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]

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:24 AM
g210 posted a link to an article from new scientist that says this:

>Light-speed gravity means that if the Sun suddenly disappeared from the centre of the Solar System, the Earth would remain in orbit for about 8.3 minutes

As far as I'm concerned, I believe this is very wrong. Let me give you an example:

Suppose you are swinging a ball around your head that is attached to a string. let go of the string and the ball will move in a tangential direction IMMEDIATELY.

This is how gravity works.

Make the string longer, say the distance between the Sun and Earth, add a vacuum and if the Sun was taken out of the equation (ie you ket go of the string) then the Earth would spin-off IMMEDIATELY...and we would get very cold, very quickly...and who knows what else! There would be no 8.3 minute delay.

That's how I believe gravitational force works.

If you can knock it down using my "ball-string" example, then please do so.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:27 AM
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.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:34 AM

I found how they determined the speed of gravity:

>Isaac Newton thought the influence of gravity was instantaneous, but Einstein assumed it travelled at the speed of light and built this into his 1915 general theory of relativity.

>...But how can you measure the speed of gravity?

>Kopeikin found another way. He reworked the equations of general relativity to express the gravitational field of a moving body in terms of its mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. If you could measure the gravitational field of Jupiter, while knowing its mass and velocity, you could work out the speed of gravity.

So, basically, they knew that Einstein *assumed* the speed of gravity was the speed of light, so he adjusted the formula and then "surprise surprise", they found that the spped of gravity was the speed of light.

What a joke!

All they have done is confirmed what Einstein has already stated in his formula - that he *assumed* the speed of gravity = the speed of light.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:20 AM
the first BIG question that springs to mind in this affair - is given that this is true , where does the alpha particle go ?

surely in the years that " they " have aledgedly had this element 115 , why has no one has the bright idea of bombarding a sample with aplha particles till changes are observed / detected

and if they have -- why has lazar not mentioned it

the basic physics is that an alpha emmitter decays to " daughter elements "

radium , decays to radon gas by alpha emmission .

this is the basis of radiometric dating [ well a simplified version ]

if as claimed Element 115 is an alpha absorber -- why dies it not mutate into [ for want of a better term ] " son elements " , or more correctly they would be isotopes .

an alpha particle is NOT just a proton , which lazar fixates on in his talk of transmutation of element 115 to 116

so what the heck happens to apha particles absorbed , and to be precise , where do the neutrons go ??????

i will have to look the fine details of this up [ its 25 years since i did A level physics

but IMHO lazars " physics" stinks of handwaving .

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

If I say that I took some dust from saturn's rings,

Thanks for your comments Father. Interesting you should mention Saturns rings were made out of dust. I'm not sure about that but in any case you might want to read "Ringmakers of Saturn" by Norman Bergrun (Pentland Press loc 86-81530) in which he postulates vehicles, some over 31,000 miles in length and over 2,400 miles in diameter, located in the rings of Saturn. His NASA photographs showing these vehicles are tantalizing. Mr. Bergrun was a Thermodynamicist with Douglas Aircraft, Aero Research Scientist with NACA, Supervisor of Flight Test, Lockheed Missles and Space and holds numerous degrees and engineering honors. I heartily recommend this book for those challenged by challenging new ideas.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
but IMHO lazars " physics" stinks of handwaving .

Thanks for your comment IA. I assume that if the things Lazar has spoken about are ever admitted by mainstream science that he will get your written and heartfelt apology for 'stinks of handwaving'. Personally I think you could have phrased your comment differently and achieved the same effect. The use of insulting words to express ones feelings towards the ideas of another usually indicates an inadequacy to refute them any other way.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:56 AM
Originally posted by HardToGet

Is Bob still actively researching this technology?


Any breakthtoughs?

In ignorance? No. In technology? Compared to what?

Is he still harrassed by the government?

Which one?

Also, do you think Bob might be interested in a guest appearance on ATS?

No. Bob has his hands full with his scientific supply company

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:00 AM
Personally I don't care one way or the other if Lazar has a degree on his wall as most of the college grads I work with are quite useless unless given a funnel, hose and a pitcher of beer. Even though I don't see eye to eye on everything John or Bob may profess, simply disregarding them would be quite foolish. If truth is even in the single digit percentile it is still valuable. We should always be open minded to any possibility as mere existence if not present would be quite hard to believe.

One thing that I was wondering and maybe John has a thought on this is that if we have such advanced technology as to be able to zoom about the universe then why fight wars in an obviously primitive manner? Or spend billions developing aircraft such as the F-22?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in