Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bob Lazar and Element 115

page: 34
43
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS67t c56
John Searl is full of it, I met him when I was a school boy and at that time he was saying a demonstration model would be ready shortly....anyway a good many years have passed since I was a school boy and he is still telling the same yarn.


I tend to agree. The only other possibility is that there was something different in the first one that he didn't see and cannot reproduce. I allow that because TH Moray had the same problem. Look up that in regards the Swedish stone...

But 50-100 Years ago we were getting results, Tesla, Moray a scad of others. 1947 was a Nexus year... Arnold, Roswell, CIA formed.. all kinds of stuff in 1947. But today... nothing openly has come of it. Can we say the government is covering it all up? Did ET put a block on us? Don't know but end result is I can't fly up to the moon to look around




When you say "they" wont make us one do you bean the government or the ETs? The government have had this technology since the 1930, ETs have had it a bit longer



I started lookinng into the Ancients and possible ET connection over 35 years ago... then into UFO's. Wasn't till I met John in 2006 that I started the military stuff. But in all those years of getting close to answers, neither Ancient, ET nor Government agent has stepped forward to show me the goods (save the one guy who sent me a sketch of a star drive
)

so 'they' would include all of the above




Humans have had this technology in the past, the existence of those devices in Tibet makes me think the story about Atlantis is true!


Atlantis is true.. just not like most think it is. We now have three locations on Earth where recent discoveries show civilization back to 12,000 years Göbekli Tepe, Dwarka and now East Timor. Who knows what else we will uncover?

One of my favorite paintings... who would have thought some artist in 1445 would paint a Stargate?





posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by goatfish
I haven't seen the road but I live in Las Vegas now. I'm thinking of possibly driving out next week to check out Rachel. Although I might not since I know there's not much to see. I've seen videos of people driving up to the Area 51 gate but that seems kind of pointless and stupid. But who knows I've been known to do stupid and pointless things.


End of Feb and March.. the desert blooms. It is quite a site especially since we had 5 days of drizzle not that long ago, so its a nice escape from the city anyway. Doesn't matter where you look, I prefer Gold Butte area witha ll the petroglyphs and other history, but a drive in the desert in spring is worth it

As to Bob's education... my suspicion is that he wasn't planning to make a career out of UFOlogy and deliberately left a false trail. Don't forget at the beginning he wanted anonymity. It wasn't till later when he went public.

John also got out of the UFO stuff for several years because of threats to his family that included being run off the road.

Fortunately today the government doesn't seem to terminate people so easily. Not sure why the change but it is the ONLY reason we hear anything at all. Years ago it was different... even Wilhelm Reich was arrested and he died in jail.

I find it funny sometime when skeptics scream for proof, yet having any classified documents in your possession is guaranteed you will get an invite to Gitmo. So all we can have is a good story and follow up on our own



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is really hard to imagine that the proposed new field (gravity A) would exist in the nucleus of one element but not in nuclei of very similar elements. Bob's explanation is something like there is not enough concentration of energy in the solar system to make this happen. Since he offers no real theory to explain that and his other claims, there is little that can be done to either prove or disprove any of that. I personally don't believe any of it.


My understanding of it is that Bob was saying Gravity A and the Strong Nuclear Force are the same thing. It's just that elements with a very high atomic number have the field extend beyond the atom a bit. I suppose the scientists on the project used that term because the technology was able to be amplified to a large area and showed the same characteristic (attraction of mass) as gravity.

As for the "not enough energy in the solar system" part, I think he was saying that in solar systems with stars larger than our sun and solar systems with multiple stars you would find the stable elements with very high atomic numbers occurring naturally. I'm not an astrophysicist but that sounds somewhat plausible to me.

One interesting contradiction in his testimony came up that I think is worth noting. In one of his early interviews he claimed that all the technology was within the reach of man and the aliens were less than a few hundred years ahead of us. In a later interview he claimed the alien technology was like "magic" and that we had no hope of understanding and recreating it.

I only remember all this junk because I recently re-watched a lot of the Bob Lazar videos. I might have stuff wrong but I think it's correct as far as what he claimed. I agree there is nothing that can be done now to prove or disprove any of it. At least for the foreseeable future.

edit on 13-2-2011 by goatfish because: typo
edit on 13-2-2011 by goatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
End of Feb and March.. the desert blooms. It is quite a site especially since we had 5 days of drizzle not that long ago, so its a nice escape from the city anyway. Doesn't matter where you look, I prefer Gold Butte area witha ll the petroglyphs and other history, but a drive in the desert in spring is worth it


Oh cool. I didn't realize you live nearby. I live near Red Rock Canyon and have been out there several time. I've also visited the Valley of Fire once which is quite a site. Where is Gold Butte? I haven't been here long enough to really experience the seasons. I will definitely make a trip into the dessert this week and check it out. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Not a star gate actually but the "Ptolemaic universe"

link

Occultisms regard this knowledge as a "secret" John keely, Victor Schausberger and the Germans behind the creation of the Vril discs all have one thing in common, they were all versed in the esoteric teachings.


It is just because Keely's discovery would lead to a knowledge of one of the most occult secrets, a secret which can never be allowed to fall into the hands of the masses, that his failure to push his discoveries to their logical end seems certain to Occultists.

www.sacred-texts.com...

edit on 13-2-2011 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by goatfish


I'm in the center of town Sahara Eastern area John is up by Sunrise (Frenchman's) Mountain near Nellis AFB. Gold Butte is now a BLM protected area. The mine John had was the last active one left. History in the area dates from Early man sites, Anasazi, Spanish Gold miners that enslaved the Natives, 1800's Miners, Depression camps and 1900 gold miners... It's hard to get in and thus almost untouched. Near Mesquite Nv and about 2 hours in on a road from hell.


Some weird stuff too... we see low flying helicopters come up the valley and suddenly they are gone... no more sound very eerie.. and white vehicles are seen during the week driving in... they too vanish. We tried to find out where they go... no luck yet



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
Occultisms regard this knowledge as a "secret" John keely, Victor Schausberger and the Germans behind the creation of the Vril discs all have one thing in common, they were all versed in the esoteric teachings.


Hmmm well I wouldn't know anything about that...






posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Interesting. I've seen a few UFO sighting reports on MUFON recently stating that there are strange lights around Sunrise Mountain. Probably military.

Gold Butte sounds interesting. Too bad I have a standard car. That road from hell sounds like an impossible journey for me.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well Fr R+C I can tell you you wont be finding this stuff in any of the teachings of AMORC
edit on 14-2-2011 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by goatfish
As for the "not enough energy in the solar system" part, I think he was saying that in solar systems with stars larger than our sun and solar systems with multiple stars you would find the stable elements with very high atomic numbers occurring naturally. I'm not an astrophysicist but that sounds somewhat plausible to me.
I'm not either by profession but I have interest in the topic as a hobby, and you don't have to be an astrophysicist to read this wiki, though being one may help with comprehension?

Explosive nucleosynthesis


Explosive nucleosynthesis

This includes supernova nucleosynthesis, and produces the elements heavier than iron by an intense burst of nuclear reactions that typically last mere seconds during the explosion of the supernova core. In explosive environments of supernovae, the elements between silicon and nickel are synthesized by fast fusion. Also in supernovae further nucleosynthesis processes can occur, such as the r process, in which the most neutron-rich isotopes of elements heavier than nickel are produced by rapid absorption of free neutrons released during the explosions. It is responsible for our natural cohort of radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium, as well as the most neutron-rich isotopes of each heavy element.
My interpretation is, elements more or less up to Iron are produced in stellar nucleosynthesis, while in general elements above Iron on the periodic table of the elements are typically produced by supernovae.

Because we find elements heavier than iron on Earth, one can surmise that the Earth and therefore our solar system contains stardust remnants from previous supernova explosions of other stars, where the heaviest elements were created.

There's nothing I know of in that theory that would support Lazar's contention that "solar systems with multiple stars you would find the stable elements with very high atomic numbers occurring naturally".

One possibility I've tried to research but found nothing on, is whether unstable elements that have a certain half-life on Earth, can have their half-life extended as a result of the high pressure in a stellar core. The high temperature would probably tend to make it less stable though, and probably the reason I can't find much about it is that we have difficulty observing past the photosphere or outer layer of the star, with the exception of supernovae where we can observe the composition of the star that exploded.

I would guess there are a number of problems trying to observe element 115 in supernova explosions:
1. Ununpentium is so unstable I'm not sure if we even know what spectral lines to look for to identify 115, and
2. We don't always detect supernovae at the instant they occur, and by the time we detect them any element 115 that may have formed in the supernova might have already decayed because of the extremely short half life. If there was such thing as a stable version of 115 and it was being formed in a supernova then we should be able to not only observe its spectral lines, but we should also be able to find stable element 115 on Earth because we obviously have other remnants of supernovae here like Uranium.

In other words, Lazar's claim makes no sense to me at all and doesn't sound the least bit plausible based on what I know about nucleosynthesis. Earlier in the thread I said if he was a physicist, he's not a very good one. This is an example of what I was referring to, making a claim that isn't supported by known physics.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by goatfish
My understanding of it is that Bob was saying Gravity A and the Strong Nuclear Force are the same thing. It's just that elements with a very high atomic number have the field extend beyond the atom a bit.


You see, we study strong interaction using a variety of probes. Electrons can be scattered off nuclei, for example, and they do penetrate the nucleus. Whole nuclei are collided at facilities like RHIC, and we study the state of matter inside the nucleus, throughout the evolution of that matter during the reaction. Whether nuclear force extends beyond the nucleus (I hope you didn't really mean "atom", because that's an impossibility) is not too relevant. What is relevant is this (a) there is no reason to call strong nuclear force "gravity", as these are two vastly different forces (b) we don't observe anything that would require us to postulate the presence of some new force inside the nucleus.


As for the "not enough energy in the solar system" part, I think he was saying that in solar systems with stars larger than our sun and solar systems with multiple stars you would find the stable elements with very high atomic numbers occurring naturally. I'm not an astrophysicist but that sounds somewhat plausible to me.


No. Read Arb's post, he's correct with regards to nucleosynthesis.


In one of his early interviews he claimed that all the technology was within the reach of man and the aliens were less than a few hundred years ahead of us. In a later interview he claimed the alien technology was like "magic" and that we had no hope of understanding and recreating it.


Indeed, there is a big discrepancy right there. If Bob produces a sketch of the propulsion system of the UFO, he must know what goes where pretty well (and he does drop a few comments here and there to that effect), then he retracts that we are capable of understanding it all.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
As said before every atom has a core which exists in a negative energy potential with respect to the surrounding vacuum energy. The result of this is that every atom is continuously receiving an influx of energy from space.

The core of every atom in addition to receiving energy also sends out waves via the pulsation of the atomic nucleus. In addition to the oscillation of an atom due to its energy state which is well known is the less well known fact that the nucleus is pulsating at a wavelength which varies according to the particular element.
It is clear then that every atom is receiving energy via the vacuum and is also sending out energy via nuclear resonance waves.

If you find a way to amplify the nuclear resonance so that the outwards waves exert a force past the electron orbit then you have a condition in which the object will be repelled by the earth's gravitational field. This is what is meant by the amplification of the gravity A wave



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
As said before every atom has a core which exists in a negative energy potential with respect to the surrounding vacuum energy.


An atom is a system consisting of a nucleus and a cloud of electrons bound to it by Coulomb force (roughly). What "core" are you talking about?


The result of this is that every atom is continuously receiving an influx of energy from space.


But we don't see such influx.


The core of every atom in addition to receiving energy also sends out waves via the pulsation of the atomic nucleus.


What "pulsations"? The nucleus can indeed be put into an excited states, which will then decay either by particle or a photon emission.


In addition to the oscillation of an atom due to its energy state which is well known is the less well known fact that the nucleus is pulsating at a wavelength which varies according to the particular element.


"Pulsating at wavelength"? What do you mean by that? Pulsation is oscillation, wavelength describes propagation of waves. What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

An atom is a system consisting of a nucleus and a cloud of electrons bound to it by Coulomb force (roughly). What "core" are you talking about?


I am referring to the core at the centre of the nucleus which contains exotic matter.


But we don't see such influx.


You do see an influx, you call it gravity amongst other things. It is brought about by the polarisation of localised space.


What "pulsations"? The nucleus can indeed be put into an excited states, which will then decay either by particle or a photon emission.


The nucleus is always pulsating and its interaction with space is what we perceive as the quality's of a particular element.


"Pulsating at wavelength"? What do you mean by that? Pulsation is oscillation, wavelength describes propagation of waves. What are you talking about?


Pulsation is not oscillation...oscillation of an atom is its motion in a linear direction back and forth about a point depending on temperature for one.
Pulsation of the nucleus is the rhythmic expansion and contraction of the energy field surrounding and created by the nucleus.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS

True that... left quite some time ago
and not likely to find it in here either

edit on 14-2-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Check out my new hat.

It's made out of tinfoil.




edit on 14-2-2011 by Beavis because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-2-2011 by Beavis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Thanks Arbitrageur. I found the wikipedia article on nucleosynthesis very informative. I don't disagree with your argument that the article opposes Bob Lazar's information on the natural formation of E-115 in systems with larger stars or multiple stars.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Explosive nucleosynthesis

My interpretation is, elements more or less up to Iron are produced in stellar nucleosynthesis, while in general elements above Iron on the periodic table of the elements are typically produced by supernovae.


But I thought I should point out that according to the article elements heavier than iron are also produced in a non-exploding stars using what they call the S-process. Although it states, "this occurs at relatively low neutron density and intermediate temperature conditions in stars." which doesn't sound like it happens in stars bigger than the sun. Also it says, "The process thus terminates in bismuth, the heaviest 'stable' element." Which I take to mean that radioactive elements decay faster than the S-Process is thought to make them. The s stands for "slow."

Also after some thought it seems that pretty much any element that exists within out galaxy should probably be available on the Earth in some amount due to meteorites and other space objects hitting the Earth. But then again if this is true where are the other very heavy stable elements that are predicted by the "shelf of stability" idea? Maybe we should be more carefully examining meteorites.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS


An atom is a system consisting of a nucleus and a cloud of electrons bound to it by Coulomb force (roughly). What "core" are you talking about?


I am referring to the core at the centre of the nucleus which contains exotic matter


How do you know it does?





But we don't see such influx.


You do see an influx, you call it gravity amongst other things.


I do not see energy flowing. I see field.





What "pulsations"? The nucleus can indeed be put into an excited states, which will then decay either by particle or a photon emission.


The nucleus is always pulsating and its interaction with space is what we perceive as the quality's of a particular element.


We do not. Nuclei do indeed exhibit oscillation modes, like blobs of liquid, in case of heavy elements. But it's not the same as "pulsation".



"Pulsating at wavelength"? What do you mean by that? Pulsation is oscillation, wavelength describes propagation of waves. What are you talking about?


Pulsation is not oscillation...oscillation of an atom is its motion in a linear direction back and forth about a point depending on temperature for one.


Atom or nucleus? Why would it move linearly? What is the force that brings it back?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by goatfish
 
I'm glad to see you read the wiki, and it wasn't my intent to rewrite it but you'll notice I was very careful to use not just one, but two qualifiers for my generalization, "in general" and "typically", as I was aware I was generalizing a bit. But the fact you read the wiki closely enough to find exceptions to the generalizations speaks highly of your ability to read and comprehend the material, kudos!


While I'm open minded to the "island of stability" theory, it's one of those where I can't make a good estimate I feel comfortable with of the likelihood it will be proven correct. At best all we can say now is that it's a speculative theory with some foundation in logic, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but scientists are eager to study meteorites for the reason you mention, they provide some insight into relative abundances of different materials including element 115. In fact, here's a link to a paper that makes your suggestion look like a good one. I haven't read it, but we can deduce from the abstract that they apparently propose elements 112-119 may have been present in the meteorite, but weren't stable because they found only decay remnants in the form of "a small fission xenon component of unexplained origin".

Elements 112 to 119: Were They Present in Meteorites?

So if this is evidence of element 115 or related elements in the 112-119 range, it's also evidence that they were unstable.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




I found the above video, Nassim Haramein seams to have a similar idea to mine maybe this will be useful.

I use words which are popular like "anti gravity" even though I know they are incorrect. I already explained that "anti gravity" would be useless to produce a flying craft. I used the word "exotic matter" also for the same reason, its popular. The truth is that firstly there is nothing exotic about it and secondly its not matter, thus the word is like anti gravity incorrect!

"Exotic matter" in reality is actually a region of modified space/time, to be precise it is a region of space which has a negative energy density in respect to the mean energy density of the vacuum energy or dark energy (they are the same) which fills space/time.

All matter is created from the vacuum energy, matter is an illusion like bubbles in a coke bottle. Matter on all its levels are just nodal points where waves cancel to create points of negative energy density. These points then polarise localised space and angular motion (spin) is created, also is created the force we call gravity.

Its not my intention to go into this in great detail because it would require a book not a few posts. It should be obvious to you that an atom sitting in the vacuum energy must interact with it, how could you think that it wouldn't?.... and would not part of that interaction involve the transfer of energy to and from the vacuum? As I said to me matter are just nodes of nothingness. That which you think is nothingness i.e. empty space is more real then matter.

My point of posting was to inform that whilst element 115 can be used to create a gravity wave at this time in our technological development it is of no value.

At present Physics is primitive, you say field but do you actually know what a field is? physicists use words like field, strong force, gravity but in reality they don't know what any of these things really are.
edit on 15-2-2011 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
43
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution