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.

 

Element 115 question

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I thought the company was around before that. Wasn't it started in 1986? I don't know what he had on hand back then to run tests, but according to his own website he did have the company before 1989.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
About the stable element 115…


Thanks for the post sonicoly. Bob told me "Naturally occurring element 115 could only be found in a solar system much, much larger than ours. The 2 main factors which determine the residual matter that remains after the creation of that solar system is the amount of electromagnetic energy and the amount of mass present at the time of the creation of that solar system. A much larger solar system than the one earth is in would have had to have been created to have element 115 occurring as a natural element."


This is also incorrect. Occurrence of a given element in a solar system has nothing to do with its mass, electromagnetic energy or size. This is because stars cannot produce elements higher than Fe or so, even the most massive ones when they first form. For the rest of the heavier elements, we need more energetic events, like supernovae explosions. Than, these new, heavier elements are spread in the interstellar medium (in gas and dust), which eventually will be used to form new stars and systems.

So, the abundance of an element is given by the previous events that took place in the region – it has nothing to do with its mass. This scenario of heavy elements produced in supernovae is well consistent with what we have observed so far, not to mention of course, is consistent with nuclear physics.

Despite all that… there are several other accurate, non-destructive methods to characterize a material that do not involve proton beams. I'd suggest techniques that involve bombarding the sample with synchrotron radiation (in the X-ray wavelength). So, my offer still stands… if you still have the sample, then it is really easy to prove it contains element 115. We would be safe… I doubt US government would follow you all the way down here.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I see. Ok, it was harder for Bob to procure a radioactive source back in 1989.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




I see. Ok, it was harder for Bob to procure a radioactive source back in 1989.



No. It was infinitely easier because the thorium oxide he used was in every Coleman lantern mantle sold world wide.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by borek





This is also incorrect. Occurrence of a given element in a solar system has nothing to do with its mass, electromagnetic energy or size. This is because stars cannot produce elements higher than Fe or so, even the most massive ones when they first form. For the rest of the heavier elements, we need more energetic events, like supernovae explosions. Than, these new, heavier elements are spread in the interstellar medium (in gas and dust), which eventually will be used to form new stars and systems.

So, the abundance of an element is given by the previous events that took place in the region – it has nothing to do with its mass. This scenario of heavy elements produced in supernovae is well consistent with what we have observed so far, not to mention of course, is consistent with nuclear physics.


Of course. The key words hwere are "observed so far".

Thanks for the review of what the mainstream science crystal ball says. It is greatly appreciated.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Of course. The key words hwere are "observed so far".


You see, the "mainstream scientists" that you love to mock are very careful about what they say about all things scientific. They can honeslty concede that certain things aren't known. I'd wager, however, that we know a lot about the nucleus, and characteristic energies invloved in various modes of decay including fission. Since the proton and antiproton both have a mass in the vicinity of 1 GeV, that puts them about 2 orders of magnitude above the energy available in transitions of the nucleus, between the various energy levels. Hence, emission of antiprotons from the nucleus is impossible due to conservation of energy.


Thanks for the review of what the mainstream science crystal ball says.


Crystal balls are the province of street psychics and armchair scientists who lack training in using better instruments.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




I'd wager, however, that we know a lot about the nucleus, and characteristic energies invloved in various modes of decay including fission.


Now there's a mainstream science statement if I ever heard one. 'I'd wager'. Whats the mathematical symbol for that one BS; a dollar sign?


Since the proton and antiproton both have a mass in the vicinity of 1 GeV, that puts them about 2 orders of magnitude above the energy available in transitions of the nucleus, between the various energy levels. Hence, emission of antiprotons from the nucleus is impossible due to conservation of energy.


You're guessing BS and you know it.

You see, BS, this is what I am trying to tell you. Mainstream science is somebody's 'best wager', 'best guess'; they really don't know anything. Climb down off of that lofty perch before you hurt yourself.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by borek





This is also incorrect. Occurrence of a given element in a solar system has nothing to do with its mass, electromagnetic energy or size. This is because stars cannot produce elements higher than Fe or so, even the most massive ones when they first form. For the rest of the heavier elements, we need more energetic events, like supernovae explosions. Than, these new, heavier elements are spread in the interstellar medium (in gas and dust), which eventually will be used to form new stars and systems.

So, the abundance of an element is given by the previous events that took place in the region – it has nothing to do with its mass. This scenario of heavy elements produced in supernovae is well consistent with what we have observed so far, not to mention of course, is consistent with nuclear physics.


Of course. The key words hwere are "observed so far".


No, but close... the key word here is "observed". It means that no matter how much one wants to believe in Lazar's words, we have "seen" ongoing nuclear reactions in supernovae. We have "seen" all the stable elements in a multitude of stars, of every size and color - no theory can change an observation, though sometimes there can be more than one theory to explain the same observation. That's why I put "so far", because I don't rule out the possibility that another very energetic process, similar to supernovae, generates heavy elements. But that still will not change the fact that we don't observe different elements in different sizes of solar systems, as Mr. Lazar said.




Thanks for the review of what the mainstream science crystal ball says.


That's a subject for another thread, but what is mainstream science? Nowadays, anyone can publish any theory without even being prior reviewed by a peer. I recommend checking arxiv.org...

Of course, if your article only contains: "The element 115 can only be produced in very, very large star systems... period.", people will not take you seriously. Not because they "like" more of the supernovae explanation or they "feel" that other theory is the correct one, but because your claim cannot explain what we observe. No further observation could change that.

Another example: you have a sample of element 115, stable. We haven't observed any so far. Any physicist knows that elementar characterization of a material is a very simple thing to do with any "small" particle accelerator. I've linked you some techniques that even do not involve proton beam or any nucleon at all. So all Lazar has to do is make these experiments, show the results he got and conclude that the sample is, indeed, element 115. I garantee you no mainstream science will be able to disregard the results found. If there's a conspiracy in science (which I doubt), we can just publish the results in ArXiv. Before they realize what's going on, thousands of scientists would already have seen the results.

So, any time you and/or Mr. Lazar wants to prove, once and for all, that the metal is indeed composed of element 115, just let me know.



It is greatly appreciated.




You are welcome.
I know it's a pontless discussion, but some people might be interested in it.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by borek]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

I'd wager, however, that we know a lot about the nucleus, and characteristic energies invloved in various modes of decay including fission.


Now there's a mainstream science statement if I ever heard one. 'I'd wager'. Whats the mathematical symbol for that one BS; a dollar sign?


Thanks for pointing out deficiencies in my English, John, there is always space for improvement.



Since the proton and antiproton both have a mass in the vicinity of 1 GeV, that puts them about 2 orders of magnitude above the energy available in transitions of the nucleus, between the various energy levels. Hence, emission of antiprotons from the nucleus is impossible due to conservation of energy.


You're guessing BS and you know it.


I don't. What I do know about this is what I learned in the nuclear physics class. You can always crack open a basic textbook on this subject and even you should be able to understand the basic math and experimental facts. I'll leave guesswork to you John, because that's the only thing you can reliably do.


Climb down off of that lofty perch before you hurt yourself.


Why, I get a good view of armchair scientists and bad science from here. There is a lot of comic value in that.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by borek
So, any time you and/or Mr. Lazar wants to prove, once and for all, that the metal is indeed composed of element 115, just let me know.


Dear Dr.Borek, don't hold you breath for this to happen.

Actually, I volunteer to do measurements myself. Honest to God. What the heck, you (Borek) and I can do it together. I have friends who work in non-proliferation area who can work out the decay chains involved.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
It was infinitely easier because the thorium oxide he used was in every Coleman lantern mantle sold world wide.


And to top it off, Lazar did not need the mantle... You know why? Because element 115 is in itself an alpha source, and having a fairly large piece under observation would have yielded multiple alpha particles



Shoot this is funny! Whatever Lazar does is hoaxy, amateurish or both.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Mainstream science is somebody's 'best wager', 'best guess'; they really don't know anything.


Yeah, like the "airfoil shape" and "lift".....'cause everyone knows...airplanes can't really fly, it's magic.

I'll wager ( oops ) you didn't base your entire career thinking about "best guesses" or "best wagers"....Pushing the throttle forward and releasing the brakes requires a tremendous trust in "mainstream science", don't it?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by johnlear
D is the Gravity A wave, which is accessed from the transmutation

And what the heck is that???

That's probably the stuff that mainstream science hasn't figured out yet, Buddhasystem.

Something drives those UFOs. I guess one day, when our mainstream physicists catch-up and work it out, then we can all have our own UFO too.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by johnlear
D is the Gravity A wave, which is accessed from the transmutation

And what the heck is that???

That's probably the stuff that mainstream science hasn't figured out yet, Buddhasystem.


And I think that that's probably gibberish. You see, there are definitive statements about gravity A and B; and there are statements about "accessing gravity A from transmutation". Transmutation, as John points out, is the process whereby one element becomes another, and that's one of many possible nuclear reactions. Now, whoever invented this phrase, about "accessing" gravity "from" transmutation, needs to explain how gravity is accessed from a specific class of nuclear reaction. It's as ridiculous as saying that you access politics from your insurance policy, or that you access the supernova from the trunk of your car. If it doesn't make sense semantically to begin with, there is little chance you can dress it in physics.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
john, my first post and keep your head held high!! I've only been on ATS for about a week and it's obvious that Buddhasystem sits around every moment of his waking being just waiting for you to post. He's one of those glass half empty guys and the simple fact about Bob Lazar is HE WAS THE ONE THAT OPENED PANDORA'S BOX OUT THERE IN NEVADA!!


Question for you John Lear!

After watching the films from Mexico on the large number of lighted orbs in the sky that appeared to be possibly magnets. Could this possibly be a defense mechanism to prevent Alien craft from entering in that sacred region of Mexico?
Thanks and keep smiling brother!!



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's as ridiculous as saying that you access politics from your insurance policy, or that you access the supernova from the trunk of your car.

Can you possibly stay on topic without branching off with some of your useless analogies?

You seem to do it often, in different threads, Buddhasystem. What does politics, insurance policies or car trunks have to do with gravity waves?

Please, stay on topic.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
What does politics, insurance policies or car trunks have to do with gravity waves?


Oh tezz, you are actually making more progress than I thought you would. Right. What do car trunks have to do with gravity waves? My answer -- about the same as gravity waves have to do with transmutations. Any more questions, drop me a line.

Funny you went as far as to analyze the admitted-to gibberish I posted and you never do the same to the gibberish some other members post.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh tezz, you are actually making more progress than I thought you would.

I'd prefer it if you spelt my username correctly (tezzajw), rather than possibly trying to slur it to your own liking. I'm sure you know, being a physicst, how touchy some people can be when you don't reference them properly in your standard mainstream publications and research papers. The same principle applies here too. Thanks for your understanding.


Funny you went as far as to analyze the admitted-to gibberish I posted and you never do the same to the gibberish some other members post.

How do you know what gibberish that I analyze, unless you follow me around these forums? What you posted could be unwarranted speculation about my actions here, which I don't appreciate. I'm free to read and choose the gibberish that I want to read and respond to.

The topic is about Element 115. The point of discussion was about the Gravity A Wave. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to introduce insurance policies and car trunks, given that they are poor, off-topic analogies, that have no bearing to the topic being discussed.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
This is from beyond the illusion.com with reference to element 115.



The Big Bang apparently created only three elements. They were Hydrogen, Helium and maybe Lithium, and probably some isotopes of these three like Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen. Present theory is that the "explosion" which also created time and space was too rapid to create more heavier elements. Those theories explain very well the observed abundances of Hydrogen & Helium in the universe today.

When stars finally formed, the second phase of element creation was started. The heatand pressure at the core of stars produces higher and higher elements. The energy that the stars emit, (heat, light, radiation) comes mainly from this elemental fusion reaction at the core.

Iron is the end however. Because the creation of elements higher than Iron requires energy input rather than produce energy output, no significant higher elements are created.

The final phase of element creation occurs in a supernova. The energy concentration is so great that during the explosion, all the naturally occurring heavy elements above Iron are created. This includes the radioactive elements, and almost certainly higher elements not found naturally on earth. The reason they are not found on earth is that they have disappeared through radioactive decay over the 5 billion years the earth has existed.

As for element 115, it remains a real puzzle. If it can be created naturally, then a supernova explosion would almost certainly have created it since they are likely the most energetic entities in the universe. If if couldn't, then I seriously doubt that technology, advanced or otherwise, could create it. Since the earth is a product of star core synthesis as well as supernova synthesis, and we find no trace of element 115 here, we must form one of the following two conclusions.

A. Element 115 cannot be created in supernova explosions which means that it likely does not occur naturally anywhere in the universe.

B. Element 115 is much more radioactive than Uranium and has disappeared over the 5 billion year history of the earth.

Conclusion "B" does not necessarily eliminate the use of element 115 in UFO propulsion. Recent "Revelations" indicated that element 115 is stable inferring that it is not radioactive and that it occurs naturally in heavy star systems. To a physicist, heavy element stability usually means that it doesn't radioactively decay in minute fractions of a second. So, it could be relatively stable, but still radioactive, enough so that it does not occur naturally on earth.

The only place that element 115 would occur would be in the debris of a recent supernova. Recent could mean hours or millions of years, depending on the stability of the element. Heavy star systems, or binary stars have no properties that I am aware of that would make them more likely to contain element 115. Also, there are no known natural processes occurring in these systems that could produce element 115.

After the element is created (naturally in a supernova, or unnaturally in a lab), "ordinary" weight, heat, and pressure (or lack thereof) would have absolutely no effect on the element.


Enough said.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by smartie]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Bob Lazar puzzles me. I wonder whether when he sounds scientifically inept it isn't really a result of him having to give off the cuff responses to complex matters and/or being requoted or paraphrased?

Just a thought.




top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join