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: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
IF (and that’s a HUGE if) he is indeed the scientific genius he makes himself out to be, which I very much doubt, he must have been very badly overlooked by the Nobel Prize giving committee.





posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
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.


I don't think that John distorted the basic info he got from Bob, expecially that it seems to be pasted from an actual e-mail. So, I submit that the message is real, and so is Bob's "scientific ineptitude", as you put it.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I just realized that since there is ambient proton radiation at sea level, due to cosmic rays, the alleged piece of 115 will receive a proton once in a while, and this, we are told, will lead to formation of anti-matter. I know this 115 theory sounds like gibberish, but please bear with me for a second.

Now, the thing is, this makes it real easy to verify that the piece of metal which Bob Lazar has in his possession is indeed element 115 as he describes it. You see, the antiprotons which, according to Bob, are emitted from 115, will annihilated with protons in the surrounding matter. This will lead to production of two gamma rays with very distinct energies, equivalent to the proton mass via E=mc2. It's a very clean spectrographic signature. Using a fairly simple scinitillator device akin to Bob is selling on his web site, it's easy to do a survey of the alleged piece of 115 and prove once and for all that it is indeed the majik substance that it's purported to be!

This has to be by far the most direct and simple observation. The fact that Bob didn't do such experiment once again points int he direction that the whole 115 story is a fraud.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




Now, the thing is, this makes it real easy to verify that the piece of metal which Bob Lazar has in his possession is indeed element 115 as he describes it. You see, the antiprotons which, according to Bob, are emitted from 115, will annihilated with protons in the surrounding matter. This has to be by far the most direct and simple observation. The fact that Bob didn't do such experiment once again points int he direction that the whole 115 story is a fraud.



I think you are mixing oranges with mangoes.

First where did Bob say anti-protons are emitted from Element 115?

Also pease clarify this sentence:

"...will annihilated with protons in the surrounding matter.'

There is a "preview post" where you can review your post before posting. I make some mistakes sometimes too.

Thanks for you post.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The fact that Bob didn't do such experiment once again points int he direction that the whole 115 story is a fraud.


First where did Bob say anti-protons are emitted from Element 115?


Why, on his own site... Do you even care to visit it? Or deep in you heart you know it's worthless?

www.boblazar.com...



Also pease clarify this sentence:

"...will annihilated with protons in the surrounding matter.'



Yup, this came out pretty crappy. So, let me try again: the antiprotons will interact with protons in surrounding matter, resulting in annihilation. This will produce gamma rays or pions.


Better now?


[edit on 9-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




Why, on his own site... Do you even care to visit it? Or deep in you heart you know it's worthless?



Actually it was I who informed you of the site. I can understand you defensiveness though, as your whole world crumbles beneath your feet.

You don't seem to be addressing the issue with as much confidence as you used to. Yes?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I can understand you defensiveness though, as your whole world crumbles beneath your feet.


That's a grand statement for a person who didn't bother to even read Bob's description of the "reactor"!


You don't seem to be addressing the issue with as much confidence as you used to. Yes?


I don't know what led you to such conclusion (as well as many others that I find laughable).

You see, Bob doesn't seem to know enough physics to fabricate an alien reactor design that's remotely plausible even with a huge stretch of imagination. Which is a pity. I'd rather be looking at material coming from a more competent hoaxer.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
From Bob's commercial site:
www.unitednuclear.com...


Alpha particles only travel a little over an inch in air


John, if you compare this to 6 to 8 inches that you quoted in Bob's "demonstration", the distance between the alpha source and the fake "element 115", you'll see that this "experiment" was an impossibility from the outset. It's astonishing that you failed to note that.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Gee...wouldn't it make sense that a curved tube, designed by beings with technological knowledge years ahead of ours, could be a conduit for a proton? Who knows? Magnetic manipulation perhaps?

I mean...who in their right mind, 200 years ago, would have believed in a television? HOW would you ever begin to explain the principles, in a 6500 character treatise, without years of background study and information and training...?

My personal vote is to go out and find some Dilithium, then let's build a Warp Engine!

Sorry, too easy a joke...but I'm serious here. Science marches on...heck, even Einstein thought Heisenberg was full of it!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
John,

Just curious what equipment Bob had available to him at the time to analyize the 115, and the UFO's, and if it was more advanced then anything the public sector currently has.

Most people think the government is far ahead of the public sector in technology. It seems reasonable to assume at least some of this advanced technology would be in use at S-4. Especially if they were attempting to reverse engineer UFO's, and figure out how things like element 115 worked.

Did Bob get to use anything we would consider "advanced technology" to aide his research?



[edit on 9-1-2008 by b309302]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
Just curious what equipment Bob had available to him at the time to analyize the 115, and the UFO's, and if it was more advanced then anything the public sector currently has.


What an excellent point! I'm very curious about this topic myself. In particular, I would love to learn the following:

a) how they measured the atomic number of the element they had in their possession
b) its decay modes and associated energies and half-lives
c) what was the energy of protons injected into the reactor (that is actually not difficult to measure at all)
d) what was the energy of the pair of antiprotons released from element 116 upon bombardment by protons.

That's the basics.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Thanks Buddha. Just trying to research the 115 debate from another angle. Maybe analyzing the tools and techniques Bob used in his research might shed some more light on this.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by b309302]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Hey Buddha,

I'm not well conversed in chemistry...but you posed an interesting question, i.e., how do they determine the atomic number of an element?

You were specifically referring to 115, but let's factor that out of our discussion for the moment. How, exactly, do we determine the atomic number of ANY element? Let's start with H, and you can continue around the Periodic Table to your heart's content!

Thanks!!

(spelling)

[edit on 11-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You were specifically referring to 115, but let's factor that out of our discussion for the moment. How, exactly, do we determine the atomic number of ANY element?


There is a difference in methods depending on whether you can use chemistry or not. Try looking at this:

en.wikipedia.org...

For short-lived elements, the only way is to look at the radioactive decay products, which in turn are identified by the "signatures" of their decay modes.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Thank you,

I feel lazy, since I could have looked that up by myself, so am grateful for your link. Still trying to figure out how to 'paste' external sources here, and daresay I don't wish to do it often, even when I know how, just to keep everything as simple as possible...meaning, I do not wish to take up unnecessary server space, when avoidable.

PS...for everyone! One thing I have learned is...being able to convey one's point in print is VERY different than a face-to-face discussion. It is so easy to be misconstrued on a computer screen, since we miss so many cues that we, a social species, rely upon when 'reading' the person on the other side of the discussion. (Just thought I'd inject a little bit of "Switzerland" in here...meaning, every now and then it's good to have a neutral point of view...)

Thanks!!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I feel lazy, since I could have looked that up by myself, so am grateful for your link.


I think I made an important addition regarding how you must identify the decay products if you can't so proper chemical analysis and/or optical spectrometry to help you out. Ultimately, you rely on those stable isotopes that have indeed been studies chemically and via spetra (see the link).



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Surely Mass Spectroscopy would be the method of choice in most cases.
Fortunately, other than with the use of a few surrogates, I don't knowingly analyze radioactive materials.

[edit on 1/11/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Surely Mass Spectroscopy would be the method of choice in most cases.


That would give you the mass-to-charge ratio for the element, but not the actual atomic number.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yes, beta backscatter or x-ray energy seems to be some of what they are using these days. Instrumental methods just keep getting better every year. That's what I get for stepping out of my field.


I would still think that MS would be useful for isotopic ratios and atomic weight determination.





[edit on 1/11/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I would still think that MS would be useful for isotopic ratios and atomic weight determination.


Yes, Avenger, you are right in that remark. Nice to have a knowledgable person onboard



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join