Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

EXCLUSIVE: Why element 115 can not be used for antigravity

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Bob Lazar claims: "Element 115 has a twofold purpose: First, it is the source of a gravity wave that is unknown to Earth's scientists, the "Gravity A" wave. Second, it is the source of the anti-matter radiation which is reacted to provide power." (1) This is empirically and theoretically wrong and I will show this here. (updated 23-6-2004)
 

Why element 115 can not be used for antigravity
Since this board does not allow for sub- and superscripts, the element will have a notation of (atomic mass)-(atomic number)Element. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Element 115 is unstable
"The disc's reactor uses a fuel which does not occur naturally on Earth. This fuel is a super-heavy, stable, element with an atomic number of 115 and does not appear on our periodic chart." (1) Recently a team of American and Russian scientists discovered elements 113 and 115. Element 115 has a decay time of tens of milliseconds. (3) There is no way to stop an element from decaying. In the experiment, element 115 was recorded four times. The reactions and decay time were (5):

  • 287-115Uup --> 283-113Uut + 4-2He (46.6 milliseconds)
  • 288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (80.3 milliseconds)
  • 288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (18.6 milliseconds)
  • 288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (280 milliseconds)

It is true that there is a hypothetical island of stability, in which the very massive elements are stable. This is because of a hypothetical stable proton/neutron configuration in the core. However, this has not been observed in element 115.

The hypothetical island of stability is thought to occur in isotopes with around 114 protons and 184 neutrons. Element 115 has around 114 protons, it has 115 protons. However, it only has 172 and 173 neutrons in the recorded decays. Only very few elements have 12 or more isotopes and these elements are of a different group than element 115. It is therfore not likely element 115 can reach the island of stability.

Element 116 cannot be used to get energy from matter-antimatter reactions
'Inside the reactor, the Element 115 is transmuted to Element 116 which is unstable and immediately decays releasing antimatter." (1) Element 116 is unstable, but doesn't decay into antimatter. The reaction is, as found by American and Russian scientists (4):

292-116Uuh --> 288-114Uuq + 4-2He

There is no antimatter involved in this reaction. 4-2He is simply the normal -radiation that is common in many nuclear reactions. There are nuclear reactions that produce antimatter, but that antimatter can never be accessed. The reaction is called beta+ decay. A proton in the core decays into a neutron and a positron (beta+ particle, the opposite of an electron). This positron immediately reacts with an electron from one of the electron shells of the atom. This process is called Electron Capture. This does not happen in element 116, but it can happen in e.g. 7-4Be and 11-6Ca.

In some rare cases the positron can escape, e.g. in 114-49I and 192-77Ir. This happens more frequently in the elements with a smaller amount of electrons. Because the positron and electrons annihilate each other, a larger amount of electrons decreases the chances of positions escaping. The two examples given above are the largest elements were positrons escape. Because element 116 has nearly twice the number of electrons, it is not likely any positron can escape the atom without annihilating with an electron.

There is no proof of two different gravity waves
"Gravity is a wave and there are two different types of gravity. Gravity A and gravity B." (2) There is absolutely no proof of two different gravity waves. I don't think the author really understands what gravitational waves are. The really definition is: "Gravitational forces must not be transmitted or communicated faster than light. This means that when the gravitational field of an object changes, the changes ripple outwards through space and take a finite time to reach other objects. These ripples are called gravitational radiation or gravitational waves." (6)

Normal gravity is the curvature of space-time and gravitational waves are ripples of change of this curvature. Therefore, this claim is wrong if you use the normal definition of gravity and gravitational waves. If the author really means curvature when he/she writes gravity wave, then he/she has chosen a very bad and non-standard term to describe it. "We're familiar with gravity B, it is the big gravity wave that holds the earth, as well as the rest of the planets in orbit around the sun and holds the moon, as well as man-made satellites, in orbit around the earth." (2)

But, let us for the moment assume that the author really means curvature, when he says gravity wave. "We're not familiar with gravity A. It is the small gravity wave which is the major contributory force that holds together the "mass" that makes up all protons and neutrons." (2) This is not true, it's the strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus together. The strong force has been described and tested thoroughly. The carriers of the strong nuclear force are 8 different tastes of one particle, called the gluon (7). The gluon has a 'color charge' (8), but only particles with no netto color charge can exist freely. When there is a strong nuclear force interaction between a proton and neutron (or any other combination of hadrons), they exchange a particle with no netto color charge made of an quark-antiquark pair. These particles are called mesons and pions are the lightest example.

Quantum physics predicts a spin of 2 and a mass of 0 for the hypothetical graviton particle, that carries the gravitational force. That means that gravity has to have an infinite range, which has been observed. Pions and the other strong-force mesons have a spin of 1 and have a very large mass. This causes the strong force to have a small range, which also has been observed. The strong nuclear force is simply not gravity. It isnt even slightly similar. This is what Bob Lazar says though: When a disc travels near another source of gravity, like Earth, the Gravity A wave, which propagates outward from the disc, is phase shifted into the Gravity B wave, which propagates outward from the Earth, and this creates lift. (1) Gravity A waves appear to be just like Gravity B waves, but with a different phase? This is impossible, because the strong force has a definite range. Other problems include that the strong nuclear force only works on color-charged particles, while gravity works on all matter and the fact the strong force becomes more powerful when you pull two color-charged particles apart, while gravity becomes weaker when you pull two particles apart. (12)

There is a possibility that we can unify the strong nuclear and gravity into one big theory of all forces. Theories like string theory and quantum loop gravity are well underway. We cant use this as an argument to unify the strong nuclear force and gravity in respect to atoms. The energy at which this unification occurs is so extremely high than atoms and probably also the neutrons and protons no longer exist. This unification occurs at particle energies 1019 GeV, similar to a temperature of 1032 K. (10) The largest particle colliders only reach 103 GeV, 10000000000000000 times less energy. (11)

Other problems with the Lazar's explanation of UFOs
Let's assume that the theory is right and that all mainstream science and observations are false. Let's assume you can get 'gravity' from element 115. The article claims: "This amplified Gravity A wave is so powerful that the only natural occurring source of gravity that could cause space/time to distort this much would be a black hole!" (1) The force of something with the gravity of a black hole pulling at your spaceship would tear your spaceship apart, because the pull on the difference in gravitational pull on different parts of the ship is larger than any known material can withstand. Not really handy for interstellar travel if you ask me.

References
(1) www.mufor.org...
(2) www.mufor.org...
(3) physicsweb.org...
(4) www.webelements.com...
(5) www.webelements.com...
(6) xxx.lanl.gov...
(7) hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(8) www2.slac.stanford.edu...
(9) www.nature.com...
(10) hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(11) www.sciencedaily.com...
(12) math.ucr.edu...

2004 Amantine
This article can be reproduced freely, as long as you keep the entire text and this message intact.

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Kano]

[edit on 23-6-2004 by amantine]




posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
While it is true that 115 has a decay rate far to fast to give it any useful purpose, 113 lasted for 1.5 seconds, which gives a good indication that there really IS a stable range of super-heavies, and also, 113 could possibly be configured somehow to stay longer.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Finally, some real logic applied to questionable suggestions.

I am curious how Lazar's research (or researcher's) could have missed so much, unless done intentionally to make the story work.

Excellent article !

Five thumbs up!



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Lazar's just pulling it out of his fantasies.

You can actually predict an element's properties based on its structure, and scientists have done so successfully (they predicted the properties of a lot of the transuranium elements before they were discovered.)

None of them behave the way Lazar said they would... and in fact, he changed his original claims to make his information appear to be correct.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I just love the way scientists are experts on something they still know nothing about.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Although it's an unpopular viewpoint at least among well grounded scientific types - I believe that some form of gravity manipulation exists in the black world and is being tested out in the mountians and deserts of the western US.

That said, I also believe Lazar to be a fraud and a charlatan... I have never jumped onto his little bandwagon and never will.

Thank you ATS member, "amantine" for providing such a sound scientifically-based explanation as to why Lazar's claims are incorrect.


[Edited on 15-2-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Sorry but Lazar has basis in fact. But what compounds things is his own character and his need to keep breathing.

Yes there is gravity disruption tech but not true anti-grav tech which they are desparate to achieve. This will allow the escape of this solar system and to even engage in limited time travel. It may even figure prominently in the mission to mars and other local planets and satellites as the military is desparate to find super heavy elements to mine for the stated reasons above.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Sorry but Lazar has basis in fact. But what compounds things is his own character and his need to keep breathing.

Yes there is gravity disruption tech but not true anti-grav tech which they are desparate to achieve. This will allow the escape of this solar system and to even engage in limited time travel. It may even figure prominently in the mission to mars and other local planets and satellites as the military is desparate to find super heavy elements to mine for the stated reasons above.

NEO,
This isn't the thread for a discussion on the merits or lack there-of of Bob Lazar's claims.
I would however be interested to know just what "basis in fact" you would be referring to.
In almost all strings of disinformation, the most believable untruths are those that are intertwined with a "basis in fact"... so if you are refering to his pay check stubs and all that, all I can say is - been there, done that... it lacks credibility.

Also, just as a generic preference, I wish people would not make assertions about unknowns such as you did about gravity disruption. At least put a "I strongly believe..." in front of the statement... because in fact you do not know, nor do I - we just both "strongly believe"...

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Oh! I'm afraid of your superior knowledge!

If you knew anything you would know that when you have top secret clearance then they own you. But you conveniently forgot that fact.

When it comes to beliefs why are yours better than mine? Because ATS loves you more?

BTW, maybe my comments are not based on beliefs as you suppose.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Oh! I'm afraid of your superior knowledge!

If you knew anything you would know that when you have top secret clearance then they own you. But you conveniently forgot that fact.

Actually I am intimately familiar with DoD clearance as well as defense industry NDA's.


When it comes to beliefs why are yours better than mine? Because ATS loves you more?

My beliefs are not any better than yours - your presentation is as if you have factual proof - yet with no details or offerings of proof of knowledge.


BTW, maybe my comments are not based on beliefs as you suppose.

Then share by all means - I'm sure many would be anxious to hear all about it...



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Of course they would be anxious to hear a lot of things. But since most everything I say around here is held in so little regard now, I'll keep my sources to myself for the time being.

I do not change my comments that the US is pursuing true anti-grav drive preferring a mode used by the grays as most workable using current earth tech and materials available.

Other forms using advanced magnetics and light based tech are more advanced and not within human capabilities for some time.


oba

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2004 by oba]



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Why do people think scientists know everything? Why do they think because you can predict a few things, or a lot, that you can predict everything?

Can element 115 be stable? I don't know and the best our scientists can do is take a guess based on what they've observed in other elements.

Oh yeah, for a long long time people thought the earth was flat, based on what they observed. People also thought we are at the center on the entire universe, based on what they observed.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambassador
Why do people think scientists know everything? Why do they think because you can predict a few things, or a lot, that you can predict everything?

Can element 115 be stable? I don't know and the best our scientists can do is take a guess based on what they've observed in other elements.

Oh yeah, for a long long time people thought the earth was flat, based on what they observed. People also thought we are at the center on the entire universe, based on what they observed.


We measured that element 115 is unstable. It's not a guess. Unless we are completely wrong in science, which I don't think is the case because our current theories have made verified predictions, it is impossible for a unstable element to be stable.

I never said we could predict everything. We should, however, conclude from our theories which have been tested by observations. It's useless to say it is stable, because although we never observed it, there might be some unknown mechanism that causes this: "It is stable, because we there might be something that is so unusual that it has never been observed before." You can draw conclusions from arguments of ignorance. This should be in real life: "It is unstable, because from everything we've observed it is and has to be unstable."

People thought the earth was flat, because their measurements were highly flawed. Seeing is not measuring. The Greek already found out the earth was round by measuring correctly. We are now at a level of technology were our measuring methods are good enough to conclude that element 115 is unstable. It is no guess.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. first and formost.

secondly, your argument can be skewed to work either way amantine; who is to say our great all powerful all knowing (/sarcasm) scientists are the ones who are right? im not saying 100% positive they are wrong or anything of the like, but i do not believe we can draw ANY conclusion from this first of many studies and experiments. in two, three, maybe more years, yes we can say 'this is likely fact'. but as it stands today, no, we constantly disprove ourselves too often for this to be taken as fact just yet.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. first and formost.

secondly, your argument can be skewed to work either way amantine; who is to say our great all powerful all knowing (/sarcasm) scientists are the ones who are right? im not saying 100% positive they are wrong or anything of the like, but i do not believe we can draw ANY conclusion from this first of many studies and experiments. in two, three, maybe more years, yes we can say 'this is likely fact'. but as it stands today, no, we constantly disprove ourselves too often for this to be taken as fact just yet.


First, the fun part is actually that there is evidence of absence. We've measured that it's unstable. We have never found a stable atom of an unstable element. It is highly unlikely that this one doesn't obey the rules all the other elements have to obey.

Second, it is true that we constantly find new things. For element 115 to be stable, however, we must have made some enormous mistakes, which would have easily been measurable. The fact that we've not seen these mistakes, indicates that we are probably right.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The article has been updated 15-6-2004 and now contains some extra information and four new links.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
If you knew anything you would know that when you have top secret clearance then they own you. But you conveniently forgot that fact.


Excuse me, but where exactly did you get the notion of being owned because you have a Top Secret clearance?

What proof do you have of this ownership? What are the terms of this ownership?

I'll await your response.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Thank you once again, Amantine, for injecting a little reality into the preposterous...



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
First off, I should preface by saying that I am not a nuclear physicist but a nuclear radiologist. As such, my knowledge of radioactivity is more based in practicality than esoterica. However, some of the topics under discussion are somewhat of a hobby of mine, and I wanted to state my understanding of things and see what everyone thinks.

I should also state that I have nothing to add to the discussion regarding gravity and anti-gravity, so I'll leave that to those more capable.

Basically, there are several points that I wanted to clarify:
1) It is not uncommon for positrons generated during beta-plus decay to leave the nucleus and travel for some distance before annihilating with an electron. They positrons thus generated (from decay of a proton to a neutron+positron+neutrino) have an associated kinetic energy as they leave the site of decay, and typically travel 2-3 mm before "slowing down" and annihilating. The matter-antimatter interaction does, in fact, produce energy, in the form of a pair of high-energy (511 keV) photons that leave the annihilation site at 180 degrees from each other. This cascade forms the basis of medical PET (positron emission tomography) imaging. It seems reasonable, therefore, that positron-emitting isotopes could be used as an energy source. That said, most positron emitters are light elements, and it is unusual for the heavier elements, such as those under discussion, to decay by positron emission. The heaviest that I am aware of are the iodine isotopes, most notably I-124.

2) There are elements that have more than 9 isotopes. 67-Holmium, for example, has 15. 66-Dysprosium has 17, varying by 18 neutrons.

3) While it is generally true that "unstable elements" are unstable, an added layer of complexity can be found in the excited states of elements. These are atoms that are identical to the ground state except for the fact that they carry a higher nuclear energy. This energy can be retained for a length of time, then released in the form of a gamma photon or ejection of an orbital electron. If short, these states are termed excited states. If long (lasting microseconds or longer), these states are termed metastable states. What I've always found interesting is that while it is generally true that the ground state lasts longer than the excited state, there are exceptions. That is, isotopes for which the excited state lasts longer than the ground state. An example is the isotope 83-Bismuth-210. The ground state is radioactive, and decays with a halflife of around 5 days. An excited state of this atom exists at an energy level of 271 keV, which has a halflife of 3x10^6 years. Using the principles of Mossbauer spectroscopy, it would be theoretically possible to convert a short halflife ground state to a long halflife excited (or metastable) state for use as an energy source.

I am in no way saying that any of this is the case with ultra-heavy elements like 115. Just that there is precedent in other isotopes for some of this to be at least theoretically true. I would be interested in others' opinions on these thoughts.






top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join