Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well, I would like to see that too.. notice the scientist didn't answer some questions like about the mercury being in a plasma state that was below
0 degrees F and was this a type of cold plasma we were talking about.. I do not understand this at all.. and they could not shed light or at least
didn't answer that point.
I don't see where anybody really addressed this so let me comment on it. To re-state the claim:
A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any
imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to
50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.
Note that the four phases of matter are, in order of increasing energy, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. As a general rule, lowering the temperature of
a plasma makes a gas, lowering the temperature of a gas makes a liquid, lowering the temperature of a liquid makes a solid, but there are exceptions
to this, such as CO2 for example, where at atmospheric conditions it condenses directly from a gas to a solid, but you get the general idea.
Note that plasma and solids are at extreme opposites of this energy scale. Therefore the idea of a low temperature plasma is a contradiction.
So you may ask, what about the pressure? Can that affect the state? Yes it can, but in this case, it's in the opposite direction of what this claim
Again there are exceptions, but generally speaking, higher pressure tends to force materials more toward the solid state, and lower pressures tend to
force them more toward the gaseous or plasma state. To prove this point here is a paper showing how mercury transitions from a liquid to a solid state
So look at the claim:
Mercury at 150 deg K
The melting point of mercury is 234.32 deg K
Which means that below that temperature, at 1 atmosphere, mercury is a solid.
Now add the effect of pressure. If you wanted to change the phase of mercury at 150 K from a solid, you's need a lower pressure, not a higher one.
Increasing the pressure from standard to 250,000 times standard won't change the phase from solid to even liquid or gas, much less plasma, it will
instead compress the mercury even more.
Now this analysis is based on elemental mercury, but the claim is the plasma is mercury based, what does this mean? Elemental mercury, or some other
element mixed in to mostly mercury? Well first you'd need to find out what the other elements compositions are to analyze that claim fully, but
because mercury has one of the lowest melting points of materials it combines with, we can actually still get a good grip on what is possible when
it's combined with other compatible elements, which tend to have higher melting points.
Look for example at this phase diagram of a mixture of Cd (Cadmium)and Hg (mercury). The 100% mercury is at the left, where the melting point is 236K,
and the 100% Cd is at the right where the melting point is higher. So just about anything compatible with mercury you mix with it like Cd takes you in
the wrong direction as you would need to lower the melting point of Hg from 236K, not raise it.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Dereks, in the same vein, science is only a philosophy and one way of looking at a problem. It depends very much on which model you use and how you
test and interpret your data. When ever new variables are introduced time and time again, current theories fail to explain certain outcomes. I have a
great thread on this same subject here that basically says science is Not set in stone called String Theory - Science or Philosophy ?
Well the problem with your statement is that the very example you give of Newton's gravity, as being proven false, really holds true in most
"normal" experimental conditions and it's only at relativistic velocities or in cases where measurements need to be to the billionth of a second
that we notice the relativistic effects, as you point out. Most of the gravity experiments you can perform at home will be consistent with Newton's
model so I don't think you've really proven your point too well about science being "only a philosophy" since we can still replicate his results
today and they are largely intact at non-relativistic conditions.
Likewise you can perform phase change tests yourself at home on water or carbon dioxide and see what happens at different temperatures or pressures,
these phase states can be repeated in independent experiments so it seems less like philosophy and more like experimental evidence. I don't recommend
performing any experiments on mercury at home due to its toxic nature, but instead study thermodynamics and phase changes and you won't have to study
it very long before you learn how the basic principles of thermodynamics completely contradict the claims made for a low temperature, high pressure
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
All of this "science" has been debunked by real science. The paper above is a hoax. None of it is true.
The paper I posted above is also a Hoax
If this craft does exist, the above is NOT the science it is based on.
Here is the full thread: www.scienceforums.net... called, " TR-3B reduces mass ? "
As you can see I tried to do everything I could to get some validity out of this from the scientists.. Nada, nope, Zip.
When I got to this part of your post, I was pretty impressed with you, as you took more effort than most non-scientists to look into the science. Too
bad you didn't quit while you were ahead and started clouding the issue with "science is only a philosophy". I would concede that some theories
today are undoubtedly false and will be proven so by future discoveries, the history of science shows this has happened over and over again, and it
will happen again, but you stretch this truth too far. Why?
Because no matter what new theories pop up, we will still find water freezing around 0C and boiling around 100C (at 1atm) tomorrow, and the boiling
point of mercury will still be 236K at 1 atm tomorrow, those aren't philosophies, they are empirical observations which can be duplicated, and
whatever new theories might pop up are going to have to deal with that, kind of like Einstein's gravity doesn't invalidate Newton's gravity at
non-relativistic conditions. So there may be a new theory tomorrow that disproves an existing theory, but what it WON'T do is change the melting
point of mercury.