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.

 

Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
All Bosons are the heavier particles.


Heavier than what?

Bosons can essentially have any sort of mass. The term applies to quantum statistics, not mass.


Heavier than other particles obviously, but then again English may not be your first language.
Lol. go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics.
What do you know about gluons?

Is that a type of boson?
What is the gluon mass?
The gluon is heavier than which particles, specifically?




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I am glad to see you believe in wiki. So I have included what is posted there about BLP.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEasterBunny
 


Yeah, as if we don't know all of this already.

This is only page 9.

Clearly it doesn't matter what hit pieces are put out against BLP, because all that matters is that they are bringing the technology to market.

The wiki article is like a bunch of people sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU"



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Heavier than other particles obviously, but then again English may not be your first language.
Lol. go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics.


Indeed, English is not my mother tongue, but this fact doesn't make your statement valid. "LOL" is not going to fix that. What you said is sheer nonsense.

Neutron is a fermion and it's heavier than pi-meson, which is a boson.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Clearly it doesn't matter what hit pieces are put out against BLP, because all that matters is that they are bringing the technology to market.


That it takes decades to create a small and custom-made working prototype that works at some world expo is weird enough. Suppose I believe that it's THAT hard, in our day and age when new technologies take mere months to come to market. But regardless of the prototype, can I have at least a small bottle of hydrino? That would immediately convince everyone in scientific community. Even in microscopic properties. Just mail to to MIT, Yale, Caltech whatever. Ain't happening.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yet another stick in the eye for all the Einsteinian relativists that clog up our academic institutions with their utter drivel.


Why did you say this? You do know he was trying to prove his theory of relativity wrong before he died right? He knew something was up but couldnt prove it in time.



Einstein was wrong.


Ya no kidding, science isnt fact, is an opinion till proven wrong.. Why do people think science is fact? I know this, he knew this, everyone knows this.. As stated above Einstein was trying to prove some of his work wrong before he died.
edit on 3/18/2011 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Been hearing about all these so called new energy/ free energy discoveries since the 60,s is that a clue as to how genuine these claims were, ?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Heavier than other particles obviously, but then again English may not be your first language.
Lol. go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics.


Indeed, English is not my mother tongue, but this fact doesn't make your statement valid. "LOL" is not going to fix that. What you said is sheer nonsense.

Neutron is a fermion and it's heavier than pi-meson, which is a boson.


Lol. What nonsense are you talking about,
Here we are talking about sub atomic particles that are obtained in particle accelerators and not neutron or proton
Well go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics if you can



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Heavier than other particles obviously, but then again English may not be your first language.
Lol. go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics.


Indeed, English is not my mother tongue, but this fact doesn't make your statement valid. "LOL" is not going to fix that. What you said is sheer nonsense.

Neutron is a fermion and it's heavier than pi-meson, which is a boson.


Lol. What nonsense are you talking about,
Here we are talking about sub atomic particles that are obtained in particle accelerators and not neutron or proton
Well go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics if you can


a) You said specifically that bosons are heavier than other particles. Nothing about particle accelerators. But even so, photon is a boson, and it doesn't even possess rest mass.

b) Arbitrageur gave another example - a gluon

c) t-quark (a fermion) is a lot more massive than W or Z

So you are just completely wrong here, for all the hubris you demonstrated.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a) You said specifically that bosons are heavier than other particles. Nothing about particle accelerators. But even so, photon is a boson, and it doesn't even possess rest mass.

b) Arbitrageur gave another example - a gluon

c) t-quark (a fermion) is a lot more massive than W or Z

So you are just completely wrong here, for all the hubris you demonstrated.


Lol Well go right ahead and call all the particles bosons .
My definition of bosons is bosons are heavier than most other particles



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[ ]What do you know about gluons?

Is that a type of boson?
What is the gluon mass?
The gluon is heavier than which particles, specifically?


Specifically look them up dodo instead of trolling like a kid.
Trolling? Is there anything disrespectful about these questions? I thought they were polite and respectful. And I didn't call you any names.

You said:


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
All Bosons are the heavier particles.


Heavier than what?

Bosons can essentially have any sort of mass. The term applies to quantum statistics, not mass.


Heavier than other particles obviously, but then again English may not be your first language.
Lol. go ahd and define any sort of mass and quantum statistics.

So I wasn't trolling, I was asking you to explain how "All Bosons are heavier particles" which you clarified to mean "heavier than other particles", since my sources say that a gluon is a massless boson and I don't understand how a massless boson can have more mass than any other particle. Here is my source:

en.wiktionary.org...

gluon
1. (physics) A massless gauge boson that binds quarks together to form baryons, mesons and other hadrons and is associated with the strong nuclear force.


If I am misunderstanding something, where is my misunderstanding?

And what specifically would you like to know about the gravito photon and gravito electron and their anti particles? The reason I asked you about the mass of the gluon is that you claimed (and still do apparently)


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
My definition of bosons is bosons are heavier than most other particles
and according to the dictionary, gluons are massless bosons, so I don't see how the bosons called gluons can be heavier than anything, which makes it look like you're completely wrong, but I still don't have to call you any names to say that.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
But regardless of the prototype, can I have at least a small bottle of hydrino? That would immediately convince everyone in scientific community. Even in microscopic properties. Just mail to to MIT, Yale, Caltech whatever. Ain't happening.
My sources also say they're doubtful of the existence of the hydrino. I have the feeling I'll turn old and gray without mnemeth1 ever saying "I told you so" when the hydrino based technology comes to market.

edit on 18-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The thread's topic is "Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again"

Although slight deviations from the topic are natural and accepted, courtesy is mandatory, at all times.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have the feeling I'll turn old and gray without mnemeth1 ever saying "I told you so" when the hydrino based technology comes to market.


I would bet my house against a crispy $100 bill that you and I will be pushing daisies (and hopefully talking on some celestial fora) before anything of this sort happens.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It can not be proven that Mill's theory is 100% correct and that the hydrino is a valid new form of matter.


Look, if there are 2 quantum states of a system and a finite probability of transition between the two, and given that hydrogen is BY FAR THE MOST ABUNDANT ELEMENT IN OUR UNIVERSE (sorry I capitalized this in a vain hope to get a point across, which I won't), and given EXTREME SOPHISTICATION AND ACCURACY OF MODERN SPECTROSCOPY (oops, here I go again appealing to non-existent common sense), we would have seen spectral lines corresponding to that transition a while ago from various sources.

Have you done a university level course in quantum mechanics, like, for real?

No hydrino for you today.



If you were so smart, then I have to assume you would have figured out that lower ground states were possible and you would have beaten Mill's to the punch.

Of course, that did happen.

It didn't happen because SR is a complete joke of a theory.


I'm sorry I detect nothing but a word soup here. It appears that you didn't get my basic statement about two energy levels and a finite probability of transition between the two. I realize that I'm not going to get my point across until you indeed do homework for a semester or two, in the context of a college level quantum mechanics.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have the feeling I'll turn old and gray without mnemeth1 ever saying "I told you so" when the hydrino based technology comes to market.


I would bet my house against a crispy $100 bill that you and I will be pushing daisies (and hopefully talking on some celestial fora) before anything of this sort happens.


Dunno much about the hydrino technology, but both you girls should know that other free energy technology exists
Sure there may well be scams around as well in the mix.
Will read up on the hydrino and post again



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Will read up on the hydrino and post again


Don't forget about bosons and fermions. It's a fascinating read.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Dunno much about the hydrino technology, but both you girls should know that other free energy technology exists
Sure there may well be scams around as well in the mix.
Will read up on the hydrino and post again
Yes I know, my father has a "free energy" device: Atmos clock
It won't run in a vacuum but it runs on air and since we live in air, that's even better, he doesn't even have to leave the planet or run a vacuum pump to get a vacuum as required by the devices that claim to run on a vacuum!


But the bosons in that clock called gluons are massless.

And thankfully, no hydrinos are needed.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join