Rapid destruction of electrons equals high flow of current (UFO tech explained)

Viewpoint: Free-Electron Lasers Trigger Nuclear Transitions
physics.aps.org...


This graphic shows the secondary process by which XFEL light can drive the energy release from a sample containing a nuclear isomer. In the first step (top), photons knock electrons out of inner atomic shells. leading to a plasma of free electrons and ionized atoms. This interaction does not directly affect the nucleus, as it remains in the metastable isomeric state (top right). However, when electrons from the plasma are later captured in the inner-shell vacancies, their excess energy can excite the nucleus to a higher, but less stable, energy state (middle). In the last step, the nucleus relaxes to its ground state, releasing photons in a cascade

Atom-grabbing ‘black hole’ created (2010)
www.newscientist.com...

An artificial “black hole” designed to capture wayward atoms has been created. It paves the way for an atom trap that could yield previously unknown states of matter.

A team led by Lene Hau of Harvard University has mimicked the death spiral of matter falling into a cosmic black hole by applying a voltage across a carbon nanotube – a rolled-up sheet of carbon atoms. This created a powerful electric field that tugged at nearby rubidium atoms, which had been chilled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero: a positive charge on the surface of the nanotubes attracts the rubidium atoms’ electrons, while the positively charged nucleus is repelled.



World's Most Powerful X-Ray Laser Creates Molecular 'Black Hole' (2017)
sg.news.yahoo.com...
The world's most powerful X-ray laser has created a molecular "black hole."

The black hole is not a tiny version of the supermassive celestial object that devours everything within its event horizon. Rather, when X-ray energy is aimed at a molecule, it strips away so many of the electrons that it creates a void that then sucks in all the electrons from nearby atoms — in black-hole fashion.

"It basically sucked all the electrons away from the surrounding environment," said study co-author Sebastien Boutet, a physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California. "It's an analogy to how a black hole gravitationally pulls everything in.


all I could get in limited time

Quote by MetalThunder:

World's Most Powerful X-Ray Laser Creates Molecular 'Black Hole' (2017)
sg.news.yahoo.com...
The world's most powerful X-ray laser has created a molecular "black hole."

The black hole is not a tiny version of the supermassive celestial object that devours everything within its event horizon. Rather, when X-ray energy is aimed at a molecule, it strips away so many of the electrons that it creates a void that then sucks in all the electrons from nearby atoms — in black-hole fashion.

"It basically sucked all the electrons away from the surrounding environment," said study co-author Sebastien Boutet, a physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California. "It's an analogy to how a black hole gravitationally pulls everything in.

Thank you a lot for this very relevant information!
"It basically sucked all the electrons away from the surrounding environment"
This shows that the effect is possible!

My thread is really about this fact, that electrons can be pulled out of surrounding objects and that this is something that has been described (by statement of electronics malfunctioning) to happen when a UFO is nearby.

It's probably the most important fact to research if we want to understand how they are powered and/or how their propulsion technology works.

a reply to: MetalThunder


That isn't the destruction of an electron as the Original Poster is proposing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: MetalThunder


That isn't the destruction of an electron as the Original Poster is proposing.

I should have named the thread "Rapid removal of electrons equals high flow of current" both are true, whether they are destroyed(converted) or just removed is not important, it has the same effect causing other electrons to take their place.

And the point with my thread is that this is what I figured probably is happening around these crafts. And that hopefully more research should be focused on this.

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
...it has the same effect causing other electrons to take their place.

You haven't explained how other electrons 'take their place'. The conversion of an electron to a photon doesn't automatically produce another electron/positron pair.

You haven't explained how other electrons 'take their place'.

Why should I need to explain that? If you really know much about physics then you should already know the answer.

If you check out this video you will see that the amounts of electrons an atom has decides whether it is positively charged or negatively charged:
youtu.be... (I put in the seconds at which this is shown in the link)
An abundance of electrons makes the atom negatively charged, while scarcity of electrons makes it positively charged. Hence the craft will then have a positive charge where it will then pull in all abundant electrons and more from the surroundings making everything around it positively charged. It's just like thunder clouds really, ever felt your hairs raise when there is a thunderstorm?

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

Destroy electrons?

I think you have misunderstood the underpinnings of physics, if you are even suggesting such a thing. For one thing, nothing in the entire universe is technically destroyed, only transformed. For example, energy and matter at their smallest, cannot be damaged, but they can be transformed, exchanged between objects, moved around. When the twin towers fell on 9/11, do you think that any of the actual matter of which they were made, or the energy binding them into the form of buildings, was destroyed?

I will tell you it was not. The concrete and steel of which those buildings were made, was not destroyed, and neither were the energies contained therein. The matter of which those things were composed, was forced to transform its shape, the energies binding the molecules of which those things were made, were not destroyed, merely forced to redirect themselves.

Now, you could annihilate an electron if you had the corresponding positron, but matter annihilation is not the same thing as matter destruction. Even in an annihilation event, the universe remains balanced, nothing lost or gained. Furthermore, performing a constant barrage of electron-positron pair annihilations, will, far from producing an invisibility effect, make things rather more difficult to ignore, instead of making them easier to miss.

Destroy electrons?

I think you have misunderstood the underpinnings of physics, if you are even suggesting such a thing. For one thing, nothing in the entire universe is technically destroyed, only transformed.

You and me just disagree with the definition of the word "destroy". I say destroy because when you burst a bubble it is NOT a bubble anymore, hence the BUBBLE was destroyed, the matter it was made of is of course not destroyed.

I see the electron as a bubble. I never said that the energy in it would "disappear" or be destroyed, I did really mention the release of electromagnetic energy!

No, and I like to think alternate ways than what is being teached anyway, hence most people who subscribe to the current scientific understanding will not be open to my alternate ways of understanding physics.

You're so full of it.

Electronics and the physics behind the flow of electrons in a circuit are well known and established. There is no "alternate way" to understand Ohm's law or Kirchoff's Law of current or of voltages.

Tell me, Mr. "Alternate way of understanding physics" how many electrons are in a single unit of charge? What is the unit of measure for a single unit of charge?

In order for you to have an "alternative understanding of physics" you should at least understand the physics the rest of us mere mortals understand, right?

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

Why should I need to explain that?

Because it's your thread and as explained earlier, electrons are not a pool that requires replacing/filling.

In a discussion, it helps to use the accepted terms to avoid misunderstandings. I think that is what is happening here.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

"Rapid removal of electrons equals high flow of current" both are true

Oh look, more proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Which current? Electron current in electromagnetism or current in a circuit which conforms to standard Ohm's law rules

I=V/R?

Are we talking purely resistive circuits or capacitive? Are we speaking of series RC or Parallel RC circuits where sinusoidal input and output requires that Kirchoffs law reconciliations be made as phasor quantities?

What's a Wheatstone bridge?

Tell me, what "alternate method" would you use to derive a Thevenin equivalent from a series-parallel circuit?

I think I've made my point.

You should probably quit while you're behind, OP.

Making stuff up to fit a silly notion of UFOs and then telling everyone you know better than established physics is the height of arrogance, pseudo-intellectualism, and pseudoscience.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ParanormalGuy

"Rapid removal of electrons equals high flow of current" both are true

Oh look, more proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Which current? Electron current in electromagnetism or current in a circuit which conforms to standard Ohm's law rules

I=V/R?

Are we talking purely resistive circuits or capacitive? Are we speaking of series RC or Parallel RC circuits where sinusoidal input and output requires that Kirchoffs law reconciliations be made as phasor quantities?

You would continuously suck in electrons from the environment if you keep removing or destroying them in the conductor, hence you get a current flow. How high the current flow is depends on how fast you can remove or destroy the electrons. And with environment in this context I mean that the conductor is on a craft which is hovering in the air outside, near the ground (like a UFO).

I don't need to use any of your fancy words or laws to explain that. And all your arguments trying to discredit the fact I just stated will just make you look like the lesser informed person here.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

I don't need to use any of your fancy words or laws to explain that.

These are BASIC electronics theory terms.

You would continuously suck in electrons from the environment if you keep removing or destroying them in the conductor, hence you get a current flow.

This means literally nothing. You don't "suck in" electrons.

And with environment in this context I mean that the conductor is on a craft which is hovering in the air outside, near the ground (like a UFO).

More pseudoscientific garbage.

And all your arguments trying to discredit the fact I just stated will just make you look like the lesser informed person here.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

This just is not how anything works.

There is no function, capacity, machinery or theory of physics, which suggests that any of the things you are saying, are accurate, and many, beyond counting, that point out the fundamental flaws in your thinking.

As for projectvxn's "fancy words or laws", they are the actual underpinnings of the physical universe, not mere whimsy cooked up by projectvxn, OR ANYONE ELSE, just to throw people off some non-existent trail of investigation.

Go and do a decade of actual study in physics, and then try again.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Doesn't even need a decade.

2 years at a community college learning about electronics theory would be enough.

But that requires effort.

Some grandfatherly advice here.

If you say words like hypothesis, observational data, theory,
falsify, etc, then people will at least know that you understand
the basics of science, and won't keep asking if you know anything
about the subject.

The real bonus, if you do this, is that if you are proven wrong,
or your source material is proven wrong, then people won't
descend on you like howler monkeys, but will go, "huh!
interesting theory, but it turned out to be wrong.. no
foul.. no shame.. that's science!"

But if you make big proclamations that people are supposed to believe
"just cause you said so", you'll attract a huge peanut gallery. You
may even summon the Masonicus or similar deviants.

You can also say, like I often do, "In my personal experience", which is
code for you being a complete loon; it's a signal for people to simply
ignore you. It works well for me.

Kev

Matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Using that term is incorrect. Burning a piece of paper doesn't destroy the matter.

Maybe move to terminology that fits the context of the discussion unless you truly believe it.