Bob Lazar and Element 115

Originally posted by zorgon

So you do have the actual evidence! Wow! Close-up of that dude from Zeta Reticuli! A video of his anti-grav craft, in action! I'm convinced now.

Who eat people?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm convinced now.

If you really think your fooling anyone you are delusional I highly doubt anything would convince you unless one landed in your back yard

But what accomplishments has your physics career provide? Or are you just so embittered you just lurk about ATS playing debunker?

Hmmmm

Originally posted by zorgon
But what accomplishments has your physics career provide? Or are you just so embittered you just lurk about ATS playing debunker?

Zorgon, it is you who sounds embittered now. Instead of some real evidence, you resorted to posting CGI images of aliens and spacecraft, to bolster your argument. Just wow.

My accomplishments are modest. I did R&D for Atlas many years ago, then heavy ion physics and now mainly analysis software. But we digress. I want to see some more plastic alien heads.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Members of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate's Heavy-Elements Research Team
Joshua Patin, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemist (in the middle)

Ask a real scientist about 115 and he will tell you this.

Joshua Patin, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California: "It was an experiment that had been chosen because of its decay through Element 113. So, there was a notion at the beginning of the experiment that if we saw the decay of Element 115, we would also see the decay of Element 113. And those had not been seen before.

AND IN THE HYPOTHESIS OF THESE HIGHER ELEMENTS, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT CONCERNING THE PERIODIC TABLE, PHYSICISTS HAVE SPECULATED THERE WOULD BE A POINT SOMEWHERE AROUND ELEMENT 115 OR HIGHER WHERE THERE WOULD BE MORE STABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN A LONGER LIFE?

True. When you are looking at the various isotopes that can be produced of elements 114, 115, 116, even 113, there are some isotopes that have been predicted to have very long half lives. The region where initially it was proposed to have more stability was Element 114 with 114 protons. But we need to put more neutrons in (to balance out the protons) and that's a whole other area in terms of what kind of experiment we want to perform.

With the current level of technology and types of targets like the americium 243 and the beams that we used of the calcium 48, we can't necessarily quite get there, but we can get close. That's why we've done these experiments.

By doing the Element 115 and Element 113 experiment and in the past with the group of Element 116 and 114, we've shown that there is this enhanced area of stability.

COULD THERE BE AN ELEMENT 115 ISOTOPE THAT IS SOLID AND CAN BE HELD IN THE HAND?

Some day down the road, I think so. If it's true that we find something that is long enough lived. To hold something in your hand, you would need a significant quantity of these atoms. We've produced four atoms of Element 115 in a month. It would take ­ you don't have enough time in the rest of the universe to create enough that you could hold in your hand through these same kinds of production methods (that we are using). That's why I say a future technology might allow us advances in terms of how much can be produced and the target material, maybe a better way of producing ­ but somewhere down the road, there might be a possibility, sure.

AND SO WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ELEMENT 115 IN ENOUGH QUANTITY THAT IT COULD BE SOME KIND OF SOLID MATTER THAT COULD BE WORKED WITH AND APPLIED IN OTHER WAYS?

Exactly."

Bob Lazar

PBS Channel 10 Las Vegas

6 PM Pacific Time Today


Hope someone can record it

How about that.. something is afoot

Originally posted by Beavis
AND SO WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ELEMENT 115 IN ENOUGH QUANTITY THAT IT COULD BE SOME KIND OF SOLID MATTER THAT COULD BE WORKED WITH AND APPLIED IN OTHER WAYS?
Exactly."

...and of course you conveniently omitted Patin's admission:

I don't know. That part of the theory I don't know.

You didn't forget to add a smiley, but you skipped this. How swell


He doesn't know THAT PART OF THEORY, it's 100% speculation.

reply to post by buddhasystem

So why don't you enlighten us, Stanton? He was a member of the team that did the experiment. Fill me in on what I'm missing.:lol

I love this part..

The superheavy Element 115 was created in a Dubna, Russia, cyclotron by slamming a rare isotope of calcium that has 20 protons at americium which has 95 protons.

www.intalek.com...

make America squirm

Originally posted by zorgon
I love this part..

The superheavy Element 115 was created in a Dubna, Russia, cyclotron by slamming a rare isotope of calcium that has 20 protons at americium which has 95 protons.

www.intalek.com...

make America squirm

a) The team included Americans
b) Element 115 decays in some milliseconds, so no Zorgon, you can't have a chunk of it even if you are dying to get it. Maybe you can post some CGI images of a chunk of ununpentium. You'll feel slightly better.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You can sidestep all you want. I'm waiting for an answer.

Originally posted by Beavis
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You can sidestep all you want. I'm waiting for an answer.

I didn't sidestep the fact that you put your foot in your mouth by quoting a guy who honestly confessed he didn't know this theory which is perfectly normal in an experiment -- there is specialization. He did data processing, some others tuned electronics. He just spoke out loud about possibilities and truthfully said it was a pure guess. If you are waiting for an answer how to change that into something that supports Bob's fantasy, don't hold your breath.

reply to post by buddhasystem

So.. you question the people involved in the experiment itself?
Just what I expected. Nothing tangable. You do realize this has nothing to do with debate and has everthing to do with science?: Why don't you enlighten me, with a scientific rebuttle of Joshua Patin's views of element 115?:lol
I'm waiting.........................

Originally posted by Beavis
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So.. you question the people involved in the experiment itself?

Only as much as they question themselves, not more, not less. I think that the English language was pretty clear in what he said, you are welcome to peruse your own link again, over and over. He said "I don't know that part of theory".

Why don't you enlighten me, with a scientific rebuttle of Joshua Patin's views of element 115?

Because he rebutted himself and I have better things to do.
Being on an experiment does not mean having expert knowledge of theory or its implications. Patin was honest about that. You insist he wasn't.

From what we know about physics, element 115 can't exist in the form that the modern urban legend of Bob Lazar states. That much is easily to research. However, if it can exist in the form that the modern urban legend of Bob Lazar states then it means we simply don't have a handle on physics as much as we think we do.

The people involved in the modern urban legend of Bob Lazar can produce the evidence to back up their claims if they really wanted to, and that would end all of this internet discussion. The simple fact that they do not tells me something is afoot?

Originally posted by Beavis
Ask a real scientist about 115 and he will tell you this.

AND IN THE HYPOTHESIS OF THESE HIGHER ELEMENTS, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT CONCERNING THE PERIODIC TABLE, PHYSICISTS HAVE SPECULATED ...

A couple of minor points...You're supposed to use the quote tags for quoting other ATS members, but you quoted an external source which requires the "EX" or "external" tags, AND, you're supposed to provide the source and I don't see a link but I ran a search and found this one, is this it?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Some people used to speculate about what the moon was made of before we got a sample of it. There's nothing wrong with speculating as long as you realize that more speculations are later proven wrong than are later proven right.

Also, the "real scientist" as you put it, admits he has no idea how much longer the half life of element 115 could be. He not only said he doesn't know in the section Buddhasystem mentioned it, he says it again when asked if it could be stable at all:

HYPOTHETICALLY IT COULD BECOME A STABLE NON-RADIOACTIVE PIECE OF MATTER, ELEMENT 115?

I don't know. That would be something for us to discover. I don't know enough about what the theory predicts for the region (on the Periodic Table) to say if that could happen. I don't know if the life times are long enough to get to the point that they are stable and not radioactive."

So he doesn't know enough about what the theory predicts. If you're going to quote a "real scientist" how about finding one that at least knows what the theory predicts? And even then it's just a prediction from what appears to be a speculative theory.

So what does the "island of stability" theory say, and what do we know about it so far?

The half-lives of nuclei in the island of stability itself are unknown since none of the isotopes that would be "on the island" have been observed. Many physicists think they are relatively short, on the order of minutes or days.[1] However, some theoretical calculations indicate that their half-lives may be long, on the order of 10^9 years.

So even in the center of the island we have no idea whether the half lives will be short or long, but my interpretation of that quote is that nobody is really expecting them to be stable and we're uncertain about exactly how unstable they will be.

There is also a graphic of the island of stability at that link:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7e2a2794a353.png[/atsimg]

If you're not used to reading a 3D graph it can be a little tricky because it sort of looks like the red top of the middle of the "island" is just above the 110 atomic number line, but if you trace that back to the plane of the graph I'm pretty sure that it's less than 110. My best guess is that the center of the "island of stability" shown by that graph is about atomic number 109 with neutron number of about 180 or so giving an atomic weight of about 289. So far all the isotopes of element 109 (meitnerium) are between 266-278 so we have yet to confirm if the island of stability even holds true for element 109. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to presume it will be stable on the island, only less unstable.

And it also looks to me like anything above element 114 is still in the sea of instability on that graph, doesn't it?

In any case it's speculative.

Originally posted by MainLineThis
From what we know about physics,

Quite yes...

What do we know about physics? We know we are discovering new things all the time... why just recently in threads on the nature of the magnetic filed and solar changes I have seen NASA scientists use the phrase " we need to rewrite the physics books"

Bob Lazar passes the lie detector test on UFOs

Here is that PBS video...

Seems Bob was interviewed and they show him at his new store in Michigan

Interesting

How Tough Is it to Build a Dirty Bomb?
Read the Transcript: to.pbs.org...

Science correspondent Miles O'Brien examines the threat that radioactive "dirty bombs"could pose to cities in the U.S., and what's being done to prevent a radiological attack from happening.

Bob Lazar starts at the 5:20 mark.

BOB LAZAR, United Nuclear: We pretty much try and carry everything in the scientific realm.

MILES O'BRIEN: Cummings got some of his radioactive material from this man, Bob Lazar. He owns a company called United Nuclear. Housed in a small storefront in tiny Laingsburg, Mich., he does a good business on the Web selling all kinds of chemicals, equipment and oddities for scientific hobbyists.

BOB LAZAR: These are isotopes.

MILES O'BRIEN: He sells them to the general public, and it's all perfectly legal.

BOB LAZAR: Really, if you want to build a dirty bomb, buying the radio isotopes isn't the route to go.

MILES O'BRIEN: Why not?

BOB LAZAR: Well, first of all, you can't get enough radioactive material. And, to disperse it, you need something water-soluble would be better, because then you can absorb it into something that, with a bomb, you can disperse it over to a large area.

Having big plastic disks with an invisible amount of a speck of radioactive material in it is pretty useless in -- in making a dirty bomb. And -- and you would have to order literally hundreds of thousands of them.

to.pbs.org...

Ever so helpful and honest

Originally posted by zorgon
What do we know about physics? We know we are discovering new things all the time... why just recently in threads on the nature of the magnetic filed and solar changes I have seen NASA scientists use the phrase " we need to rewrite the physics books"

If do discover the Higgs boson at the LHC (or we don't) we'll have to rewrite physics books. The statement you made is altogether trivial. Fact is, there is no evidence of stable Element 115 no matter how you slice it. When we see one, we'll do the books. Absent that, in the meantime, we'll extract some comical value of Bob and his flock.