Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli

Originally posted by pjslug
But to think that somehow all laws of physics break down when we leave the outer boundaries of our planets is ridiculous, especially when nothing observed in science has ever pointed in such a direction.

Well, I'm not saying one way or another if this is true, but have you read about the Voyager probes slowing down faster than what they should be?

For the moment, until the puzzle is solved, science has observed a deviation of the laws of physics, as we know them to be.

Hmm, well I think it is safe to say that we have no clue what would happen to physics as we know it in other solar systems, since we have never been to another solar system.

And Byrd, sorry to be such a nitpicker, but you keep misspelling Ununpentium, I'm pretty sure it has two N's at the beginning.



[edit on 18-7-2007 by Diplomat]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Well, I'm not saying one way or another if this is true, but have you read about the Voyager probes slowing down faster than what they should be?

For the moment, until the puzzle is solved, science has observed a deviation of the laws of physics, as we know them to be.

You mean the "Pioneer anomaly"?

en.wikipedia.org...

If so, I think you’re grossly overstating (hyping up) the importance of whatever it turns out to be (if anything) in the larger scheme of things.

Anyway, I think it’s pretty safe to say the fundamental laws of physics are Universal. That said, the devil’s definitely in the details.

Originally posted by Access Denied
You mean the "Pioneer anomaly"?

Yeah, that's it. I had Voyager on my mind, don't ask me why. It's the Pioneer anomaly. I read an up-date article about it last month.

If so, I think you’re grossly overstating (hyping up) the importance of whatever it turns out to be (if anything) in the larger scheme of things.

I did't make any claims at all about what it is or why it is happening. The reasons could be mundane. However, at the moment, the Pioneer space craft are not where they should be, according to the predicted models used with our standard physics.

It could be leaking gas. It could be unevenly distributed solar heating on part of the space craft. There is a team from the Plantetary Society that recently saved a lot of the old telemetry data tapes from being destroyed and they are working to solve the puzzle.

I only used the example to show that we have to be careful about what we assume with our current knowledge of physics.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I only used the example to show that we have to be careful about what we assume with our current knowledge of physics.

Agreed, it would be foolish to ignore Newton's apple.

Originally posted by Diplomat
You guys are going to need more than an old lady's regressed memory to figure out exactly where aliens are from. I say we find out for sure whether or not they even exist in the first place before we start believing some old lady's description of a star map she supposedly saw...

you still don't know the Greys do exist ?
did you do any research?

Originally posted by keops

Originally posted by Diplomat
You guys are going to need more than an old lady's regressed memory to figure out exactly where aliens are from. I say we find out for sure whether or not they even exist in the first place before we start believing some old lady's description of a star map she supposedly saw...

you still don't know the Greys do exist ?
did you do any research?

I know of no research offering categorical proof of the existance on this planet of any extra terrestrial aliens.

Can you offer any?
Not "my mate told me" or "I think I saw someone with weird eyes", but 100% incontrovertible proof backed up with prfessional photographs that prove your hypothesis that they exist?

Originally posted by Chorlton

I know of no research offering categorical proof of the existance on this planet of any extra terrestrial aliens.

Can you offer any?
Not "my mate told me" or "I think I saw someone with weird eyes", but 100% incontrovertible proof backed up with prfessional photographs that prove your hypothesis that they exist?

Well, you gave me a chuckle there.I could just see trying to get an appointment with Olan Mills Studio to sit for a photo session with an alien. Wal-Mart would never be the same.

Originally posted by Byrd
In order to check my sources, people would have to buy access to those articles or get an account at a university.

Or get a free library card from your local public library. Got a small library where you live? Get one anyway, then next time you're in the Big City ask for a reciprocal use card from them. Public libraries in general, and large public libraries in particular, have a large selection of online databases featuring an amazing array of academic content. They are all online. Type in your library card number, and away you go.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Sorry Einstien, sounds to me like you’re the one who’s ignorant and doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

If you knew what you were talking about (and my eyes are not deceiving me LOL) then you would know that according to Möller’s Theoretical Nuclear Chart (1997) the longest predicted half-life for any isotope of 115 is only 4 days…

ie.lbl.gov...

Okay, that's a theoretical chart from 1997 that's been proven wrong at least once concerning Fermium 257.
www.britannica.com...
education.jlab.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Moller hypothisized on the half lives and spins, empirical data could well ( and indeed has) prove him wrong. But perhaps that's because some of the trans-uranic elements behave a little differently than our current models predict.


You see pumpkin, physicists aren't positive about what physical reason causes the existance of the magic numbers.
Take this example,
www.blazelabs.com...
Here lies a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the magic number pattern suddenly changes after it exceeds 20. The bottom layer of the spherical standing wave that is formed tetrahedrally by nucleons actually replaces the layer above it. (if anyone reading didn't get that, there are wonderful diagrams in that file that help)
This could never have been theorized if it had not been shown empirically that the magic number DOES NOT correlate with a spherical standing wave being a simple, ever growing tetrahedron.
So I conclude it's entirely possible that as the number of nucleons continues to increase, the conditions for what constitutes a magic number may change.

And besides all of that, the lab created Uup didn't match any of the predicted stable isotopes, whether we're talking about the official 299, Vaninetti's 271, or the new "deformed" model of 277.
t2.lanl.gov...

I suppose my point is not that Lazar is right, but rather that attempting to debunk his Uup stuff is often disingenuous, as you have just demonstrated.

...

...

...

All of this goofyness just speaks for itself, doesn't it?

I guess I just hate how humans always have everything figured out, until it's proven wrong, but THEN they have it figured out for sure, right?

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Okay, that's a theoretical chart from 1997 that's been proven wrong at least once concerning Fermium 257.

That’s why I used it sunshine (hey, you’re the one who started with the ad homs)… precisely because it’s controversial and predicts longer half-lives for some isotopes than other theorist’s models. I was being generous; funny you latched on to that.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Moller hypothisized on the half lives and spins, empirical data could well ( and indeed has) prove him wrong. But perhaps that's because some of the trans-uranic elements behave a little differently than our current models predict.

Yep, key world “little”… the longest living isotope of 115 may very well (and I’m being extremely generous again) turn out to be 40 days instead of 4… so what?

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
You see pumpkin, physicists aren't positive about what physical reason causes the existance of the magic numbers.

True, especially non-peer reviewed physicists.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
So I conclude it's entirely possible that as the number of nucleons continues to increase, the conditions for what constitutes a magic number may change.

Great, unfortunately it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of the stability of 115 in regards to Lazar’s claims. “Stability” is a relative term. What constitutes a magic number may indeed change but it won’t change the predicted half-life of any isotope of 115 from mere days to years as is the absolute minimum required to even begin to consider Lazar credible.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
And besides all of that, the lab created Uup didn't match any of the predicted stable isotopes, whether we're talking about the official 299, Vaninetti's 271, or the new "deformed" model of 277.

Again, there are NO predicted stable (useful) isotopes of 115 no matter what “magic number” you want to use… it’s NOT in the “island of stability” nor will it ever be based on the empirical data we have. That’s not to say other super-heavy elements could be (relatively) stable using a different model. The jury’s still out on that.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
I suppose my point is not that Lazar is right, but rather that attempting to debunk his Uup stuff is often disingenuous, as you have just demonstrated.

Proposing that all the empirical data we have so far on super-heavy elements doesn’t rule out the possibility of 115 being “stable” based on the uncertainty of ”magic numbers” for other elements we have no empirical data for yet in order to make a case for Lazar is disingenuous. In fact, if you know anything at all about the subject, it’s being deliberately dishonest in my opnion.

Originally posted by Byrd

Alpha particles can, in fact, be attracted by plain old magnets or even static electricity. They're pretty divertable.

Byrd, I asked Bob about your comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: John Lear
To: unitednuclear.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: alpha particles

Bob,

Is this statement true?

"Alpha particles can, in fact, be attracted by plain old magnets or even static electricity." posted by Byrd

It was posted on ATS after I told them about your experiment with the 115 in the bell jar.
Thanks
John.

This was his reply:

Yes, gigantic or extremely powerful magnets and a large, high voltage power supply in excess of 250,000 volts can deflect Alpha paths to some degree.
Using either would be quite obvious as the large magnets would have to be right next to the Alpha source as would the electrically charged plates.

-United Nuclear Scientific Supplies
email: [email protected]
website: www.unitednuclear.com...
P.O. Box 851
Sandia Park, NM. 87047
505-286-2831

originally posted by Byrd
However, Unupentium gives off alpha particles. It doesn't attract them.

I think that he (and you) were lied to.

The mantle was the source of the alpha particles. The purpose of the experiment was to show the properties of Element 115. Please ask your coach to explain this to you. Thanks. :

Originally posted by Diplomat
What are the chances that some woman named Marjorie Fish just happened to take a pencil sketch from Betty Hill and miraculously match it to a star system? How could you possibly believe that?

Are there any other forms of evidence that point to Zeta Reticuli other than the Hill Abduction case?

Well, she is not just some woman, she's an astronomer. As far as the Hills go you really seem to be ignorant as to the facts of the case, perhaps you should do a little more research.

Originally posted by pompano

Well, she is not just some woman, she's an astronomer. As far as the Hills go you really seem to be ignorant as to the facts of the case, perhaps you should do a little more research.

People don't do any real reserach anymore Pompano. They just pound away on google and spew forth nonsense. I just went out in the garage and found my original reprint of the Zeta Reticuli Incident (shown below). It was 30 pages of informative text and 4 color images with comments by Majorie Fish, Carl Sagan, Jerrey L. Kretsch, Steven Soter, Robert Shaeffer, David Saunders and Michael Peck.

I doubt very much if Diplomat ever heard of more than one of those names. He obviously never read the Zeta Retucli Incident or he wouldn't have made such a comment.

I ordered about 25 of the reprints in 1988 and sent them to all my friends. I still have the one shown here that I refer to now and then.

The 30 pages are extremely informative and the debate pro and con very interesting. Of course, I side with Majorie Fish because her argument is more well founded than the others in the debate.

It was really neat to look at the old well-worn pages and remember the great arguments which were always lost by Sagan et al.

Originally posted by Diplomat
It's nice to bring up Bob Lazar and everything John, but just how reliable of a source is he? We don't even know for sure if he has been telling the truth or not. He can't even prove where he went to college for god's sake, and we're supposed to believe all his mumbo jumbo about the universe? I would love to believe Lazar, but I find it very hard to...

The Hill abduction happened long before Bob Lazar started talking, so how do we know he didn't just get the idea of Zeta Reticuli from the Hill case?

[edit on 15-7-2007 by Diplomat]

What does college have to do with anything? Do they give you a magical yellow smoke pass that lets the smoke you blow up people's asses become more believable? In my experience all colleges do is sink materialistic capitalistic values into your subconscious deeper, making you more of a consumer and less of a thinker. It's obvious from Bob Lazar's interviews he's no idiot. Whether he went to school or not, he communicates in a more believable and efficient manner than the president of the united states (who happens to be a Yale graduate and a malthusianism practicing asshat). I'm going to have to go with Lazar and Lear on this one.

I don't understand at this point why we don't have photos of our nearest neighbor solar system. The only reason I can think of is if there is something to hide.

There are websites that do go into some of the debate at the time about the Hills and Zeta 1&2 Reticuli. Unfortunately I just deleted one link I had as a favorite, but that site had what was said by Sagan and the others at the time back in 1974.

Ms. Fish was a teacher who was an amateur astronomer but she was also a member of Mensa. She had 10 criteria that she used for what stars she ended up with on the Betty Hill's chart, and none of the other people including the brain guy - ah - forget his name right now, but I had his book for awhile -- Richard Attenberg, perhaps, and his map never met all 10 criteria as well as anything else.

As for finding planets around other stars -- duh, the star is too bright and only lately may there be a means of blocking out the sunlight from the star to even find big planets - but to find a planet -- around the size of the Earth -- well - it going to take more technology than what we have now.

Anyway, there are 24,915 science papers alone just on black holes and anything related including some gravity concepts and parallel universe concepts.

But, time is short, and I am not learning calculus again or differetial equations (because I did not do all that great the first time) but actually to find out:

Perhaps it would just be better to build something physical to get us "Out in Space", not weapons on the Moon (duh - probably take at least a day to get here from there instead of the three it took the Apollo's) and by that time -- well -- it would just seem as MAD as it did back in 1973 when Werner VonBraun (if I spelled that correctly) came out and stated "Don't let them put weapons out in Space" at that time, all that was going on back then with this world. This world where humans can only decide to eliminate theirselves it seems at this time -- still to this day.

Those websites explaining the Astonomy Magazine articles about Zeta 1&2 Reticuli can be searched for on Google or another Search Engine.

www.gravitywarpdrive.com...

Oh, from the gravitywarpdrive website.

I just do not like the way the webpage looks though. (and the music seems to interfere with me reading the webpage so I turn the volume down).

From Ms. Fish:

When I started the search, I made a number of restrictions including:

The Sun had to be part of the pattern with a line connected to it, since the leader of the aliens indicated this to Betty.


Since they came to our solar system, they should also be interested in solar type stars (single main sequence G, probably also late single main sequence F and early single main sequence K). These stars should not be bypassed if they are in the same general volume of space.


Since there are a number of the above stars relatively near the Sun and the pattern shows only 12 stars, the pattern would have to be relatively close to us (or else they would be bypassing sunlike stars, which is illogical).


The travel pattern itself should be logical. That is, they would not zip out 300 light-years, back to 10 light-years, then out 1,000, etc. The moves should make a logical progression.


Large young main sequence stars (O, B, A, early F) which are unlikely to have planets and/or life would not be likely to be visited.


Stars off the main sequence with the possible exception of those just starting off the main sequence would probably be avoided as they are unsuitable for life and, due to their variability, could be dangerous.


If they go to one star of a given type, it shows interest in that type star -- so they should go to other stars of that type if they are in the same volume of space. An exception to this might be the closest stars to the base star, which they might investigate out of curiosity in the early stages of stellar travel. For example, they would not be likely to bypass five red dwarfs to stop at the sixth, if all six were approximately equal in size, spectra, singleness or multiplicity, etc. Or, if they go to one close G double, they would probably go to other close G doubles.


The base star or stars is one or both of the large circles with the lines radiating from it.


One or both of the base stars should be suitable for life -- F8 to K5 using the lowest limits given by exobiologists, or more likely, K1 given by Dole.


Because the base stars are represented as such large circles, they are either intrinsically bigger or brighter than the rest or they are closer to the map’s surface (the viewer) than the rest -- probably the latter. This was later confirmed by Betty Hill.


Mrs. Hill’s interpretation of Pegasus disregards all of these criteria.

Atterberg’s work is well done. His positioning of the stars is accurate. He complies with criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8; fairly well with 4; less well with 9, and breaks down on 7 and 10. I will discuss the last three of Atterberg’s differences with my basic criteria in the following paragraphs:

Relative to point 9, his base stars are Epsilon Indi and Epsilon Eridani, both of which are near the lower limit for life bearing planets -- according to most exobiologists -- and not nearly as suitable as Zeta 1 Reticuli and Zeta 2 Reticuli.

So.............................................there it is.

Now, all the info is there on that webpage and it is quite a read, but certainly one needs a criteria to begin with before one goes off galloping amongst the stars whether it's by star charts of long ago like the Gliese Catalog of 1969 (the only thing current back then) or taking off with E.T. if they want you even on their spacecraft.

Just added something else.....................................



[edit on 8/13/2007 by AmoebaSized]

originally posted by Diplomat

man, it is highly likely that scientists and astronomers knew about Zeta Reticuli far before Betty Hill. Zeta Reticuli is only like 39 light years away, and we have been discovering stars of that distance for a long time now. I don't think Betty Hill is the guilty one here, I think Marjorie Fish is. She is the one who looked at Betty Hill's little sketch and concluded that it was Zeta Reticuli. You're all gonna just take her word for it? Gimme a break...

What do you think Diplomat? Do you think we should take her word for it? We'll give you break.

Originally posted by martianvirus
I don't understand at this point why we don't have photos of our nearest neighbor solar system. The only reason I can think of is if there is something to hide.

With what would we take them? Hubble has been pretty good about detectig planets,but it can't see them. Instead, variations in the stars themselves are used to determine the planetary characteristics. Voyager, launched in 1977, passed Pioneer and is the fastest thing we've got out there. It hasn't even come close to another star yet.

Of course, if we really do have back-engineered faster than light craft, that doesn't apply. But I don't think you can expect pictures from these non-existant super secret craft either.