Anti-Gravity Generators, Element 115 your ideas

So the question I have is, how do you guys feel about anti-gravity propulsion systems? UFO crafts have them, the gov. has them also. But in terms of thinking, designing, creating... how do you feel? The information is out there, the knowledge is also out there, but now it is a matter of bring it all together. What are some of your ideas or concepts? I also wanted to know how people feel about Element 115? The complex breakdown of it from a Stable element 115 Isotopes and shooting massive amounts of protons at it, which causes it to become element 116 and decay to become this large amount of energy. I would really love your guys' input on this awesome and heavy subject.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by jdmmade]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by jdmmade]

reply to post by jdmmade


I explained some stuff about it in one of my threads.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jdmmade


G'day jdmmade

From what I've read, they've only made a few atoms of element 115, which had a half life measured in thousandths of a second.

Even that is disputed by many scientists.

Therefore, I can't understand where they would get all the element 115 to do all these things.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Hi OP and all,

Best theory I've read and seen to date is this:

projectcamelot.org...

But I suspect our alien inhabitants no doubt use seriously advanced anti-gravitic systems of two types. One for atmospheric travel; Two Outer/No atmospheric condition to travel.

The USA Sec Gov's Military scientific might use perhaps something in-between maybe?

Decoy

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by jdmmade

 

G'day jdmmade

From what I've read, they've only made a few atoms of element 115, which had a half life measured in thousandths of a second.

Even that is disputed by many scientists.

Therefore, I can't understand where they would get all the element 115 to do all these things.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Perhaps you can harvest stable isotopes of Uup (Ununpentium, the real, albeit temporary, name of "element 115") from very dense and old stars, where heavier elements such as this would have had time to form in large amounts.

A stable isotope of a substance like this could be a very potent source of power. Imagine firing a few neutrons at it, effectively knocking it off from the "island of stability" that such an isotope would be a resident of, and having the entire sample decay in a matter of milliseconds. A small amount of the substance could perhaps give the same power output in a few milliseconds as a much larger amount of uranium would give in years.

This could be essential for space travel, for example when entering "warp" or opening a wormhole portal. Imagine the kind of power output needed to rip apart space-time. You would need ALOT of energy, and you would need it FAST.

However, I personally have strong doubts about the whole element 115 and Bob Lazar story. I do believe he's a smart guy and probably just figured out himself that super-heavy elements could be a necessary fuel-source for space flight, but no more than that.

For those who are interested in anti-gravity and how to achieve it, I recommend watching AlienScientist's videos on the subject. You can find them here: www.youtube.com...



Disclaimer: I'm only speculating in this post, and I'm not a real physicist (yet), so don't take my word as 100% truth. I do believe I have a pretty good grasp of the subject, however. If I'm wrong about something, please feel free to correct me.

Originally posted by Deran

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by jdmmade

 

G'day jdmmade

From what I've read, they've only made a few atoms of element 115, which had a half life measured in thousandths of a second.

Perhaps you can harvest stable isotopes of Uup (Ununpentium, the real, albeit temporary, name of "element 115") from very dense and old stars, where heavier elements such as this would have had time to form in large amounts.

Well yes, yes and no. Yes it's unstable on Earth, and yes it's possible that more stable isotopes could possibly exist in environments other than Earth's such as in a star.

But the problem is that were you to "harvest" as you put it something that's stable in that star but not on Earth, and you bring that something and put in on the Earth, it's now subject to the forces on Earth, which is, much lower gravity than the star where you got it from. Therefore you're still stuck with the same problem once you bring it from the star to Earth, if such a thing were even possible. That is, once on Earth, it's unstable, the fact that it may have been more stable on or in the star only helps while you're in that environment.

By the way this logic is similar to the logic used to determine that even if the LHC creates a black hole singularity, that it won't swallow up the earth like such a singularity would in a high gravity environment, it simply becomes unstable on Earth and can't exist for very long. But a singularity CAN exist in a more stable form somewhere else and CAN swallow up the Earth. It just needs a lot more mass to do it.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

element 115 has been proved to exist, just has that stupidly quick half life.

element 115 for anti grav >??? i dont think so.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

"But the problem is that were you to "harvest" as you put it something that's stable in that star but not on Earth, and you bring that something and put in on the Earth, it's now subject to the forces on Earth, which is, much lower gravity than the star where you got it from. Therefore you're still stuck with the same problem once you bring it from the star to Earth, if such a thing were even possible. That is, once on Earth, it's unstable, the fact that it may have been more stable on or in the star only helps while you're in that environment."

That's not quite true. Take Uranium for example. Where was it created? As the best theories go, it was forged in the core of a 2nd-generation star that preceded our solar system. Same goes for all the elements. They were all created in environments wildly different than they currently reside (in some cases), and are entirely stable. Generally speaking, a high-energy environment (core of a star) is less stable than a low-energy environment (mineral deposit in Earth-like planet). So basically, if there were an isotope of this special element that were stable in the core of a large old star, it should be stable in earth's lower-energy environment.

To my understanding the above is correct, though it might not be. Please correct me if so =)

scientists have made it to element 114, it wasn't completely stable and fell apart pretty quickly, but they are very close to making it stable.

if we can get this far, it is likely we will make element 115, the big question is will adding one more proton to element 115 cause it to instantly to create fusion. if it does this will show that bob Lazar was correct. my guess is that they are already trying to make element 115 in some large particle accelerator, they should be trying to make it in the lhc

reply to post by Deran


i see where you are going with this, but I'm not sure we could use it for a warp drive, that kind of drive would require the power of 10 billion of our suns.

Originally posted by Son of Will
Generally speaking, a high-energy environment (core of a star) is less stable than a low-energy environment (mineral deposit in Earth-like planet). So basically, if there were an isotope of this special element that were stable in the core of a large old star, it should be stable in earth's lower-energy environment.

To my understanding the above is correct, though it might not be. Please correct me if so =)

You're correct about stars being the "factory" where heavier elements are made! But don't confuse the process of fusion with the effect of gravity. It's fusion that creates the heavier elements from lighter elements in stars.

Regarding stability, if the star is still "burning" fuel aka fusing elements, I agree that creates instability but I thought he was referring to more like an old dead star or something which has burned through most of its fuel and can be more "stable"

Originally posted by Deran
Perhaps you can harvest stable isotopes of Uup (Ununpentium, the real, albeit temporary, name of "element 115") from very dense and old stars, where heavier elements such as this would have had time to form in large amounts.

Regarding holding an unstable atom together, the reason I'm allowing for the possibility that the half life of an atom could go up in a high gravity environment is because of gravity and the forces it might apply on the atoms to help hold them together.

Think of a neutron star for example, the gravitational effect on the atoms is so strong, it completely collapses the atomic structure until you have mostly neutrons. So what I'm suggesting is that slighty weaker, but still very strong gravitational forces may influence the half-life or rate of decay of unstable elements. Once you remove those elements from that gravitational field, the gravitational forces no longer have the ability to "hold the unstable atom together" just like we don't find neutron star material outside of neutron stars, there isn't enough gravity. But you're right that removing the element from the star doesn't undo the effects of fusion, it only undoes whatever effects of strong gravity were taking place.

The idea that gravity might affect the half-life isn't borne out by many experiments so far:

Radioactive decay

A number of experiments have shown that decay rates of naturally-occurring radioisotopes (for decay modes other than electron capture) are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment and electric, magnetic or gravitational fields.

I suspect that those experiments haven't been conducted in gravitational fields approaching that of a neutron star, simply because we don't have such a field readily available. So I'm not even sure if the gravitational effect is even likely at all, it may be unlikely based on experiments so far, but I doubt we have enough evidence yet to say it's impossible.

However, I think we do have enough evidence to say that element 115 on Earth, whether made here of brought here from somewhere else, would most likely be very unstable.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ah, well, my entire post was based on the assumption that you could find a stable isotope of Uup, that is, one which doesn't need external factors to prevent it from decaying.

The currently known isotopes of Uup has ridiculously short half-lives, but we don't know the half-lives of all isotopes.

Perhaps there is an isotope of element 115 on the island of stability, perhaps not. I don't think we can tell yet.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Deran]

From what I remember Bob saying , it was that the 115 atom was so dense that its `specific gravety ` overlapped its boundaries and since gravity is a wave it could be taped into and be amplified.

reply to post by bluemooone2

Bob must think I'm "dense" if he expects me to believe that one!

That doesn't even make sense.

reply to post by jdmmade


I love this video

Google Video Link

That's not quite true. Take Uranium for example. Where was it created? As the best theories go, it was forged in the core of a 2nd-generation star that preceded our solar system. Same goes for all the elements. They were all created in environments wildly different than they currently reside (in some cases), and are entirely stable. Generally speaking, a high-energy environment (core of a star) is less stable than a low-energy environment (mineral deposit in Earth-like planet). So basically, if there were an isotope of this special element that were stable in the core of a large old star, it should be stable in earth's lower-energy environment.

In general elements heavier than iron (Fe) cannot be created by fusion nucleosynthesis in stars.

It is believed that they are created in the few milliseconds of a supernova, where the insane thermonuclear explosion (mostly still hydrogen/helium) creates an astronomical assload of neutrons, so many that the nuclei can't decay to lighter elements faster than the new neutrons come in.

There is no evidence in our known science that any isotope of anything has any peculiar gravitational coupling.

Maybe 20 years ago there were some hints of some (violating one of Einstein's axioms of general relativity) material dependent-effects ('fifth-force') but upon more rigorous experimental study evidence disappeared.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by jdmmade

 

I love this video- The Hutchinson Effect

Google Video Link

Yup! You are right...I did. But I gave you a lovely star in another post today so maybe you will let this go...

[edit on 22-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


Did you just respond to your own video with the same video again and nothing else or am I missing something in your second post?

reply to post by rusethorcain


Sorry about the double post I was trying to edit John Hutchinson's name into the floating bowling ball - anti gravity clip posted.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Sorry about the double post I was trying to edit John Hutchinson's name into the floating bowling ball - anti gravity clip posted.

LOL, ok just seemed odd so I thought maybe something was not showing up. Sometimes the page only half loads and I was not sure if I was having some kind of repeated issue suddenly. Thanks for the clarification.