Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maybe I am missing the parts where there are actual DETAILS? How is Swanson or anyone going to disprove this stuff, like there is no detail at all... but I'll post the claims here, the whole thing is so short... 

image.thumb.png.7f8dea6a6fcae86e93e34ff996c42ea9.pngimage.png.67a017c94f924d3ff237ad2c327fbe01.pngimage.png.c148208773d59fdc297ec428676c495f.png

Please note that I am not volunteering to defend this data, just wanted to get over the 'just show it here then' part of the conversation...
I doubt we need the rest about propulsion etc.

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Maybe I am missing the parts where there are actual DETAILS? How is Swanson or anyone going to disprove this stuff, like there is no detail at all... but I'll post the claims here, the whole thing is so short... 

image.thumb.png.7f8dea6a6fcae86e93e34ff996c42ea9.png

Element 115 (moscovium) has a half life of about half a second, so is not very practical as a target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

(And I doubt that element 116 can be produced by firing protons at the nucleus.)

2 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

 

image.png.67a017c94f924d3ff237ad2c327fbe01.png

"Immediately decays"? It is true that the half life of livermorium is less than that of mosocvium; but it is not immediate. 

Livermorium decays via alpha decay. In other words, it emits a helium nucleus (a pair of protons and a pair of neutrons bound together).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermorium

It does not emit anti-protons. That would violate all sorts of conservation laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

And anyway, what would be the point?  This can only be of interest to people who think that antimatter=magic.

What are you going to do with these anti-protons? Presumably combine them with some protons to generate energy. But you can't get any more energy out of that than you put in.

So the whole process of accelerating some protons, transmuting 115 to 116, then capturing the anti-protons and then generating some protons for them to interact with, then controlling their interaction and directing the energy ... all takes energy. And must run at less than 100% efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

So you are going to get less energy out than just using shooting the original protons out the back of the rocket. Or using the heat from the rapid decay of the moscovium (you will be left with no useful fuel after a few minutes, anyway).

2 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

image.png.c148208773d59fdc297ec428676c495f.png

There is nothing to critique here. This is just meaningless word-salad from a bad SF book. 

No references here because there is no such thing as "Gravity-A waves", "Gravity B waves" or "Gravity Amplifiers".

Also, gravitational waves (which do exist) are not directly related to gravity. Gravitational attraction is not a wave phenomenon. Also, gravity is only attractive; there is no practical or theoretical reason to think that somehow causing gravitational waves (if that is what the ignorant author means) to interfere would cause any gravitational effect (either pull or push). Gravitational waves cause stress (stretching and shrinking) in directions orthogonal to their direction of travel. This effect is too small to be significant, unless you are a few miles from two merging back holes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Gravity waves are something completely different. They are a phenomenon in fluid dynamics and have nothing to do with gravity (in the sense implied here; they are caused by gravity, not a cause of gravity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

It is almost as if the author doesn't know what they are talking about. And are just stringing together a bunch of words they don't understand.

Quote

The invisible pink unicorns are cloned and propagated in a lensed method from each of the three orgone amplifiers ... against the phase of the Dark Lord's waves emanating from the region of Hades.

See anyone can do it.

 

Edited by Strange
Add references and a bit of detail of gravitational waves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Strange said:

It is almost as if the author doesn't know what they are talking about. And are just stringing together a bunch of words they don't understand.

See anyone can do it.

Yes you did, and thank you for that!  You get 5 plus points, so far, for making the effort to read "word salad."  Very interesting.

5 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Please note that I am not volunteering to defend this data, just wanted to get over the 'just show it here then' part of the conversation...

I doubt we need the rest about propulsion etc.

-Dagl

Thank you for posting the actual material from boblazar.com.  I thought someone didn't want the material to by copied and pasted anywhere because it was top secret.  Now I am much more skeptical of Bob Lazar's claims.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

I thought someone didn't want the material to by copied and pasted anywhere because it was top secret. 

I have no idea why they have done the entire website as a single image. (http://boblazar.com/images/boblazar.com_010.jpg)

It is a very odd thing to do.

 

This is another very odd passage:

1419162313_Screenshot2020-03-29at18_49_22.png.15a239c96ee5d18b6ae3c7fab86a0a0d.png

You can't see stars that are behind the sun.

And when we do see objects that have been gravitationally lensed it is extremely obvious and would be a terrible way of making something invisible.

The website owner appears to be: Jon Farhat (Visual Effects, Second Unit Director, Assistant Director, Writer) https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0267331/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't see stars that are behind the sun.

Yes, but Einstein's theory was proven by light bending around the sun during a total eclipse, and being visible when it shouldn't be.  So at least one star, that was behind the sun, was seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Yes, but Einstein's theory was proven by light bending around the sun during a total eclipse, and being visible when it shouldn't be.  So at least one star, that was behind the sun, was seen. 

Confirmed, not proven, and Einstein’s model meant one could quantify his prediction. None of which is given here.
GR would not allow for such an effect as claimed with a much smaller mass such as a flying saucer. To the extent one could call this a prediction, it’s falsified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.