Is element 115 a real thing in nature? What if any properties of element 115 would allow it to be used in antigravity propulsion as Bob Lazar Claims?

[486DX Win3.1]

Is element 115 a real thing in nature? What if any properties of element 115 would allow it to be used in antigravity propulsion as Bob Lazar Claims? 

And Can it Even Run Crysis? 

 

Bob Lazar claims that antigravity is basically made possible through generation of electrical fields. How could element 115 be used to make that much power? 

[Ryuikko]

Considering it's name is moscovium, if I had to guess it's probably a synthetic material made first made in  Moscow

And isn't Bob Lazar that guy who said he worked on ufos? I wouldn't really trust him when he claims that lol, though technically if you face 2 magnets together with the same pole facing each other, you have "antigravity"

[486DX Win3.1]

11 minutes ago, Ryuikko said:

Considering it's name is moscovium, if I had to guess it's probably a synthetic material made first made in  Moscow

And isn't Bob Lazar that guy who said he worked on ufos? I wouldn't really trust him when he claims that lol, though technically if you face 2 magnets together with the same pole facing each other, you have "antigravity"

Bob Lazar and quite a few others do claim to have worked on compartmentalized back-engineering of recovered UFO Tech 

 

There are some pretty high level officials that are coming forward about such things, with more and more detailed recollections. 

 

Just because something came from a UFO does not mean that it can't be used in some kind of energy generator. Sheeesh..... 

[Ryuikko]

13 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

Just because something came from a UFO does not mean that it can't be used in some kind of energy generator. Sheeesh.....

What 

 

Element 115

[8tg]

Reading even just the Wikipedia page on Moscovium should explain fairly well that:

-it doesn’t exist in nature

-it’s practically useless and was made as a proof of concept 

-since it basically just radiates away and breaks down in under a second

You could do the same thing for Bob Lazar and come to the conclusion he’s just a weirdo.

[486DX Win3.1]

2 minutes ago, 8tg said:

Reading even just the Wikipedia page on Moscovium should explain fairly well that:

-it doesn’t exist in nature

-it’s practically useless and was made as a proof of concept 

-since it basically just radiates away and breaks down in under a second

You could do the same thing for Bob Lazar and come to the conclusion he’s just a weirdo.

Or so they say, as far as we know. 

[tikker]

We can be pretty confident it doesn't exist in nature for a prolonged amount of time:

Quote

Moscovium is an extremely radioactive element: its most stable known isotope, moscovium-290, has a half-life of only 0.65 seconds.^[10]

The half-life time indicates how long it takes for (statistically) half the amount of material to have decayed into other things. We know that radioactive decay goes as N(t) = N0 * e**(-(ln(2)/T) * t) where N is the number of nuclei, N0 the number you start with, T is the half-life time and t is the time in seconds that have passed. Since the number of particles is proportional to the mass we can just replace N with the mass for sake of this argument. This means that for any notable amount of Moscovium, after 0.65 seconds half of it will have decayed into something else. 0.65 later another half. After just 5 seconds there is only 0.5% of the original amount left. If you plug in the entire mass of the earth of Moscovium into this equation and calculat what is left after 60 seconds you get

 

5.9e27 gram * e**(-(ln(2)/0.65 s) * (60 s)) = 0.96 gram

 

It would take 1 minute for just a gram to be left.

[486DX Win3.1]

6 hours ago, tikker said:

We can be pretty confident it doesn't exist in nature for a prolonged amount of time:

The half-life time indicates how long it takes for (statistically) half the amount of material to have decayed into other things. We know that radioactive decay goes as N(t) = N0 * e**(-(ln(2)/T) * t) where N is the number of nuclei, N0 the number you start with, T is the half-life time and t is the time in seconds that have passed. Since the number of particles is proportional to the mass we can just replace N with the mass for sake of this argument. This means that for any notable amount of Moscovium, after 0.65 seconds half of it will have decayed into something else. 0.65 later another half. After just 5 seconds there is only 0.5% of the original amount left. If you plug in the entire mass of the earth of Moscovium into this equation and calculat what is left after 60 seconds you get

 

5.9e27 gram * e**(-(ln(2)/0.65 s) * (60 s)) = 0.96 gram

 

It would take 1 minute for just a gram to be left.

"They say that" but they say alot of things don't they. 

 

I mean, that's all about how WE know that these things work, but what do we really know in the end?

[tikker]

33 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

"They say that" but they say alot of things don't they. 

 

I mean, that's all about how WE know that these things work, but what do we really know in the end?

I mean I can say that of this Bob Lazar guy as well. He says a lot of things doesn't he. That's not a particularly convincing argument to proof their right or wrong.

 

Things like radioactive decay have been studied and measured with experiments for ages. They are backed up with a multitude of verifiable scientific results and are not on the list to be debunked anytime soon. It's not just a case of it potentially existing abundantly somewhere else. Our nuclear physics don't really allow a stable version of element 115 to exist simply because of its nature. It's a really heavy element with 115 protons. You'll get a lot of repulsion from cramming that many same-charge particles together, so you need neutrons to keep it stable. Nuclear physics tells us that at a certain point, however, cramming more neutrons in also makes it more unstable, so there is a point above which elements simply are no longer stable.

[Dedayog]

44 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

"They say that" but they say alot of things don't they. 

 

I mean, that's all about how WE know that these things work, but what do we really know in the end?

I'm fairly sure you don't believe in anything at all. How do you get thru your day?

 

11 minutes ago, tikker said:

I mean I can say that of this Bob Lazar guy as well. He says a lot of things doesn't he. That's not a particularly convincing argument to proof their right or wrong.

 

Things like radioactive decay have been studied and measured with experiments for ages. They are backed up with a multitude of verifiable scientific results and are not on the list to be debunked anytime soon. It's not just a case of it potentially existing abundantly somewhere else. Our nuclear physics don't really allow a stable version of element 115 to exist simply because of its nature. It's a really heavy element with 115 protons. You'll get a lot of repulsion from cramming that many same-charge particles together, so you need neutrons to keep it stable. Nuclear physics tells us that at a certain point, however, cramming more neutrons in also makes it more unstable, so there is a point above which elements simply are no longer stable.

Not sure why you bothered explaining as they simply will twist anything they read to suit their conspiracy mindset.  I'm sure their tap water contains birth control, vaccines contain tracking microchips, and the Deep State wants to eradicate 90% of all human life.

 

Trying to explain science to someone like that just doesn't work.  

 

Nice explanation for the rest of us though, thank you.

[Coaxialgamer]

Super-heavy elements on the far end of the periodic table are usually so unstable that the most stable isotopes have half-lives measured in fractions of a second.

Plutonium is nowhere to be seen in nature, and it has a half-life of 24,000 years: all of the stuff which may have originally been on earth has long since decayed.

These elements, if they ever were on our planet, suffered pretty much the same fate (albeit much more quickly).

 

Element 115 specifically was only ever observed after being synthesized artificially. Its most stable form has a half life of 0.65s, and doesn't exist in nature.

[tikker]

42 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Not sure why you bothered explaining as they simply will twist anything they read to suit their conspiracy mindset.  I'm sure their tap water contains birth control, vaccines contain tracking microchips, and the Deep State wants to eradicate 90% of all human life.

 

Trying to explain science to someone like that just doesn't work.  

 

Nice explanation for the rest of us though, thank you.

No harm in trying in my opinion. Science is just a tool in the end and as mr. Savage once said: the difference between science and messing around is writing it down. We accept these things as facts, because they match what is observed but at the same time a lot of credibility comes from the fact that it has been written down and verified over time. A lot of science can sound like magic if you don't come from a scientific field. Going against the status quo is always tricky, but yeah anti-gravity using electric fields from rare radioactive nuclei are a bit too exotic for me as well.

 

It might be possible for some exotic mechanism that can produce a stable isotope of 115 to exist, but the fact that we haven't synthesised it yet should indicate that it's either a very rare and unlikely reaction (or one outside our explored energy ranges) or one that doesn't exist. At least we can say that we won't make or find a big chunk of Moscovium any time soon.

[486DX Win3.1]

Then HOW exactly, is it working for them???? HHmmmmm??? 

[486DX Win3.1]

On 7/31/2022 at 1:15 PM, tikker said:

No harm in trying in my opinion. Science is just a tool in the end and as mr. Savage once said: the difference between science and messing around is writing it down. We accept these things as facts, because they match what is observed but at the same time a lot of credibility comes from the fact that it has been written down and verified over time. A lot of science can sound like magic if you don't come from a scientific field. Going against the status quo is always tricky, but yeah anti-gravity using electric fields from rare radioactive nuclei are a bit too exotic for me as well.

 

It might be possible for some exotic mechanism that can produce a stable isotope of 115 to exist, but the fact that we haven't synthesised it yet should indicate that it's either a very rare and unlikely reaction (or one outside our explored energy ranges) or one that doesn't exist. At least we can say that we won't make or find a big chunk of Moscovium any time soon.

 I'm not "going deep into some conspiracy mindset" 

 

 I'm simply relaying the information as we know it. How many things did you say were "impossible" before they were possible? 

 

 "Magic" is Science that we have not figured out yet. 

 

 It is entirely plausible to create anti-gravity properties with unheard of high voltages from this kind of generator. 

[486DX Win3.1]

On 7/31/2022 at 12:36 PM, Coaxialgamer said:

Super-heavy elements on the far end of the periodic table are usually so unstable that the most stable isotopes have half-lives measured in fractions of a second.

Plutonium is nowhere to be seen in nature, and it has a half-life of 24,000 years: all of the stuff which may have originally been on earth has long since decayed.

These elements, if they ever were on our planet, suffered pretty much the same fate (albeit much more quickly).

 

Element 115 specifically was only ever observed after being synthesized artificially. Its most stable form has a half life of 0.65s, and doesn't exist in nature.

of course it does not exist in nature. If it did then we would be flying around the immediate area of our galaxy by now - jeeezzz

[tikker]

1 hour ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

Then HOW exactly, is it working for them???? HHmmmmm??? 

How is what working for whom?

59 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

I'm simply relaying the information as we know it. How many things did you say were "impossible" before they were possible? 

You mean relaying what Bob Lazar tells you. We have also had many things we said should be possible. Just to name a few:

• Standard Model of particle physics predicting a variety of particles, among which the Higgs boson which was required for certain particles to gain mass
• GR predicting the existence of gravitational waves from merging black holes or neutron stars
• Our understanding of molecular physics predicting we should be able to use radio telescopes to find hydrogen in the Universe

Those are just a few things that we really did not know existed, but that our theories said should exist. Most of the time we don't claim something to be wholly impossible. However, each time we confirm a prediction of a theory we simultaneous gain more confidence in saying that certain events are just so unlikely that it's practically impossible.

 

59 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

It is entirely plausible to create anti-gravity properties with unheard of high voltages from this kind of generator. 

What are your reasons for thinking it is plausible? What do you define as 'anti-gravity'. Planes fly, is that anti-gravity? What kind of generator are you talking about? As I demonstrated above, if the entire Earth was made of moscovium it would have disappeared after 1 minute. The material itself just doesn't live long enough to do anything with. It's like me asking you to run a marathon, but you only get 0.5 seconds to run 42 km. At that point you do enter "impossible" territory. If you want to create such a generator you speak of, you will have to reinvent a substantial chunk of our current physics.

 

The reason we trust the physics we have today is

1. It matches observations
2. It can predict observations

Especially the second one is important. You can often find something that fits your findings, even if you're far from the truth like Ptolemy's epicycles to describe planetary motion, but if it can predict what you should find and you then do find that, like GR predicting the precession of Mercury to surprising accuracy, then you know you may have a strong theory in your hands that is a good description of the reality we see.

 

[486DX Win3.1]

3 hours ago, tikker said:

How is what working for whom?

You mean relaying what Bob Lazar tells you. We have also had many things we said should be possible. Just to name a few:

• Standard Model of particle physics predicting a variety of particles, among which the Higgs boson which was required for certain particles to gain mass
• GR predicting the existence of gravitational waves from merging black holes or neutron stars
• Our understanding of molecular physics predicting we should be able to use radio telescopes to find hydrogen in the Universe

Those are just a few things that we really did not know existed, but that our theories said should exist. Most of the time we don't claim something to be wholly impossible. However, each time we confirm a prediction of a theory we simultaneous gain more confidence in saying that certain events are just so unlikely that it's practically impossible.

 

What are your reasons for thinking it is plausible? What do you define as 'anti-gravity'. Planes fly, is that anti-gravity? What kind of generator are you talking about? As I demonstrated above, if the entire Earth was made of moscovium it would have disappeared after 1 minute. The material itself just doesn't live long enough to do anything with. It's like me asking you to run a marathon, but you only get 0.5 seconds to run 42 km. At that point you do enter "impossible" territory. If you want to create such a generator you speak of, you will have to reinvent a substantial chunk of our current physics.

 

The reason we trust the physics we have today is

1. It matches observations
2. It can predict observations

Especially the second one is important. You can often find something that fits your findings, even if you're far from the truth like Ptolemy's epicycles to describe planetary motion, but if it can predict what you should find and you then do find that, like GR predicting the precession of Mercury to surprising accuracy, then you know you may have a strong theory in your hands that is a good description of the reality we see.

 

I am interested in replying to you. thanks for the detailed and sincere piece of writing. I'm kinda busy with the wife n kids atm. I will get back to this

[dalekphalm]

As far as we understand, no, Moscovium cannot do the things that Bob Lazar has stated. As previously mentioned, the halflife for the most stable isotope is 0.65 seconds or so. Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a more stable version of this element, but if there is, we've never seen it yet, and physics doesn't predict any particularly stable version existing.

 

Personally I'm fascinated by Bob Lazar - there's enough interesting information out there to say he's not totally completely full of shit, in terms of corroborating some of his history. But that doesn't mean what he says about UFO's and Element 115 is correct. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

 

Clearly intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the galaxy (All you need to see statistical proof of that is the fact that if you look at a piece of the sky the size of a grain of sand, there are thousands of galaxies in that spec). I even think it's highly likely that multiple other alien species exist right now within the Milky Way galaxy. However even if all of that is true, there's no evidence that such aliens have the technology to travel interstellar distances, let alone came here specifically.

 

I'd love for UFO's to really be aliens, but we have yet to prove that.

[wseaton]

Lazar seems compelling, and unlike most of the tinfoil hat wearing ufo crowd he's got a practical demeanor. Its a 'i saw what i saw and I dont give a shit if you believe me or not' attitude.

 

The problem is nothing unique about exotic and unstable heavy atoms has any relation to gravity. We don't need to make them. They can be modeled pretty easily. 

 

Another problem is Lazar just doesn't seem like the kind of guy I would want reversing alien tech. He's smart, but he's a gear head and not exactly Manhattan project material. 

[LAwLz]

I've never heard of Bob Lazer before so I looked him up and... I am not sure I agree with people saying he seems reasonable/sane/not full of shit.

 

• The guy claims to have two master's degrees, one in physics and one in electronics. But no evidence of this exists. There are no records of him having a degree from either university he claims to have attended. He also did really poorly in school, which is sadly a quite common trait among conspiracy theorists in general.
• The places he claims to have worked at have no records of him working there either. 
• He has no evidence for any of his claims regarding having worked with alien technology.
• The ideas he proposed regarding E115 seems very unlikely to even work because of things like the extremely short half-life of E115, and even if a stable isotope was found (which seems very unlikely), I don't really see how it would work the way he describes. I haven't been able to find anyone who explains it in "non-crazy" terms either.
• The guy is a known criminal such as being involved with a prostitution ring (he pleaded guilty), selling illegal chemicals through his company used to make fireworks (he also pleaded guilty).

 

Basically, the guy does not have any evidence for anything he says, and evidence indicates that he has lied on multiple occasions before. 

[Sauron]

On 7/31/2022 at 9:41 AM, 486DX Win3.1 said:

recovered UFO Tech

Ok, you can safely disregard anything they say then

[lewdicrous]

I have a bridge for sale, any buyers?

[TVwazhere]

He's an obvious liar; Everyone knows Element 115 just turns people into zombies, duh!

 

 

[tikker]

20 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Personally I'm fascinated by Bob Lazar - there's enough interesting information out there to say he's not totally completely full of shit, in terms of corroborating some of his history. But that doesn't mean what he says about UFO's and Element 115 is correct. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

Supporters of fringe science can have pretty sound reasoning skills. Just look at the Beyond the Curve documentary. Their process there is actually rather solid: they have their theory, they come up with an experiment to test it and even beforehand explore what the outcomes would mean. The ultimate problem is that when the observations disagree with the theory, they stick to the premise that the observations hence must be wrong, while in science it's the other way around. If the measurements are sound (which does not have to be an easy given) then we must accept that the theory is wrong or at least incomplete. It's a blurry line between "proper science" and "crackpot theory" sometimes.

20 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Clearly intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the galaxy (All you need to see statistical proof of that is the fact that if you look at a piece of the sky the size of a grain of sand, there are thousands of galaxies in that spec). I even think it's highly likely that multiple other alien species exist right now within the Milky Way galaxy. However even if all of that is true, there's no evidence that such aliens have the technology to travel interstellar distances, let alone came here specifically.

In that regard, we cannot say cleary at all that there is life elsewhere in the Galaxy or the Universe. We have no evidence that life exists outside of Earth. As you say, however, the amount of galaxies in the Universe, and even the amount of stars with planets in our own Milky Way, do make it seem unlikely for there not to be life elsewhere If we are not a fluke and is what we now call the Fermi paradox.

14 hours ago, wseaton said:

The problem is nothing unique about exotic and unstable heavy atoms has any relation to gravity. We don't need to make them. They can be modeled pretty easily. 

We still need to make it, because we need to verify that our models are correct. This is why things like actually measuring the existenceof the Higgs boson or gravitational waves are such a big deal. They were predicted to exist, but those predictions remained uncertain and unconfirmed until they were actually measured it to exist. If we can think of a theory that would predict a stable Mc isotope to exist it would still need to be confirmed to exist either in the lab or in nature. That theory would also need to be able to predict the multitude of other things that we do know exist.

[IPD]

AFAIK, no element with an atomic weight greater than U238 exists in nature.

 

Explaining valence layers, covalent bonds, and overall stability and reactivity (and how decay is exponentially greater in unstable valence layers)--is why this becomes confusing to the layperson.  Granted it's been a while since I took Chem 2 in H.S.  But from what I remember, the more layers of electrons, the weaker the forces holding them on.

 

p.s.

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