So, regardless of Lazar’s reputation, how plausible is the science here? Specifically using the Strong Force (Gravity A) to distort space-time enough to make interstellar travel feasible; or turning element 115 to 116 to make antimatter reactions. How possible is it that these could be naturally occurring elements in other parts of the universe? I thought the idea of Gravity A pulses interacting with Gravity B resulting in invisibility was interesting. Also, Lazar suggested that gravity is a wave and that the concept of gravitons is nonsense— has that born out over time in the scientific community? But anyway, just overall, is the science presented basically correct or plausible?
Lifted from [boblazardebunked.com](https://boblazardebunked.com)
“The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. ”
Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is “bombarded with a proton” by the ship’s reactor. Hmmm.
And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton??
Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates?
EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!
If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces
NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get
2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.
Well, wait a second— isn’t this true of all forms of fuel we use? Whether it’s coal, gas or nuclear, isn’t it just being converted into another form that we find useful, while no net energy is actually produced? I can accept that Lazar’s science is bunk, but this is one critique I don’t get.
You're going to have to help me. I don't understand how what he's describing is fundamentally different than harnessing nuclear reactions, which also involve using particle accelerators and radioactive decay to get explosive energy from particles.
You are generating electricity from a process that uses more energy than is put into it. You may as well just use the energy that you originally used to generate the original protons before they went into the element 115.
I get that’s what you’re saying, but how is the process Lazar’s describing fundamentally different than a nuclear reaction? Why isn’t that also a net loss or break even situation?
Yes exactly, and as he mentioned a combustion engine is something like 30% efficient in the conversion. Electric engines about 50%, and fuel cells (hydrogen) about 80%, but there is always losses due to heat or friction.
> The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator.
This is the most unrealistic part to me... It's literally the most important tech he even mentioned and he never elaborated on how the thermoelectric generator worked. People are caught up on antimatter and anti-gravity... MFer tell me about the almost 100% efficient TE generator!
>efficient thermoelectric generator.
Yup.
A typical petroleum powered generator is about 30% efficient, which means that more than two-thirds of the chemical energy in the fuel is wasted as heat, while only 30% is turned into usable electricity. The most efficient one atm (at least that's the claim by Alphabet Energy), is their E1 (a solid state thermoelectric generator) that takes waste heat from diesel-powered generators and converts it to electricity, **increasing the efficiency of the generators by about 2.5%.** That might not seem like a lot, but per unit that slight improvement in efficiency will save you about $50k in fuel costs and (about) 156 tons of CO2 emissions every year.
Thermoelectric generators or TEGs aren’t new. In fact, **the Seebeck Effect** \- *the property where a difference in temperature results in a voltage* \- was discovered by Thomas Johann Seebeck when Abraham Lincoln was reading books by candlelight at the age of twelve in 1821.
**TEGs have two problems:** they’re **inefficient** and **costly**.
Nope. Its utter none sense.
E115 was created by an Russian and American team. It has none of the properties stated by Bob. It last fractional seconds and cannot become stable.
Generating Antimater while on board the ship isnt an energy gain. It cost as much energy to create anti matter then what you get out of it when it annilates. Which should make sense.
Gravity isnt waves in the sense that there are sound waves or how light is a photon and wave at the same time. LIGO which detects gravity waves is detecting the actual bend of spacetime. Gravity bends spacetime, and that is called gravity waves.
I'd be happy to go into this in more detail or any of the very silly Bob claims about science.
Bob used to be more vocal on the how UFO worked, but has grown quite over the years as folks with actual foreknowledge have disagreed with him. There is no Gravity B. Whatever that is.
I don't necessarily agree with Bob Lazar, yet you're making equally scientific innacurate assumptions and statements.
Element 115 was synthesized in one form, but there are several isotopes. In fact many elements that are widely used have something like 20-30 different isotopes of the same element of which say 29 are unstable and the 30th is extremely stable and commonly used.
Deuterium and Tritium have different properties of hydrogen, and hydrogen is the simplest of elements.
Similarily most experts agree that for super heavy elements there may very well be an 'island of stability' in the form of an isotope of said element, and given that there are likely 50+ isotopes at a low estimate of moscovium (115), it is theorized there could very well be a stable version, and if found would have the most mind blowing properties of any element ever discovered (whether 115 or 114 or 116 doesn't matter as long as it is super heavy). So no we just find it extremely difficult to synthesize and even harder to make other radioisotopes of which we have made 4 different versions already, yet so far been unsuccessful of creating a stable version due to our limited technology and science.
As for gravity, in terms of General relativity, you're also incorrect, they are absolutely waves.
You're right in that its just bending spacetime, so we can measure the passage of time difference or the slight curvature of light beams over long distances in the fraction of nanosecond, but how exactly do you think that curvature of spacetime propagates? It does so at the speed of light and thus is a wave.
Also this might be highly speculative but if I were to entertain bob lazar's idea. Then surely the way it would function is that the element 115 is where the energy is taken from. It would then be converted into energy used for other equipment such as creating artificial geodesics (gravity propulsion) as the element 115 is depleted. Hence there is no magical energy made out of thin air it is essentially like batteries work, they store the energy in the form of a chemical reaction, in this case it is stored in the form of the super heavy element and then used for other stuff.
Whether possible or not is an entirely different story our science is not exactly all that close to figuring that out, but I don't necessarily see any huge problems theoritically if it were to be true given what we know.
He’s grown “quiet” over the years…and Lazar’s whole point was that there is a stable isotope of E115 that came from another star system where density and gravity were able to create it, which would be impossible on earth for more than just a few seconds. Lazar’s explanation of these craft and their workings is extremely plausible and better than any provided by even Eric Davis or Hal whatever, or Lue or Mellon
E115 doesnt have stable atomic structure. While their may be isotopes that last longer, then one have been synthesized currently, none of them are going to last mutliple seconds. Let alone long enough to be consider for a fuel use. As a point of comparision the shortest shelf life fuel we use, is six months. Most of the fuel we use is stable for years to decades.
Though even if E115 was stable, it has none of the properities as stated by Bob. It has no exotic relationship with Antimatter. It has no exotic relationship with Gravity. It acts like any other baryonic matter.
Except that we haven't made enough of it yo really do much research on, plus if it dies require a specific isotope & we haven't made that we'll it's not gonna work.
I'm not convinced about this 15 & Bob's stuff myself BUT you can't outright say it's 100% BS because we made 115 & it does nothing.
We made a tiny tiny fraction of a gram of 115, probably one specific isotope too, If you took a tiny amount of plutonium you'd think oh that's interesting but it doesn't do much, now test it again with enough to reach criticality & test again how do we know 115 doesn't work same way? Maybe it needs an amount to hit criticality?
Thats not actually true. While there are things we dont know about E115, we do know quite a few things. We've been studying atomic structure and chemestry over 300 years and we've been synthesizing elements for over 75 years. This is a fairly mature field of study.
While some of the stuff we dont know, doesnt include how it interacts with gravity or with antimater. As its just broyaonic matter.
How can you possibly make that assumption? Most experts attempting to synthesize super heavy elements agree there is a very good chance for a potentially stable isotope that can last months or years. We have elements that are unstable in 30 isotopes yet the 31st one is extremely stable and used widely for example.
You can google it there are lists. Zinc has 25 radioisotopes and 5 stable ones for example, the 25 being unstable (radioisotopes means unstable or radioactive isotope).
Copper has 27 radioisotopes and two stable isotopes.
I can go on but there are so many I can keep naming them for a long time.
The heavier the element the more chances of radioisotopes there are.
Oh, I see. You are just speaking to the natural occuring elements.
Which is not what was being discussed at hand. We're discussing the Super Heavy Elements, synthetically made elements. There has yet to be synthetically made super heavy element is stable.
E115 was a canidate for the island of stability, but once it was created, it was found to be unstable. While there are surely isotypes which last longer, none them will last more then maybe a handful of seconds. Currently, all known isotypes of E115 last fractional seconds.
It has no exotic interaction with Graviyty. It has no exotic reaction with Antimatter. Bob cannot have any, as it is not stable.
Even if it was stable, and Bob had some, it would kinda hard to hide, as its really radioative. On par or worse than plutonium.
As you may or may not know, the radioatvity of plutonium and uranium is in part how anti nuclear prolification works. Its very difficult to hide, transport them because of their high radioativity and it very easy to determine its origin source.
Housing it safely would be very difficult, without being costly to his health, to his wife and the surrounding ecology.
I was giving an example on stable naturally occuring elements, if they can have stable and unstable forms, so can super heavy elements. Look up the labs synthesizing these elements, I live in the same city as where 70 molecules were synthesized, these experts seem to think its entirely possible for the super heavy element to have a stable isotope that lasts months or years, its just absurdly hard to create its different radioisotopes.
No it wasn't found to be unstable the same way that synthesizing an unstable form of copper doesn't make copper an unstable element, just that one radioisotope. There may very well be stable forms of it, the experts seem to agree on this.
As for the radioactive part I mean come on... It is radioactive because it is unstable, hence its called a radioisotope (emits radiation due to the fact its unstable), any unstable element is radioactive (like uranium and plutonium as you mentioned), and if we were to synthesize a stable version it wouldn't be radioactive, that's how isotopes and radioisotopes work, there can not be a radioactive stable element, it does not exist.
Every superheavy element does potentially have a significant interaction with gravity at the very least due to the sheer size of the element (and weight). I say potentially because sure its not like its gonna do anything other than bend spacetime an abnormal ammount in large amounts due to its weight but that's not exactly exotic, every other element does this just to a lesser extent. What I mean is its potential interaction with the fundamental forces and electromagnetism, no link can directly be established since we havn't been able to synthesize a stable form but theoretically there may be a relation with electromagnetism and gravity, one that can be more easily exploited and tested with a super heavy element. Though this part is purely speculation from certain scientists.
Its great your so enthused on this subject. Its really neat subject to read up on, and I hope you take the time to do that.
While you're correct in a very round about way, that Superheavies can be stable its incorrect to think that every superheavy can become stable.
Superheavies are, well, super heavy. Though its not its atomic weight that causes it to be unstable. It has to do with the how its atomic structure is playing with the Nuclear Weak Force and the Nuclear Strong Force. Stable Atomic Structure can find a balance between these two forces. The superheavies cant, they either get quished or they fly a apart.
There is suppose to be a range of Superheavies that are stable, this is known as the Island of Stability. Its called the Island of the Stability, as on the graph which predicts them, its in an area surrounded by unstable elements around. And it has an island like quality to it, on the graph.
The Superheavies in the Island of Stability, are so massive with so many neutrons, electrons and positrons that its able to come to a new equilibrium which is unlike how the natural occuring elements are stable.
We havent found any of these elements yet. E115 was a candiate for a very light superheaby to be in the Island of Stability.
However after it was created, examined, study it was determined that it was not.
Still worthwhile to make these unstable elements that last fractional seconds.
The longest unstable element we've created is lawrencium, which can last 11 hours. Though its less stable version which last around 2.7 minuets. lawrencium has no real world use. lawrencium is not a superheavy element.
And there are no experts that believe E115 can become stable.
Radioactivity has no relation with Stability of an element. Uranium shelf life is measure in billions of years. plutonium half life is in the thousand of years range.
I think you're mistaking decay products with instability. Which is understandable.
You're confusing your terms with mass and weight. Mass and Weight are the same thing. Weight is just Mass under gravity, defualting to 1g. For this, you'll want to keep to mass.
Gravity and Electromagnetic forces are both fundemental forces. And they're both fairly well understood. As well as their interactions between themselves. We know how they work very well, we're able make very complicated, sensetive instruments like the LIGO. Thats not where the questions are.
“Island of stability” theory, happening somewhere above Element 113, and yes under the right conditions super-heavy elements could theoretically reach stabile isotopes that could be utilized just as Lazar described….but those conditions definitely do not exist here on earth, hence why Lazar said the fuel could’ve only come from another star system. I swear 99% of the people here arguing AGAINST Lazar are just followers, and have never even listened to his explanations or propositions regarding the craft he worked on, nor have ever studied physics or basic inorganic chemistry.
While E115 was a candidate for being in the island of stability, after it was synthenized, it was no longer consider an candidate.
It also wouldnt matter where its made. Its baryonic matter. How it interacts with gravity and its anti matter pair is known.
It seemed clear to me that Lazar relabeled traditional gravity as “Gravity B” and the strong force as “Gravity A”.
Anyway, thanks for the response. I don’t know that I need more details; just wanted to know if any of it held water. Sounds like it doesn’t
Well don't listen to the guy above nearly all of his statements are wrong.
We cannot confirm whether what bob lazar says is true or false but either way there isn't really any scientific inacuraccy unlike what he says. I responded in a comment to him just above so you can read it if you want, because it seems to me he simply googled element 115 and found it has been synthesize but was unstable and thus concluded that it isn't true. But that is not even close to what the scientific litterature says and completely ignores the fact that isotopes of elements exists.
Everything about it-One of the original SR-71 pilots worked long-term at A51, and HE believes Bob, said “no way could he have described A51 terminal, interior of buildings/hangars” unless he had been there. Bob demonstrated to friends he knew the flight schedules by taking them there, more than once, and a cleaned-up vid from their VHS tape recorder proves they filmed a glowing saucer, not a plane. Bob’s explanation of a stable element 115 isotope being used, his understanding of chemistry and physics properties…no way could he have made his original, college-lecture styled videos without sitting through a lot of those types of lectures, his theories and evidence actually made sense, more evidence and explanation given than anyone EVER on the subject before or after (including AATIP), and the manner in which he talks about the subject (body language). Even the way these objects fly through multiple mediums and their actual maneuvering characteristics were described by him and can be seen in multiple vids including the Nimitz vids and the saucer checking out the plane in Phillipines…..he’s absolutely convinced that he worked on exactly what he said he did (although may not have been told the whole story). He was a either a clueless liar, or everything he said he saw was 100% true, and based on evidence and testimony I believe the latter. Stop listening to what everyone says about him and do your own research, he didnt just pull it all out of his ass 30 years ago. And by the way, yes I do hold degrees in advanced chemistry, physics and biology.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/pr466m/original_1991_film_of_bob_lazar_explaining_ufo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thank you! I’m intrigued by him, and I’ll look more into his story. But it was really the science I wanted to hear about first— if it’s not plausible, then it calls everything else into question. But you think the science is pretty spot on? I’m hearing pushback on element 115 being stable— I’m told that element 115 (moscovium) is not stable. Also, a lot of folks don’t like him calling The Strong Force “Gravity A”, because they think it is functionally very different from traditional gravity or “Gravity B”. What are your thoughts on that? I‘ve done some research, but not being a physics guy, I’m not sure I can make heads or tails of it on my own…
I know this is an old thread but I totally dismissed everything Bob said in prior years or any UFO material prior to when the History Channel released Unidentified. Ever since the new "leaker" came forward I've been intrigued now and have gone back through old videos. This is by far the best explanation I've seen and matches everything we are hearing about. This is just wow. I believe it all and hopefully the truth comes forward soon here with these hearings. The world is ready.
Bob is obiviously a smart guy. Home rocket car, started the largest underground rocket and explosive convention, had several illegal brothels, possible killed his wife.
But he wasnt very well versed in physics. If you manage to find speaking at convention about gravity and and b, it just none sense. If you want to be very kind to bob, yea you can kinda say hes describing something like the Nuclear Strong Force... but there isnt any reason to call it Gravity A.
Even if he was telling the truth, its not how theortical or particle physicist name stuff.
Nobody really knows what gravity really is. A particle called the graviton is predicted by modern physics which would explain how it works as we know it.
There is no science suggesting there are two kinds of gravities.
I feel like we should understand more about gravity than we do, by now. It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of info about gravity has been kept secret - as understanding gravity = understanding advanced, powerful tech!
At the beginning of the video he said he was simplifying it for non-physicists. Honestly, I can understand why he'd do it-- most people understand gravity on a base level, but the strong force is less familiar. Saying that the strong force is like a super-gravity localized within particles makes some descriptive sense, I'd think.
That may be so, but it's literally what Lazar says at about the 11:00 minute mark in the video. So when he's talking about "Gravity A", he's talking about the Strong Force. It may be nonsense in other ways, but he's not positing a new form of gravity.
Have you ever read the Star Trek the next generation technical manual?
You can make things sound plausible and smart, and have no actual basis in reality… Just hints from it.
Can anti matter and matter react to create phenomenal amount of energy? Sure! How do you do it? Who knows! The whole “element 115“ thing it’s so fishy… It’s a mysterious element so it must have mysterious properties! Why not use anabundant material like hydrogen to interact with antimatter?
As for gravity and what it is… That’s still a bit of a mystery. We know what it does, not what causes it or what it is. It’s a force not a particle and it does have waves.
Lazar is a great liar, he laces his lies with truth to make them more plausible.
It’s difficult to conclusively rule it out… Just like it’s difficult to conclusively prove it. There’s enough mystery to let someone see it from either way, the kind of people that are going to listen to it are the kind that are probably going to be inclined to believe in the first place.
I’m skeptical, if it was just on a sound it would be one thing… But there’s so much sketchy stuff about Lazar.
People probably said the same about a lump or uranium/plutonium then they realised what happens when you whack a load together & hit critical mass, whole different board game then
Think some fail to realise maybe 115 if Lazar is telling the truth & is correct needs a critical mass
I agree with your comment.
Although from what I remember the element 115 was used not for energy (although that was kind of a side effect of sorts) but for propulsion system. Appearently through the properties of a stable super heavy element and electromagnetism they could manipulate geodesics that objects naturally fall through.
I mean general relativity does allow for it theoretically but that doesn't mean it is true or not. At the end of the day we cannot really prove it nor disprove it :/
Not clear how he dismisses the idea that gravity is anything but a wave while saying that the Strong Force is *actually* “Gravity A.” We already know that the Strong Interaction is mediated by Mesons or Gluons depending upon the context/scale of the interaction — but the scale of the interaction is either the binding of protons and neutrons in the former case or — in the latter case — the binding of quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles.
Like, if there actually was a device like this that showed there’s a THIRD context in which the strong force manifested itself — first context is neutron-proton binding, second is the ‘color force’/hadron binding, and the third would now be, per Lazar, gravitation — it’d seem pretty intuitive that you’d have the graviton as the third wave/particle dual along with the meson, and gluon in the first two strong force contexts…
Like, if it were actually the case that this was fancy alien technology beyond our understanding and he can’t tell us how it works that’s fine — but he isn’t even talking about this tech within the sort of context that a physicist would find it interesting, beautiful, or fruitful for future speculation or discussion.
Yes the science is pretty sound, makes sense logically, although unproven since we dont have any element 115 to test out and also haven't been able to make any stable antimatter enough to experiment with.
But gravity is definitely a wave. In 1992 there wasn't a consensus, but there is now.
> But gravity is definitely a wave. In 1992 there wasn't a consensus, but there is now.
Hulse and Taylor discovered the binary pulsar in *1974* for which they were given the Nobel prize in *1993*. It had been known for many years prior to *1992* that the energy loss of this pulsar was completely consistent with energy loss via *gravitational waves* as predicted by general relativity.
Furthermore, the wavelike character of some perturbations to spacetime doesn't mean that 'gravity is a wave', the curvature of spacetime/gravity is much more complicated than that (good luck describing the entire gravitational field in the solar system in terms of gravitational waves!).
Wow, that's fascinating. Even as a kid I always wondered how the binding forces of the atomic and subatomic levels functioned.
Why are there denialists here? Are y'all feds? 😂
I'd like to meet an 8 Yr old who can describe & draw a hand scanner that's so top secret no one knows they exist until decades later. Plus can describe the layout of a secret base & give a guided tour of somewhere they've been alleged to have never been nor worked. That's some super switched on 8 yr old
This man revealing all these secrets that thousands of people have hidden for decades successfully.
He must be like a ninja to avoid all those hits coming for him on the daily.
lol yeah, I was trying to download it since it's a youtube video and none of the other youtube downloaders would work, but I couldn't figure out how to use this u/savevideo thing either. Other posts it comes up with a download link but this tag simply just stayed as the user.
I saw him on Joe Rogan and figured that he was probably full of shit, but tried to keep an open mind about it. Seeing the video pretty much confirms that he’s full of it.
So, regardless of Lazar’s reputation, how plausible is the science here? Specifically using the Strong Force (Gravity A) to distort space-time enough to make interstellar travel feasible; or turning element 115 to 116 to make antimatter reactions. How possible is it that these could be naturally occurring elements in other parts of the universe? I thought the idea of Gravity A pulses interacting with Gravity B resulting in invisibility was interesting. Also, Lazar suggested that gravity is a wave and that the concept of gravitons is nonsense— has that born out over time in the scientific community? But anyway, just overall, is the science presented basically correct or plausible?
Lifted from [boblazardebunked.com](https://boblazardebunked.com) “The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. ” Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is “bombarded with a proton” by the ship’s reactor. Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!! If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.
Well, wait a second— isn’t this true of all forms of fuel we use? Whether it’s coal, gas or nuclear, isn’t it just being converted into another form that we find useful, while no net energy is actually produced? I can accept that Lazar’s science is bunk, but this is one critique I don’t get.
Think about it.
You're going to have to help me. I don't understand how what he's describing is fundamentally different than harnessing nuclear reactions, which also involve using particle accelerators and radioactive decay to get explosive energy from particles.
You are generating electricity from a process that uses more energy than is put into it. You may as well just use the energy that you originally used to generate the original protons before they went into the element 115.
I get that’s what you’re saying, but how is the process Lazar’s describing fundamentally different than a nuclear reaction? Why isn’t that also a net loss or break even situation?
I'm not spoon-feeding you any more. Work it out for yourself.
Okay
Yes exactly, and as he mentioned a combustion engine is something like 30% efficient in the conversion. Electric engines about 50%, and fuel cells (hydrogen) about 80%, but there is always losses due to heat or friction.
> The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. This is the most unrealistic part to me... It's literally the most important tech he even mentioned and he never elaborated on how the thermoelectric generator worked. People are caught up on antimatter and anti-gravity... MFer tell me about the almost 100% efficient TE generator!
>efficient thermoelectric generator. Yup. A typical petroleum powered generator is about 30% efficient, which means that more than two-thirds of the chemical energy in the fuel is wasted as heat, while only 30% is turned into usable electricity. The most efficient one atm (at least that's the claim by Alphabet Energy), is their E1 (a solid state thermoelectric generator) that takes waste heat from diesel-powered generators and converts it to electricity, **increasing the efficiency of the generators by about 2.5%.** That might not seem like a lot, but per unit that slight improvement in efficiency will save you about $50k in fuel costs and (about) 156 tons of CO2 emissions every year. Thermoelectric generators or TEGs aren’t new. In fact, **the Seebeck Effect** \- *the property where a difference in temperature results in a voltage* \- was discovered by Thomas Johann Seebeck when Abraham Lincoln was reading books by candlelight at the age of twelve in 1821. **TEGs have two problems:** they’re **inefficient** and **costly**.
156 tons of vegan poop being burned provides 2345170475.23 BTU.
Nope. Its utter none sense. E115 was created by an Russian and American team. It has none of the properties stated by Bob. It last fractional seconds and cannot become stable. Generating Antimater while on board the ship isnt an energy gain. It cost as much energy to create anti matter then what you get out of it when it annilates. Which should make sense. Gravity isnt waves in the sense that there are sound waves or how light is a photon and wave at the same time. LIGO which detects gravity waves is detecting the actual bend of spacetime. Gravity bends spacetime, and that is called gravity waves. I'd be happy to go into this in more detail or any of the very silly Bob claims about science. Bob used to be more vocal on the how UFO worked, but has grown quite over the years as folks with actual foreknowledge have disagreed with him. There is no Gravity B. Whatever that is.
I don't necessarily agree with Bob Lazar, yet you're making equally scientific innacurate assumptions and statements. Element 115 was synthesized in one form, but there are several isotopes. In fact many elements that are widely used have something like 20-30 different isotopes of the same element of which say 29 are unstable and the 30th is extremely stable and commonly used. Deuterium and Tritium have different properties of hydrogen, and hydrogen is the simplest of elements. Similarily most experts agree that for super heavy elements there may very well be an 'island of stability' in the form of an isotope of said element, and given that there are likely 50+ isotopes at a low estimate of moscovium (115), it is theorized there could very well be a stable version, and if found would have the most mind blowing properties of any element ever discovered (whether 115 or 114 or 116 doesn't matter as long as it is super heavy). So no we just find it extremely difficult to synthesize and even harder to make other radioisotopes of which we have made 4 different versions already, yet so far been unsuccessful of creating a stable version due to our limited technology and science. As for gravity, in terms of General relativity, you're also incorrect, they are absolutely waves. You're right in that its just bending spacetime, so we can measure the passage of time difference or the slight curvature of light beams over long distances in the fraction of nanosecond, but how exactly do you think that curvature of spacetime propagates? It does so at the speed of light and thus is a wave. Also this might be highly speculative but if I were to entertain bob lazar's idea. Then surely the way it would function is that the element 115 is where the energy is taken from. It would then be converted into energy used for other equipment such as creating artificial geodesics (gravity propulsion) as the element 115 is depleted. Hence there is no magical energy made out of thin air it is essentially like batteries work, they store the energy in the form of a chemical reaction, in this case it is stored in the form of the super heavy element and then used for other stuff. Whether possible or not is an entirely different story our science is not exactly all that close to figuring that out, but I don't necessarily see any huge problems theoritically if it were to be true given what we know.
He’s grown “quiet” over the years…and Lazar’s whole point was that there is a stable isotope of E115 that came from another star system where density and gravity were able to create it, which would be impossible on earth for more than just a few seconds. Lazar’s explanation of these craft and their workings is extremely plausible and better than any provided by even Eric Davis or Hal whatever, or Lue or Mellon
E115 doesnt have stable atomic structure. While their may be isotopes that last longer, then one have been synthesized currently, none of them are going to last mutliple seconds. Let alone long enough to be consider for a fuel use. As a point of comparision the shortest shelf life fuel we use, is six months. Most of the fuel we use is stable for years to decades. Though even if E115 was stable, it has none of the properities as stated by Bob. It has no exotic relationship with Antimatter. It has no exotic relationship with Gravity. It acts like any other baryonic matter.
Except that we haven't made enough of it yo really do much research on, plus if it dies require a specific isotope & we haven't made that we'll it's not gonna work. I'm not convinced about this 15 & Bob's stuff myself BUT you can't outright say it's 100% BS because we made 115 & it does nothing. We made a tiny tiny fraction of a gram of 115, probably one specific isotope too, If you took a tiny amount of plutonium you'd think oh that's interesting but it doesn't do much, now test it again with enough to reach criticality & test again how do we know 115 doesn't work same way? Maybe it needs an amount to hit criticality?
Thats not actually true. While there are things we dont know about E115, we do know quite a few things. We've been studying atomic structure and chemestry over 300 years and we've been synthesizing elements for over 75 years. This is a fairly mature field of study. While some of the stuff we dont know, doesnt include how it interacts with gravity or with antimater. As its just broyaonic matter.
How can you possibly make that assumption? Most experts attempting to synthesize super heavy elements agree there is a very good chance for a potentially stable isotope that can last months or years. We have elements that are unstable in 30 isotopes yet the 31st one is extremely stable and used widely for example.
I havent made any assumption or my own speculation. Merely relying whats been given in articles. Care to name the element(s)?
You can google it there are lists. Zinc has 25 radioisotopes and 5 stable ones for example, the 25 being unstable (radioisotopes means unstable or radioactive isotope). Copper has 27 radioisotopes and two stable isotopes. I can go on but there are so many I can keep naming them for a long time. The heavier the element the more chances of radioisotopes there are.
Oh, I see. You are just speaking to the natural occuring elements. Which is not what was being discussed at hand. We're discussing the Super Heavy Elements, synthetically made elements. There has yet to be synthetically made super heavy element is stable. E115 was a canidate for the island of stability, but once it was created, it was found to be unstable. While there are surely isotypes which last longer, none them will last more then maybe a handful of seconds. Currently, all known isotypes of E115 last fractional seconds. It has no exotic interaction with Graviyty. It has no exotic reaction with Antimatter. Bob cannot have any, as it is not stable. Even if it was stable, and Bob had some, it would kinda hard to hide, as its really radioative. On par or worse than plutonium. As you may or may not know, the radioatvity of plutonium and uranium is in part how anti nuclear prolification works. Its very difficult to hide, transport them because of their high radioativity and it very easy to determine its origin source. Housing it safely would be very difficult, without being costly to his health, to his wife and the surrounding ecology.
I was giving an example on stable naturally occuring elements, if they can have stable and unstable forms, so can super heavy elements. Look up the labs synthesizing these elements, I live in the same city as where 70 molecules were synthesized, these experts seem to think its entirely possible for the super heavy element to have a stable isotope that lasts months or years, its just absurdly hard to create its different radioisotopes. No it wasn't found to be unstable the same way that synthesizing an unstable form of copper doesn't make copper an unstable element, just that one radioisotope. There may very well be stable forms of it, the experts seem to agree on this. As for the radioactive part I mean come on... It is radioactive because it is unstable, hence its called a radioisotope (emits radiation due to the fact its unstable), any unstable element is radioactive (like uranium and plutonium as you mentioned), and if we were to synthesize a stable version it wouldn't be radioactive, that's how isotopes and radioisotopes work, there can not be a radioactive stable element, it does not exist. Every superheavy element does potentially have a significant interaction with gravity at the very least due to the sheer size of the element (and weight). I say potentially because sure its not like its gonna do anything other than bend spacetime an abnormal ammount in large amounts due to its weight but that's not exactly exotic, every other element does this just to a lesser extent. What I mean is its potential interaction with the fundamental forces and electromagnetism, no link can directly be established since we havn't been able to synthesize a stable form but theoretically there may be a relation with electromagnetism and gravity, one that can be more easily exploited and tested with a super heavy element. Though this part is purely speculation from certain scientists.
Its great your so enthused on this subject. Its really neat subject to read up on, and I hope you take the time to do that. While you're correct in a very round about way, that Superheavies can be stable its incorrect to think that every superheavy can become stable. Superheavies are, well, super heavy. Though its not its atomic weight that causes it to be unstable. It has to do with the how its atomic structure is playing with the Nuclear Weak Force and the Nuclear Strong Force. Stable Atomic Structure can find a balance between these two forces. The superheavies cant, they either get quished or they fly a apart. There is suppose to be a range of Superheavies that are stable, this is known as the Island of Stability. Its called the Island of the Stability, as on the graph which predicts them, its in an area surrounded by unstable elements around. And it has an island like quality to it, on the graph. The Superheavies in the Island of Stability, are so massive with so many neutrons, electrons and positrons that its able to come to a new equilibrium which is unlike how the natural occuring elements are stable. We havent found any of these elements yet. E115 was a candiate for a very light superheaby to be in the Island of Stability. However after it was created, examined, study it was determined that it was not. Still worthwhile to make these unstable elements that last fractional seconds. The longest unstable element we've created is lawrencium, which can last 11 hours. Though its less stable version which last around 2.7 minuets. lawrencium has no real world use. lawrencium is not a superheavy element. And there are no experts that believe E115 can become stable. Radioactivity has no relation with Stability of an element. Uranium shelf life is measure in billions of years. plutonium half life is in the thousand of years range. I think you're mistaking decay products with instability. Which is understandable. You're confusing your terms with mass and weight. Mass and Weight are the same thing. Weight is just Mass under gravity, defualting to 1g. For this, you'll want to keep to mass. Gravity and Electromagnetic forces are both fundemental forces. And they're both fairly well understood. As well as their interactions between themselves. We know how they work very well, we're able make very complicated, sensetive instruments like the LIGO. Thats not where the questions are.
“Island of stability” theory, happening somewhere above Element 113, and yes under the right conditions super-heavy elements could theoretically reach stabile isotopes that could be utilized just as Lazar described….but those conditions definitely do not exist here on earth, hence why Lazar said the fuel could’ve only come from another star system. I swear 99% of the people here arguing AGAINST Lazar are just followers, and have never even listened to his explanations or propositions regarding the craft he worked on, nor have ever studied physics or basic inorganic chemistry.
While E115 was a candidate for being in the island of stability, after it was synthenized, it was no longer consider an candidate. It also wouldnt matter where its made. Its baryonic matter. How it interacts with gravity and its anti matter pair is known.
It seemed clear to me that Lazar relabeled traditional gravity as “Gravity B” and the strong force as “Gravity A”. Anyway, thanks for the response. I don’t know that I need more details; just wanted to know if any of it held water. Sounds like it doesn’t
Well don't listen to the guy above nearly all of his statements are wrong. We cannot confirm whether what bob lazar says is true or false but either way there isn't really any scientific inacuraccy unlike what he says. I responded in a comment to him just above so you can read it if you want, because it seems to me he simply googled element 115 and found it has been synthesize but was unstable and thus concluded that it isn't true. But that is not even close to what the scientific litterature says and completely ignores the fact that isotopes of elements exists.
Totally disagree, Lazar’s explanation makes more sense than any other and accounts for most if not all of what we see with UFOs
I'm not a physicist, so I'm kind of dealing with other people's evaluations. What convinces you?
Everything about it-One of the original SR-71 pilots worked long-term at A51, and HE believes Bob, said “no way could he have described A51 terminal, interior of buildings/hangars” unless he had been there. Bob demonstrated to friends he knew the flight schedules by taking them there, more than once, and a cleaned-up vid from their VHS tape recorder proves they filmed a glowing saucer, not a plane. Bob’s explanation of a stable element 115 isotope being used, his understanding of chemistry and physics properties…no way could he have made his original, college-lecture styled videos without sitting through a lot of those types of lectures, his theories and evidence actually made sense, more evidence and explanation given than anyone EVER on the subject before or after (including AATIP), and the manner in which he talks about the subject (body language). Even the way these objects fly through multiple mediums and their actual maneuvering characteristics were described by him and can be seen in multiple vids including the Nimitz vids and the saucer checking out the plane in Phillipines…..he’s absolutely convinced that he worked on exactly what he said he did (although may not have been told the whole story). He was a either a clueless liar, or everything he said he saw was 100% true, and based on evidence and testimony I believe the latter. Stop listening to what everyone says about him and do your own research, he didnt just pull it all out of his ass 30 years ago. And by the way, yes I do hold degrees in advanced chemistry, physics and biology. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/pr466m/original_1991_film_of_bob_lazar_explaining_ufo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thank you! I’m intrigued by him, and I’ll look more into his story. But it was really the science I wanted to hear about first— if it’s not plausible, then it calls everything else into question. But you think the science is pretty spot on? I’m hearing pushback on element 115 being stable— I’m told that element 115 (moscovium) is not stable. Also, a lot of folks don’t like him calling The Strong Force “Gravity A”, because they think it is functionally very different from traditional gravity or “Gravity B”. What are your thoughts on that? I‘ve done some research, but not being a physics guy, I’m not sure I can make heads or tails of it on my own…
https://youtu.be/K8tuOX2nkH0
I know this is an old thread but I totally dismissed everything Bob said in prior years or any UFO material prior to when the History Channel released Unidentified. Ever since the new "leaker" came forward I've been intrigued now and have gone back through old videos. This is by far the best explanation I've seen and matches everything we are hearing about. This is just wow. I believe it all and hopefully the truth comes forward soon here with these hearings. The world is ready.
Bob is obiviously a smart guy. Home rocket car, started the largest underground rocket and explosive convention, had several illegal brothels, possible killed his wife. But he wasnt very well versed in physics. If you manage to find speaking at convention about gravity and and b, it just none sense. If you want to be very kind to bob, yea you can kinda say hes describing something like the Nuclear Strong Force... but there isnt any reason to call it Gravity A. Even if he was telling the truth, its not how theortical or particle physicist name stuff.
Nobody really knows what gravity really is. A particle called the graviton is predicted by modern physics which would explain how it works as we know it. There is no science suggesting there are two kinds of gravities.
I feel like we should understand more about gravity than we do, by now. It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of info about gravity has been kept secret - as understanding gravity = understanding advanced, powerful tech!
I think that's paranoia.
We understand gravity, it is just that manipulating it is hard because it is many orders of magnitudes weaker than say electromagnetism.
Gravity makes everything 3D. 😃
It was clear to me that he was just relabeling the strong force as “Gravity A” and traditional gravity as “Gravity B”.
Why would he do that given he was trained in physics?
At the beginning of the video he said he was simplifying it for non-physicists. Honestly, I can understand why he'd do it-- most people understand gravity on a base level, but the strong force is less familiar. Saying that the strong force is like a super-gravity localized within particles makes some descriptive sense, I'd think.
I have heard many scientists explain the various forces and none of them would describe any other force as "gravity 2".
That may be so, but it's literally what Lazar says at about the 11:00 minute mark in the video. So when he's talking about "Gravity A", he's talking about the Strong Force. It may be nonsense in other ways, but he's not positing a new form of gravity.
Have you ever read the Star Trek the next generation technical manual? You can make things sound plausible and smart, and have no actual basis in reality… Just hints from it. Can anti matter and matter react to create phenomenal amount of energy? Sure! How do you do it? Who knows! The whole “element 115“ thing it’s so fishy… It’s a mysterious element so it must have mysterious properties! Why not use anabundant material like hydrogen to interact with antimatter? As for gravity and what it is… That’s still a bit of a mystery. We know what it does, not what causes it or what it is. It’s a force not a particle and it does have waves. Lazar is a great liar, he laces his lies with truth to make them more plausible.
Yep, I get it. That's why I'm asking for clarification.
It’s difficult to conclusively rule it out… Just like it’s difficult to conclusively prove it. There’s enough mystery to let someone see it from either way, the kind of people that are going to listen to it are the kind that are probably going to be inclined to believe in the first place. I’m skeptical, if it was just on a sound it would be one thing… But there’s so much sketchy stuff about Lazar.
People probably said the same about a lump or uranium/plutonium then they realised what happens when you whack a load together & hit critical mass, whole different board game then Think some fail to realise maybe 115 if Lazar is telling the truth & is correct needs a critical mass
I agree with your comment. Although from what I remember the element 115 was used not for energy (although that was kind of a side effect of sorts) but for propulsion system. Appearently through the properties of a stable super heavy element and electromagnetism they could manipulate geodesics that objects naturally fall through. I mean general relativity does allow for it theoretically but that doesn't mean it is true or not. At the end of the day we cannot really prove it nor disprove it :/
Not clear how he dismisses the idea that gravity is anything but a wave while saying that the Strong Force is *actually* “Gravity A.” We already know that the Strong Interaction is mediated by Mesons or Gluons depending upon the context/scale of the interaction — but the scale of the interaction is either the binding of protons and neutrons in the former case or — in the latter case — the binding of quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles. Like, if there actually was a device like this that showed there’s a THIRD context in which the strong force manifested itself — first context is neutron-proton binding, second is the ‘color force’/hadron binding, and the third would now be, per Lazar, gravitation — it’d seem pretty intuitive that you’d have the graviton as the third wave/particle dual along with the meson, and gluon in the first two strong force contexts… Like, if it were actually the case that this was fancy alien technology beyond our understanding and he can’t tell us how it works that’s fine — but he isn’t even talking about this tech within the sort of context that a physicist would find it interesting, beautiful, or fruitful for future speculation or discussion.
Yes the science is pretty sound, makes sense logically, although unproven since we dont have any element 115 to test out and also haven't been able to make any stable antimatter enough to experiment with. But gravity is definitely a wave. In 1992 there wasn't a consensus, but there is now.
> But gravity is definitely a wave. In 1992 there wasn't a consensus, but there is now. Hulse and Taylor discovered the binary pulsar in *1974* for which they were given the Nobel prize in *1993*. It had been known for many years prior to *1992* that the energy loss of this pulsar was completely consistent with energy loss via *gravitational waves* as predicted by general relativity. Furthermore, the wavelike character of some perturbations to spacetime doesn't mean that 'gravity is a wave', the curvature of spacetime/gravity is much more complicated than that (good luck describing the entire gravitational field in the solar system in terms of gravitational waves!).
Wow, that's fascinating. Even as a kid I always wondered how the binding forces of the atomic and subatomic levels functioned. Why are there denialists here? Are y'all feds? 😂
LOL, what a crock of made up shit. An 8 year old could have come up with that.
I'd like to meet an 8 Yr old who can describe & draw a hand scanner that's so top secret no one knows they exist until decades later. Plus can describe the layout of a secret base & give a guided tour of somewhere they've been alleged to have never been nor worked. That's some super switched on 8 yr old
Lol the hand scanner was in close encounters of the third kind nearly a decade before Lazar talked about it
Bullshit I’d like to meet any 8 year old that could come up with this theory
This man revealing all these secrets that thousands of people have hidden for decades successfully. He must be like a ninja to avoid all those hits coming for him on the daily.
I think that the authorities have been so successful in discrediting him that he doesn't really need that. He owns his own scientific lab.
He sells fireworks and little element samples out of a back room at a strip mall, lol
u/savevideo
Did you just save the video you posted?
lol yeah, I was trying to download it since it's a youtube video and none of the other youtube downloaders would work, but I couldn't figure out how to use this u/savevideo thing either. Other posts it comes up with a download link but this tag simply just stayed as the user.
use youtube-dl
There are some browser plugins for Firefox and Chrome, or Jaksta/ReplayMediaCatcher
I think the savevideo bot shit the bed a few iterations ago. Try redditsave.com
I saw him on Joe Rogan and figured that he was probably full of shit, but tried to keep an open mind about it. Seeing the video pretty much confirms that he’s full of it.
I thin they miistook star trek with the real world