Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?

[Stryder]

As I mentioned the electron shift was depicted in one text, although I know what you mean Blackholesun as there was that alchemy experiment that converted gold to lead through the use of a television and a freezer. This meant the reaction which generated a higher atomic number (ergo electrons) is actually down to the photon bombardment of the metal and the entanglement caused by it's cooling (slowing).

I have also read an article on Neutron Rays, which are basically rays generated for the use in decaying certain materials that fire short lived Neutrons. I only mention this to explain that the generation of the Ray is just through equipment and energy and that the Neutron's existance prior was just a different energy state. Therefore for a reaction to occur it just requires the basis of energy, which is where the electron came into the original topic from it's collisive nature.

[Btw this is to the guys that just love to argue. What I have written here is IMOO, however if I am truly wrong about something do me a favour and supply a credible source stating the reality not to raise your own esteme to prove me wrong in something but to benefit my understand and those that read these posts in an attempt to learn about either general philosophies or physics.]

 

[blackholesun]

First off atomic number is the number of protrons. It is not the number of electrons. Again electrons have nothing to do with nuclear reactions that you specify. An atom can have no electrons (ions) and is still consided belonging to that element or it can have more electrons in its outer shells can be charged.

Alchemy and freezers huh? Provide the link; that's all I'll say.

Do you know what neutrons are? A "ray" of neutrons are just a beam of neutrons created from a sustained nuclear reaction (ie a particle accelerator firing ions into beryillium for example) that has filtered everything else away with energy specific barriers and magnets.

So whereever you are getting your info from please get it elsewhere or provide a credible link to prove me wrong.

 

[FieryIce]

Since Stryder in its infinite wisdom locked the Titan thread, the picture goes here then.

In the larger jpg format of this image that is offered to view by the gods at NASA, there are sites on Titan that are highly suspect to show CS Crater Chains, for instance the bottom left corner.

PIA06990: Titan Vs. Mars

 

[Stryder]

Blackholesun,
Firstly as for a link to the alchemy experiment, I don't think there is one. It was actually an experiment on a program of the BBC's called "It will never work". It was suggested in one persons search that the title of such a program was different however from my memory on it, it was that program.

My basic assumption of atomics is this:
# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can.
# An added electron to an orbit of an atom increases a gravimetric pull upon the Nucleus and Proton causing an Oscillation, this is what changes the supposed Proton numbers.
(The latter is suggested from an explaination of "Schrodingers Cat" and a Particle-Waveform duality principle, where oscillation generates a waveform from a particle due to it's multiple positioning due to oscillation.)

My point here was that a Neutron Ray is like the generation of such an oscillation through Neutrons, As you suggest it does involve the same mechanics as you state with the particle accelerator, but the acceleration is used to cause a higher oscillation of waveforms that are then generated into the Ray.

 

[Avatar]

Since Stryder in its infinite wisdom locked the Titan thread, the picture goes here then.

oooooo wow... I'm speechless! I see, I see!
say, do you see craterchains in the cookies you eat too?

 

[FieryIce]

However we *hopefully* will know the answer if those nice people at NASA respond to the e-mail I just sent in regards to this. I know it could be unlikely that its answered because of the nature of the e-mail however if they have a few spare minutes someone might answer to set the record straight about any relationship between NASA and CS crater chains.

Stryder, did you ever get a response from NASA? Did you just fill out a form on their web site that is an email to their webmaster?

Why not email the Department of Defense directly to get a more prompt response?

 

[phlogistician]

My basic assumption of atomics is this:
# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can.

Wrong I'm afraid, a process called 'K electron capture' means that protons combine with an electron, and become a neutron. The mass number of the atom in question remains the same, but it's atomic number drops by one, so protons do shift from one state to another, from being charged, to being neutral.

# An added electron to an orbit of an atom increases a gravimetric pull upon the Nucleus and Proton causing an Oscillation, this is what changes the supposed Proton numbers.
(The latter is suggested from an explaination of "Schrodingers Cat" and a Particle-Waveform duality principle, where oscillation generates a waveform from a particle due to it's multiple positioning due to oscillation.)

Pseudo babble! You can't just go adding electrons into orbits, and charge, and gravity are so far unrelated. Unless you're working on a proof for the GUT, of course.

My point here was that a Neutron Ray ... are then generated into the Ray.

A neutron ray? How is a collimated beam of neutrons made please?

 

[Stryder]

The NASA query was never responded to, but I didn't expect they would for the nature of what it entailed. The last thing they would be doing is conversating about the Reality of whether your craterchain theorum was discussed with them, especially since I don't know who your "contact" was. If you named a contact it would be far easier to attempt to contact them.

As for my atomic explaination. As I mentioned previously I can and will probably be wrong, however it is the model that I have that admittedly is GUT based, as contested as that is.

The aspect of the Neutron Ray wasn't so much about it's creation or use, but the life expectancy of a Neutron was what I was really looking at, at the time. Neutron's that aren't in a relationship with particles "die". The reason I was on about electrons shifting from one atom to another under specific conditions (notibly a nuclear blast from my reference) is because that Einsteinium was an "unstable" element that reverted to a different element due to its instability, and of course the nature of chain reactions within atomics (Which are caused from the electron shifts).

I'll just have to get hold of a few more books, since Apparently the ones I have are contested so.

 

[blackholesun]

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html

Beta decay is an example of electrons in nuclear reactions but they don't initiate or dictate how the reaction starts. Electrons deal with oxidation and chemical reactions.

"My point here was that a Neutron Ray is like the generation of such an oscillation through Neutrons, As you suggest it does involve the same mechanics as you state with the particle accelerator, but the acceleration is used to cause a higher oscillation of waveforms that are then generated into the Ray."

No. A particle accelerator accelerates subatomic matter or ions into each other or a into a static sample. The collisions are few and far between with the nucleus but given the number of ions or subatomic particles in the beam you really don't have to wait long. If you look at the fragments thrown off you'll see that even though some is beta radiation, most is neutrons and ion fragments due to proton or neutron absorptions.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/nucl/node5.html

"# Protons do not shift from one atomic state to another, Electrons can."

Notice the word atomic state. Electrons jump energy levels but you don't see atoms splitting because of it.

"Neutron's that aren't in a relationship with particles "die"."

So? They have a half life just like everything else. It's at 15 minutes.

phlogistician you can get a beam of neutrons if you use a reaction that is a high neutron producer. For example if you collide Lithium 7 with protrons you get Beryllium 7 and neutrons as byproducts. If you set up the collisions right so that the incidence angle of the resulting neutron release is pointed toward your experiments you can use metal foils and magnetic fields to strip away highly energetic particles and charged particles. What is left is a beam of neutrons..but of course they are non-steerable.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician you can get a beam of neutrons if you use a reaction that is a high neutron producer. ....but of course they are non-steerable.

Thanks, but I wanted Stryder to explain, because I think his explanation would have have top comedy value. Given that he doesn't understand simple physics like conservative energy fields, his thoughts on atomic physics should be a hoot.

The context in which he was talking, using terms like 'particle accelerator' and 'waveform' I'd hoped were going to lead to some more pseudo-babble, and perhaps a description of some apparatus he had envisioned.

 

[Stryder]

Thanks for your Response Blackholesun. And I mean thanks, you've been good to actually supply what you know rather than ridicule that to me is admirable.

Phlogistician, I'm not going to complain about you wanting some sort of comedic value from my interpretation of things but this is where you and I differ. I don't mention my points without knowing that I probably do have some things wrongly asserted but I'm open to errors and flaws within my logic and hope that people like Blackholesun could occasionally honor me with a correction in logic rather than mear mockery of logic.

I personally don't build fantasiful machinery although I do have some philosophies that aren't necessarily correct, however if those philosophies are truly of value they will stand critism, but critism of fact as apposed to critism of mockery.

 

[phlogistician]

I don't mention my points without knowing that I probably do have some things wrongly asserted but I'm open to errors and flaws within my logic and hope that people like Blackholesun could occasionally honor me with a correction in logic rather than mear mockery of logic.

For corrections to be made, what you post has to be more than just techno-babble. Corrections can only be made if the basic framework of the post has it's basis in fact. Your posts, however, are often just a string of words, and completely meaningless.

Instead of posting fanciful rubbish, and hoping to be corrected, why not actually study real phsyics? It would be far more productive.

I personally don't build fantasiful machinery although I do have some philosophies that aren't necessarily correct, however if those philosophies are truly of value they will stand critism, but critism of fact as apposed to critism of mockery.

They don't stand criticism though do they? You haven't managed to push water uphill with a cunning arrangement of pipes yet have you? And when told it won't work, you wouldn't accept that. Even when your experiment failed, you still wouldn't let go of your pet theory, but assumed a flaw in the apparatus. If this is your grasp of science, nuclear physics is way beyond your grasp, so stop postulating. Get the basics learned, and then move on.

 

[Stryder]

Phlog... Was there actually any point to your little outburst.

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it. I know they probably just spoke on the subject that they know pushing my comments to one side which I'm not complaining about, in fact I'm glad they did otherwise I would probably be having the sort of trouble with you in the way that you pick out some thing and turn the discussion into a merry-go-round.

You mention the "Water up hill" experiment, however you don't explain my purpose for doing such an experiment which is to both learn something for myself and to teach others if I actually get around to doing the mathematical model that needs to be generated beforehand. It's not about perpetual motion or anything like that, as far as I'm concerned it matters not if it works or if its a complete failure as long as whatever is done is well documentated.

As for my Physics basics, I have a better understanding than you appear to think, but that is due to the books I've read. There were only sketchy parts that I had to theorize for myself since the book didn't contain the information, however my speculation if accurate proves either the consensus or if inaccurate just and error in judgement not logic.

Question for you Phlog... Are you going to continue this commentary towards me? do you not grow tired? Do you not have something better to do? Spinning around this merry-go-round do you not feel motion sickness?

 

[blackholesun]

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it.

I have no problem with it at all.....IF you're willing to listen and in the process learn from what is said back to you. That is one problem I have with other certain folks that populate this section. That said, here is an excellent web site for those to get started with:

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/

Read it...absorb it...go out and seach for more...repeat!

I had to do the math for a bit of this subject matter. The math may not be the most interesting material in the world but it gives you the perspective into WHY those of us see this as the overwhelmingly superior theory of atomic physics. I urge everyone to work through a few problems sometime.

 

[phlogistician]

Phlog... Was there actually any point to your little outburst.

What outburst? Did I sound emotional? Use expletives? It wasn't an outburst Stryder, that's you using inappropriate words again. It was a critique of your posts, and your attitude.

You complain that I speak "babble" in some form, however Blackholesun didn't have a problem with it.

But does he actually find any meaning in your babble? Does your babble communicate? I guess he's more patient with your blind stabbing than I am, but then, maybe he's had to correct you less, and hasn't used so much patience up.

You mention the "Water up hill" experiment, ... It's not about perpetual motion or anything like that,

Really? Because in this topic;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28836&page=2&pp=20

You say;

I created a diagram some time back for a perpetual motion system using liquid

But then later on in that that thread, relating to a new diagram you said;

I'm not suggesting that the system would be completely perpetual

are you confused? Then you said;

however I was suggesting that certain things contradict the overall rulings about why such systems can't work.

I and several others told you it wouldn't work back then, but you didn't believe us. You have still failed to make it work. All this in a thread about perpetual energy. You didn't tell us your results until pressed either, so who was going to learn?

As for my Physics basics, I have a better understanding than you appear to think,

You don't demonstrate that Stryder. Pushing water uphill. Failing to understand the difference between inter and intra molecular bonds, all fairly basic (GCSE) stuff.

Question for you Phlog... Are you going to continue this commentary towards me? do you not grow tired? Do you not have something better to do?

It's not just you though, is it? Maybe that's your paranoia surfacing again. I correct/challenge a lot of spurious physics here, and no, I won't grow tired. Do I not have anything better to do? Ha! That's funny. A better use of your time would be learning real physics, not posting half baked theories here.

 

[Stryder]

Phlog, I think you missed something that I either posted in that Perpetual motion thread or one of the other threads about it. It wasn't about creation a perpetual motion machine it was about creating a system that could have a partial hypothesis to work but more than likely wont.

As I mentioned previously my "attempted" was not a calculated one, which is where the majority of the flaw was. Basically the size of the orifice, and overall volume of the liquid didn't have enough mass to counter act surface tensions of water in a sink, therefore the water in the pipe was "Static" it didn't move one way or the other.

When I eventually get round to it, which could be a while depending on what I'm doing. I will sort out a mathematical model through a spreadsheet or Mathcad and show the results, but you'll have to wait until then for the actual Scientific output since I intend to document it correctly and output the true reason why it does/doesn't work.

 

[FieryIce]

As moderators, you both display "off topic" posting that is not being moderated.

 

[phlogistician]

Fiery, I'm not a mod.

Stryder, I'm not interested in some spreadsheet or mathcad lash up.

I know it won't work. Nothing you can put in a spreadsheet will convince me. Whatever numbers you come up with not change the way the Universe works, or how a conservative energy field operates.

What will convince me, is you coming up with a verifiable experiment, publishing your findings in a reputable journal, and being peer reviewed. Damn, if you could make water flow uphill, you'd be famous!

 

[Stryder]

FieryIce, If I was to moderate this thread in all it's glory, it might of got closed some time back because of the whole Craterchains scenario being mentioned over and over again.
(Heck this thread would probably be dead on its own)

 

[FieryIce]

No Stryder, if you guys would stop your bullshit long enough to observe with your eyes and not your mouth or is that fingers typing, you would see alot more and maybe even have some comprehension. But oh no we couldn't have that now could we?

PIA06982: Behold Titan's Surface