It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 70
74
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: elfie

Where we disagree, is that the existing technology for psychotronic weapons may be put to such use.


I'm pretty sure there AREN'T any 'psychotronic weapons' that actually do anything.

I've seen some descriptions of that sort of research, it seems pretty lame. I'd volunteer for you to give it a shot on me in a split second. There is a guy in the Huntsville area that can supposedly fire chi balls at you and knock you out or kill you. Didn't do anything to me, oddly enough. But his followers were very susceptible to it. Sort of reminds me of George Dillman.




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
I read this article which refers to many different technologies, but for some of them i think it's a stretch to call it a "psychotronic weapon":

dprogram.net...


Microwave weapons, by stimulating the peripheral nervous system, can heat up the body, induce epileptic-like seizures, or cause cardiac arrest.
I don't know about this phrase "by stimulating the peripheral nervous system", but that aside I have little doubt that microwaves can heat up a body if they are intense enough. If you ever put a bug in a microwave oven there is no doubt they start behaving erratically as they heat up.

But is such a weapon a psychotronic weapon? (if it exists, and if it didn't it could certainly be built). I'd have to say no, since "psychotronic" is related to "parapsychology". Anybody with a high enough fever can act delerious since the brain doesn't work well when it's "cooking" at higher temperatures than it was made to handle, but this seems to me to be simple physics and biology which have nothing to do with parapsychology.

Most of the other ideas discussed either have similar foundations in known science not related to parapsychology, or they sound like fluff with no evidence. This was my favorite example of the latter:


According to a Russian TV broadcast, the strategic rocket forces have begun anti-ESP training to ensure that no outside force can take over command and control functions of the force. That is, they are trying to construct a firewall around the heads of the operators.
Any demonstrations of ESP seem highly questionable at best. One researcher claims studies show something like 31% accuracy rate on four option multiple choice where accuracy should only average 25% and this proves ESP which I doubt but even if somehow it did, that 69% failure rate is pathetic. Seems like you wouldn't need much "anti-ESP training" for ESP efforts to fail if this is how it works, with the failure rate being 69% even without training.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Microwave weapons, by stimulating the peripheral nervous system, can heat up the body, induce epileptic-like seizures, or cause cardiac arrest.


...Seems like you wouldn't need much "anti-ESP training" for ESP efforts to fail if this is how it works, with the failure rate being 69% even without training.


I have a nice MAPP torch that will heat up the body, induce seizure like motions and shrieking, and eventually will cause cardiac arrest, if applied long enough.


I wouldn't call it a psychotronic weapon either.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


I wouldn't call it a psychotronic weapon either.

Not subtle neither.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Not subtle neither.


It's sort of like "the 100 questions of the Lubyanka", I suppose. Direct, and to the point. The basic physics of joule heating, to stay with the thread.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: elfie

Where we disagree, is that the existing technology for psychotronic weapons may be put to such use.


I'm pretty sure there AREN'T any 'psychotronic weapons' that actually do anything.

I've seen some descriptions of that sort of research, it seems pretty lame. I'd volunteer for you to give it a shot on me in a split second. There is a guy in the Huntsville area that can supposedly fire chi balls at you and knock you out or kill you. Didn't do anything to me, oddly enough. But his followers were very susceptible to it. Sort of reminds me of George Dillman.


Lol, Now I see. Okay, my interpretation of psychotronic was lacking.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: elfie

Where we disagree, is that the existing technology for psychotronic weapons may be put to such use.


I'm pretty sure there AREN'T any 'psychotronic weapons' that actually do anything.

I've seen some descriptions of that sort of research, it seems pretty lame. I'd volunteer for you to give it a shot on me in a split second. There is a guy in the Huntsville area that can supposedly fire chi balls at you and knock you out or kill you. Didn't do anything to me, oddly enough. But his followers were very susceptible to it. Sort of reminds me of George Dillman.


Ok you got a first for me dont think ive ever seen anyone use chi balls in a sentence. actually spit up my coke couldnt stop laughing.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: elfie
Lol, Now I see. Okay, my interpretation of psychotronic was lacking.


I was digressing, sort of, the point being that they generally don't do squat unless you have a deep belief that they will. It's sort of like having electromagnetic allergy.

I've seen photos and a write up of a supposed Russian psychotronic device. It was...offbeat. Lots of bits of crystal, wires, little cones of shame and a lot of the circuitry was doodles on paper with wires glued on. Literally little equations with wires glued to various points, going to little antennas and the like.

The people who had the material had also got a Russian that had been running it, and like chi balls, if you were told it was being shot at you and you believed in it, then you got sick or whatever. It had no effect if not.

Sort of like...



Skip forward to about 4:00 to get past the boring intro.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok you got a first for me dont think ive ever seen anyone use chi balls in a sentence. actually spit up my coke couldnt stop laughing.


Oh, yeah, it's the way it was described to me when I first heard of the guy. He does some sort of ba gua underground super secret training there in town. And they said he could roll up his chi into these glowing balls and shoot it at you.

So I went and told him to chi me, nothing.

Supposedly, these psychotronic weapons are based on this inviso-energy stuff like chi, but they never seem to work if you drag them into the light of day.

Hell, even the Army got into that at one very brief point. That still goes on occasionally, from what I hear.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

So I went and told him to chi me, nothing.



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yet.

3 years from now when one of your ears falls off...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18623344]yeahright[/post
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yet.

3 years from now when one of your ears falls off...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


So far the only thing that's happened since is that I started going grey not long after, and my hair is thinning out on top. I also notice my joints hurt when the weather changes now, especially the ones I screwed up in my yoot.

Maybe it's coming true after all...



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Sort of like...

Yes, that video pretty much tells you what you need to know about Chi energy and Chi weapons. Even George Dillman admits it can be defeated by wiggling the toes or holding the tongue in a certain position, and I think we all know that isn't necessary for non-believers where non-belief is sufficient (without wiggling toes).

It is interesting that it seems to work on people that believe in it. It reminds me of this placebo study:

Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Patients were randomized to either open-label placebo pills presented as “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes” or no-treatment controls with the same quality of interaction with providers. ...

Open-label placebo produced significantly higher mean (±SD) global improvement scores
So people got essentially sugar pills, were told that's what they were and that they might help, and they did help. So do they work or don't they? We could ask the same question about chi, does it work or doesn't it? Apparently only if you believe....

This goes to show that conducting experiments on humans is very complicated and has a lot of confounding factors, but I think many of these results can be attributed to ordinary psychology, without invoking any kind of parapsychology.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is physics telling scientists, if anything, about what the universe is?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect
Here's a broad answer to a broad question: It's telling us that with all of our knowledge, we only know what about 5% of the universe is made of. We know a few things about the other 95% of the universe, that it's there, and some properties of it, but we don't really understand it well at all. Here's a NASA website explaining more detail:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter

It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Biggest thing is the more we learn the more we realize what we dont know. A hundred years ago the universe was a simple place and we thought we could easily figure out the rules. They were simple galaxies made of stars with stuff circling them. We found things like energy ribbons black holes realized the visible part is very small. We learned even from where we view the universe effects how we view it. But with all the advancements in science just think what the next hundred will bring.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Well, I work for the military-industrial complex. In times past, I *mostly* did comm related stuff - radar, radios, some light crypto and the like, plus the odd bit of laser physics. And for a while I worked for a national lab and did something totally off-the-wall for DOE, and still like to gig them by dropping the occasional patent their way, not that any of that has been used, unless they're just neglecting to inform me.


Sounds like optics/quantum optics and electromagnetics/RF engineering. Strangely, always had pictured you being a HEP specialist more than anything else. My first job was basically an RF engineering type job. It was an interesting job, but the little physics involved was not exactly what I was looking for. Do you happen to know of any fields that are, say, the intersection of QM and classical E&M that have a lot of industry potential? The only field I can think of is metamaterials research.


originally posted by: Bedlam
We have done some really wild radio and radar work. As long as you've got one legit PhD 'on the project', no matter how rarely, you can get grants and contracts.


Interesting you say that, as my experience in the industry (unaffiliated with MIC) is that the really interesting and cutting-edge work is reserved strictly for the PhDs, while those with an MS get a bone or two thrown their way every now and again. That's a big contributing factor why I'm considering going back for the PhD. Almost none of the work at the BS level provides a constant level of challenge and intellectual satisfaction, or the type I'm looking for at the very least.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
By the way, as I've started up my self-studying of QM (more like a review of my notes so far), I have a quick conceptual question.

1. Is it correct to interpret the momentum space wave function Φ(p,t) as the projection of the position-space wave function onto eigenstates of the momentum operator? If not, how do you physically interpret it and the inner product:

Φ(p,t) = ⟨fₚ|Ψ⟩

Where fₚ is the eigenfunction of the momentum operator with eigenvalue p.
edit on 4-11-2014 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

We all have google just like the so called ones who know physics. So rather pointless really!!

And I wouldn't take the word of someone on here without checking anyway...so might as well check first and not bother asking!!



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




But with all the advancements in science just think what the next hundred will bring.

Cool stuff?

This might be an opportune time to point out, once again, that although we don't know everything (or even close to it) it does not mean we don't know anything.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diablos
Sounds like optics/quantum optics and electromagnetics/RF engineering.


To a big extent. We do, however, have the occasional sideline into plasma as it relates to airframes.



The only field I can think of is metamaterials research.


Plasmonics and metamaterials is where I would specialize, if I were just coming out of school today.



Interesting you say that, as my experience in the industry (unaffiliated with MIC) is that the really interesting and cutting-edge work is reserved strictly for the PhDs, while those with an MS get a bone or two thrown their way every now and again. That's a big contributing factor why I'm considering going back for the PhD. Almost none of the work at the BS level provides a constant level of challenge and intellectual satisfaction, or the type I'm looking for at the very least.


We started our own company about two years after I started at a famous national lab as a firestomper. That got old fast. So a bunch of us stalwarts fired off a nice general 'community oriented' engineering company, and used our prior contacts in the service to start getting stuff with SORDAC et al. From there, it sort of bloomed into doing really fun stuff with LM and Boeing. If I was working FOR LM I'm sure I'd never get a taste of some of this.

But as a second tier to them, they often don't care if you've got a PhD, as long as SOMEONE on the team does. It's the same with DARPA or the other SBIR bidders.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join