Massive ULF 'Blast' Detected In US Bridge Collapse Catastrophe, page 3

Originally posted by jdbaxter
In regards to Tom Bedlam's statements regarding acoustics and radio waves...ACOUSTO-OPTICS sounds right, what do you think Tom? You think Harvard puts out misinformation?

Probably not intentionally, but in this case, the problem is that you didn't have a clue what you were reading and leaped to a bad conclusion.

I see this a lot in CT and free energy enthusiasts - you want to conflate something you believe with published scientific studies, so you start googling for keywords, and when you hit something that looks like what you want, you decide you've vindicated your viewpoint without looking any further.

What you're seeing here is the term "acousto-optical receiver" and thinking that it somehow allows the radio telescope to receive audio - something you wouldn't have considered had you actually had any general science, so let's start there.

Sound is caused by pressure waves in a material medium. This means that along the path of propagation of sound, you get higher and lower densities caused by the pressure wave propagating through. Sound is mechanical.

A propagating radio wave is electromagnetic in nature, and is generated by an oscillating E-field and an oscillating H-field at right angles to each other. It is transverse. It is not mechanical in nature. You cannot hear it.

Since sound is mechanical in nature, and is longitudinal, and radio is electromagnetic in nature, and is transverse, you can't receive sounds with a radio, nor can you hear radio with your ears. They are not related. They have nothing physically in common.

This isn't a bad explanation of sound, and it has pictures, which may help.

It's harder to find a good simple EM wave page, probably because it's not that simple.

Anyway, sound and EM are not the same. Period. Radio receivers can't receive sound.

Now, what does "acousto-optical receiver" mean? Wow, that's a lot tougher to explain, given that you don't know the difference between sound and radio, or even accept that they ARE different. Acousto-optic receivers are pretty darned technical, and it's going to be really rough to explain it in simple terms. There are a number of functions that you can do with an acousto-optic cell.

What THEY'RE doing with it is a Fourier transform, which bins out the frequency and amplitude components of the signal. So over their signal slice, they're using an acousto-optic Fourier transform to "channelize" the microwave data they're receiving.

You use AO cells a lot in electronic warfare to analyze radar signal returns.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "receiving audio with an antenna".

Originally posted by zerbot565
could this be HAARP or a ssimular device ?

No.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 06:38 PM by Anonymous ATS

I used to work at SSRT and now run www.ssrt.org.ru... and will provide you with some facts about it:
1. Tom Bedlam has very good grasp of physics and he knows what Acousto-Optics receiver is - it is FFT device to cut-out particular bandwidth before data is collected by DAS (data acquisition system). And yes, audio is not radio.

2. Observatory of SSRT apart from main array (256 + 1 dishes) has number of supplementary instruments. One of them is ULF receiver. So that's fact that we have ability to receive ULF radio (not audio) waves.
3. That is BS that SSRT provided some report when the bridge has collapsed - our ULF receiver is intended for different use.
4. Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics does exist and is fairly large organization employing around 600 people. One of programs institute has called "Remote sensing of a terrestrial surface and atmosphere". So we can sense bridge collapse with different means (definitely not ULF receiver). However this project is not targeted on US and used in Russia to monitor bush fires.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^