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.
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Bedlam
Um, actually, its quite proven that a positive charge in the ionosphere creates negative weather, and that a negatively charged ionosphere means positive weather. Just like a battery. You do know what a battery is...correct???
Also, EVERYTHING is nothing more than compressed energy and is frequency based. If you don't know this by now, then I am positive that you know far less about HAARP, EM radiation, and RF frequencies than you obviously pretend to know.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djcubed
Oh come on. Not that stupid list again.
At the bottom of that page you will see that the "data" they use comes from here.
earthquake.usgs.gov...
An what is that list? It is not a complete list, it is a list of "selected" earthquakes. It is a subset of the data in the chart posted above. It is incomplete. The chart I posted is the complete dataset for earthquakes of 7.0 and greater.
Selected earthquakes of general historic interest
The count here is based upon U.S. Geological Survey, at this link
Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Bedlam
Um, actually, its quite proven that a positive charge in the ionosphere creates negative weather, and that a negatively charged ionosphere means positive weather. Just like a battery. You do know what a battery is...correct???
Neglecting the obvious point that a battery is an electrochemical storage device and is not too similar to the ionosphere, I still don't think you're right. First, the ionosphere is generally neutrally charged, though ionized.
Second, there is some connection to tropospheric charge and nice weather, but it's backwards to what you stated. During clement weather, the tropospheric charge is generally positive with relation to the ground.
That connection is likely to be more an effect than a cause, as well, clouds/rain generally produce negative atmospheric charge due to droplet transport. So it would be more correct to say that the nasty weather causes a negative charge than it would be to say that negative charges cause nasty weather.
Also, EVERYTHING is nothing more than compressed energy and is frequency based. If you don't know this by now, then I am positive that you know far less about HAARP, EM radiation, and RF frequencies than you obviously pretend to know.
Matter has an energy equivalence, but it's not "compressed energy". I have a dollar in my pocket that has a penny equivalence, but it's not made of compressed pennies. Nonetheless, in certain monetary transactions, the outcome will be the transformation of that dollar into change.
You've never gotten past the word "frequency" being an attribute of some other phenomenon rather than a tangible thing by itself. That comes from using new age terms that masquerade as physics terminology, probably. "Frequency of what?" would be my reply to you, not that it'll get a rational answer.
[edit on 6-4-2010 by Bedlam]
You might be interested in this discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djcubed
Yes, from your link:
The count here is based upon U.S. Geological Survey, at this link
As I said:
Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.
Selected...as in not complete.
[edit on 4/6/2010 by Phage]
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Did you actually say that..."you still don't THINK that I'm right?"
You literally just said that. This tells me that you didn't read a bit of the information that I gave you and purposefully choose to ignore it to save face and retain your preconceived notions on how the ionosphere works.
Originally posted by mrwiffler
There are quite a few misconceptions going on here, from both sides of the camp.
One idea that seems to be causing trouble is that the difference between EM and acoustic waves is a simple matter. Well, it's not.
Light is not radio. They are different parts of the spectrum and pages of nonsense have erupted over this confusion of terminology. Also, waves of all sorts do share similarities so the uneducated are able to say..look, they are the same..and the educated ones fail miserably by denying the similarities(similarities that are obvious even to the uneducated) therefore creating holes at which can be picked...good god, 18 frgging pages of it.
Yes, all of our senses rely on frequency based phenomena, either detecting frequencies of some sort or using frequencies to encode other data, data which is frequency based at some level....this is why the dopey ones are having a field day here. The supposedly not-dopey ones are being dopey as well.
Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.
Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by mrwiffler
Light and radio are different parts of the EM spectrum. You leave yourself open to attack from the uneducated if you confuse the two. It makes for painful reading. You can't call light radio. It's quite wrong.
Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.
While the apparent spike in lower magnitude earthquakes looks impressive, it can easily be attributed to an increase in the ability to locate these earthquakes. You'll also recognize that it coincides with the advent of the internet.
There are several reasons for the perception that the number of earthquakes, in general, and particularly destructive earthquakes is increasing.
1) A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications.
In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 4,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by telex, computer and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years, and we are able to locate earthquakes more rapidly.
earthquake.usgs.gov...
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.
"Nope, I'm on your side."
Please do NOT try to referee my game.
Now let's see which one are you--smart---not so smart--Oh I got it neither just a biased failed referee.
Yes they are all frequencies and new school thinks they are all radio.
They are not. Audio is not radio. Light is not radio.
EM and sound share the same, similar , alike frequency range.
Light and radio do not.
The guy you agree with twists this to suit his fancy and is dead wrong.
No matter as no one has proven HAARP or any HAARP technology produced the transmissions in the OP.