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.

 

HAARP Manipulates Time-Physicist Dr. Fran De Aquino: (Very Interesting-if you can understand it)

page: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

I seriously doubt he is better qualified than I am.


Would you like to take a bet on that?



He's upset because I put it into terms that someone without a science background could understand

He doesn't seem upset, just attempting to correct your inaccurate description. Something you've made no effort to defend - instead you just wave your hands about and tell him to "go to night classes".

Why don't you address the points he laid out clearly a few posts above - the ones labelled a to c.



I have actual degrees in both Mathematics and in Physics

So you keep saying.


edit on 27/5/12 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)

Yes, I would be willing to bet on that.

No, he wants to nitpick my explanation to a layperson on a scientific level when it wasn't a scientific explanation. He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The explanation I gave was to someone who didn't have a science background and needed assistance in grasping a concept without all the scientific data attached to it, so I gave it to them. Now this little fella comes along and throws a fit because I didn't give a long, dry, boring explanation using scientific vernacular. Basically, he's throwing a fit that I explained something to someone without using precision because that other person didn't want it explained with precision.
And yes, I absolutely do have degrees in Math and Physics which can be verified by the moderator SunflowerStar who knows me personally and has known me for many, MANY years.
Do you have any other questions or are you quite finished?




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Yes, I would be willing to bet on that.

Perhaps you should do a little research first.



No, he wants to nitpick my explanation to a layperson on a scientific level when it wasn't a scientific explanation.

It was an explanation of science, but not a scientific explanation? You appear as if you just can't admit that your explanation was wrong, in layman's terms or any other.



He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The explanation I gave was to someone who didn't have a science background and needed assistance in grasping a concept without all the scientific data attached to it, so I gave it to them. Now this little fella comes along and throws a fit because I didn't give a long, dry, boring explanation

You are the one who appears to be "throwing a fit". He is just trying to correct your errors - ones which you refuse to defend and are too arrogant to admit to.



And yes, I absolutely do have degrees in Math and Physics

Undergrad degrees don't make someone an expert in that field - unless you studied it further, or actually work in that field it's best not to shout about it too much. Are you an actual working physicist? Even if you were, your arguments should rest on their own merits, not what you did at university.



which can be verified by the moderator SunflowerStar who knows me personally and has known me for many, MANY years.

While you are doing that, you could asks the mods what buddhasystem does for a living.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
No, he wants to nitpick my explanation to a layperson on a scientific level when it wasn't a scientific explanation. He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The explanation I gave was to someone who didn't have a science background and needed assistance in grasping a concept without all the scientific data attached to it, so I gave it to them.


What you "gave" to people here in this thread is very, very false. How can you help anyone with "concepts" when what you presented is simply wring? And indeed you can't offer any defense for what you posted, because there is none.


Now this little fella comes along and throws a fit because I didn't give a long, dry, boring explanation using scientific vernacular.


I guess it's a good day for you to feel grandiose, calling me a "little fella". Oh well. You know, you can give a down to earth and yet precise explanation and definition of most things, that's often found in popular science books and magazines. But what you wrote is laughable tripe and not a popularized description of the issue at hand. And again, you can't even explain that nonsense that you wrote.

So people, please ignore "atomic desires" and mass that really, really wants to accelerate but mysterious molecular forces push everything into a "different battlefield".

Duh.

edit on 27-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

It was an explanation of science, but not a scientific explanation? You appear as if you just can't admit that your explanation was wrong, in layman's terms or any other.


That's just it, it was NOT wrong. What part are you not getting??



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
oh sure, just completely ignore inertia, it doesn't exist afterall SHEEEESH


Seriously, you really have no concept what is going on here.
Either you know the scientific and don't understand the social or you know the social and don't understand the scientific and you've not shown which of those two you are yet.
If the first, it upsets you that someone is able to speak to the layperson more effectively than you are, so you attack on an entirely different basis than what it was offered.
If the second, you are just being a little troll, trying to cause problems.
Either way, you aren't accomplishing anything, you're just causing issues in order to argue because arguing is all you are interested in.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
HAARP, besides it atmospheric research program, is an attempt to create a directional phased array in the ELF and VLF band.

It uses the atmosphere to create ELF and VLF waves. As such, it can be used as a communication, radar and neural interface platform.

Nothing to do with time, the guy is most likely a CIA plant.
edit on 27-5-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


It will not matter, folks 'round these parts don't read past a the first page most of the time.

Or at least they read until the post they quote...

Lastly, it won't matter because it doesn't support the "magic". Look what happened when I questioned where the "magic" was coming from. And you are suggesting the "magic" itself isn't real.

Also, I thought that the equations would work if enough power/energy was pumpped into them?
(Not that we are capable of producing enough, but that there is in fact a way to get it to funcion.)


good points..
As far as the equations and the energy, we have to remember that there's a limit to the amount of energy that can be used. Theoretical limits are one thing, physical limits are another. You can think of it like terminal velocity. Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body. With more and more energy pumped into it, other forces come into play that weren't making a difference before, but could make a difference after a certain point. Those weren't really considered by the fella.
When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...
It's kind of like your appliances. There is enough electricity flowing through the lines to power a lot of appliances, but you only have a few. It doesn't mean those appliances are going to use every bit of electrical power in the lines, they use what they need to perform the function they are carrying out. The rest of the energy is still there and can be used by other appliances, but it doesn't have to be used.


This is the original post and I still stand by it. It explained what he was asking, in very simplistic terms and none of it was incorrect in what was being explained.
Sometimes, you have to explain basic concepts in basic ways for those without a background in science.
Deal with it and move on.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


It will not matter, folks 'round these parts don't read past a the first page most of the time.

Or at least they read until the post they quote...

Lastly, it won't matter because it doesn't support the "magic". Look what happened when I questioned where the "magic" was coming from. And you are suggesting the "magic" itself isn't real.

Also, I thought that the equations would work if enough power/energy was pumpped into them?
(Not that we are capable of producing enough, but that there is in fact a way to get it to funcion.)


good points..
As far as the equations and the energy, we have to remember that there's a limit to the amount of energy that can be used. Theoretical limits are one thing, physical limits are another. You can think of it like terminal velocity. Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body. With more and more energy pumped into it, other forces come into play that weren't making a difference before, but could make a difference after a certain point. Those weren't really considered by the fella.
When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...
It's kind of like your appliances. There is enough electricity flowing through the lines to power a lot of appliances, but you only have a few. It doesn't mean those appliances are going to use every bit of electrical power in the lines, they use what they need to perform the function they are carrying out. The rest of the energy is still there and can be used by other appliances, but it doesn't have to be used.


This is the original post and I still stand by it.


I was afraid you would say that, and you did.


It explained what he was asking, in very simplistic terms and none of it was incorrect in what was being explained.


a) it didn't explain what he was asking. It explained your lack of reading comprehension. The person was asking you about equations (which is the theoretical part of physics), and you said that there are "theoretical limits" and "physical limits". Laughable!

b) terminal velocity has to do with viscosity and drag, but not buoyancy. Epic fail.

c) theories put forward by de Aquino are not specific to molecules or atoms. Therefore, any reference to "molecular forces" in an attempt to explain them is moot, and in fact verbal pollution.


Sometimes, you have to explain basic concepts in basic ways for those without a background in science.


Somehow, in the process you manage to manufacture a patent falsehood, and it's not cool.


Deal with it and move on.


I can't just "deal" with it. I detest cr@p which is passed for science.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
forget it, you're not capable of comprehending, so there's no reason to bother with you any further
edit on 27-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
forget it, you're not capable of comprehending, so there's no reason to bother with you any further


Not a single time you were able to address the concerns I and others had about your posts. Since you retire from the discussion, I will venture to say that you admit that your posts were not worthy of consideration.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

Swirly Energy Thingy
tvtropes.org...

Maybe HHarp was used on a Russian missle? Seems plausable.. if you believe the above thougths of Dr. Fran De. Aquino.

Thoughts?


I can offer some thoughts. Why do we need to bring HAARP into every event whether it has to do with atmosphere, psychological warfare or the taste of egg omelet?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Intermolecular forces:


The physical properties of melting point, boiling point, vapor pressure, evaporation, viscosity, surface tension, and solubility are related to the strength of attractive forces between molecules. These attractive forces are called Intermolecular Forces. The amount of "stick togetherness" is important in the interpretation of the various properties listed above.


Divided further into
Ionic forces
Dipole forces
Hydrogen bonding
Induced dipole forces


There are four types of intermolecular forces. Most of the intermolecular forces are identical to bonding between atoms in a single molecule. Intermolecular forces just extend the thinking to forces between molecules and follows the patterns already set by the bonding within molecules.


www.elmhurst.edu...
www.chem.ufl.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ausetute.com.au...
chemed.chem.purdue.edu...
chemistry.bd.psu.edu...
cost.georgiasouthern.edu...

There were 2,780,000 results, I'm not going to copy and paste all of them, but that pretty much shows that they do exist and are well known.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
"fluid motion" doesn't happen in "liquids only"...The atmosphere is a fluid, anything in the form of a liquid or a gas is a fluid



en.wikipedia.org...


Mathematically, terminal velocity—without considering buoyancy effects—is given by the formula....
....
Mathematically, an object approaches its terminal velocity asymptotically.

Buoyancy effects, due to the upward force on the object by the surrounding fluid, can be taken into account using Archimedes' principle: the mass has to be reduced by the displaced fluid mass , with the volume of the object. So instead of use the reduced mass in this and subsequent formulas.



When the buoyancy effects are taken into account, an object falling through a fluid under its own weight can reach a terminal velocity (settling velocity) if the net force acting on the object becomes zero. When the terminal velocity is reached the weight of the object is exactly balanced by the upward buoyancy force and drag force



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Why are you HAARPing on "molecular forces" while they have nothing to do with topic at hand? How silly is that?

I suggest osmosis. Wait, there is also pressure coming from light, it's a lot more cool.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.


On the contrary, it clearly states that both affect it, hence buoyancy does affect it.
Oh right, the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. I forgot



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.


On the contrary, it clearly states that both affect it, hence buoyancy does affect it.
Oh right, the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. I forgot


If there is no buoyancy, there will still be terminal velocity. However, you said this:

Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body.


The balance is achieved not by buoyancy, but by increasing drag, as the wiki link demonstrated. For a skydiver, the terminal velocity will be also affected by the phase of the moon, but that's not what defines the phenomenon. What a poor way to illustrate physics to someone who in your words doesn't know it! They would be better off if you didn't try.

Then again, according to you "molecular forces" explain relativity. Oh well.


edit on 27-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Right. It's not the buoyancy that causes terminal velocity condition, as your link says, it's drag. Thanks for reinforcing my point and admitting that you were wrong.


On the contrary, it clearly states that both affect it, hence buoyancy does affect it.
Oh right, the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. I forgot


If there is no buoyancy, there will still be terminal velocity. However, you said this:

Even though gravity is still exerting an accelerating force, the bouyancy balances it out and a maximum speed is attained due to the other forces acting on the body.


The balance is achieved not by buoyancy, but by increasing drag, as the wiki link demonstrated. For a skydiver, the terminal velocity will be also affected by the phase of the moon, but that's not what defines the phenomenon. What a poor way to illustrate physics to someone who in your words doesn't know it! They would be better off if you didn't try.

Then again, according to you "molecular forces" explain relativity. Oh well.


edit on 27-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)


Yes, buoyancy plus drag, I left drag out a hundred posts ago, sue me. Buoyancy is still mentioned and intermolecular forces are explained. You don't like it, but it's there. I gave you what you asked for, it shows what was said. You can get over it or you can keep whining, but whatever you do won't change the validity.
Do you want to go back and nitpick typos now? I'm sure I had some. Feel free.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Here, go read this:
oai.dtic.mil...


Title : INTERMOLECULAR FORCES AND BASIC PROBLEMS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.


Abstract : A list of publications on two areas of investigation is given: (1) Intermolecular forces and their effects on radiative processes and (2) basic problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics. The first included are studies of the theory of intermolecular forces, the coupling between nuclear and electronic motions in diatomic molecules, the theory of radiative processes in plasmas, and an interpretation of spectroscopy satellites induced by the influence of a foreign gas. The second topic included the formulation of joint probabilities for the measurement of non-commiting observables and the general problem of simultaneous measurability of such observables. A paper on three and four-center molecular integrals is included.


Then take it a little easier with this one: en.wikipedia.org...


In physics, the Lorentz transformation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, different measurements of space and time by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference.

In early 1889, Heaviside had shown from Maxwell's equations that the electric field surrounding a spherical distribution of charge should cease to have spherical symmetry once the charge is in motion relative to the ether. FitzGerald then conjectured that Heaviside’s distortion result might be applied to a theory of intermolecular forces.


One of the most astounding consequences of Einstein's clock-setting method is the idea that time is relative. In essence, each observer's frame of reference is associated with a unique set of clocks, the result being that time passes at different rates for different observers.[22] This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation. We can also clearly see from the Lorentz "local time" transformation that the concept of the relativity of simultaneity and of the relativity of length contraction are also consequences of that clock-setting hypothesis.


Then use google to find a few more to read, I'm tired of doing your homework for you.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
As I said, even in the absence of buoyancy there is still terminal velocity.

But regardless, both "terminal velocity" and intermolecular forces have no bearing on this thread.

We might as well be discussing how de Aquino based his theory on the recipe of a Belgian ale. Molecular forces and the atomic structure do not in any way explain relativity.

Just adding this for those people who might be otherwise confused.



new topics




 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join