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.

 

Geoengineering and the Age of Aquarius

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I find all forms of engine exhaust harmful, no matter the year they were created.
And Ice crystals with fuel byproducts mixed in does not sound harmless.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

And if the pilots left contrails, they could be seen and possibly shot down with anti-aircraft guns.
Can you prove that no plane has ever been shot down because someone saw its harmless contrail.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

I want to see all the proof you have that contrails are harmless during war.


- Aircraft exhaust, like any hydrocarbon combustion exhaust, contains chemicals you would not want to breath, like carbon monoxide. This is not disputed.

- Aircraft contrails are a problem for planes in wartime, and during WWII they were dangerous as they made the planes more visible. This is not disputed.

- Contrails are made of ice crystals. This is not disputed.

- If a contrail forms, or does not form, then the exhaust gasses are the same. This is not disputed.

- So, if a contrail forms, the exhaust is no more dangerous than if a contrail does not form. So it makes no sense to say the contrail is harmful. The contrail is simply the same exhaust, made visible by the addition of water.

- The formation of contrails is fairly well understood. Even back in 1921, the basic mechanism was known:

contrailscience.com...

The end products of complete combustion of gasoline are water vapor
and carbon dioxide, and it is found that if the water vapor were condensed,
there would result a little more than 1 gallon of water per
gallon of gasoline consumed. It was found by Wells and Thuras, in
studying the fog off the Newfoundland coast (see U. S. Coast Guard ,
Bull. 5, 1916) that there were 1,200 water droplets of diameter 0.01 mm.
in a cubic centimeter of air in a dense fog. If we assume that an airplane
travels 3 miles on a gallon of gasoline (approximately the figure
given by the Aerial Mail Service) it is possible to show that if only a
small part – a fourth or fifth – of the water vapor were condensed,
there would be abundant cloud to produce the effect observed at the
Argonne Battle. It should be stated, however, that this water vapor
would have to be discharged into air which was very cold and nearly
saturated.


And at that same time, contrails that persisted, spread, and had gaps, we observed. In 1921:


An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field recently by Lieut. J. A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty [engine]. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery white streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly moving dark speck. The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long. Then a gap of one-quarter mile. The second streamer formed with a background of light cirrus cloud and after 2 or 3 miles the plane seemed to go into the cirrus background, for the streamer formation ceased while an apparent path of blue continued beyond for a way in the cirrus cloud. The whole streamer may have been 3 miles long. After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.


See that? In 1921, persistent spreading contrails.

More details:
contrailscience.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I find all forms of engine exhaust harmful, no matter the year they were created.
And Ice crystals with fuel byproducts mixed in does not sound harmless.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

And if the pilots left contrails, they could be seen and possibly shot down with anti-aircraft guns.
Can you prove that no plane has ever been shot down because someone saw its harmless contrail.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

I want to see all the proof you have that contrails are harmless during war.


- Aircraft exhaust, like any hydrocarbon combustion exhaust, contains chemicals you would not want to breath, like carbon monoxide. This is not disputed.

- Aircraft contrails are a problem for planes in wartime, and during WWII they were dangerous as they made the planes more visible. This is not disputed.

- Contrails are made of ice crystals. This is not disputed.

- If a contrail forms, or does not form, then the exhaust gasses are the same. This is not disputed.

- So, if a contrail forms, the exhaust is no more dangerous than if a contrail does not form. So it makes no sense to say the contrail is harmful. The contrail is simply the same exhaust, made visible by the addition of water.

- The formation of contrails is fairly well understood. Even back in 1921, the basic mechanism was known:

contrailscience.com...

The end products of complete combustion of gasoline are water vapor
and carbon dioxide, and it is found that if the water vapor were condensed,
there would result a little more than 1 gallon of water per
gallon of gasoline consumed. It was found by Wells and Thuras, in
studying the fog off the Newfoundland coast (see U. S. Coast Guard ,
Bull. 5, 1916) that there were 1,200 water droplets of diameter 0.01 mm.
in a cubic centimeter of air in a dense fog. If we assume that an airplane
travels 3 miles on a gallon of gasoline (approximately the figure
given by the Aerial Mail Service) it is possible to show that if only a
small part – a fourth or fifth – of the water vapor were condensed,
there would be abundant cloud to produce the effect observed at the
Argonne Battle. It should be stated, however, that this water vapor
would have to be discharged into air which was very cold and nearly
saturated.


And at that same time, contrails that persisted, spread, and had gaps, we observed. In 1921:


An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field recently by Lieut. J. A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty [engine]. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery white streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly moving dark speck. The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long. Then a gap of one-quarter mile. The second streamer formed with a background of light cirrus cloud and after 2 or 3 miles the plane seemed to go into the cirrus background, for the streamer formation ceased while an apparent path of blue continued beyond for a way in the cirrus cloud. The whole streamer may have been 3 miles long. After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.


See that? In 1921, persistent spreading contrails.

More details:
contrailscience.com...



I enjoy the education, when do we get to the chocolate milk, and graham crackers.
If you go look through my old posts about 8 months ago I posted the first contrail recorded link.
I was bored at the time, figured the contrailers needed some help with history of contrails.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I find all forms of engine exhaust harmful, no matter the year they were created.
And Ice crystals with fuel byproducts mixed in does not sound harmless.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

And if the pilots left contrails, they could be seen and possibly shot down with anti-aircraft guns.
Can you prove that no plane has ever been shot down because someone saw its harmless contrail.
So do you have links to back up that statement?

I want to see all the proof you have that contrails are harmless during war.


- Aircraft exhaust, like any hydrocarbon combustion exhaust, contains chemicals you would not want to breath, like carbon monoxide. This is not disputed.

- Aircraft contrails are a problem for planes in wartime, and during WWII they were dangerous as they made the planes more visible. This is not disputed.

- Contrails are made of ice crystals. This is not disputed.

- If a contrail forms, or does not form, then the exhaust gasses are the same. This is not disputed.

- So, if a contrail forms, the exhaust is no more dangerous than if a contrail does not form. So it makes no sense to say the contrail is harmful. The contrail is simply the same exhaust, made visible by the addition of water.

- The formation of contrails is fairly well understood. Even back in 1921, the basic mechanism was known:

contrailscience.com...

The end products of complete combustion of gasoline are water vapor
and carbon dioxide, and it is found that if the water vapor were condensed,
there would result a little more than 1 gallon of water per
gallon of gasoline consumed. It was found by Wells and Thuras, in
studying the fog off the Newfoundland coast (see U. S. Coast Guard ,
Bull. 5, 1916) that there were 1,200 water droplets of diameter 0.01 mm.
in a cubic centimeter of air in a dense fog. If we assume that an airplane
travels 3 miles on a gallon of gasoline (approximately the figure
given by the Aerial Mail Service) it is possible to show that if only a
small part – a fourth or fifth – of the water vapor were condensed,
there would be abundant cloud to produce the effect observed at the
Argonne Battle. It should be stated, however, that this water vapor
would have to be discharged into air which was very cold and nearly
saturated.


And at that same time, contrails that persisted, spread, and had gaps, we observed. In 1921:


An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field recently by Lieut. J. A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty [engine]. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery white streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly moving dark speck. The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long. Then a gap of one-quarter mile. The second streamer formed with a background of light cirrus cloud and after 2 or 3 miles the plane seemed to go into the cirrus background, for the streamer formation ceased while an apparent path of blue continued beyond for a way in the cirrus cloud. The whole streamer may have been 3 miles long. After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.


See that? In 1921, persistent spreading contrails.

More details:
contrailscience.com...



I still did not see anything in your response that proves contrails are harmless,
to use your words.
This is not disputed



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
book marking for a read later.
Looks very interesting op thanks for your efforts

A



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I still did not see anything in your response that proves contrails are harmless,
to use your words.
This is not disputed


Well, what do you mean by "contrails"? I think of contrails as just the visible ice crystals.

Aircraft exhaust is harmful, but does adding ice crystals to it make it more harmful?

You seem to keep saying that contrails are harmful, but what you are taking about is aircraft exhaust. Contrails are NOT aircraft exhaust. They are ice crystal clouds that are sometimes triggered by aircraft exhaust. 99% of the water in a persistent contrail comes from the atmosphere, just like a cloud.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I find all forms of engine exhaust harmful, no matter the year they were created.
And Ice crystals with fuel byproducts mixed in does not sound harmless.



Exhaust contains water whether the water consdenses to ice crystals or not. So it is just as harmful as pollution when you cannot see teh water as when you can. There is just as much water released by a jet in cruise when it is NOT making contrails, and even moer when it is taking off at ground level because it burns fuel a lot faster at takeoff and climb than in cruise.

Chemtrails are supposedly something OTHER than normal exhaust.

You should be arguing against pollution in Fragile Earth.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Kokatsi
 
...there is an evolutionary spiritual process that is experienced individually with a start date of the spring equinox in Aries. It presumes either successive lives or non-linear time. It presumes that the equinoctial point is only significant for an individual birth at certain apocalyptic moments i.e. the horsemen of the apocalypse i.e. the disasters that periodically happen on earth which alter in some significant way the heavenly order. This would also be a good way to tell if that age is upon us because we would see the heavenly order altered...

As far as precession - to the best of my knowledge I believe it is caused by the orbit of our solar system with another system(s) and that we are a binary or trinary. In my very early days at ATS someone gave me a link to a research facility called the Binary Research Institute and I was immediately smitten. But you know this because you mention Walter Cruttenden. So no argument with you here.
...
NASA said in 2002 or so that we were transitioning to Aquairius. To me, they were the keepers of the equinoctial points. I'm not discounting anything that you have said about demarcation lines and I fully appreciate the significance of those. I am saying that in flux, demarcation points become nebulous and in flux it is best to appreciate the last piece of solid ground. Comparing this time to the dark of the moon we might even say that there is nothing and yet all things are possible. Also, I don't know if retrograde applies to precession but if it does, we may both be right.

Your first point is interesting from the POV of reincarnational astrology. Many people I know have had lives around the time of Jesus... whatever that means (I am not dogmatic). I think I was there too . It would make sense that the totality of these karmic chains will lead to a conclusion in a late part of the Age of Pisces - from the 19th century on.

Mass sacrifices are a theme of Pisces, not Aquarius - that is my astrological reason for believing that we are approaching decisive milestones but we are not yet there. I envision Aquarius as a community and environment-oriented age with immense technological progress, certainly not the Congo now or the approaching ME war which could lead us to a nightmare worse than WW2. Christianity - with all due respect - as the religion of sacrifice - is coming to an end, but not the true mysticism of Christ (which many Christians have practiced over the centuries.) Just the churches. It is a Pisces phenomenon. (After the war, I think monotheistic religions will not be in high regard - it is like, in the 1950's no one would walk around saying with a smile and an arm salute "Hey, I am a Nazi."

Crittenden made very valid points, such as giving accurate change of precession rates. It matches static Indian rates mostly around the early seventies. The rates have been rising linearly ever since measured.
I also believe we are the members of a dual system. There is a "dark Sun" - a brown dwarf or a smaller black hole - due to that, the rate of precession would rise in some ages and fall in others. I theorize speed was at its lowest point in the Early Middle Ages, when Tropical Aries coincided with sidereal Aries. According to Yukteshwar, the guru of Crittenden's Swami, who was an astrologer around the turn of the 19th century, (see the foreword to his book The Holy Science) there is a dark companion to the Sun mentioned in some Puranas, and the year of unity was 499 B.C. His ayanamsha does not work for me though in everyday astrology. Now Ophiuchus juts in for sure, but do we want a 13-based system? Taurus is much longer than Scorpio anyway, one can see what the archaic astronomers sought was simply the best way to superimpose areas of an equal 12 over the Zodiac, for mythological reasons, plus number mysticism. Antique astrology has far less realia than number mysticism. Mayans worked with 13/20. I am told some occult groups have 14 or 16 signs, I forget which, this is kept secret. The Hindu-Tibetan is more based on the 27 nakshatras - lunar mansions - which have constant stars observed since antiquity (Krittika: the Seven Sisters). One naksahtra is approximately the distance covered by the Moon within 24 hours. The two together yields a 108-part Zodiac as a lowest common denominator. Hence the sacredness of that number in Hindu and Tibetan rituals.

One can try to compute nakshatras in sidereal then superimpose the present Tropical chart. I am told there is one famous Indian astrologer who does this. Tropical is a part of this system on the basis of analogy.

NASA : I would love to see the source! A discrepancy of 280 yrs would be workable. They need a theory to support how they divide the sky to a sidereal wheel, against which the tropical can recede, 1 degree every 72 yrs.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The pollution and Uranus: HAARP is just one thing, needlessly provoking the ionosphere and maybe our magnetic field. There are thousands of such facilities now.
Scalar weapons etc.
But the highest danger from our POV are cell phones, masts, and wifi.
Maybe doctors say only 30% of people are explicitly sensitive, but there is a blue fog in Western nations.
Sleep troubles, attention disorders, sudden tiredness, possible mind programming and surveillance, autoimmune nightmares. The have people-engineering, while the oil rigging and fracking as well as underground nuke testing no doubt contribute to EQ-s and tsunamis.
This coupled with all the poisons in the atmosphere (don't forget ozone!) plus Frankenfoods, makes the average individual now ADHD, depressed, poisoned, autistic and ready to die of cancer, autoimmune diseases etc. And now in 2011 comes a new Japanese surge of radioactivity.
Seems to me that these folks will the first ones to die statistically sooner than their parents in affluent Western societies too.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


The original purpose and point of my thread was to link geoengineering and chemtrails and the Age of Aquarius and mind control or, at the very least, mind manipulation. Mind control and electro-magnetic entrapment are both inherent, archtypically, in the dark side of Aquarius as an age in astrology.

The rather forced divorce of astrology and astronomy in the last half of the last half of the Age of Pisces could also be construed as paving the way for a final global scoff at ancestral legends and myths. It is conceivable to me that a group of people having survived a disaster would want to remember the events that led up to it. They would want their descendants to remember and they would present that story in their own terms and from their own educational perspectives. There were cave paintings found in France that were said to date from about 24,000 to 28,000 years ago - about the same time that we were last in the Age of Aquarius or the last time we were in this particular section of the heavens (keeping in mind that there is a difference in that we are further along in a longer cycle around the center of the Milky Way.) The public was not allowed to go in and view these directly (something about mold destroying the paintings) but selected areas were photographed and some otherwise depicted and presented. Looking at those pictures, particularly the ones attempting to show heavenly sights and events, I was struck with how very similar things would be today if we, with our eyes to the ground, experienced a disaster that we, with our limited knowledge of what led up to it, still wanted somehow to immortalize for our generations to come so that they might remember and be vigilant; more vigilant than we had been.



Mass sacrifices are a theme of Pisces, not Aquarius - that is my astrological reason for believing that we are approaching decisive milestones but we are not yet there.

I'm assuming in the above statement that you're referring to the statement in my OP:


The dark side of the Age of Aquarius is mind-control - extermination - and revenue generation.

and, perhaps, additionally to the more hyper elements of chemtrail belief i.e. death from the sky by being sprayed like insects. Within the science of nanotechnology there is a scenario well known to those in the know about nano called the "grey goo scenario." Read about it if you like here:

The Gray Goo Problem

Perhaps the earliest-recognized and best-known danger of molecular nanotechnology is the risk that self-replicating nanorobots capable of functioning autonomously in the natural environment could quickly convert that natural environment (e.g., “biomass”) into replicas of themselves (e.g., “nanomass”) on a global basis, a scenario usually referred to as the “gray goo problem” but perhaps more properly termed “global ecophagy.”


Unlike almost any other natural material, biomass can serve both as a source of carbon and as a source of power for nanomachine replication. Ecophagic nanorobots would regard living things as environmental carbon accumulators, and biomass as a valuable ore to be mined for carbon and energy. Of course, biosystems from which all carbon has been extracted can no longer be alive but would instead become lifeless chemical sludge.


So it's not a question of sacrifice but of playing God without a full deck, while questing for a transhuman immortallity and of, indeed, playing an end game of sorts where one misstep will tear it all if it hasn't done so already.

HAARP is a very specific construct that massively heats the ionosphere in a specific location, a small portion of a place called the electrojet. As a byproduct (or with intent - we don't know) it produces, among other effects most unknown, very low frequency waves which are harmful to human beings. Read about the effects of these waves here if you like:

Infrasound

Waves of infrasound are invisible, but slam into living tissue and physical structures with great force. The sensation vibrates internal organs and buildings, flattening objects as the sonic wave strikes. At certain pitches, it can explode matter.


So most of the things I've talked about are invisible: nano, low frequency waves, mind control and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. To me, this age darkly says two things: mind control and electricity as in electro-magnetic fields for the purpose of mind control. Some things are visible like chemtrail grids. This is then a clue and something to build on (until a way to make those invisible is implemented.) In short, chemtrail grids, the necessary evil, required manipulation in the public perception so that they would be considered normal.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


HAARP is a very specific construct that massively heats the ionosphere in a specific location, a small portion of a place called the electrojet. As a byproduct (or with intent - we don't know) it produces, among other effects most unknown, very low frequency waves which are harmful to human beings. Read about the effects of these waves here if you like


HAARP does heat a small portion of the ionosphere above Gakona, Alaska but electrojets are not "a place", they are electrical currents which flow through the ionosphere.

HAARP can heat that small region above the installation by several hundred degrees Kelvin (that's about 27º Celsius). Not sure I'd call that exactly "massive".

You provided a link about infrasound. The VLF radiation which HAARP induces is not sound, it is electromagnetic radiation. In any case, the VLF radiation which it produces is of far, far less amplitude than that which is produced naturally by solar activity and lightning.

edit on 6/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thankyou for your post. I always enjoy your input because it really gets me thinking.



HAARP does heat a small portion of the ionosphere above Gakona, Alaska but electrojets are not "a place", they are electrical currents which flow through the ionosphere.


What does this have to do with my statement? It's the electrojet they're after. And the river just happens to flow right by their house.

Polar Electrojet Definition

(geophysics) An intense current that flows in a relatively narrow band of the auroral zone ionosphere during disturbances of the magnetosphere.


Introduction to HAARP

HAARP is located in a region where large natural currents, known as the auroral electrojet flow through the ionosphere.


When combined with the electric field that drives the auroral electrojet, the result is a current that oscillates and thus radiates at the modulation frequency: a ELF antenna in the ionosphere.


ULF/ELF/VLF PROJECT

Point the HF beam toward the electrojet position in order to enhance the production of ELF/VLF waves.


Enhancement of the ELF/VLF wave amplitude could sometimes be achieved by pointing the HF beam in a direction other than vertical, leading to the conclusion that ELF/VLF wave production is optimized when the HF beam has is pointed toward the electrojet position [Garnier et al., 1998].


And so it heats a very small part of the electrojet or many small parts depending on the source you read and whether or not they're going for a carom wallop.



HAARP can heat that small region above the installation by several hundred degrees Kelvin (that's about 27º Celsius). Not sure I'd call that exactly "massive".


Be fair. Results like these would be classed as what then - mini?:

HAARP Technology Words from project managers

Bernard Eastlund at 2:51: "Applications discussed in the patents included destroying missiles, communications control and disruption were included; there were some other ideas both to possibly modify weather and finally to lift a portion of the upper atmosphere further out into space where hopefully it would be able to deflect missile trajectories."




You provided a link about infrasound. The VLF radiation which HAARP induces is not sound, it is electromagnetic radiation.


You're going to have to help me out here. (Putting aside your statement about it being far less than natural sources for the moment.) They seem like the same thing to me. In fact, I'm having a terrible time telling them apart. Here's why:

ELF Definition

ELF is an acronym for Extremely Low Frequency. In general, ELF refers to part of the electromagnetic spectrum with frequencies from 1 to 300 Hz. In radio and atmospheric studies, ELF refers to radio waves with frequencies between 30 and 3000 Hz.


Infrasound Definition

Infrasound is sound below the level of human hearing. The frequency of a sound is measured in Hertz (Hz) and the infrasonic range is generally considered to be between 1 and 20 Hz.


The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Figure 2.6 shows the electromagnetic spectrum and where some of the various transmission media operate. Along the right-hand side is the terminology that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) applies to the various bands: Extremely low, very low, low, medium, high, very high (VHF), ultrahigh (UHF), superhigh (SHF), extremely high (EHF), and tremendously high frequencies (THF) are all various forms of radio bands.


Radio Communications Theory

Extremely low frequency (ELF). The ELF frequency range is from 3 to 30Hz, and it can transmit signals 5,000 miles or more. As currently used, ELF propagates through the earths substrate. ELF waves produce high-power sounds that can penetrate ocean depths to several hundred feet



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


What does this have to do with my statement? It's the electrojet they're after. And the river just happens to flow right by their house.
You said "a small portion of a place called the electrojet". There is no place called the electrojet. It is clear you do not understand the terms you use and this one thing which leads you to reach invalid conclusions.


And so it heats a very small part of the electrojet or many small parts depending on the source you read and whether or not they're going for a carom wallop.
No. The electrojet is an electrical current. The IRI heats a small portion of the ionosphere. I don't know what you mean when you say "carom wallop".


Be fair. Results like these would be classed as what then - mini?:
I would call it heating. Not "massive heating".

I'm not sure what Eastlund's claims for a system thousands of times more powerful than HAARP has to do with this discussion.



You're going to have to help me out here. (Putting aside your statement about it being far less than natural sources for the moment.) They seem like the same thing to me. In fact, I'm having a terrible time telling them apart.
Obviously. Another case of your lack of understanding leading you to invalid conclusions. You make the mistake of thinking that because both sound and electromagnetic radiation have a property called frequency they are the same thing. They are not.

Sound is a mechanical vibration, density waves moving through a medium. Electromagnetic radiation is a self propagating combination of an electric field and a magnetic field, it requires no medium. The range of human hearing ranges from about 12Hz to 20kHz. If sound were the same as electromagnetic radiation we would hear ELF radio waves. We don't. Electromagnetic radiation is not the same as sound.

edit on 6/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Another case of your lack of understanding leading you to invalid conclusions.


So an ELF (extremely low frequency wave) that has the same frequency as an infrasonic wave (sound) is not the same because even though they vibrate at the same frequency, the ELF can travel through vacuum and the infrasonic needs a medium like air or water in order to travel. Is that about it?

So is this the argument that wants to state that ELF's are safe even though they may be at the exact same frequency as an infrasonic wave, one will not travel in vacuum and the other will?

Extremely Low Frequency Waves ELF

The term "extremely low" is used to describe any frequency below 300 Hz.


Infrasound shares some of the ELF characteristics, in that it can travel long distances with little loss of energy.


ELFs Are After Your Mind

Soundwaves are examples of periodicity, of rhythm. Sound is measured in cycles per second (Hertz or Hz). Each cycle of a wave is in reality a single pulse of sound. The average range of hearing for the human ear is somewhere between 16 hz. and 20,000 Hz. We can not hear extremely low frequencies (ELFs), but we can perceive them as rhythmic.


Entrainment is the process of synchronization, where vibrations of one object will cause the vibrations of another object to oscillate at the same rate. External rhythms can have a direct effect on the psychology and physiology of the listener.


Electromagnetic Spectrum

Electromagnetic waves are typically described by any of the following three physical properties: the frequency f, wavelength ?, or photon energy E.


Frequencies that can Kill, Heal, and Transcend

Some ELF broadcasts from the Russians were thought to cause depression in humans. When the Russians first started transmitting in 1976, they emitted an eleven hertz signal through the earth. This ELF wave was so powerful that it upset radio communications around the world, resulting in many nations lodging protest. The U. S. Air Force identified five different frequencies the Russians were emitting in a wild ELF cocktail.


Infrasonic Signals in the Environment

Perhaps the most exotic infrasounds originate in the depths of outer space. Scientists at NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory have identified one of the lowest frequency sounds ever detected in the universe [Koczor 2003]. The source of the cosmic infrasound is believed to be a massive black hole located about 250 million light years from Earth.


The black hole sound is characterized by a frequency of less than...one-quadrillionth of a cycle per second!


Frequency & the Law of Vibration

The most common unit of measure for frequency is the Hertz, which is one vibrational cycle per second. So a frequency of 460 Hz means that there are 460 cycles of vibration occurring every single second.


In 1974, Dr. Colin W.F. McClare, Ph.D, an Oxford University Bio-Physicist, discovered that frequencies of vibrating energy are roughly one-hundred times more efficient in relaying information within a biological system than physical signals, such as hormones, neurotransmitters and other growth factors.


Although most frequencies exist outside of our normal range of perception, all can be perceived as both colors and sounds. So the color blue is also heard as the musical key of D, which vibrates at 587 Hz.


If we wanted to convert sound to Light, we would simply raise its frequency forty octaves.


The Characteristics of Sound and Light Waves

Light is an electromagnetic wave.


So if someone tells me they don't want a screwdriver but would prefer a greyhound because they won't get as drunk, have they mixed up the medium with the message? They both have 2 oz. of vodka to 5 oz. of orange juice as opposed to grapefruit juice.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So an ELF (extremely low frequency wave) that has the same frequency as an infrasonic wave (sound) is not the same because even though they vibrate at the same frequency, the ELF can travel through vacuum and the infrasonic needs a medium like air or water in order to travel. Is that about it?
No. What it is about is that electromagnetic radiation is inherently dissimilar to sound. Both in its nature and in its effects.



So if someone tells me they don't want a screwdriver but would prefer a greyhound because they won't get as drunk, have they mixed up the medium with the message? They both have 2 oz. of vodka to 5 oz. of orange juice as opposed to grapefruit juice.

Both have alcohol as an active ingredient. Anyone who really thinks that they will get less drunk with a greyhound is ignorant. Just as someone who thinks HAARP produces sound waves or that there is no difference between sound waves and electromagnetic waves is ignorant. Your analogy is meaningless. It might make a bit more sense to use a screwdriver vs a hit of '___'...but not a whole lot more.

The Characteristics of Sound and Light Waves

Light is an electromagnetic wave.

Yes. Yes it is. And so is the natural and artificial ELF electromagnetic radiation which we are surrounded by. And none of it has anything to do with infrasound.

edit on 6/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thx. for the info. I have questions



Your analogy is meaningless. It might make a bit more sense to use a screwdriver vs a hit of '___'...but not a whole lot more.


So would the '___' go on the side of the ELF then?



What it is about is that electromagnetic radiation is inherently dissimilar to sound. Both in its nature and in its effects.


If it is so dissimilar, how then did the sound from the black hole get to the Chandra? And how can there be 'cosmic infrasounds' in a vacuum? Is this article bogus then? Or is it some kind of electric universe theory? It also says that sound can be converted to light by raising its' frequency. Is this in error as well?

Frequency & the Law of Vibration

How exactly do you know that an ELF and an infrasound wave of the same frequency are inherently dissimilar in their effects? The effects of certain frequencies of infrasound seem to parallel the effects of ELF's, mentally. Infrasound frequencies seem to have been studied alot more because studies of ELF mental effects kind of end in the '70's or so. Infrasound seems like something that can't really be controlled i.e. directed in low frequencies, it's all pervasive. ELF's seem like they can be directed very specifically.

Because an ELF does have a frequency and it is allowable to describe an ELF by that frequency i.e. 9 hz. ELF, doesn't it follow that it would have the same synchronization potential through a medium as an infrasound of the same frequency. In other words, how do you know ELF's don't have this effect?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



So would the '___' go on the side of the ELF then?
Neither, I said it wasn't a very good analogy but at least they are two different things. But you are still confused. Both sound and electromagnetic radiation can occur at Extremely Low Frequencies. ELF is not a thing in itself, it is a property of an oscillating thing. Any oscillating thing. A pogo stick can be operated at ELF. A bicycle wheel turns at ELF.


If it is so dissimilar, how then did the sound from the black hole get to the Chandra?
Chandra does not detect sound, it detects x-rays. The sound waves are travelling through the gas surrounding the black hole. Chandra detected the density waves in the gas. It's like seeing ripples on a pond. You don't feel them or hear them but you can see them.



It also says that sound can be converted to light by raising its' frequency. Is this in error as well?
That is incorrect. Sound cannot be converted to light by raising its frequency. However, electromagnetic radiation can be modulated (and demodulated) to carry sound. That is how a radio works.



ELF's seem like they can be directed very specifically.
I assume you're talking about electromagnetic radiation. The lower the frequency the more difficult it is to obtain any sort of directionality (primarily because of the size of the antenna required). ELF electromagnetic radiation is not very directional.


In other words, how do you know ELF's don't have this effect?
Again...both sound and electromagnetic radiation can occur at Extremely Low Frequencies. Electromagnetic radiation does not shake things (not without a receiver and loudspeakers anyway). Infrasound does. HAARP does not produce infrasound. Elephants do.


edit on 6/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

HAARP does not produce infrasound. Elephants do.



Now I have to wipe soft drink off my keyboard!!

Brilliant!!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




But you are still confused. Both sound and electromagnetic radiation can occur at Extremely Low Frequencies. ELF is not a thing in itself, it is a property of an oscillating thing. Any oscillating thing.


So ELF (extremely low frequency) is used to describe ALL extremely low frequency which would include infrasound within the ELF frequency and also electromagnetic waves within the ELF frequency. When I put up the document here:

Infrasound

which describes the effects of infrasonic waves based on frequency (hertz), that document, as a description of the effect of waves in the ELF range is valid for those particular hertz. Frequency is what causes vibration is what causes synchronization. Audible sound can get your foot tapping but ELF frequencies can get your brain tapping.

The ionospheric heater of the HAARP facility willfully modulates an HF (high frequency) signal to a specifically selected ELF frequency in order to create synchronicicity within a relatively small (relative in relation to the whole thing) section of the ionosphere. Half of the power that HAARP uses goes into specifically directing and modulating the signal. The whole production is geared to creating specific ELF frequencies.

Simulations of ELF radiation generated by heating the high-latitude D-region

By modulating the ambient current flowing in the ionosphere, e.g., the auroral electrojet, it is possible to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) and very low frequency (VLF) radiation. This ionospheric modification technique can provide such waves for probing both the Earth and the ionosphere- magnetosphere.


The electrojet is modulated by using a high frequency heater (a few MHZ) with the power modulated at the desired ELF/VLF frequency to heat the ionospheric electrons in the lower D-region. Figure 1a shows a sketch of the heater and heated region. The heated region is typically at 75 km (though this depends upon the carrier frequency) and can be 30 km in diameter and a few km thick.


Viewed from above (see Figure 1b) the heated region is a roughly circular patch.


Since on ELF time scales the ambient electric field is constant, modulating the conductivity produces a current modulated at the same frequency.


The time varying current launches waves both up and down the Earth's magnetic field.


As the wave propagates in the waveguide, the top of the wave is approximately at the bottom of the ionosphere.


It strikes the ground and reflects back up to the ionosphere.


Part of the energy propagates up the field lines into the ionosphere. This is the bubble seen rising up.


These waves help form the bubble that propagates up the field line. Because of this, the diameter of the bubble is much larger than the heated region.



I assume you're talking about electromagnetic radiation. The lower the frequency the more difficult it is to obtain any sort of directionality (primarily because of the size of the antenna required). ELF electromagnetic radiation is not very directional.


DEMETER observations of ELF waves injected with the HAARP HF

Under such circumstances, the heated ionospheric area with its immediate surroundings acts as a huge ‘polar-electrojet’ antenna, radiating primarily at a frequency corresponding to the modulation frequency of the HF carrier.


Nevertheless, the degree to which modulated HF heating can be consistently used to inject ELF/VLF waves upward into the overlying magnetosphere, and the total ELF power radiated by such a source is not understood at a quantitative level.


This last sentence is a bit startling but not really when you consider that the ionosphere has now become one big lab for military experiments. The article and other articles I've read goes on to talk about the angles of the generated signal and how those strike between the earth and the ionosphere. So it seems like if one can understand angles, one can direct it, initially. Infrasound is not so easy to corral.

Sonic Weapons

Vic Tandy suggests that a broadcast infrasound weapon would, indeed, “cause more trouble than it is worth.” He explains: “In open air, the energy required to drive it is enormous and the effects unpredictable, ranging from serious harm to very little depending on the individual targeted. Directing infrasound is difficult because of the long wavelength, so if the weapon is to be activated by a person holding it, it would be hard to protect them from the sound.


(cont...)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


cont...

The HAARP facility, in their own words, describes their safety as follows:

Frequently Asked Questions about HAARP

The only points on the site that approach the EM safety standard are close to or directly under the antenna array itself.


A fence around the antenna gravel pad, about 60 feet farther out than the ground screen (about 150 feet away from the antennas all around), encloses the limited area under the antennas where fields might exceed the standard.


So the first angle and the area under the antenna array are going to be hot spots.

I'm adding a link here to a recording that someone made of HAARP:

HAARP Pulse Analysis

What do you think?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


This last sentence is a bit startling but not really when you consider that the ionosphere has now become one big lab for military experiments.
It is not startling at all. The propagation of any sort of long wavelength radiation is hit or miss, depending on the conditions of the ionosphere and magnetosphere. This is just as true for artificially produced (or induced) radiation as it is for naturally produced radiation. That natural radiation which is magnitudes greater than anything which can be artificially produced by HAARP. The VLF/ELF radiation produced by HAARP is very, very weak. From your source:

The estimated values of power onboard DEMETER at different frequencies range from 0.32W to 4W, while the values of power estimated from a ground receiver at a distance of 36 km from HAARP range from 2.71W to 4.22W.
www.agu.org...
4 watts.Terrifying. Just think, 10 times more power and it would be equal to your refrigerator light bulb.


What do you think?

I think, as I said before, you are further demonstrating your ignorance of electromagnetic radiation.
I think your link to a "recording" of HAARP is mostly nonsense starting with the fact that it says that the signal "was monitored on 3.39 MHZ" and the chart itself is showing frequencies in the range of 4kHz. Never mind the part where he claims that ions are accelerated to the speed of light by the signal from HAARP. Not even CERN can quite do that and it has a lot more power and a lot more control over the particles than HAARP does.

Rather than just searching for keywords (HAARP, ELF) and selecting scary sounding (but in reality are not) text bites, you should try to really learn something about the basics of what you think you are talking about. Granted, it can be kind of boring but in the spirit of denying ignorance it might be a good idea.
edit on 6/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join