You tell me.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

AFAIK HAARP generates radio waves, not electric current.

Yes but they're using the HF to heat/agitate the ionosphere.

Indeed - but that is still using radiowaves and not electric current to do so.

reply to post by luxordelphi


The link below may interest you?
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr... .pdf

Some quotes from the link above^

Chapman was perhaps the most influential scientist in the field of cosmical geophysics in the period
1920-1960, and was the creator of a mathematically elegant theory for ionospheric current systems
and magnetic storms

Plasma^^^

Since Chapman considered his theory of magnetic storms and aurora to be one of his
most important achievements, he was anxious to suppress any knowledge of Birkeland's
theory

What a surprise^^^^

A small, but growing, group of scientists from the two communities have sensed this problem,
and since 1991 this group has organized four bi-annual workshops entitled "Interrelationship between
Plasma Experiments in Laboratory and Space" (IPELS). This workshop, very much in the spirit of
Kristian Birkeland, signals a hope for increased awareness of the necessity of an interdisciplinary
approach to all sciences that deal with matter in the ionized state.

It is 20 pages of reading and well worth it^^^^^

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Indeed - but that is still using radiowaves and not electric current to do so.

The current is in the ionosphere. See the quotes from and link in my previous post.

reply to post by fireyaguns


Thankyou for that link which is here:

The Birkeland Terrella Experiments and their Importance for the Modern Synergy of Laboratory and Space Plasma Physics

Birkeland created aurorae, zodiacal light and rings (like the rings of Saturn) in the lab in the late 1800's.

Although plasma physics emerged as an independent physical discipline as late as in the 1950's, the roots can be traced back to the nineteenth century, even to the time before the electron was discovered by J. J. Thomson in 1897. At that time one did not have a clear conception of the fourth state of matter, but a few great scientists developed through laboratory experiments in discharge tubes and geophysical observations fundamentally correct ideas about the plasma nature of the sun, the interplanetary space, and the solar terrestrial interaction.

In 1896 he performed experiments where cathode rays were attracted by a magnetic pole, and he could produce a glowing light in the vicinity of this pole reminiscent of the northern light (polar aurora) [l].

He used a varying terminology for describing the medium filling his discharge chambers and the interplanetary space. Expressions like luminous or rarefied gas, radiant matter, and the fourth state of matter were used at different occasions, where a modern writer would have used the word plasma.

It was the Chapman guy who pooh poohed all of this research and that lasted until almost now. So plasma creation and manipulation didn't spring full-blown on the scene lately - it was all already done. It was just never done in the ionosphere itself.

So thankyou again - that explains a lot and also explains how a technologically advanced civilization can be like a baby with a laser gun and seem to have no qualms about experimenting on the global population.

The Aurora Borealis (northern lights) have been appearing further and further south in recent years. Yet magnetic north, which is tied to the aurora, has been moving further north. Incredibly large solar flares and eruptions (but they have to be really really massive) can trigger auroras further south than normal so either we've had some really big stuff thrown at us from the sun that has gone unreported or HAARP has agitated the ionosphere to the point of producing massive and wide ranging auroras. Auroras which are, in effect, the optics of earth-hitting solar flares and ejections.

Currently magnetic north is at 85 degrees north latitude which means that aurora should not occur below 62 degrees north because the aurora happens, at the most, 23 degrees from the magnetic poles.

Magnetic north moves about 40 miles a year but in a north-west direction so aurora occurrence should be moving north, not south. In or around 1948, magnetic north was at 73 degrees north latitude and that would have put aurorae as far south as 50 degrees north latitude which is still a long ways from Texas, Georgia and Alabama where aurora have been seen in recent years. Before that, in the late 1800's, let's say that magnetic north was as far south as 60 degrees north latitude. That still puts maximum aurorae occurrence at 47 degrees north which is roughly northern Oregon or southern Washington state.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Indeed - but that is still using radiowaves and not electric current to do so.

The current is in the ionosphere. See the quotes from and link in my previous post.

Yes I knew that - but you didn't seem to be making the connection. Sorry.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Currently magnetic north is at 85 degrees north latitude which means that aurora should not occur below 62 degrees north because the aurora happens, at the most, 23 degrees from the magnetic poles.

Except that's not true. There's no cut-off distance for the aurora - it's entirely dependent on the solar output, and during solar storms it can reach a long way south. It's also nothing new.

sciencefocus.com...

Produced by fast-moving particles from the Sun smashing into molecules in the upper atmosphere, the Aurora Borealis is normally thought of as something visible only above the Arctic Circle. Yet at times of high solar activity, they can be seen much further south: during the great solar storm of August and September 1859, the colours typical of aurorae were seen in Honolulu, just 21° north of the equator.

Historians have uncovered evidence suggesting that the southern hemisphere counterpart of the Northern Lights, the Aurora Australis, may have been witnessed even closer to the equator, with reports of the phenomenon being seen from Samoa in 1921, at a latitude of 13° south, and a disputed report from Singapore at just 8° south during the storm of 25 September 1909.

reply to post by Uncinus

Except that's not true. There's no cut-off distance for the aurora - it's entirely dependent on the solar output, and during solar storms it can reach a long way south. It's also nothing new.

Well of course - HAARP can trigger aurora further south than normal and huge solar flares/emissions can do it too. And that's exactly what's happening because while magnetic north flees further and further north, Aurora Borealis are seen further and further south.

Magnetic south is not tied to magnetic north in that just because magnetic north is at 85 degrees north, doesn't mean that magnetic south is at 85 degrees south - it could be much further north. Magnetic south is also not travelling at 40 miles a year like magnetic north is. Put up some information about it if you know. I'm in the northern hemisphere so I don't see Aurora Australis, the southern lights, so any information you have is welcome because HAARP is not there - it's in Alaska.

The link that fireyaguns put up had this to say about aurora in general:

Birkeland

It was well known at the time that the aurora had a maximum occurrence zone close to 23' from the magnetic poles. but the exact shape of the auroral oval was not known.

Throwing chemicals into the upper atmosphere from rockets, like the recent Wallops experiment, can also create aurora or at the very least 'colored clouds' for the great unwashed to marvel at.

Aurora Borealis

July 26, 1990 | From Associated Press A newly repaired unmanned rocket blasted into space Wednesday with a satellite that will use chemicals to transform Earth's invisible magnetic field lines into brilliant bursts of color. The 143-foot Atlas rocket roared into a clear sky, and the satellite separated from the booster 28 minutes after launch, drawing applause at the control center.

July 25, 1990 | From Associated Press On the fourth try, a newly repaired Atlas rocket blasted off today with a satellite that will splash the sky with colorful cloud displays while illuminating Earth's usually invisible magnetic field.

At this juncture, it's a good idea, imo, to differentiate between miraculous and man-made.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Except that's not true. There's no cut-off distance for the aurora - it's entirely dependent on the solar output, and during solar storms it can reach a long way south. It's also nothing new.

Well of course - HAARP can trigger aurora further south than normal and huge solar flares/emissions can do it too. And that's exactly what's happening because while magnetic north flees further and further north, Aurora Borealis are seen further and further south.

Magnetic south is not tied to magnetic north in that just because magnetic north is at 85 degrees north, doesn't mean that magnetic south is at 85 degrees south - it could be much further north. Magnetic south is also not travelling at 40 miles a year like magnetic north is. Put up some information about it if you know. I'm in the northern hemisphere so I don't see Aurora Australis, the southern lights, so any information you have is welcome because HAARP is not there - it's in Alaska.

Yes it is, and it can only affact the aurora in Alask, and then only very slightly. There's zero evidence it can affect the aurora elsewhere.

Consider that the solar wind is billions of times more powerful than HAARP. Any "aurora" created by HAARP is like a fart in a hurricane.

reply to post by Uncinus

Yes it is, and it can only affact the aurora in Alask, and then only very slightly. There's zero evidence it can affect the aurora elsewhere.

You're misinformed or not informed. Some HAARP agitations have traveled quite a long ways. The unclassified part of this study here says that ELF generated by HAARP traveled 4400 km. (2700 miles) from Alaska to Midway Atoll. That's from 63 degrees north to 23 degrees north.

Geometric Modulation

The southern hemisphere has its' own ionospheric heaters. You don't seem to know about those.

In 1989, before HAARP officially started operating, but during a time that other ionospheric heaters were operating, there was a major event reported in the news.

Aurora Borealis

March 14, 1989 Emergency agencies throughout the northern two-thirds of California received a spate of citizen telephone calls reporting flashing lights in the sky. Officials with the state Office of Emergency Services said people were seeing the aurora borealis, commonly known as the Northern Lights. Chuck Young, a warning controller for the OES, said that under normal circumstances the Northern Lights are seen only as far south as the Canadian border.

March 13, 1989 More large solar flares, each with the potential to disrupt radio transmissions and trigger aurora borealis, have erupted on the sun in the wake of an unusually large blast, researchers at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico said. A blast 36 times the size of Earth that occurred last Thursday on the sun's northeast quadrant was possibly the largest ever recorded, researchers said.

So the largest blast ever recorded, 36 times the size of Earth, caused auroras down to northern CA.

What really humungeous blasts caused these?:

November 10, 1991 | From Associated Press One of the most spectacular displays of northern lights in years awed sky gazers from Ohio to Utah and as far south as Texas, where solar particles fueled curtains, ripples and clouds of night brightness.

November 16, 2004 The Northern Lights viewing zone extended as far south as Alabama last week when solar particles erupted from an extra-large sunspot and collided with atoms in Earth's upper atmosphere.

May 24, 2005 The night skies over southwestern Montana danced with bright red and green shades of the northern lights, or aurora borealis, as seen May 15, from past midnight to just before dawn. The light phenomenon was visible down to California and Arizona.

February 18, 2011 | By Mary Forgione, Los Angeles Times Daily Travel & Deal blogger Thanks to a powerful solar flare , the northern lights are on tour -- sort of. Locals and lucky travelers in Northern Ireland this week have seen the dazzling ribbons of color usually reserved for higher latitudes.

Seems kind of everyday now. Like I said, either the magnitude of the suns' blasts are being grossly under reported or HAARP is having an aurorae field day.

Here's some more information on the sounds of the aurora. It's kind of hard to believe that the aurora were always this noisy and also kind of hard to believe that the ionosphere makes such a racket but hearing is believing. Time to rethink sonic booms.

Sonic boom - Definition

A sonic boom is the audible component of a shock wave in air. The term is commonly used to refer to the air shocks caused by the supersonic flight of military aircraft or passenger transports such as the Concorde (Mach 2.2, no longer flying) and the Space Shuttle (Mach 27). Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion, typically the shock front may approach 100,000,000 watts per square meter, and may exceed 200 decibels.

Space Weather Forecast

Q: Why are you interested in studying sonic booms in the ionosphere? One reason is that Mother Nature does it, so we study it. That's the most pure reason, I suppose. Another reason is that the plasma physics of that part of the atmosphere are unusual. It's a relatively cold plasma, and it's a molecular plasma unlike plasmas that you find in the sun, which are atomic plasmas. It's surrounded by neutral gas, so there's a lot of chemistry that goes on. It's also in a part of the sky that's very difficult to study because it's too high for balloons and aircraft, and too low for satellites. This is the part of the sky that ultimately burns up all the meteors, so instruments can't be there for very long. So remote sensing is the name of the game for getting long-term data for this part of the atmosphere.

Auroral Acoustics - Aurora Related Sounds - News

A recording produced on Sept 9-10 2011 during a geomagnetic storm by using three microphones and a VLF antenna picked up twenty similar clap sounds. Some of them were close enough in order to be detected by all three microphones. The collected data allowed the estimation of the location of the sound source. The sound source was on the open sky.

The result shows that the sound source - at this particular case - was real and on the sky, not far away from the ground.

Still I'm thinking that not a lot of people know that the ionosphere can produce sonic booms.

Mysterious, unexplained "booms" in Alabama, Georgia, Wisconsin

In separate events, mysterious booms shook residents of Alabama, Georgia, and Wisconsin. So far, government activities, earthquakes, and sonic booms are ruled out.

So that's enough there to mull over. Not really that mysterious when you think about what a busy little beaver HAARP has been.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Yes it is, and it can only affact the aurora in Alask, and then only very slightly. There's zero evidence it can affect the aurora elsewhere.

You're misinformed or not informed. Some HAARP agitations have traveled quite a long ways. The unclassified part of this study here says that ELF generated by HAARP traveled 4400 km. (2700 miles) from Alaska to Midway Atoll. That's from 63 degrees north to 23 degrees north.

But the ELF isn't what causes the artificial auroras, it's just a side effect. And the "auroras" created by HAARP are tiny, bare detectable.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

Can HAARP create an artificial aurora?

The natural aurora is created when very high energy particles emitted by the sun, reach the Earth's vicinity, are swept toward the Earth's magnetic poles, and collide with gas molecules existing in the upper atmosphere. The energy involved in this process is enormous but is entirely natural and it has been a normal event throughout Earth's history.
HAARP is so much weaker than these naturally occurring processes that it is incapable of producing the type of optical display observed during an aurora. However, weak and repeatable optical emissions have been observed using HAARP (and reported in the scientific literature) using very sensitive cameras.

So the largest blast ever recorded, 36 times the size of Earth, caused auroras down to northern CA.

It's not the size of the blast, it's the direction it's pointing in. And why focus on the last ten years, when there's pre-ionospheric-heater data available.
sciencefocus.com...

during the great solar storm of August and September 1859, the colours typical of aurorae were seen in Honolulu, just 21° north of the equator.

Or was HAARP travelling back in time? What was going on in 1859?

reply to post by Uncinus

But the ELF isn't what causes the artificial auroras, it's just a side effect. And the "auroras" created by HAARP are tiny, bare detectable.

ELF's are not a side-effect of HAARP. Their creation is one of the main thrusts of this venture. The lies from the HAARP website:

HAARP FAQ

HAARP is so much weaker than these naturally occurring processes that it is incapable of producing the type of optical display observed during an aurora. However, weak and repeatable optical emissions have been observed using HAARP (and reported in the scientific literature) using very sensitive cameras.

The truth from this story about the researchers themselves and, if you were in the northern hemisphere, the truth you would be able to observe yourself almost irregardless of latitude.

HAARP Creates Bullseye In The Sky

But since the facility ramped up to 3.6 megawatts - roughly three times more than a typical broadcast radio transmitter - it has created full-scale artificial auroras that are visible to the naked eye.

What part of 'naked eye' do you and the HAARP website not understand? The calls within CA to emergency services making claims of UFO's that were then attributed to aurora: what...are you saying these people were out there with microscopes looking for UFO's?

It's not the size of the blast, it's the direction it's pointing in. And why focus on the last ten years, when there's pre-ionospheric-heater data available.

No. Stop making things up just to fit your interpretation. Find the data that shows that the instances I put up within the last 10 - 12 years were the recipients of massive head-on blasts.

Or was HAARP travelling back in time? What was going on in 1859?

This is an interesting point you raise. Classical time-travel, imo, is bunk, however, while researching HAARP and HAARP-like facilities I increasingly have a sense of deja vu, an almost '12 Monkeys' feeling of impending doom and a race to avoid it. Almost like an end of days kind of a loop that never comes out right.

As fireyaguns has shown in the link he put up, real studies of the aurora and the ionosphere go back a long ways. I'm not up on Tesla but his experiments were also a long time ago.

Another interesting item in the fireyaguns link:

The Birkeland Terrella Experiments

One of the most impressive achievements of Stormer and his assistants was their numerical calculations of particle trajectories without electronic computers. More than 18000 working hours were spent on such calculations, and from the drawings and wire-models of these trajectories one gets a clear idea about how sensitive some trajectories are with respect to small changes in the initial conditions. This sensitivity, and its connection to chaos was first discovered in connection with other dynamical systems after it became common to solve such systems on computers.

This was a first glimmer of chaos theory and the paper speculates that if Birkeland, rather than the oh so wrong Chapman, had been accepted in his day, chaos theory would have become much earlier known and perhaps science would not have taken quite such a reckless turn. Here's a link on chaos theory (don't really know if the story on it's origins is true or not but it's a nice story and explains it well.)

Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction

Because of the unpredictability and non-linear aspects of the ionosphere with all of its' currents and chemical reactions, the hit and miss aspects of Russian roulette, being played out with HAARP have to spring to mind.

Originally posted by Pilot
Oh goog god! C'mon you guys, Aloysius and Uncinus, she's destroying you with her abundance of data and pertinent on-topic rejoinders...

On topic is a bit strong - given the jumping around from ELF to electricity and back again, bringing in all sorts of stuff that simply have no identifiable connection with anything other than they mention HAARP, etc., what's to actually discuss?? puz:

the tactic of apamming drivel and then claiming that tyour case is proved because every single piece of it is not debunked is well enough known to have a name- it is the Gish Gallop.

It is also a form of argument from ignorance

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The truth from this story about the researchers themselves and, if you were in the northern hemisphere, the truth you would be able to observe yourself almost irregardless of latitude.

So something visible to hundreds of millions of people has somehow escaped being photographed?

The northern lights vary naturally as space weather varies with the output of the sun on an 11 year cycle:
www.whoi.edu...

reply to post by Uncinus


Your post doesn't speak to mine. Perhaps I have been unclear.

In 1989, the L.A. Times reported that emergency agencies throughout northern CA received reports of flashing lights in the sky. It was explained to the public that they were seeing the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights. These northern lights, usually only visible, per the article, as far south as the Canadian border were being seen in northern CA because the sun had unleashed an unusually large blast - 36 times the size of the earth - and possibly the largest ever recorded.

In 1991, the L.A. Times reported that the northern lights 'awed' sky gazers in Ohio and Utah and as far south as Texas.

In 2004, the L.A. Times reported that the northern lights were seen in Alabama.

In 2005, the L.A. Times reported that the northern lights were seen for half the night in southwestern Montana and that they were visible in CA and Arizona.

In 2011, the L.A. Times reported that the northern lights were 'on tour'. They were seen in northern Ireland even though 'usually reserved for higher latitudes.'

Meantime, magnetic north continues to move further and further northwest by 40 miles a year. Yet the auroral displays move further and further south.

Where are the 36+ earth-size blasts from the sun that hit us directly during these years? Because if the blast had to be 36 times the size of the earth to cause auroras in northern CA, how big does it get to cause them in Alabama or Arizona?

Especially considering that magnetic north has moved quite a bit further north than it was in 1859 (your example from the historical record). Today, magnetic north is reported to be at about 85 degrees north latitude. In 1948, it was measured by several different expeditions and 73 degrees north latitude was agreed upon. A hundred years before that? - it was still even further south.

Just not adding up.

reply to post by luxordelphi


All of those events were associated with solar storms. The 1989 one was bigger than most of them, and could be seen further south, as far south as Cuba. Just like a similar storm in 1872

Here's a list of solar storms and auroral displays just like your list, except this list dates back 150 years.

www.solarstorms.org...

It's nothing new.