HAARP the amazing weather manipulation tool you can run.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

A meter or ten . . . ha! Your are silly.

Glad you are amused - I find it quiet awesome

It is largely a chemistry issue though.
www.swsc-journal.org...
a06-p5 & a06-p9

Interesting paper on solar activity affecting the ionosphere - but why would that be relevant?? Did you mean to post a link to something about HAARP's (or any other ionospheric heater's) effects??

Or even something showing why this is "largely a chemistry issue"??

a reply to: network dude

Considering their current situation this is a fantastic opportunity that California can't afford to pass up. $5 meeellion dollars is chicken feed to them and they already have local experts to run the show. Wigs is apparently a wiz when it comes to knowing what HAARP can do and he sure knows how to place the "Donate" button on the website. He could probably turn a profit with this. Add in the expertise of the WonderBoi from Baja in nanoparticle manipulation and chemical wizardry in general and you can't miss.

If they pass (shocker), I still wish one of these loudmouthed people/groups whining about HAARP would put their money where their mouths are and at least try to demonstrate what they for some reason claim it can do.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

They could also get Brookes Agnew as he thinks he knows everything about HAARP.

That was until he met Mick West.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That was classic. I had to watch it again. For anyone interested the segment begins at about 31:00

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

A meter or ten . . . ha! Your are silly.

Glad you are amused - I find it quiet awesome

It is largely a chemistry issue though.
www.swsc-journal.org...
a06-p5 & a06-p9

Interesting paper on solar activity affecting the ionosphere - but why would that be relevant?? Did you mean to post a link to something about HAARP's (or any other ionospheric heater's) effects??

Or even something showing why this is "largely a chemistry issue"??

Ionospheric Storms
iono.jpl.nasa.gov...

These are associated with the earth's magnetic field ( en.wikipedia.org... ) his field is directly associated with protection from UV. The paper indicates the potential for instability in the field especially near the poles ( polar caps ).

What does it have to do with chemistry?

Why don't you explain what a chemical reaction is . . . Atmospheric chemistry ( en.wikipedia.org... )

Also, I don't think you really understand what you are looking at in that paper given the nature of your response.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So HAARP really does manipulate the weather and they are willing to let anyone take it over for "research"?

I am not a chemist, and admittedly don't know all the answers. Since you do, could you explain how HAARP controls weather?

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
This is what I was talking about in the "admission of weather control" thread yesterday. There is absolutely no way the government would relinquish such a powerful tool, which says that it is not so powerful. If it was powerful enough to unleash the Japanese tsunami at will, or whatever people believe, let's just let anyone play with it.

Perhaps... or perhaps we should be paying attention to whom the actual buyer of the $5 million/year turns out to be.

Then when things go wrong, the blame falls on the buyer and not the government.

"We told them not to use it more than twice a week. They exceeded the ionosphere operational limit and were hitting the ionosphere with energy eight times a week, some days multiple times."

I agree with you, it might not be that powerful. Then again, I think we should pay attention to the organization or individual that pays $5 million/year for it.

a reply to: WCmutant

Actually, the problem is, nobody wants to pay the 5 mill. That's why the USAF is taking it apart this summer. They are done with it and don't need it anymore.

We can speculate on what horrible new device they have all day. Sadly, they said the original HAARP facility was to help radio communications. So true or not, that's what we know, and that's what all the college kids who worked on the project were told.

But in reality, knowing about nuclear weapons, what could anyone come up with that would be more dangerous to humanity? I mean besides manbearpig.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Ionospheric Storms
iono.jpl.nasa.gov...

These are associated with the earth's magnetic field ( en.wikipedia.org... ) his field is directly associated with protection from UV. The paper indicates the potential for instability in the field especially near the poles ( polar caps ).

so a different paper entirely....??

What does it have to do with chemistry?

Why don't you explain what a chemical reaction is . . . Atmospheric chemistry ( en.wikipedia.org... )

why don't you - you're the one saying it is "more" about chemistry? Why isn't it "more" about atmospheric physics??

Atmospheric physicists attempt to model Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of the other planets using fluid flow equations, chemical models, radiation balancing, and energy transfer processes in the atmosphere (as well as how these tie into other systems such as the oceans). In order to model weather systems, atmospheric physicists employ elements of scattering theory, wave propagation models, cloud physics, statistical mechanics and spatial statistics which are highly mathematical and related to physics. It has close links to meteorology and climatology and also covers the design and construction of instruments for studying the atmosphere and the interpretation of the data they provide, including remote sensing instruments.

Also, I don't think you really understand what you are looking at in that paper given the nature of your response.
-FBB

Given that you couldn't explain the link you said existed, leapt to another paper that was seemingly irrelevant, and don't understand how chemistry is just a small part of atmospheric physics, I think you are not the one to be accusing anyone else of ignorance.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Chemistry is physics . . . . the papers do in fact relate to each other as on is an extension of the implications of the other.

You can jump and holler all you want, it is obvious beyond a doubt you don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

I am not about to waste time explaining it to you.

Go take a walk down to your local college/university and hand them the transcript of our discourse here.

They will laugh in your face . . .

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Chemistry is physics . . . .

I guess that all depends on who you ask...

Because according to Nobel Prize winning chemist William Lipscomb there is a difference.

"Chemistry is not 'physics with less rigor'. In chemistry there are discoverable guiding principles for systems which are too complex for a "first principles" approach. The nature of chemistry is very difficult to explain to most physicists, in my experience!"

wavefunction.fieldofscience.com...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Could you please provide a link to where he says that chemistry is not defined by the laws of physics?

Yeaaaaaahhhhh . . . . . okay bro.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Could you please provide a link to where he says that chemistry is not defined by the laws of physics?

It doesn't say that now does it?

Being defined by something does not make it the same thing.

Although fundamental laws that govern the behavior of matter apply both in chemistry and physics, the disciplines of physics and chemistry are distinct. Physics is concerned with nature from a very large scale (the entire universe) down to a very small scale (subatomic particles). All natural (or man-made) phenomena that are measurable follow some behavior that is in accordance with the most basic principles studied in physics.[1][2]

Physics is involved with the fundamental principles of physical phenomena and the basic forces of nature, and also gives insight into the aspects of space and time. Physics also deals with the basic principles that explain matter and energy, and may study aspects of atomic matter by following concepts derived from the most fundamental principles.

Chemistry focuses on how substances interact with each other and with energy (for example heat and light).[3][4] The study of change of matter (chemical reactions) and synthesis lies at the heart of chemistry, and gives rise to concepts such as organic functional groups and rate laws for chemical reactions. Chemistry also studies the properties of matter at a larger scale (for example, astrochemistry) and the reactions of matter at a larger scale (for example, technical chemistry), but typically, explanations and predictions are related back to the underlying atomic structure, giving more emphasis on the methods for the identification of molecules and their mechanisms of transformation than any other science.

Chemistry is not a sub-discipline of physics because chemistry differs from physics in aspects such as approach, emphasis (scope) and training of its practitioners. The knowledge obtained from studying either chemistry or physics can be used in a more direct way (as an applied science) or can be used to further our understanding of some aspect of nature.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a good example...

A motorcycle is not the same as a bicycle although they both have two wheels, a seat, and a handlebar they are two different things.

And the motorcycle was based on the bicycle design.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Chemistry is physics . . . . the papers do in fact relate to each other as on is an extension of the implications of the other.
You can jump and holler all you want, it is obvious beyond a doubt you don't understand what you are disagreeing with.
I am not about to waste time explaining it to you.
Go take a walk down to your local college/university and hand them the transcript of our discourse here.
They will laugh in your face . . .
-FBB

Sigh - thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.

But I did the university physics/chemistry/engineering thing 3 years ago, my sons are doing it now and it hasn't eraly changed all that much.

I am glad for you that you feel confident to make assertions without any need to explain them - and also glad for me - because such unsupported statements are the basis of being able to laugh at idiot conspiracy theories.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yet they both are limited and defined by the laws of physics . . . .

When you can show that electromagnetism, the strong and weak force, etc do not govern the behavior of chemical reactions I will gladly listen to you until then please go review the course requirements at top 10 universities.

Thermodynamics is listed under physics, electromagnetism is listed under physics, the nuclear force is listed under physics . . . none of these are core components of chemistry right?

All of the chemical reactions are governed by the laws and mathematical principles learned in these courses.

It is sad to see such science denial just to support your prejudice.

-FBB

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Chemistry is physics . . . . the papers do in fact relate to each other as on is an extension of the implications of the other.
You can jump and holler all you want, it is obvious beyond a doubt you don't understand what you are disagreeing with.
I am not about to waste time explaining it to you.
Go take a walk down to your local college/university and hand them the transcript of our discourse here.
They will laugh in your face . . .
-FBB

Sigh - thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.

But I did the university physics/chemistry/engineering thing 3 years ago, my sons are doing it now and it hasn't eraly changed all that much.

I am glad for you that you feel confident to make assertions without any need to explain them - and also glad for me - because such unsupported statements are the basis of being able to laugh at idiot conspiracy theories.

I agree not much has changed, especially Taylor series like those on page A06-pg14
www.swsc-journal.org...

Please demonstrate your understanding/experience by letting me know if the series converges or diverges. You don't have to show your work, just let me know what test simply proves such.

EDIT
Yes the constants are outlined in the paper and it provides links to studies which prove such so no coping out because it is a higher order differential equation.
/EDIT

If you do I promise I won't ever question your understanding again, but past attempts to elicit such knowledge from you has failed and degraded into your typical hit and run troll posts where you are never to be seen again.

I really really hope you do know it as it would alleviate many of the headaches I get reading your posts.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Interesting *discussion*. Since paint involves chemistry and chemistry IS physics, should one consult a painter for answers to physics questions?

Also, can HAARP control the weather? If so, how?

Thanks in advance for your valuable time and input.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

No.

also I should have written 30 years ago, not 3, sorry.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

It is sad to see such science denial just to support your prejudice.

What science am I denying?

And exactly what prejudice are you talking about?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

No.

also I should have written 30 years ago, not 3, sorry.

Didn't think so . . .

Too bad.

-FBB