HAARP Active @ 7.406Mhz Shortwave

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam

 

No, you can't call light radio. You can call them both electromagnetic energy. You confused the terms before and some knuckleheads jumped on you and I had to read a pile of garbage that could have been avoided.

I'm picking on you because I agree with you arguments. I'm not picking on the other guys because they are not even wrong, and are not worth wasting my time with.

You're confusing the specific term "visible light" with "light". Yes you can call radio "light" and many scientists use the term light to refer to the entire EM spectrum just as shorthand. When you want to speak of just the specific visible portion that most people call 'light' on a daily basis, then you should say "visible light".

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Yes they are all frequencies and new school thinks they are all radio.
They are not. Audio is not radio. Light is not radio.
EM and sound share the same, similar , alike frequency range.
Light and radio do not.
The guy you agree with twists this to suit his fancy and is dead wrong.
No matter as no one has proven HAARP or any HAARP technology produced the transmissions in the OP.

They all HAVE frequencies. It's untrue they all ARE frequencies.

You can EASILY have sound that is in the radio frequency range. It's still sound. You can have radio waves that are in the audio frequency range. They're still EM.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam

 

No, you can't call light radio.

I tend to call all EM phenomena radio waves, because I'm a comm engineer and we view the whole thing as the radio spectrum. My physics friends tend to call EM phenomena light because that's how they learn it. They also tend to call anything that refracts or reflects EM "optics", I've got several "electron optics" and "radio optics" books on the shelf.

I'll make the distinction if you feel it's confusing the other posters.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam

 

No, you can't call light radio.

I tend to call all EM phenomena radio waves, because I'm a comm engineer and we view the whole thing as the radio spectrum. My physics friends tend to call EM phenomena light because that's how they learn it. They also tend to call anything that refracts or reflects EM "optics", I've got several "electron optics" and "radio optics" books on the shelf.

I'll make the distinction if you feel it's confusing the other posters.

absolutely right. Often physicists call the entire EM spectrum "light". Some of the arm chair scientists on this thread have simply never seen this. I have.

One concept I think neo-mystic and Donnie are not understanding is that both light(em) and sound function on frequencies but they're completely different types of frequencies that have no correlation to one another and do not INTERACT with one another.

You want to test that hypothesis? Easy. Turn on your radio and point the antenna at your face. Now scream at the antenna. Congrats you are now sending your sound wave acoustic frequencies in the form of air compression at the antenna's radio EM transverse wave frequencies. Does your voice interact with the radio waves? Do you see it forming a standing wave and having awesome new-agey mystical stuff occur? Can you levitate your radio by screaming at it? Of course you can't. Because the SOUND of your voice does not interact with EM.

If you have an EM wave of 20,000hz(roughly a radio wave) sent DIRECTLY INTO a sound wave of 20,000hz(roughly ultrasound) guess what? The two do NOT interact, do NOT cause any sort of standing waves, and do not affect each other. The EM wave simply goes through the sound wave because they are of two completely different types of waves and frequencies and in no way shape or form have anything in common or interact with each other.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
There are quite a few misconceptions going on here, from both sides of the camp.

One idea that seems to be causing trouble is that the difference between EM and acoustic waves is a simple matter. Well, it's not. Those who don't accept that EM energy is not the same as, and can't interact with acoustic energy(in the simplistic ways they imagine it could or should be able to) need to go and read a comprehensive account of A/ the discovery of waves in general, B/ acoustic interactions and C/ the discovery of electromagnetic energy. Those of use who grasp the difference between EM-waves and acoustics have already done this reading but really don't have the time to properly address the entire issue with the detail that is needed to convince those who are ignorant on the subject.

Also the ignorant folk are able to prolong these silly arguments because the educated ones are making blunders. Light is not radio. They are different parts of the spectrum and pages of nonsense have erupted over this confusion of terminology. Also, waves of all sorts do share similarities so the uneducated are able to say..look, they are the same..and the educated ones fail miserably by denying the similarities(similarities that are obvious even to the uneducated) therefore creating holes at which can be picked...good god, 18 frgging pages of it.

Yes, all of our senses rely on frequency based phenomena, either detecting frequencies of some sort or using frequencies to encode other data, data which is frequency based at some level....this is why the dopey ones are having a field day here. The supposedly not-dopey ones are being dopey as well.

Finally, someone who has put together the information in a logical format and understands the whole spectrum of how RF, HF, ELF, and electromagnetic radiation work in similar fashions. I intentionally kept my point of view from this argument just to see how long things would go before someone with intellect stepped in and provided a balanced point of view.

Well done.

I'm sure that someone will attack you for displaying a a well thought out perspective, but, I assure you...it won't be me.

Star for your effort my friend.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Did you actually say that..."you still don't THINK that I'm right?"

You literally just said that. This tells me that you didn't read a bit of the information that I gave you and purposefully choose to ignore it to save face and retain your preconceived notions on how the ionosphere works.

It's a nice way of saying "you're full of bullpoo", not an admission of lack of understanding.

The information you gave me was basically "bla bla mystic crap bla bla go look it up if you are too stupid to know this". And I did, even though I knew you were wrong, but I did go look, and behold! I found just what I knew to be true anyway. And so I told you you were incorrect, again, only I did it politely.

Let's try it another way. You're wrong. Wrong on that, like you're wrong on a number of things, only you don't understand enough about science or you're so willfully obtuse that you can't understand the explanations. There you go, that's the somewhat less polite form.

LOL...you equate my pointing out the positive and negative interactions of the ionosphere and the weather as MYSTIC CRAP???

You are far more lost than I could have previously imagined.

Learn. Learn. Read...Think. Don't find stuff that just reinforces the silly beliefs that you have been regurgitating over and over. Its unbecoming and shows a lack of evolution.

If you're not aware of how the ionosphere works, and it is blatantly apparent that you don't, then do yourself a favor and find out. That's all it takes. This isn't an insult to your ego, although its quite easy to see that you are interpreting this as such. This is a way to open your mind to new information and enlighten you on the FACTS that you are missing.

You can insult me all you like and try to demean my intelligence, but, I will say this...its only a reflection of your own stubborn nature. You cannot get under my skin or upset me. Its an impossibility. Until you have done the necessary leg work to prove your theories, then, that's all that you're spouting.

And...from now on, try to provide some sources other than your opinion, or than telling me "I THINK that you're wrong." That doesn't cut it in the world of academia, although it may suffice on a site like this where people argue conjecture daily.

If I were you, I'd talk with Phage and learn a bit more about research and presentation of information. He is obviously who you are trying to emulate, but, without the thought, the process of intellect, and a penchant for detail. And, although I have had vehement disagreements with Phage, I respect the work that he does because of his ability to correctly articulate his points.

Much love to all...

[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


You don't even know that sound and light are two different things and you have the gall to attack someone else of not having 'knowledge'? You're a riot, kid.
Bedlam has displayed much more scientific knowledge in a single refutation of your ignorant theories than you've shown in all of your posts combined. We're giving you hard science, and all you're giving is lame and spurious ad hominem attacks about how someone is trying to emulate someone else when the only emulation occurring here is your emulating the ignorance of Donnie's posts.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
LOL...you equate my pointing out the positive and negative interactions of the ionosphere and the weather as MYSTIC CRAP???

You are far more lost than I could have previously imagined.

Positive charges, negative charges - these relate to a physical phenomenon called "charge" and have definite physical causes and effects.

Positive and negative emotions, "vibes", "positive weather", "negative weather" etc are emotional responses, or mystic crap, or new agey mumbo jumbo.

Where the problem comes in is when you try to equate two differing sets of concepts at the point where the term "positive" or "negative" occur. Or frequencies, or vibrations, or other emotional/new agey vs physics terms. They don't mean the same things, even though they're the same words.

And...from now on, try to provide some sources other than your opinion, or than telling me "I THINK that you're wrong." That doesn't cut it in the world of academia, although it may suffice on a site like this where people argue conjecture daily.

Again, it was being polite. When I'm not polite, you bow up about me being insulting. When I am, you try to take it as uncertainty. If I take the time to present you with a set of refutatory data, you won't read it or you'll try to go mystical. You couldn't get away with any of your statements in academia. Unless it's the sort of academia where Begich got his "doctorate". I guess at a homeopathy school it would fly.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam

 

No, you can't call light radio.

I tend to call all EM phenomena radio waves, because I'm a comm engineer and we view the whole thing as the radio spectrum. My physics friends tend to call EM phenomena light because that's how they learn it. They also tend to call anything that refracts or reflects EM "optics", I've got several "electron optics" and "radio optics" books on the shelf.

I'll make the distinction if you feel it's confusing the other posters.

Well, that's interesting because I am also a Telecommunications major/Political Science Major at Indiana University. I am also a music engineer by trade working on new advancements in Generative Sound or applied three dimensional technology to music; and my father was the top Industrial Engineer for CRANE, otherwise known as the Naval Weapons Support Center in Indiana and supervised multiple divisions.

Just so you know, new information comes out daily in academia concerning RF technology and frequency manipulation. You might require an update. It seems that you are surviving strictly on the old format, and, there are new advancements that render the old way of thinking entirely useless. I am 36 and have been involved with technology and infrastructure advancements and studies in cable (Fiber to Node optics etc,) I know a whole lot more than you think that I do. But, for me, its entertainment to watch people argue about all of the information that THEY THINK THAT THEY KNOW. You see, I've done this over and over on many threads and butt heads with people who argue for the sake of ego rather than argue for the sake of learning. And truly, that's all I'm seeing on this thread.

reply to post by rufusdrak


Duh! I have never mention mph or speed in any way shape or wave form.
Reading comprehension my friend.
FREQUENCY IS MY GAME HERE
Have an ice day

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Well, that's interesting because I am also a Telecommunications major/Political Science Major at Indiana University. I am also a music engineer by trade working on new advancements in Generative Sound or applied three dimensional technology to music; and my father was the top Industrial Engineer for CRANE, otherwise known as the Naval Weapons Support Center in Indiana and supervised multiple divisions.

There's a big difference between a comm theory EE and a telecommunications major. One's physics and one's humanities. I make the radio transmitter, you figure out how many commercials to play before the customers run off. Good for your dad, you ought to bring him along for some of the discussions.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're seeing to make you believe that ionospheric charge causes bad weather. It's true that there is normally quite a potential difference between the ionosphere and the ground, that varies a lot, at the equator you can even get charge reversals but that doesn't happen often where we are.

Thunderstorms do a lot of charge transport within themselves, so the ground-atmosphere potential does tend to reverse during a storm, but in that case the atmospheric charge as seen from the ground tends to be positive, not negative. And it's the cloud causing the charge reversal, not the charge reversal causing the cloud.

You get really big thunderstorms, you can get charge transport of all sorts going on in there, not just within the cloud, but from the top of the cloud into the ionosphere, which causes sprites and the like.

So, yes, I do agree that "bad weather" i.e. rain and/or thunderstorms cause variations in the vertical field at the ground, but it's backwards from what you said, and it's a cause, not an effect, and it's more a tropospheric effect than ionospheric. YMMV.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
LOL...you equate my pointing out the positive and negative interactions of the ionosphere and the weather as MYSTIC CRAP???

You are far more lost than I could have previously imagined.

Positive charges, negative charges - these relate to a physical phenomenon called "charge" and have definite physical causes and effects.

Positive and negative emotions, "vibes", "positive weather", "negative weather" etc are emotional responses, or mystic crap, or new agey mumbo jumbo.

Where the problem comes in is when you try to equate two differing sets of concepts at the point where the term "positive" or "negative" occur. Or frequencies, or vibrations, or other emotional/new agey vs physics terms. They don't mean the same things, even though they're the same words.

And...from now on, try to provide some sources other than your opinion, or than telling me "I THINK that you're wrong." That doesn't cut it in the world of academia, although it may suffice on a site like this where people argue conjecture daily.

Again, it was being polite. When I'm not polite, you bow up about me being insulting. When I am, you try to take it as uncertainty. If I take the time to present you with a set of refutatory data, you won't read it or you'll try to go mystical. You couldn't get away with any of your statements in academia. Unless it's the sort of academia where Begich got his "doctorate". I guess at a homeopathy school it would fly.

How ever you choose to interpret my posts is completely subjective. I have not attacked you in any way, nor have I tried to dictate whether your posts have been uncertain or not.

Human body systems are ran by currents and electricity just like anything else. So, whether you choose to interpret my statement as mystical mumbo jumbo is your malfunction, not mine. Everyone has their own frequency, and their frequencies are affected by the naturally occurring frequencies of the earth, weather, and ionospheric fluctuations. Its pretty simple stuff. If you're not able to make that connection for yourself with all of the information that is available, then, there's not much that I can do for you.

But, my suggestion for you is this, learn about human anatomy and how the nervous system operates. Don't simply limit yourself to RF frequencies just because you are a Communications Engineer. There's a whole world of information out there, and you'll be surprised how much things cross over in the sphere of frequencies.

For instance: Do you consider this Mystic Stuff?
rawstory.com...

Or how about the fact that radiation therapy is used to treat and possibly cure cancer? Or...even sometimes causes it.
www.cancer.gov...

How about Polygraph Tests/Brain scans???
www.npr.org...

I suggest you do some studying my friend, because without the idea that synaptic charges are not only readable but affected by electricity and radiation, much of this technology would not exist.

So...Mystic mumbo jumbo has been utilized by the scientific community for ages. Welcome to the 21st century. OUCH.

Much love to all...




[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

A good way to find out who is transmitting on those frequencies would be to transmit a powerful signal yourself on the same frequency and see who complains. You might open and close the garage door for the space shuttle. If someone tells you to stop using that frequency over the radio or comes by your house, well, you know they did it.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

Duh! I have never mention mph or speed in any way shape or wave form.
Reading comprehension my friend.
FREQUENCY IS MY GAME HERE
Have an ice day

K now tell me, frequency of WHAT are you talking about? Do you even know what a frequency is? It's obvious that you don't. A frequency is an oscillation of something, it can be anything as a person pointed out before me tapping my finger on the desk is a certain frequency.

Just because two completely different things use a similar term like 'frequency' does not make them even vaguely similar in any way.

Can you describe to me the frequency oscillation of a pressure wave? No you couldn't you have no idea what the term frequency even means. You only know that it's some vague term that applies to both light and sound so to you that makes sound and light identical.
You would never even pass high school let alone get a college degree with such idiotic ideas so I highly doubt you're over the age of 15.

reply to post by Bedlam


Ah...that's where you are utterly mistaken. Telecommunications spans not only communications and infrastructure, but also delves into theory and has been responsible for all of the technology that you are currently engineering now. The reason why your field exists is because of the minds that make it possible from Telecom. And theory is exactly what you are missing.

What you are actually saying is this...You're the grunt that does what his C.O. tells him to do and works with the technology that is given and provided.

But, Telecom is the Scientist that makes everything that the grunt does come to fruition. Telecom gives the grunts the purpose and their employment. Telecom is the research, the implementation, and the development of the very technology that you have been "trained" to engineer. Do you think the grunt knows what the scientist has developed and how it works??? NOPE. All the grunt does is use the technology that the scientist provides and follows those procedures without question and fulfills tasks with utter loyalty. That's the difference between your field and mine.

And you might want to study on Telecommunications. It spans the development from Cable, to media, to video games, to engineering, and experiments with the very frequencies that you are trying to explain on this particular thread. You're referring to media research and cultivation theories...and yes, those also exist within the telecom field. By the way, Indiana University is one of the top schools in the U.S. for telecommunications. The networking and the technology is superior to all of the existing schools in the Big 10, and rivals many of the ivy league institutions.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Human body systems are ran by currents and electricity just like anything else. So, whether you choose to interpret my statement as mystical mumbo jumbo is your malfunction, not mine. Everyone has their own frequency, and their frequencies are affected by the naturally occurring frequencies of the earth, weather, and ionospheric fluctuations. Its pretty simple stuff. If you're not able to make that connection for yourself with all of the information that is available, then, there's not much that I can do for you.

Ok, in this paragraph, you're using "frequency" in the mystic sense. By which I mean, not in a physics sense. It's the theosophic/new age term. Everyone does NOT have their own frequency. Frequency of WHAT? Frequency is an attribute of some phenomenon. It's not a stand-alone thing.

The same way with "naturally occurring frequencies of the earth, weather, ionospheric..." Frequencies of WHAT? What sort of frequency does weather have? Again, you're using it in a new age sense.

But, my suggestion for you is this, learn about human anatomy and how the nervous system operates. Don't simply limit yourself to RF frequencies just because you are a Communications Engineer. There's a whole world of information out there, and you'll be surprised how much things cross over in the sphere of frequencies.

I actually do know something about it. But again, you're invoking "sphere of frequencies" as if it were a tangible thing. It's like talking about how things cross over in the world of speeds, or the universe of temperatures, if you were using it in the physics sense, which doesn't seem to be the way you're using the word.

For instance: Do you consider this Mystic Stuff?
rawstory.com...

And now, the non-sequitur links. No, I don't consider it to be mystic, but I do consider it to be a non-sequitur.

Or how about the fact that radiation therapy is used to treat and possibly cure cancer? Or...even sometimes causes it.
www.cancer.gov...

And another non-sequitur.

I suggest you do some studying my friend, because without the idea that synaptic charges are not only readable but affected by electricity and radiation, much of this technology would not exist.

Synapses do not have charges. Nerves don't conduct electricity like a wire, except between nodes of Ranvier. Communications across synapses occurs using chemical signaling.

When a neuron fires, a wave of depolarization propagates down the cell body and down the axon. That's not an electron current flow like a wire, at least not one that's longitudinal to the axon. It's a wave of ion channels opening and closing, allowing the exchange of sodium and potassium ions across the membrane (sometimes other electrolytes like calcium as well). That causes a small but detectable potential change, which you see on EEGs, but the signaling itself is caused by the wave of depolarization, followed by the emission of a neurochemical transmitter at the synapse in response to the depolarization event. Which is why nerves don't signal near the speed of light, like a wire would.

Of course, that's not related to your cancer link, nor really even the one about "reading your mind", which is fMRI related. Or "frequencies".

reply to post by Bedlam


Nope...this is not in the new age sense. I am simply speaking in generalities. You need to learn the difference. All of this information is available, you just need to search it out.

And if you actually said that a synapse does not have a charge, when it itself is a form of electricity, then you're really stretching out the idea that you are not aware of the nature of electricity and the currents in which they travel. I see that you have a relative understanding in how the synapse operates, but, you have no idea on what the synapse itself actually is.

It is quite obvious that you are very intelligent, but, you seem to know more about the specifics of information rather than revisiting the basics.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
But, Telecom is the General that makes everything that the grunt does come to fruition. Telecom is the research, the implementation, and the development of the very technology that you have been "trained" to engineer. Do you think the grunt knows what the scientist has developed and how it works??? NOPE. All the grunt does is use the technology that the scientist provides and follows those procedures without question and fulfills tasks with utter loyalty. That's the difference between your field and mine.

SNORT Right, man. You are a scientist! That's not the way it works.

The physics guys come up with the egghead stuff, that's your scientists. For comm theory, you generally don't need physicists for the day to day stuff, because it's an engineering problem more than a physics one. When you're dangling over the weird edges of stuff, like ionospheric research, you bring in the physicists.

The engineers do the design work.

The telecomm majors do media research and web design. They do content management. They do station management.They don't do comm theory at all. You MIGHT get a rundown on how to shut down the transmitter if the station engineer's gone home early.

Here's a typical telecom major curriculum at the bachelors level:


RTV 2100* Writing for Electronic Media
RTV 3007* Intro to Telecommunication
RTV 3405 Television and American Society
RTV 4931 Ethics and Problems in Telecommunication

ADV 3000 Elements of Advertising
RTV 3200 Fundamentals of Production
RTV 4500 Telecommunication Programming
RTV 4506 Telecommunication Research
RTV 4800 Telecommunication Operations and Planning


RTV 3101 Advanced Writing for Electronic Media
RTV 3200 Fundamentals of Production
RTV 3320 Electronic Field Production
RTV 4221 TV Studio Production/Direction

RTV 4929 Senior Advanced Workshop in Production
RTV 4500 Telecommunication Programming


RTV 3303* Electronic News Writing and Reporting 1
RTV 4301 Electronic News Writing and Reporting 2
RTV 3280 Writing and Reporting for Interactive Media
RTV 3305 Investigative Reporting

RTV 3304* Radio News 2
RTV 4302 Television News 2
RTV 3284 Advanced Writing and Reporting for Interactive Media

RTV 3403 Electronic News Media Producing and Management
RTV 4340 Special News Projects (can be repeated once)

and here's a typical EE comm theory option bachelors curriculum:

First Semester
EE 101 Intro. Electrical Engineering
EE 102 Computers and Programming in EE
MTH 121 Calculus I
CHM 110 General Chemistry I
CHM 111 General Chemistry I Lab
ENG 101 English Composition

COM 103 Oral Communication Process
MTH 122 Calculus II
PHY 110 University Physics I
Gen. Ed. Fine Arts

EE 201 Digital Hardware Organization
EE 205 Fundamentals of Circuit Analysis
EE 221 Data Structures and OOP
MTH 223 Calculus III
PHY 201 University Physics II

EE 206 Sophomore Laboratory
MTH 207 Elementary Linear Algebra
MTH 224 Differential Equations
PHY 202 Applied Quantum Physics

EE 301 Signals and Systems I
EE 303 Principles of Electronics I
EE 365 Microprocessors
EE 331 Junior Laboratory I

EE 302 Signals and Systems II
EE 304 Principles of Electronics II
EE 332 Junior Laboratory II
EE 381 T-Lines and EM Fields


EE 450 Electronic Product Design
EE 451 Senior Laboratory I
EE 402 Undergraduate Design Seminar
EE 452 Senior Laboratory II


EE 530 - Random Variables and Signals (EE 530 was changed to EE 630 effective in the fall semester of 2008)
EE 531 - Communication Theory (Title changed to Communication Theory I effective in the fall semester of 2008)
EE 532 - Information Theory (Title changed to Communication Theory II effective in the fall semester of 2008)
EE 533 - Digital Image Processing
EE 534 - Digital Signal Processing

EE 540 - Dynamic Systems Analysis
EE 550 - Electromagnetic Theory
EE 551 - Radio Frequency Circuits and Systems
EE 555 - Optical Fiber Communication

As you can see, there's a bit of difference in the number of hard science based courses. I'm all for telecomm majors, though, it makes the news programs so much more entertaining when you've got a good director and someone who can set up a nice background matte.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
And if you actually said that a synapse does not have a charge, when it itself is a form of electricity, then you're really stretching out the idea that you are not aware of the nature of electricity and the currents in which they travel.

(jaw drops) EM, a neural synapse is a very small gap between the axonic terminal of one neuron and the dendritic receptor region of another neuron, across which little packets of neurotransmitters pass.

I see they're calling gap junctions synapses too, we always used the term 'gap junction'. For a gap junction, you have ion channels that are shared between cells so that when one cell depolarizes, the same channels depolarize the abutting cell, so in that case you don't have a gap at all, really, and you use an ion channel to fire the other cell.

But they're not "a form of electricity".

Originally posted by Bedlam
That causes a small but detectable potential change, which you see on EEGs,

The human body can generate or store electro static charges of tens of thousands volts which can knock out and destroy computers, credit cards etc.

However, the body itself generates mere millivolts. Had we been able to produce equally power-efficient machines we could run diggers and lorries on relatively small batteries, without the use of internal combustion engines or similar machines.

A few links on the subject:
Human static capacity
"Human voltage"

In an ESD event, the human body can reportedly generate static charge levels as high as 15,000 volts by simply walking across a carpeted floor and 5,000 volts by walking across a linoleum floor. The potential difference between a charged human body and an object retaining an insignificant charge can range from a few hundred volts to as high as 30,000 volts

Source: www.aecouncil.com... (PDF format) Page 3 (p. 169)

[edit on 6/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]