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

Originally posted by darkbake
In a second thread, there was a .pdf file posted that included formulas. Since I have a physics background, I spent about an hour decoding them so far and they are accurate. Here is a summary of the .pdf file so far.

I am afraid an argument from authority is not a proper form of debate.

As we have pointed out Fran has lied about his credentials, why do that if you are "on the level"? Wouldn't your work speak for itself? Wouldn't your work get you a real diploma? What about a real job? Well he has one of those, it just isn't what he says it is...

Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is a jocular phrase used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding.

Source

reply to post by adigregorio


I got a math/physics major and I will be looking over the material. I understand math. I'll let people know if I find something that looks like an error. I'll do the best I can here.

reply to post by adigregorio


Regardless of the man's credentials, I am going to look over the math and physics represented in the paper. While you are busy trying to discredit the man's character I will be working on checking out his work.

reply to post by darkbake


While I do not mean to insult, your "assertion" that you understand is not enough.

In order to properly fullfill the requirements of "proof" you would have to explain the equations step-by-step. Not just a paragraph explaining what the equation is, Fran did that already.

Furthermore, you would have to explain/teach the concepts behind those equations. Since I am fairly certain they are above and beyond algebra I.

This adds more creedence to what I posted at the top of this page. Why does he not do these things? Why does he lie about his status in society? Why would someone do these things?

Unless...unless...unless they were selling an idea that required the lies to be true....

reply to post by adigregorio


Just because you might not know enough math or physics to understand an argument I'm making, doesn't mean that my argument is wrong. That doesn't make any sense at all.

I think it would give you personally the right to doubt what I am saying of course, but it would have no affect on the integrity of my argument.

Anyway, that paragraph I wrote was just an introduction. After I look over the paper some more, I am going to explain it in more detail, and you are welcome to ask me if you need more help understanding it. I will give you as much help as you need.

And at any rate, I might find some fallacies in his paper. You should be looking forward to that.

Double Post

Originally posted by adigregorio
I am afraid an argument from authority is not a proper form of debate.

As we have pointed out Fran has lied about his credentials, why do that if you are "on the level"? Wouldn't your work speak for itself? Wouldn't your work get you a real diploma? What about a real job? Well he has one of those, it just isn't what he says it is...

You say an argument from authority is not a proper form of debate.. then go on to reference authority i.e. credentials from academic institutions.

An argument from authority is just that. Using credentials or reputation to affirm something. A true non-argument from authority is exactly what darkbake is doing, actually. He's diving into the equations and the paper and judging based on their consistency and not their abstracts, which is what you and the other guy have been doing.

Perhaps my first reading missed something, and in that case, I will do a more thorough reading later, but make no mistake, darkbake's approach is the legitimate scientific approach to topics like these.

Is it possible that his information is so close to the truth that he's falsified his personal life to protect himself?

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Just because you might not know enough math or physics to understand an argument I'm making, doesn't mean that my argument is wrong. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure it does, don't you remember what I posted earlier?

Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is a jocular phrase used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding.

Source

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by adigregorio
I am afraid an argument from authority is not a proper form of debate.

As we have pointed out Fran has lied about his credentials, why do that if you are "on the level"? Wouldn't your work speak for itself? Wouldn't your work get you a real diploma? What about a real job? Well he has one of those, it just isn't what he says it is...

You say an argument from authority is not a proper form of debate.. then go on to reference authority i.e. credentials from academic institutions.

Did you not see the part where I said he lied about his credentials

Furthermore did you not see where we showed that his diploma was not accredited as such?

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
He's diving into the equations and the paper and judging based on their consistency and not their abstracts, which is what you and the other guy have been doing.

He says he is diving into the equations. Again I cite the lack of credentials...This time it isn't Fran, but it is the same "issue"...

Just because someone says something is true, does not make it true. Furthermore I have yet to see a post in this thread that demonstraits the aforementioned poster has any knowledge in maths. Other than their claim of a "background" and "studies".

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
Perhaps my first reading missed something, and in that case, I will do a more thorough reading later, but make no mistake, darkbake's approach is the legitimate scientific approach to topics like these.

I might be familiar with their postings, but that does not excuse what is happening now. Anyway, contrary to belief I will not be happy when the math turns out to be false. Like I said, (third time now) I came in here for the possibility of manipulating time.

Funny, how when I think that this guy is a fraud I am a "skeptic" or something, even after I said I manipulate time myself...funny...

Originally posted by darkbake
In a second thread, there was a .pdf file posted that included formulas. Since I have a physics background, I spent about an hour decoding them so far and they are accurate. Here is a summary of the .pdf file so far.

QQXXw, you don't know what you are talking about. I have a good enough math and physics background to understand what is going on, and it makes sense so far. If I come across something that is wrong, I'll let you know.

Section 1: Introduction)
This is an overview. Basically, it explains what HAARP is used for, which is generating electromagnetic radiation at extremely low frequencies (ELF). To do this would normally require an extremely long antenna in order to set up the extremely long wavelength required to produce the ELF.

However, this can be bypassed by heating the ionosphere using high frequency radiation - this somehow produces ELF electromagnetic radiation. We can get into that more later.

Section 2: Gravitational Shielding)
This section explains the concept of gravitational shielding. In the last decade, a new formula was generated that explains the difference between inertial mass (f = m*a), which is used to calculate force, and gravitational mass, which is used to calculate gravitational force. The formula basically states that when the change in momentum is 0, there is no difference between the inertial mass (how much stuff the object has) and the gravitational mass (used to determine how much the object weighs). However, the higher the change in momentum gets, the less the object weighs.

This means that the faster an object accelerates, the less it weighs. Normally, the change in momentum would have to be extremely high to have any noticeable difference.

It turns out that that it is possible to create high acceleration by using electromagnetic radiation. Note that this does not mean the object has to move very far - since it would be possible to keep the object accelerating indefinitely by moving it back and forth at a high speed (its velocity would change from + to -, thus causing acceleration). So basically, the high-frequency electromagnetic radiation generated by HAARP super-heats particles, causing them to have high acceleration values.

The gravitational shielding comes into effect when (and yes this is possible the equations convinced me) the objects' weight (in this case I think they are referring to electrons in the ionosphere) become negative, and therefore, they counter-acts Earth's gravity.

The formula used for gravitational shielding is as follows:

Let Mg be gravitational mass
Let Mi be inertial mass
Let Mi0 be the original inertial mass
Let X be the ratio of them

X = Mg/Mi

Normally this would be 1, because the mass used to determine weight would be the same as the mass used to determine the amount of stuff the object has in it.

However, with high acceleration, this ratio can become less than 1 (meaning the object weighs less) or negative (meaning the object counter-acts Earth's gravity and provides gravitational shielding for everything below it).

Multiple gravitational shields can be placed on top of each other, for example, if there were two of them, the gravitational mass of everything below it would be X1*X2*(the original gravitational mass of the object) where X1 is the ratio in the first shield and X2 is the ratio in the second one.

edit on 24-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I just finished reading through the pdf. He shows basically what other people who have researched HAARP have shown with basically the same equations. They're done correctly and accurately.
I do have some issue with his conclusions. Even though he did the math correctly, the final values don't appear to be sufficient to support his claims.
From what he's shown, it can have effects on the weather, but not anything split-second immediate and nothing that changes the entire weather pattern. Basically, just causing a "little stir".
He's not shown any measureable effect on gravity. The minor forces produced aren't enough to force any fault slippage from what I saw, although there is a minor force involved. It would have to be a very delicately balanced fault for it to have any effect.
For my own summary of his findings, although he did the calculations correctly, I don't feel he has made significant measurements to justify the claims.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by adigregorio

 

I got a math/physics major and I will be looking over the material. I understand math. I'll let people know if I find something that looks like an error. I'll do the best I can here.

same here, degrees in both math and physics and I agree with what you have posted so far

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by darkbake

 

While I do not mean to insult, your "assertion" that you understand is not enough.

In order to properly fullfill the requirements of "proof" you would have to explain the equations step-by-step. Not just a paragraph explaining what the equation is, Fran did that already.

Furthermore, you would have to explain/teach the concepts behind those equations. Since I am fairly certain they are above and beyond algebra I.

This adds more creedence to what I posted at the top of this page. Why does he not do these things? Why does he lie about his status in society? Why would someone do these things?

Unless...unless...unless they were selling an idea that required the lies to be true....

It's not his calculations that are the problem, it's the assertation as to what the calculations imply that are at issue

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Yay for peer reviews! (Also a form of "proof", in case folks were thinking I was after screenshots of diplomas or something...)

PS: I play true neutral in AD&D too

Honestly, the fact stating from both sides is a little heavy. No wonder there is so much strife in these topics...

Anyway! I take it that time manipulation (on a massive scale) is still "just out of reach" then?

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Yay for peer reviews! (Also a form of "proof", in case folks were thinking I was after screenshots of diplomas or something...)

PS: I play true neutral in AD&D too

Honestly, the fact stating from both sides is a little heavy. No wonder there is so much strife in these topics...

Anyway! I take it that time manipulation (on a massive scale) is still "just out of reach" then?

From the paper he presented in the pdf, yes, it is still out of reach

The whole ship thing sounds just like the philadelphia experiment.

reply to post by Lichter daraus


Actually!

I do believe it is There is another movie that plays with this as well, though it has to do with more of a "wormhole" magnetizing the ship (If I remember right)

Of course, I am having trouble remembering the name of the movie. Takes place in the present (80's heh) and they go back to right before pearl harbor...


(The Final Countdown)


The Philidilphia Expriment

reply to post by adigregorio


Yeah, there are some interesting new ideas presented in the paper though that could open up avenues in the future I think. And a few other interesting ideas on his website. I haven't finished looking through the file yet, but I do get the idea that his formulas are accurate but there might be some problems when it comes to plugging in numbers and getting results good enough to cause earthquakes or hurricanes and time manipulation.

Still, it is interesting and potentially useful stuff. I'll check out the paper some more and his website and post anything that I think is really cool.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Yeah, there are some interesting new ideas presented in the paper though that could open up avenues in the future I think. And a few other interesting ideas on his website. I haven't finished looking through the file yet, but I do get the idea that his formulas are accurate but there might be some problems when it comes to plugging in numbers and getting results good enough to cause earthquakes or hurricanes and time manipulation.

Still, it is interesting and potentially useful stuff. I'll check out the paper some more and his website and post anything that I think is really cool.

edit on 24-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Agreed, very interesting as well as enjoyable.
It's not to say that they won't "tweek" it and at some point and make it have various effects either listed or not listed, he just doesn't have the adequate proof at the moment for his claims.

reply to post by adigregorio


nice i hope they are on net flix.