Nails in the Coffin

[Eanna]

Yeah, blah blah, science is great blah.. All I hope is that good science directs the hands of the rules makers here, and I hope that science helps us find clean, lasting energy sources soon, for the long term..

[garyb]

[braincell]

Yeah, blah blah, science is great blah.. All I hope is that good science directs the hands of the rules makers here, and I hope that science helps us find clean, lasting energy sources soon, for the long term..

Science can not expand the size of the earth. Any new energy solutions will only slow the destruction of earth.

We have all the science we need already, it's called the pill. There should be no need to invent new ways to make energy if we could just get people to be less selfish and more altruistic and just have one or two babies max. That is all it would take to fix everything.

[garyb]

yes, braincell, we know you hate human beings....

[Nestor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtkbJY_ ... 2BB4F3D234

A thoughtful brake...

[valis]

Gary, I see you mentioned HAARP 'affecting the lower atmosphere' through targeting the ionosphere.

It may be of interest to the audio engineers here to discuss HOW this happens. HAARP operates on principles that any HAM radio operator would be familiar with, except the wavelengths and transmission equipment fall well outside of the HAM radio bands and even allowable limits in any regulated country. So the energies being played with are electromagnetic on up (scalar electrodynamics is yet another fringe theory that you'll find is perhaps not so fringe, and is a macro counterpoint to QED's micro). So, once the 'instrument' is turned on what is created is a series of harmonic resonances or feedback loops within each 'wavelength' being targeted, so that the energies flow. This in turn allows the energies to 'build up' in such a way that the Ionosphere can be 'pushed out' or 'bowed out'. You'll start noting where the HAARP anacronym really comes from now...

The Ionosphere is used as a 'focusing lense' in a way, but it's a lense that's also affected by the energy targeting it. So imagine that 'harp', where you can 'tune' the instrument by putting energy into every string along the harp and 'pushing' the upper bow to where you want, to achieve the effects that you want.

What I'm saying is that HAARP effectively create(s/d) a lensing effect where the upper Ionosphere was 'pushed out'. That ALONE will affect the air currents and jet stream, and if you correlate the extreme northern 'flow' of things it might almost make sense. However watching that flow of northern air currents on a mapped GLOBE instead of a map projection (as almost all weather reporting services show) gives a different insight. Imagine the northern cold air to be a hat at the 'top' and the warmer air around the equator to be a 'belt' or waistline of a kind (just in terms of position and how the earth 'wears' it).

Now imagine that the axis of rotation for the earth's spinning, the magnetic axis, and the axis of the atmosphere are 3 related and connected, but distinct, systems for the sake of our theories. The magnetic axis is DIRECTLY tied into how the electromagnetic energy of the sun flows around the earth, through the Ionosphere, and this of course directly affects the weather.

So further imagine you have a way to 'tilt' the hat at the top AND the belt/waistline at the same time. You can push the COLD air to one side of the hemisphere and pull the WARM air up to fill in that gap. Simply by 'playing the HAARP', lest any musicians and audio engineers still not get the metaphor (which I certainly hope isn't the case).

[garyb]

yeah, it's actually quite monstrous.
people who think that these experiments are done for entirely altruistic reasons are just naive in my opinion.

[hubird]

And you are biased by conspiracy.
I'm on holyday, with bad wifi and iPhone, so can't go deeper. But I do trust scientists more than politicions, of whom you are one, after all

[braincell]

And you are biased by conspiracy.
I'm on holyday, with bad wifi and iPhone, so can't go deeper. But I do trust scientists more than politicions, of whom you are one, after all

I believe there is a war on science because of future shock. They just can not accept modernity. Same reason you have terrorism.

[garyb]

And you are biased by conspiracy.
I'm on holyday, with bad wifi and iPhone, so can't go deeper. But I do trust scientists more than politicions, of whom you are one, after all

first off, although i'm aware of polytricks, i'm not a politician. i'm not running for office.
second off, i'm a scientist. my grandfather was also a scientist. there's no need to be catty.

did you read what i responded to, or were you just popping off?

[dawman]

HAARP Arrays are truly monstrous.
I read how some genius thought poking holes into the upper atmosphere would send radiation caused by the Suns energy to go back out into space. Thus avoiding polar cap ice melt.

Seems it worked as later that year back in 2007 Antarctic ice increased doing the exact opposite of what NostraGoreUs predicted in his UN/Hollywood Blockbuster.

After that gaff he bought a 9 million dollar home on a beach in Malibu that he predicted would be underwater.

I say let these guys make millions being wrong.
Its good for the economy as they then can re invest that money in Coal and other energy.

Youd be surprised who sinks billions into Oil and Coal.
The very 2 billionaires that fund politicians promising the people energy costs will soar.

The Sheep will clack thier hooves in approval...

[garyb]

And you are biased by conspiracy.
I'm on holyday, with bad wifi and iPhone, so can't go deeper. But I do trust scientists more than politicions, of whom you are one, after all

I believe there is a war on science because of future shock. They just can not accept modernity. Same reason you have terrorism.

science is not a religion. it is a way of viewing the world. it's a type of problem solving. science requires people's ideas to be tested. most of what people call "science" are just theories. theories are educated guesses. these guesses have to have evidence to be considered true. when there is new evidence that proves otherwise, science has to admit it was wrong. simple logic says that if scientists can be wrong, it is not prudent to believe them blindly. truth has nothing to do with "modernity". new CAN be better, but sometimes it's just stupid. i am going to keep my right as a human being to refuse to go along with ANYthing or ANYone unless it makes sense to me. once i've made a decision, i reserve the right to change my mind when i get better information. if anyone wishes to challenge the ACTUAL facts that others discuss, they should at least test those facts and offer alternatives.

...or just be stupid and make trouble when you hear what you don't like.

what kind of guy gets in an argument and when he has nothing to argue and is faced with what he doesn't understand just uses slogans and insults to prove his points?

[braincell]

science is not a religion. it is a way of viewing the world.

I don't consider science as a way of viewing the world. That makes science sound as if it is a matter of opinion.

[garyb]

really?

how about a dictionary definition?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sure sounds like it's about a way to view the world to me....

[Nestor]

What kind of guy gets in an argument and when he has nothing to argue and is faced with what he doesn't understand just uses slogans and insults to prove his points?

Hubird

[braincell]

really?

how about a dictionary definition?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sure sounds like it's about a way to view the world to me....

When you say "a way to view the world," it implies there are other ways to view the world which is true but those are not validated through observation and experiments which can be duplicated. Science is the only valid way to view the world.

[tlaskows]

OT:

This thread is almost 1000 posts long. How about stealing back Plugiator technology and putting 2 Sharcs in a small box with MIDI control that can run Modular IV?! If one Sharc in the Plugiator can give about 12 voices on the Minimax, this would be a killer product. uhuhuh.

-Tom

[garyb]

really?

how about a dictionary definition?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sure sounds like it's about a way to view the world to me....

When you say "a way to view the world," it implies there are other ways to view the world which is true but those are not validated through observation and experiments which can be duplicated. Science is the only valid way to view the world.

i am implying none of those things.

also, it is very UNscientific to say "the only valid way to view the world". this assumes some kind of absolute knowledge is implied by scientific research. first, the very word "re-search" implies looking again(and again). second, good science admits that anything learned is true "for the moment" or "as far as we can see" or "in these circumstances", but it always allows for the possibility that what is understood may actually be very wrong. since science is based on observation, that means that the observer is part of the experiment. hence, science IS subjective, although if applied correctly, the most objective observation that is possible at the time will be made.

[Eanna]

Indeed, it's the "theory" of relativity, for example, not the "fact" of relativity..

If something comes along that explains observed phenomena more accurately, then the theory of relativity will be replaced in the accepted literature to which the scientific community subscribes, as a better "theory".

Just ask Newton! His theory of gravitational attraction was replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity! Some 200-odd years later

[braincell]

Indeed, it's the "theory" of relativity, for example, not the "fact" of relativity..

If something comes along that explains observed phenomena more accurately, then the theory of relativity will be replaced in the accepted literature to which the scientific community subscribes, as a better "theory".

Just ask Newton! His theory of gravitational attraction was replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity! Some 200-odd years later

Relativity is fact. It has been proven with experiments.