YELLOWSTONE ANIMALS FLEEING PARK. SUPERVOLCANO ERUPTION IMMINENT?

[SealHammer]

That depends on where the limits of what is possible are in your mind

Often we are told what is possible by others but the truth is that science has not been able to adequately describe the nature of reality...so really it seems a bad idea imo to place limits on possibility when you don't know yet what those limits are

muir, you've got a bad head for unbiased discovery. You decide on a conclusion you like and work backward picking up facts to support the conclusion. Science works from the observation of occurrences and the collection of data, drawing conclusions based on those data and observations with the assistance of previous knowledge. That's how we know that the churning and broiling of the earth's core keeps the planet's magnetic fields alive, keeps deadly solar radiation from turning all life on earth into soup, and, yes, affects the movements to and fro of the ionosphere.

The truth is that science, as a method, has given humanity a more adequate description of reality than anything else ever has. To say otherwise is to spit in the face of the wealth of knowledge humans have accrued over the past thousand years.

 

[muir]

muir, you've got a bad head for unbiased discovery. You decide on a conclusion you like and work backward picking up facts to support the conclusion. Science works from the observation of occurrences and the collection of data, drawing conclusions based on those data and observations with the assistance of previous knowledge. That's how we know that the churning and broiling of the earth's core keeps the planet's magnetic fields alive, keeps deadly solar radiation from turning all life on earth into soup, and, yes, affects the movements to and fro of the ionosphere.

I'm just saying that science is often weaponised

If you don't believe in HAARPs ability to do certain things then you could perhaps share the data that lead you to that view?

The truth is that science, as a method, has given humanity a more adequate description of reality than anything else ever has. To say otherwise is to spit in the face of the wealth of knowledge humans have accrued over the past thousand years.

I said science hasn't yet given us an adequate view of reality so we can't categorically deny certain possiblities

Science should not deny possibilites it should be constantly exploring with an open mind

The problem is that some individuals end up with something invested in a certain scientific paradigm for example they have written books or lecture on it and they then feel threatened if that paradigm is challenged

 

[sprinkles]

I found this video about it:

[video=youtube;KjkT9wy4AZ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjkT9wy4AZ0[/video]

Actually looking more into it, triggering earthquakes may be slightly plausible.

I can't say for a fact but if telluric currents could be disturbed that might contribute to a quake.

Though it certainly wouldn't be because of the resonant frequency matching - that much I do know. If it were possible it would be because of something like ohmic heating resulting in compression and fractures.

 

[SealHammer]

I'm just saying that science is often weaponised

Science, at its most basic level, is a process to accumulate accurate knowledge. How that knowledge is used is not within its purview. You can no more blame science for what it's created than you can blame religion for the people it's created.

If you don't believe in HAARPs ability to do certain things then you could perhaps share the data that lead you to that view?

That's not how this works. One cannot provide evidence for non-belief. That is much in the same vein of guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal trials: asking the woman to prove that she is not a witch. How can she provide evidence of the non-existence of something? This is what we call the burden of proof. Evidence must be given by the proposing party to support their position. I have seen no evidence that HAARP does anything other than atmospheric research; I have seen no evidence that the goings-on in the atmosphere affect the goings-on in the earth's core.

I said science hasn't yet given us an adequate view of reality so we can't categorically deny certain possiblities

Science should not deny possibilites it should be constantly exploring with an open mind

Certainly, but those possibilities must arise from evidence, not fanciful speculation. Honest knowledge starts from a position of total ignorance and total neutrality, then works towards conclusions from innocent observations. This is easier to see in early scientific discoveries post-scientific-revolution, like in the works of Newton, Hooke, etc. as much of what was discovered then is considered foundational knowledge nowadays (like the universal law of gravitation.)

The problem is that some individuals end up with something invested in a certain scientific paradigm for example they have written books or lecture on it and they then feel threatened if that paradigm is challenged

Yeah in the academic/research/scientific community these guys are most often known as either "hacks" or "assholes", often both. These are also often the types of people who practice cargo cult science and do shit like reusing data from another researcher's experiment for their own instead of using their own experimental controls, thus creating bad data. They are a minority, and thanks to the communal nature of research and the huge emphasis on peer review, these guys don't gain traction within their field. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for a loud idiot with a degree to get on the national news making some wild unfounded claim that gets everyone's blood pressure up, then making the jobs of quieter professionals much harder. Not only do those people have to contend with the day-to-day political bullshit (acquiring research funds), but they also have to assuage the concerns of every terrified and scientifically illiterate person who comes along.


e: Watching the video now.

e2: I was skeptical right around the moment that he said the HAARP array could be used to punch holes in the atmosphere to kill people with ionizing radiation, but it was the totally unsourced claim that it could be used for mind control that made me stop. That, and the lack of references to any professional atmospheric scientists or particle physicists or any actual research materials at all brings its claims into question. Without sources, it's pretty much an "I heard it from a guy" deal.

 

[muir]

Actually looking more into it, triggering earthquakes may be slightly plausible.

I can't say for a fact but if telluric currents could be disturbed that might contribute to a quake.

Though it certainly wouldn't be because of the resonant frequency matching - that much I do know. If it were possible it would be because of something like ohmic heating resulting in compression and fractures.

If a bridge wobbles and falls down at a certain frequency, if you can pass that frequency through the bridge it will wobble and fall down

[video=youtube;17tqXgvCN0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tqXgvCN0E[/video]

All you need to know is the frequency of earthquakes

 

[sprinkles]

If a bridge wobbles and falls down at a certain frequency, if you can pass that frequency through the bridge it will wobble and fall down

[video=youtube;17tqXgvCN0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tqXgvCN0E[/video]

All you need to know is the frequency of earthquakes

EM frequency is still not mechanical frequency. THAT part still doesn't work.

Edit:
Basically yes you could do this with a sonic wave. Sonic waves are not electromagnetic. They are propagated mechanically by the medium. This is why sound does not travel in a vacuum but EM does.

 

[muir]

Science, at its most basic level, is a process to accumulate accurate knowledge. How that knowledge is used is not within its purview. You can no more blame science for what it's created than you can blame religion for the people it's created.

Science has not yet found an adequate explanation for the nature of reality

That's not how this works. One cannot provide evidence for non-belief. That is much in the same vein of guilty-until-proven-innocent criminal trials: asking the woman to prove that she is not a witch. How can she provide evidence of the non-existence of something? This is what we call the burden of proof. Evidence must be given by the proposing party to support their position. I have seen no evidence that HAARP does anything other than atmospheric research; I have seen no evidence that the goings-on in the atmosphere affect the goings-on in the earth's core.

Watch the video and see what other information you can find so that you can make an informed decision not a knee jerk closed minded one

Certainly, but those possibilities must arise from evidence, not fanciful speculation. Honest knowledge starts from a position of total ignorance and total neutrality, then works towards conclusions from innocent observations. This is easier to see in early scientific discoveries post-scientific-revolution, like in the works of Newton, Hooke, etc. as much of what was discovered then is considered foundational knowledge nowadays (like the universal law of gravitation.)

My understanding is that you begin with a hypothesis and then try and prove it

Yeah in the academic/research/scientific community these guys are most often known as either "hacks" or "assholes", often both. These are also often the types of people who practice cargo cult science and do shit like reusing data from another researcher's experiment for their own instead of using their own experimental controls, thus creating bad data. They are a minority, and thanks to the communal nature of research and the huge emphasis on peer review, these guys don't gain traction within their field. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for a loud idiot with a degree to get on the national news making some wild unfounded claim that gets everyone's blood pressure up, then making the jobs of quieter professionals much harder. Not only do those people have to contend with the day-to-day political bullshit (acquiring research funds), but they also have to assuage the concerns of every terrified and scientifically illiterate person who comes along.

Well the problems with things like peer review is that the publishing houses that publish certain journals are owned by the same people who manage things like HAARP

As well as deciding what research to publish they also decide what research to fund

e: Watching the video now.

Great; i'm sure there is othert info out there as well

 

[muir]

EM frequency is still not mechanical frequency. THAT part still doesn't work.

You are still thinking in terms of the old paradigm

What i'm saying is that i believe EVERYTHING is resonating

This is infomration passed down in the mystery schools whether it is the bible proclaiming that in the beginning was the word or whether it is hindus chanting OM or whether it is cymatics and the creation of the egyptian hieroglyphs from sound or whether it is shamans using sympathetic music to draw energies out...it is all about resonance

 

[sprinkles]

You are still thinking in terms of the old paradigm

What i'm saying is that i believe EVERYTHING is resonating

This is infomration passed down in the mystery schools whether it is the bible proclaiming that in the beginning was the word or whether it is hindus chanting OM or whether it is cymatics and the creation of the egyptian hieroglyphs from sound or whether it is shamans using sympathetic music to draw energies out...it is all about resonance

See my edit:

Edit:
Basically yes you could do this with a sonic wave. Sonic waves are not electromagnetic. They are propagated mechanically by the medium. This is why sound does not travel in a vacuum but EM does.

 

[SealHammer]

Science has not yet found an adequate explanation for the nature of reality

You're repeating yourself, muir; I already addressed this. Nothing else has ever done better.

Watch the video and see what other information you can find so that you can make an informed decision not a knee jerk closed minded one

I always consider the evidence. The video makes a lot of claims and doesn't provide evidence (apart from some very severe inferences from official sources) to support those claims.

My understanding is that you begin with a hypothesis and then try and prove it

Incorrect. If you go into an experiment trying to find yourself correct in an assumption, you will find a way to prove yourself right. That is dishonest science. This is why testing for controlled variables is sometimes a pain in the ass in an experiment - it can be hard to find a way to measure something that doesn't result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The hypothesis is stated in a factual way, but the objective is to find a way to test the validity of that hypothesis. It's a steering point for your data, you could say: the machine through which you pass the punch card. If anything, you must seek to disprove it, or at the very least be totally agnostic about your experiment and results.

Well the problems with things like peer review is that the publishing houses that publish certain journals are owned by the same people who manage things like HAARP

As well as deciding what research to publish they also decide what research to fund

I'm not going to debate this one with you, we've been over it every other way in several different threads.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Or put it this way. Mechanical oscillation is the rate at which the physical structure itself resonates. Electromagnetic oscillation is the rate at which the wave or field itself oscillates. Some frequencies will pass right through objects and will mess with the magnetic field or disturb particles of a certain polarity which will effect the medium on a subatomic or even molecular level, it can cause heat and mess with conductivity and all of that. It could make water boil by exciting the particles.

If it were a mechanical frequency then a radio frequency at 32.70 hz would be heard as precisely a C1 note, as if you hit the key on a piano.

 

[SealHammer]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

While we're on the topic, because I think it's ridiculous and kind of awesome, if you tried to cause tectonic plate slippage using sound waves alone, good lord, can you imagine the speaker setup you would need and the power it would take to run it? At a certain point it would be more efficient to just use a subterranean nuke. Less likely to kill people, wildlife, and cause mass liquefaction of the earth's surface, too. It's hard to imagine the kind of rig you'd need to avoid the device just shaking itself apart.

 

[sprinkles]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
@<a href="http://www.infjs.com/member.php?u=6917" target="_blank">sprinkles</a>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

While we're on the topic, because I think it's ridiculous and kind of awesome, if you tried to cause tectonic plate slippage using sound waves alone, good lord, can you imagine the speaker setup you would need and the power it would take to run it? At a certain point it would be more efficient to just use a subterranean nuke. Less likely to kill people, wildlife, and cause mass liquefaction of the earth's surface, too. It's hard to imagine the kind of rig you'd need to avoid the device just shaking itself apart.

Yeah that'd be absurd. I want to build one and play this over it.
[video=youtube;TU01jHXdJCY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU01jHXdJCY[/video]

 

[muir]

@muir

Or put it this way. Mechanical oscillation is the rate at which the physical structure itself resonates. Electromagnetic oscillation is the rate at which the wave or field itself oscillates. Some frequencies will pass right through objects and will mess with the magnetic field or disturb particles of a certain polarity which will effect the medium on a subatomic or even molecular level, it can cause heat and mess with conductivity and all of that. It could make water boil by exciting the particles.

If it were a mechanical frequency then a radio frequency at 32.70 hz would be heard as precisely a C1 note, as if you hit the key on a piano.

So do you know for sure what HAARP does?

 

[muir]

You're repeating yourself, muir; I already addressed this. Nothing else has ever done better.

I always consider the evidence. The video makes a lot of claims and doesn't provide evidence (apart from some very severe inferences from official sources) to support those claims.

Stop making me repeat myself...go and do some research if you are interested

Incorrect.

If you go into an experiment trying to find yourself correct in an assumption, you will find a way to prove yourself right. That is dishonest science. This is why testing for controlled variables is sometimes a pain in the ass in an experiment - it can be hard to find a way to measure something that doesn't result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The hypothesis is stated in a factual way, but the objective is to find a way to test the validity of that hypothesis. It's a steering point for your data, you could say: the machine through which you pass the punch card. If anything, you must seek to disprove it, or at the very least be totally agnostic about your experiment and results.

I also said science should go in with an open mind didn't i?

Now you have lead the discussion away from HAARP and onto science

I'm not going to debate this one with you, we've been over it every other way in several different threads.

It remains true

 

[sprinkles]

So do you know for sure what HAARP does?

I know what it doesn't do if it's sending radio waves.

There's one way I know of for EM waves to possibly cause a destructive vibration, and that is escaping field from a device rattling the device itself. This is why some electronics audibly hum, because the magnetic field is magnetically oscillating the enclosure or whatever. High power transformers will do this quite loudly. You can also get oscillation if you position two magnets together just right.

But this only pertains to the local magnetic field around the device - the effect dissipates after a short distance. Hitting something with an electromagnetic beam from a distance isn't going to work like that.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Also here kind of explains why em radiation doesn't necessarily cause a resonant vibration in a medium
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm

You can see in this gif that resonance mainly cancels itself because the particle actually gets absorbed and then a copy of it is emitted.

 

[Rift Zone]

Your waffling within this post aside:

1.) There is no "mass exodus." There is a video on YouTube showing some buffalo running down the road, along with the claim that they are leaving the park. In fact, if park officials are to be believed, they are running a road leading further into the park, not out of it.

2.) The uplift has been occurring as long as there have been measurements done on the exact topography of the park (decades). There is nothing happening that has been upsetting to anyone who watches the numbers on a weekly basis. See Lerxst's post above.

3.) Nobody "knows" the caldera is preparing to erupt. Of the known signs that precede volcanic eruptions, none have been seen so far at Yellowstone.

4.) If you don't agree with the theory of plate tectonics (or geology as it is understood in general), conduct research and create a theory that explains the movements and formations in the earth's lithosphere and interior, then publish it for review. If you think the current base of knowledge is inadequate or incorrect, work within the method to change it. That is science.

[video=youtube;l1vwuBA6Gfk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1vwuBA6Gfk[/video]

1) I mentioned there being a lot of conflicting information about that. I'm not saying there is a mass exodus, I'm just telling you what one would mean.

2) "Uplift has been occurring" We see accelerated uplift. Earth bulging 3 inches a year is unprecedented. That value triples the fastest change we've seen prior. We've never seen any volcano do that! NEVER! -Not to that degree. What is happeining and what you're told may not perfectly align.

3)A volcano with a swelling magma chamber means THE VOLCANO IS PREPARING TO ERUPT! Any question about that?

4)I already rewrote the theory of plate tectonics: Archaic Crust Theory. The next time you wish to lecture someone about science, make sure they're not one of the most scientifically capable people on the planet. I mean, normally, playing the "scientist says" game may be a resounding success for you. Don't expect the same result this time.

 

[SealHammer]

Stop making me repeat myself...go and do some research if you are interested

I'm not your fucking dad, muir, I won't do your homework for you. If you've got a problem with what I am saying, then say so. Your "look up the facts yourself" shtick when you fail to make a cogent point is tedious and dull.

I also said science should go in with an open mind didn't i?

Now you have lead the discussion away from HAARP and onto science

Well, this is ultimately about your lack of scientific literacy. You have shown that you actually have a poor grasp on what science is, and I am totally willing to help you come to a better understanding of what is good science and what is bad science if you are equally willing to approach it in good faith.

1) I mentioned there being a lot of conflicting information about that. I'm not saying there is a mass exodus, I'm just telling you what one would mean.

You used a conditional ("if") to make you argument seem stronger. At any rate, if we agree that it's a non-factor, then there's no sense in mentioning it.

2) "Uplift has been occurring" We see accelerated uplift. Earth bulging 3 inches a year is unprescidented. That value triples the fastest change we've seen prior. We've never seen any volcano do that! NEVER! -Not to that degree. What is happeining and what you're told may not perfectly align.

Can you direct me to where you got this information? I wasn't aware that it's risen more this year than in the past.

3)A volcano with a swelling magma chamber MEANS THE VOLCANO IS PREPARING TO ERUPT! Any question about that?

Yeah, actually. Not all magma chambers erupt. Over time, it's entirely possible that the magma chamber will cease swelling and undergo a cooling period. You seem pretty interested in geology, I thought you would be aware of this.

4)I already rewrote the theory of plate tectonics: Archaic Crust Theory. The next time you wish to lecture people about science, make sure they're not one of the most scientifically capable people on the planet. I mean, normally, playing the "scientist says" game may be a resounding success for you. Don't expect the same result this time.

Hey, I think it's cool that you're interested in geology enough to have an alternate theory, but considering:

1.) you're not a geologist, and

2.) you haven't submitted your theory for review by actual geologists, and

3.) your theory is not based on anything more than amateur reinterpretation of researchers' data,

why should your armchair geology have more veracity than that of the professional researchers who do this for a living and have done so for years, and continue to do so with a constant stream of new data and an ever-increasing pool of experience?

 

[say what]

To be fair, the US Geological Service says that there is no immediate danger of massive eruption in Yellowstone.

So you must ask yourself. Do you trust the geologists or the animals' instincts?

What do these animals know that we don't?

Animals, 100%.

I think there are senses that the animals have, or just finer more sensitive senses, that humans are unaware of.

I don't think we need to rely on technology to tell us about the natural world! In fact, animals are probably the best, most authentic measure of our environment!!