Physics Discussion Thread

member_27873 · Post by **member_27873** » 23 Oct 2013 09:34

Moving fast! must be tribology has crept in?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Oct 2013 10:00

flash-drag effect

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 23 Oct 2013 20:30

matrimc, thanks for looking it up, now I have some resources, thanks to you and yadagiri garu, I will see if I can get a free pdf

or in the library.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 Oct 2013 21:46

For those interested in general relativity lessons there are some excellent lectures of Susskind from Stanford on youtube.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Oct 2013 23:12

Keep fingers crossed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/scien ... oudly.html

Dark Matter Experiment Has Found Nothing, Scientists Say Proudly

In 110 days of running, they will say, the biggest, most sensitive dark matter detector yet, a vat of 368 kilograms of liquid xenon, they have not seen a trace of the clouds of dark matter particles that theorists say should be wafting through space, the galaxy, the Earth and, of course, us.

At least not yet. The experiment has just begun.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2013 23:34

can black holes consume dark matter?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 31 Oct 2013 04:05

Bade saar could answer better, but from my understanding consume is the wrong word to use. The matter leaves our universe and nothing more can be said about it. If even light is affected by a black hole undoubtedly dark matter too will be affected. Still almost nothing is known about dark matter so the question is open.

I have aways had a doubt about blackholes. We know the force of gravity at the mass center of a star,planet,etc approaches zero. So is the force of gravity at the center of a black hole similarly zero. If so would it not rejoin the universe? Obviously the universe knows the answer, now up to us to figure it out....

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 Nov 2013 05:32

For the Black Hole the singularity in mass density is truly at its center unlike for ordinary planetary bodies where there is no singularity at the center.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 01 Nov 2013 06:53

Thanx, Bade.
It is hard to wrap my mind around such a concept.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 Nov 2013 07:18

SaiK wrote:can black holes consume dark matter?

Since dark matter also gravitates, there is no reason to believe this is not possible. Check the rotation curve and the observed effect of not following the inverse square law behavior expected from all accounted luminous matter aka non-dark matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Nov 2013 08:44

^why both A and B dips near center? is it because the mass is consumed?

how is the singularity maintained? consumed particles go where, become what?

How did they predict A to taper down on velocity at distance?

some level of explanation if the answer is complex needed. thx

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 Nov 2013 20:58

Saik, give some more thoughts to your qweschions.

There is no singularity at the center of the mass distribution that can be attributed to in the rotation curve, well if you ignore the possibility of a black hole at the center of the galaxy. So the expected rotational velocity behavior should be inverse with distance from center, all Newtonian stuff. It will rise steeply first as a lot of mass is closer to the center of the galaxy and dies down as you go further out.

There is no "consumption" whatever it means to you, in this picture.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Nov 2013 08:46

Sure.. please take your time, and 'd be glad to learn at any later time.

my earlier understanding was, those stars/nebula near the center of galaxy (basically black hole) only consumes.. slowly and steadily.. hence the consumption assumption.

they become non visible stars, and those which are visible are represented in the graph as spin velocity of the stars measured in relation to the distance from black hole.

may be i am reading it all wrong.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Nov 2013 08:45

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ng-the-sun
looks like a nice website

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Nov 2013 20:12

can STEM hawks sanity check these statements?

ibnlive

A Himachal Pradesh researcher, in his book published by Cambridge International Science Publishing, has picked holes in Newton's laws. The 340-page book 'Beyond Newton and Archimedes', written by Ajay Sharma, assistant director (education) with the state government, says Newton did not discover the second law of motion (F=ma). The second law of motion is an equation which relates mass and acceleration. Himachal researcher picks holes in Newton's laws "It is clear from the critical study of Newton's 'Principia', Book I, dated May 8, 1686. Nobody knows who has given F=ma," says the book, priced $80 or Rs.5,200. "The school level textbooks of 220 countries need to be re-structured, as coming generations have right to know the truth about law of motion," Sharma told news agencies.

On Newton's second law of motion, the book says: Consider a boy is standing at distance of 10 metres from the wall. Boy holds a rubber ball and cloth ball in his hands. Firstly, the boy throws rubber ball with force 2N (Newton) on the wall. The rubber ball after striking the wall rebounds to 10 metres. Thus, action and reaction are equal in this case. Secondly, the boy throws cloth ball with an equal 2N force on the wall. The cloth ball rebounds to five metres. Thus action and reaction are not equal. "Thus to every action there is opposite reaction but it may or may not be equal to action," says the 10th chapter of Sharma's book. (to me it seems the cloth ball being lighter will impact the wall with less force and suffer less force in return..but I am not a jee kamandu so handing over the podium to whoever wants to play)

"The book was reviewed by experts of the Cambridge University for more than seven months before it sent for printing," said 50-year-old Sharma, who is working on the basic laws for the past 31 years. Its first edition was printed Oct 28. "We are trying to get the book registered in Guinness Book of World Records and Limca Book of World Records, as it is the first book which generalises 2,265 years old Archimedes principle and 330 years old Newton's laws," he added.

Read more at: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/himachal-res ... ef_article

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Nov 2013 21:41

He has not proved anything contrary to the third law by the bouncing ball examples given, without accounting for all forces in the problem including dissipative ones. Both examples are like inelastic scattering of two point particles where change or transfer of momentum takes place in the process of scattering.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 11 Nov 2013 00:49

What kind of books Cambridge International Science Publishing publish? and why Guinness and Limca Books of World Records? If he is sure then he should send the findings to Science or Nature or at least get a sponsorship for publication on arXiv.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Nov 2013 07:12

they are a publishing co based in UK cambridge not paharganj for sure. http://www.cisp-publishing.com/

BEYOND NEWTON AND ARCHIMEDES
Ajay Sharma (India)
ISBN-13: 978-1-907343-93-3
340 pages - Hardback - October 2013
£50.00/$80.00

BEYOND NEWTON AND ARCHIMEDES

Ajay Sharma, India
Taking into account the current experimental and technological accomplishments and theoretical methods, this book stresses the basic laws of science, i.e. Archimedes principle, Newtons' laws, need to be generalized.. Generalization of the laws and principle are inevitable. Newton did not discover the Second Law of Motion F = ma. This is is clear from the critical study of the Principia. The 2265 years old Archimedes principle has limitations that it does not take into account the shape of the body and the viscosity of the medium under consideration. The Archimedes principle predicts that the volume of the medium filling a floating balloon/vessel becomes indeterminate, i.e. 0/0.These are serious limitations of the principle. Archimedes principle is generalized (up thrust is proportional weight of fluid displaced), the generalized form takes all elusive factors in account.
In the existing literature there is no quantitative theory which may explain the phenomena of rising, falling and floating bodies quantitatively. Such a theory is described in the book for first time.

Further background of Newton's laws of motion is discussed since days of Aristotle (384-322BC), Philiponnus (490-570), Buridan (1300-1358) and Galileo (1564-1642). The First Law of Motion is applicable under ideal conditions when resistive forces are not present in the system of the body and the medium. The Second Law of Motion is just the mathematical form of Newton's First Law of Motion. Newton's Third Law of Motion has been restated as 'to every action there is opposite reaction but it may or may not be equal.'
Contents
1. 2360 Years Old Aristotle's Assertion Revalidated by Stokes Law
2. Construction of Water, Glycerine
and Ethyl Alcohol Barometers
3. Archimedes Principle: The Oldest Established Law
4. The Generalized Form of Archimedes Principle
5. Prediction of Indeterminate Form Of Volume From
6. Archimedes Principle Is Stokes Law Applicable for Rising Bodies?
7. Limitation of Existing Theories and an Alternate Theory of Rising, Falling and Floating Bodies
8. Route to Newton's Laws of Motion
9. Experimental Confirmations of Equations of Conservation Laws in Elastic Collisions
10. Elastic Collisions in One Dimension and Newton's Third Law of Motion

---
9 & 10 indicate he has done some analysis of Bade's point.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 11 Nov 2013 08:14

Energy is conserved in a closed system. Conventional wisdom (physicists please correct the wording if there are any errors) is that this law (The Law of Conservation of Energy) is inviolable. If the boundaries of the closed system under observation are ill-defined then most probably it would be possible to derive contradictions similar to 0 == 1.

A thought experiment - for example if somebody can show that 0 == 1 from the above purportedly (empirically?) proven theory of Mr. (Dr.?) Ajay Sharma, then everybody will rush to re-examine Hilbert, Russell, Frege, Tarski, Godel, Post, Church, and Turing. It is a very big deal - a crisis in Foundations of Mathematics.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Nov 2013 09:21

can we assume 0 as infinity, or infinity as 0? just merge the definitions? if nothing as a reference point can be defined in infinite ways (contextual zero), then should it be not defined in infinite terms?

assumption: there is nothing called 0.. we just created one just for satisfying math gurus quests. why should div/0 error out? we can give a quantum jump to infinity?

like 0 being the center of universe, and a black hole!, everything in it goes to infinity.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Nov 2013 04:38

I was looking for something after hearing an anecdote about Gamma Ray pulse generator at some place and the discussion about neutrons here at BRF and came across this excellent site. This is outstanding material on some of the discoveries/inventions in Physics/Chemistry/Biology and even one paper on the first stored program computer - the Manchester Computer which had just 1024 bytes of storage. I also found an answer to my doubt.

Looking back at Nature portal

Since 1869, Nature has published some of the world's most important physics and astrophysics research, including the discovery of the neutron, the first laser, the discovery of superfluidity, the explanation of quasars, the invention of holography, and much more...

These papers are well worth revisiting, as much for their elegance and brevity as for their seminal content.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2013 06:22

one of the finest videos i have seen on Sun's CME. excellent animation
http://www.hulu.com/watch/81732

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 09 Jan 2014 22:14

Question for the Gurus
A helicopter flies upwards. It does not hit the buildings next to the helipad because it is still moving with earth so stays at same relative distance to the buildings. Quistion : how high it has to fly ( perpendicular to the helipad) to land on any spot east to the helipad (because of the rotation of earth) .

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jan 2014 23:36

^ It won't because all the time axis of the rotor will be normal to the point on earth from where it took off it will just reach it's service ceiling , if it tilts that axis then it won't be flying straight up anymore but move to towards the direction where the rotor is tilted to.

vivek.rao · Post by **vivek.rao** » 09 Jan 2014 23:59

I read an interesting side effects of string theory

Dark matter is matter in another 3 different dimension world. The the string particles composing that matter can have at least one different dimension. Example one dimensional dot in 2 dimensional plane can never cross the plane and go to another plane. Similarly 3 dimensional cube in a 4 dimensional hypercube will never clash with another cube which exists in space which has at least one different dimension.

But Gravity effects are felt in our dimension because gravity is simply curvature of space due to matter.

Does any one have any more info on this?

In that case "G" the gravitational constant should be different in different parts of universe depending the density of dark matter in different galaxies. Do we know if differs between different galaxies?

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 10 Jan 2014 06:14

rsingh wrote:Question for the Gurus
A helicopter flies upwards. It does not hit the buildings next to the helipad because it is still moving with earth so stays at same relative distance to the buildings. Quistion : how high it has to fly ( perpendicular to the helipad) to land on any spot east to the helipad (because of the rotation of earth) .

Not a guru but....the helicopter can go any height and if it comes down it will come down at the same spot. The copter rotates with the earth at takeoff. That rotational velocity at take off stays with the chopper, so the earth and the chopper rotate together, as the chopper goes up and comes down. (By the way, did you mean 'land _west_ to the helipad? Earth rotates from west to east, so with that kind of rotation, if the chopper did not rotate with earth, it would land west of the helipad)

Added later: One funny thing is that since you mentioned 'helicopter', that limits the situation to within atmosphere. THe helicopter flies because it pushes air downwards. It can go only as high as the atmosphere (as air gets less dense, the chopper will reach the 'service ceiling'). The atmosphere also rotates with the earth* excluding air currents and all that, certainly up to any height that a chopper can fly (30,000 ft max?). One chopper 'Europcopter' landed on top of Sagarmatha peak once, and that is 29,028 ft. Maybe the very outer reaches of the atmosphere might have limited quantities of air (molecules) breaking free of earth's gravity (*willing to be corrected on this.).

A follow-up question would be: will a rocket show the same behavior? A rocket is not constrained by atmosphere and can fly well out of it. The answer is 'yes'. At lift off, it has the same initial rotational velocity as earth. It will go straight up and into space, (and if it is not affected by any other force or heavenly body, of any kind

), it will come straight down where it took off.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 10 Jan 2014 19:49

Thanks negi saar. Srikumar thankyou very much for explaination. Actually your last paragraph was my question. So it implies that rocket conserve initial rotational vilocity? But how come you can see rotating earth from space station.......is it because space station itself is moving around earth? what happens if a rocket is launched verticaly in space and it parks itself on one point. If it is going to stay right above the launching pad for ever...........then it is in geosync orbit. Is it true or I m missing something?

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 11 Jan 2014 04:49

Yes, a rocket conserves its initial velocity. Any and every object on earth, when launched conserves its initial velocity (This why satellites are launched towards eastwards, rather than westwards. Eastbound satellites have the initial velocity of earth pushing it forward and therefore have extra speed.)

The space station is no different from any other satellite. It orbits the earth, just like any other satellite, at around 420 km (this is fairly close to the earth, and I believe, qualifies as low earth orbit). For any object, be it a satellite, a space station or a stone, to stay 420 km above the earth, it must move with a certain forward velocity. This is 7.6km/sec per wiki. Any slower and it will fall.

>But how come you can see rotating earth from space station...

This is because the space station is orbiting the earth. It completes one full revolution around the earth in 92 minutes roughly. It is moving faster than the earth rotation which is why you can see the earth move from the ISS.

> what happens if a rocket is launched verticaly in space and it parks itself on one point.

[If a rocket goes straight up and stays at one point, it will 'hover' exactly over the launch pad it took off from. This 'hover' point can be 100 kms , 200 kms, 420 kms or whatever height the rocket goes up to. ...] ---Added later: Response deleted in light of corrections/clarifications made in a post below. No other changes made to the post but for this para---

Satellites (including the space station) do not have any rockets pushing them away from the earth. And yet they dont fall down....because of their forward velocity (7.6 km/sec for the ISS).

> If it is going to stay right above the launching pad for ever...... then it is in geosync orbit. Is it true or I m missing something?

It will stay right over as long as the rockets keep firing. Satellites in geosyc orbit dont have any rockets pushing them away from earth*. And they stay in orbit (over a point on earth) because of their _forward velocity_, which is 3.7 km/sec (orbit radius is 35,700 km/sec). All numbers are from wiki.

* Before any purist jumps me, certainly satellites do carry rocket fuel, it is to give it kinetic energy and motion to guard against orbital decay (and other factors) which than can happen for a number of reasons (solar/lunar gravity etc.). The fuel is not used to keep it at that height in a action-reaction mode (as in a rocket). If it were, the fuel would be used up in a matter of seconds.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 11 Jan 2014 09:27

SriKumar wrote:If a rocket goes straight up and stays at one point, it will 'hover' exactly over the launch pad it took off from. This 'hover' point can be 100 kms , 200 kms, 420 kms or whatever height the rocket goes up to. It will reliably stay at this point as long as the rocket has fuel to push against the earth gravity and 'hover' over the point. What happens when the fuel gets burnt out? The rocket immediately falls back to earth, right on the launch pad that it took off from.

Saar,
didn't follow the whole discussion, just read some excerpts here and there. The bolded part seems strange, no? I mean why should the rocket fall back to same place from where it took off? Didn't the rocket chart its own course by defying the gravity(while traveling vertically upwards)? During this time, the earth rotated on its own axis, right? So, when the fuel is over, the rocket will fall down vertically downwards. And since the earth rotated, the rocket will have traveled some horizontal distance. So, the rocket stayed where it was but the earth rotated. So, according to this theory, if you just stay above the earth long enough in a rocket, then you can move horizontally.(According to the official scientific claims, rockets don't depend on interaction with atmosphere, so this should work with rockets, but may not work in helicopters because helicopters depend on atmosphere).

Does atmosphere also rotate along with earth, saar? If so, why? I mean why should atmosphere rotate? Gravity ensures that atmosphere and earth are in contact. Earth rotates and it may create some ripples in atmosphere. But, why should the atmosphere rotate? If the atmosphere doesn't rotate and stays as it is, then the helicopters should also be able to hover in the air for sometime and travel horizontally.

----

Mysterious Desert Sri Yantra Crop Circle Near Steens Mountain Oregon

In 1990 a strange Sri Yantra mandala formation found in an isolated dry lake bed Near Steens Mountain Oregon, it was first seen by Air National Guard pilots.

The lines in total equate to 13.3 miles, and are 10 inches wide by 3 inches deep. They were carved into extremely hard, compact dirt, and no signs of the removed dirt can be found also no foot-prints, no tire tracks, and no tool marks.

Sri Yantra, which means “holy instrument”, is an ancient symbol of Hindu tantra, which is based on the Hindu philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism. The Sri Yantra is the object of devotion in Sri Vidya. The shape is four isosceles triangles with the apices upwards crossing five isosceles triangles with the apices downward.

Link

Some speculate that such crop circles are created using HAARP. And that HAARP can also be used to create weather disturbances or earth quakes, landslides, cloud burst, tsunamis, ...etc. And that HAARP is based on the work of Nikola Tesla.

HAARP: Weather Control
Is the HAARP Project a Weather Control Weapon?

"It isn't just conspiracy theorists who are concerned about HAARP. The European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility."
-- From documentary on HAARP project's weather control by Canada's public broadcasting network CBC

HAARP

HAARP array: Gakona, Alaska

HAARP: What is it?

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is a little-known, yet critically important U.S. military defense project which has generated quite a bit of controversy over its alleged weather control capabilities and much more.

Though denied by HAARP project officials, some respected researchers allege that secret electromagnetic warfare capabilities of the HAARP project are designed to forward the US military's stated goal of achieving full-spectrum dominance by the year 2020.

Others go so far as to claim that HAARP can and has been used for weather control, to cause earthquakes and tsunamis, to disrupt global communications systems, and more. The U.S. patent of a key developer of HAARP and other documentary evidence support these claims.

Major aspects of the program are kept secret for alleged reasons of "national security." Yet there is no doubt that HAARP and electromagnetic weapons capable of being used in warfare do exist. According to the official HAARP website, "HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes." The ionosphere is the delicate upper layer of our atmosphere which ranges from about 30 miles (50 km) to 600 miles (1,000 km) above the Earth's surface.

The HAARP project website acknowledges that experiments are conducted which use electromagnetic frequencies to fire pulsed, directed energy beams in order to "temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere." Some scientists state that purposefully disturbing this sensitive layer could have major and even disastrous consequences. Concerned HAARP researchers like Dr. Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa and Alaska's Dr. Nick Begich (son of a US Congressman) present evidence suggesting that these disturbances can even be used to trigger earthquakes, affect hurricanes, and for weather control.

This essay is dedicated with caring and compassion to the many who suffered and died in the massive earthquakes in Japan and Haiti, and in the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

Who Created HAARP?

Dr. Bernard Eastlund is the scientist whose name is most associated with the creation and development of the HAARP project. His revealing website at this link provides reliable information on his involvement with the project. A 1987 patent issued to Dr. Eastlund, which can be viewed at this link, is titled "Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere." In this patent, which sets the stage for HAARP, Dr. Eastlund makes a number of fascinating statements which clearly contradict the claim that HAARP is only being used for research and not for military purposes or such purposes as weather control. Here are a few of key statements taken verbatim from the patent:

[The] temperature of the ionosphere has been raised by hundreds of degrees in these experiments.

A means and method is provided to cause interference with or even total disruption of communications over a very large portion of the earth. This invention could be employed to disrupt not only land based communications, both civilian and military, but also airborne communications and sea communications. This would have significant military implications.

It is possible ... to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world's communications are disrupted.

[This invention] can be used to an advantage for positive communication and eavesdropping purposes.

Exceedingly large amounts of power can be very efficiently produced and transmitted.

This invention has a phenomenal variety of ... potential future developments. Large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection. Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.

Electromagnetic pulse defenses are also possible. The earth's magnetic field could be decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or eliminate the magnetic field.

For those with any background in science, you might find it quite revealing to explore this patent in more detail. And remember that since the time of this patent, in which Alaska is mentioned several times as the ideal location, the government fully acknowledges that it has built a massive array of antennas in Alaska with the capability of disturbing the ionosphere exactly as described in Eastlund's patent.

HAARP Documentaries

Two key major media documentaries, one by Canada's public broadcasting network CBC and the other by the History Channel, reveal the inner workings of the HAARP project in a most powerful way. The very well researched CBC documentary includes this key quote:

"It isn't just conspiracy theorists who are concerned about HAARP. In January of 1999, the European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility."

To view the European Union (EU) document which brings HAARP and similar electromagnetic weapons into question, click here. The actual wording at bullet point 24 in this telling document states that the EU "considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing." This revealing document further states that the EU regrets the repeated refusal of the U.S. government to give evidence on HAARP.

To watch this engaging 15-minute CBC documentary online, click here. For an even more detailed and revealing 45-minute History Channel documentary on HAARP and other secret weapons used for electromagnetic warfare, click here. Below are two quotes from the History Channel documentary:

"Electromagnetic weapons ... pack an invisible wallop hundreds of times more powerful than the electrical current in a lightning bolt. One can blast enemy missiles out of the sky, another could be used to blind soldiers on the battlefield, still another to control an unruly crowd by burning the surface of their skin. If detonated over a large city, an electromagnetic weapon could destroy all electronics in seconds. They all use directed energy to create a powerful electromagnetic pulse."

"Directed energy is such a powerful technology it could be used to heat the ionosphere to turn weather into a weapon of war. Imagine using a flood to destroy a city or tornadoes to decimate an approaching army in the desert. If an electromagnetic pulse went off over a city, basically all the electronic things in your home would wink and go out, and they would be permanently destroyed. The military has spent a huge amount of time on weather modification as a concept for battle environments."

For those who still doubt that such devastating secret weapons have been developed, here is an intriguing quote from an article in New Zealand's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald:

"Top-secret wartime experiments were conducted off the coast of Auckland to perfect a tidal wave bomb, declassified files reveal. United States defence chiefs said that if the project had been completed before the end of the war, it could have played a role as effective as that of the atom bomb. Details of the tsunami bomb, known as Project Seal, are contained in 53-year-old documents released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade."

If the military secretly developed a weapon which could cause a tsunami over half a century ago, what kind of advanced deadly weapons might be available now? And why is it that the general public still doesn't know about secret weapons developed over 50 years ago? Clearly the military has the capability to cause a tsunami and likely to cause earthquakes and hurricanes, as well. To understand why the media isn't covering these highly critical issues, click here. It's time for us to take action to spread the word on this vital topic.

HAARP and Secrecy

Having interpreted to for top generals in my work as a language interpreter with the US Department of State, I learned that military planners are always interested in developing the most devastating weapons possible. Yet these weapons are kept secret as long as possible, allegedly for reasons of national security. The many layers of intense secrecy both in the military and government result in very few people being aware of the gruesome capabilities for death and destruction that have been developed over the years. There are many examples of major defense projects kept successfully out of the public's eyes for years and even decades.

The massive Manhattan Project (development of the first atomic bomb) is one such example. The building of an entire city to support the project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee was successfully kept secret even from the state's governor. The stealth bomber was kept top secret for many years, and the public still has no way of knowing it's full capabilities. It is through the use of the highly organized military and intelligence services that the power elite of our world, working in cooperation with key allies in government and corporate ownership of the media, are able to carry out major cover-ups and secret operations like those involved with HAARP.

Some researchers have raised questions about the possible involvement of HAARP in major disasters like the earthquake in Haiti, Indonesian tsunami, and hurricane Katrina. Could these have been HAARP experiments gone awry? Might they even have been caused by rogue elements which gained control of this devastating technology? Of course disasters like this happen regularly on a natural basis, yet if you begin to research, there is some high strangeness around some of these disasters. The evidence is inconclusive, yet with the known and unknown major destructive capabilities of this weapon, serious questions remain.

HAARP and Manipulation of Emotions

The capability of influencing and even controlling human emotions has been studied by the military and intelligence services of the world for many decades. For a concise, information-packed description of such programs with links to declassified CIA documents for verification, click here. One thoroughly researched book titled Mind Controllers describes an effective method of remotely influencing human emotions. Here's a key quote from this revealing book:

With the use of powerful computers, segments of human emotions which include anger, anxiety, sadness, fear, embarrassment, jealousy, resentment, shame, and terror, have been identified and isolated within the EEG signals as ‘emotion signature clusters.' Their relevant frequencies and amplitudes have been measured. Then the very frequency/amplitude cluster is synthesized and stored on another computer. Each one of these negative emotions is properly and separately tagged. They are then placed on the Silent Sound carrier frequencies and could silently trigger the occurrence of the same basic emotion in another human being.

An excellent 10-page summary of the book is available at this link. For the section focused on nonlethal weapons, which includes the above quote, click here. Using HAARP's powerful broadcast capabilities, it is within the realm of possibility that powerful antennas like that of HAARP and major facilities elsewhere could triangulate on an exact location anywhere in the world and send highly intensified frequencies matching the emotion signature of a desired emotion to produce anger or any other desired emotion in a group of people, as the human mind naturally entrains to strong frequencies around it.

This may all sound quite unbelievable to those who are not versed in the secret ways of of the military-intelligence complex. Yet there is strong evidence to support this possibility. Here is the abstract of U.S. patent number 5,159,703, approved in 1992, over twenty years ago:

A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated carriers may be transmitted directly in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical, magnetic or optical media for delayed or repeated transmission to the listener.

You can view the entire patent on the U.S. Patent and Trade Office website at this link. Below are the listed objects of the invention in that patent:

to provide a technique for producing a subliminal presentation which is inaudible to the listener(s), yet is perceived and demodulated (decoded) by the ear for use by the subconscious mind.
to provide a technique for transmitting inaudible subliminal information to the listener(s) at a constant, high level of signal strength and on a clear band of frequencies.
to provide a technique for producing inaudible subliminal presentations to which music or other "foreground" programming may be added, if desired.

In other words, the subliminal messages could be inserted into TV and radio waves without the awareness of the listener or viewer. Such messages could easily be beamed from satellites, as well, triangulated on a desired location. Using the incredible broadcasting capabilities of HAARP, these subliminal message could conceivably even be broadcast over a larger area to create the desired effect on an entire population. Sounds scary doesn't it? So why is this not being discussed more widely?

An informative paper on the usage of the silent sound technology and it's implications is available here. At least a dozen other patents have been approved related to the usage of technology designed to cause subliminal changes in desired targets. A list and brief descriptions of many of these patents with links for verification is available on this webpage. Here's a sample quote from Patent #6,506,148:

It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream.

Clearly, technologies have been developed and refined with the specific purpose of passing subliminal messages unbeknownst to the target. The capability of remotely influencing emotions through the use of certain wave lengths has been successfully demonstrated. The implications are huge. Yet there is exceedingly little regulation of how this technology will be used. By educating yourself on this important matter and spreading the word to your friends and colleagues, you can make a difference in building the necessary momentum to bring these matters to light and to ensure they are not used in disempowering ways.

Jesse Ventura, the former Navy Seal who turned pro wrestler only to then become governor of Minnesota, has a TV special on HAARP that is a bit sensationalized, yet contains useful information. You can watch this revealing program on YouTube at this link. For many other ideas and suggestions on how you can further educate yourself and what you can do to help inform others about this secret program and make a difference in our world, see the box below. And to bring this matter home, let us also look at where each of us are keeping secrets in ways that can end up harming those around us. Thanks for caring.

With very best wishes for a transformed world,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton

Note: Since the original publication of this essay on HAARP, some of the external webpages linked to here have been removed. We used archive.org to find copies of the disappeared pages. The official claim is that HAARP was shut down in June of 2013. This may be true, or it may be an excuse to stop the broadcasting of HAARP's frequencies on a public website, which was providing fodder for conspiracy theorists. With all of the intense secrecy around this for reasons of "national security," it's hard to know what is really happening.

Link

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2014 10:07

johneeG, it is a superimposing fake. i am surprised you fell for it.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 11 Jan 2014 10:14

johneeG wrote:
SriKumar wrote:If a rocket goes straight up and stays at one point, it will 'hover' exactly over the launch pad it took off from. This 'hover' point can be 100 kms , 200 kms, 420 kms or whatever height the rocket goes up to. It will reliably stay at this point as long as the rocket has fuel to push against the earth gravity and 'hover' over the point. What happens when the fuel gets burnt out? The rocket immediately falls back to earth, right on the launch pad that it took off from.
The bolded part seems strange, no? I mean why should the rocket fall back to same place from where it took off? Didn't the rocket chart its own course by defying the gravity(while traveling vertically upwards)? During this time, the earth rotated on its own axis, right? So, when the fuel is over, the rocket will fall down vertically downwards. And since the earth rotated, the rocket will have traveled some horizontal distance. So, the rocket stayed where it was but the earth rotated.

What you wrote above is partially right. I missed a subtlety with my original comment which bears correction. I agree with you that the rocket will not fall at the exact same spot as it was launched from. However, the rocket, on take off will have the linear, sideways motion of the earth' surface velocity, and in the same direction as earth's rotation. This velocity will stay with the rocket and will cause it to rotate with the earth. As mentioned earlier, this is the reason why satellites are launched eastwards. The earth's rotational velocity helps it reach the orbital velocity faster. Where things change a bit (and this was not captured in my original post) is whether the movement of the launch pad on the surface of the earth exactly matches the sideways movement of the rocket. I had originally assumed that it would be. But I dont think that is the case. In direction, it will not match for sure (earth is rotating while the rocket has been imparted an initial tangential motion only) and perhaps in magnitude as well. This needs some calculations to figure out the degree by which they differ. Bottomline: The rocket will not stay in one spot, it will have tangential component to its velocity due to the initial velocity imparted by earth, and it is not likely to fall back at the exact same spot as launch.

Does atmosphere also rotate along with earth, saar? If so, why? I mean why should atmosphere rotate? Gravity ensures that atmosphere and earth are in contact. Earth rotates and it may create some ripples in atmosphere. But, why should the atmosphere rotate?

About the atmosphere rotating part, I myself am looking for some solid proof (as mentioned in my earlier post) but if you consider that the earth surface rotates with a linear velocity of 1600 km/hr at equator, if one assumes that the atmosphere did not rotate with it, somewhere in the atmosphere we should see extremely severe disturbances and not mild ripples. Clearly, the air in contact with earth (say, first 10 meters, or even 1 or 10 kilometers) rotates with the earth. If it did not, we would feel a wind speed of 1600 km/hr. Even Mt. Everest, at 8.8 kms height does not see this kind of winds. So, close to earth surface, air has the same speed as the earth and therefore clearly rotates with it. If you assume that at some point above that air does not rotate with the earth at some altitude, there would be tremendously disturbances in those areas. I dont think there are any places with such severe wind velocities of 1000+ km/hr. But am looking for a more comprehensive explanation if there is one.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 11 Jan 2014 11:09

The atmosphere complicates things as does angular momentum but the velocity at ground level is ~ 1,000 kmph but velocity at Geo-centric orbit is ~ 11,000 kmph IIRC! If the helicopter hovers above the earth at a spot with following a perfect ellipse my conjecture without google chacha is, an object the rises straight up AND hovers with no lateral motion will land behind WRT the orbit. Of course this will not be true at the pole.

BTW difference in atmospheric velocity between the latitudes is what causes the Jet stream. Which moves at 100-300 kmph. Not sure if atmosphere elevation has more than a minor component.

This will not be true for an object like a bullet that goes straight up in a vaccum. As it goes up angular momentum is lost so the bullet will appear to fall back but once it enters free fall angular momentum will be conserved causing the bullet to speed up rotation and end up at the same spot. Kind like a spinning ice skater who pulls arms in speeds up.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Jan 2014 11:22

random rant: my quantum phys prof in undergrad, a nice german guy, for sure. but an atrocious teacher. used a grad-level book which delved right into operators and proofs in hilbert spaces. and this in a class which was supposed to be an introductory undergrad quantum course. everybody who took that class either stayed away advanced studies in Phys (chose a different field for grad studies) or doubled down over vacations on their own and learned the basics on their own time (to prepare for grad school). moi belongs to the former category.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 13 Jan 2014 20:07

wow I'll need time to understand all that. Meanwhile one more question. Why on cloudy and overcast day we are more likely to have good spels of sunshine in morning and evening. I notice this almost everyday in Brusselabad.Salam

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 13 Jan 2014 23:20

Sikumar: Do you mean tangential velocity when you say linear velocity? The angular velocity can be split into two orthogonal components - tangential and normal (radial in case of a circular orbit). As the atmosphere thins the tangential velocity component increases, doen't it? In the limit when atmosphere goes to zero, the negative normal velocity component goes zero.

Added later: Thinning atmosphere is because earth's gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of distance. As the rocket goes out further and further away from earth the negative normal force decreases - Just a clarification. Of course earth's gravitational force never goes to zero.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 14 Jan 2014 05:35

^^^ Yes, I do mean tangential velocity when I wrote 'linear velocity'. In fact, I also used the term 'initial tangential velocity' in one place for the same thing. The idea was to clearly distinguish the velocity imposed on the rocket- by earth, once it leaves the earth's surface. Once it leaves earth's surface, it will not have an angular velocity (the launch pad will continue to rotate with an angular velocity). As I see it the rocket, due to earth's rotation would have a linear velocity after leaving the surface, in a direction tangential to the earth's surface at the point of departure. Gravity is separate force pushing the rocket towards center of earth. The rocket exhaust is a separate force, pushing it radially away from the center.

About atmosphere, I dont think I understood the context fully, but as I see it, the tangential velocity should not increase after it leaves earth's surface since the rocket is going straight up (per rsingh's question) and so there is no sideways force on it (after it leaves earth's surface) to increase its speed .

As for the weather question, I'll let the heavy-weights respond to that.....apun tho sirf chowkidaary kar rahen hain bade log aane tak.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Jan 2014 06:39

Srikumar: Yes, you are right. The tangential velocity would be whatever it was at the surface (ignore friction due to air for now). You are also right about the atmosphere having nothing to do with the problem. Bad wording though wanted to convey that as an indirect measurement of the gravitational force decreasing with increasing distance..

So the resultant outward normal velocity will increase if the rocket engine is imparting acceleration (assume constant for now - though as the fuel burns off the mass reduces and if the engine is burning fuel at a constant rate the acceleration actually increases) and which opposes earth's acceleration due to earth's gravity g (again assume all gravitational forces due to all other bodies are absent as a first approximation). So when the rocket stops firing, one of the three things will happen - rocket falls back to earth, rocket continues to go away from earth, or it orbits earth.

If the rocket falls back to earth, then it should fall back on the pad. Is that correct?

I hope we understand what rsingh means by "going straight up"? In which frame of reference? There are two frame - the rotating launchpad frame and the non-rotating center of the earth frame. I think that makes a difference too, in that in the launch pad frame, we can ignore the tangential velocity component. Using this definition for "straight up", the rocket will fall back on the pad.

Added Later: Want to make explicit the implicit assumption I made - that launch pad is on on the equator, i.e. the axis of rotation of earth is normal to the plane of the great circle.

PS: The above in red is not required as long as the rocket is fired exactly normal to the surface of earth.

PPS: I was trying to brush up my understanding of reference frames - inertial and non-inertial. Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing. What is intuitive is messed up using some loose phrases like "deflect to left/right". I really hate all this visualization

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jan 2014 08:40

kanpoosan onlee.

would not a tangential path result in a parabola when the rocket stops firing? [assuming G force active]

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Jan 2014 08:59

Yes. In fact the projection of the rocket's path along the normal at the launch pad onto earth is the path of the launch pad. Think of the shadow of the rocket when there is a light sources is very far, the light rays are parallel to the direction in which the rocket was fired.

Added later: Wikipedia article about reference frames is reasonable but somehow I did not like the animations.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Jan 2014 02:54

Well Earth has an atmosphere because of it's gravitational pull , if it were not as massive as it is it would have as rare an atmosphere as some of the smaller bodies for example the moon. Hence it is obvious that earth's atmosphere does rotate along with the earth , however atmosphere unlike a solid body is not composed of molecules rigidly packed into a structure but is in fact a layer of air where molecules are free to move so it does not rotate in cohesion as a layer of air around earth, it gets churned by earth's spinning and molecules move from one place to another primarily because of uneven heating of land and water by the sun.