So, we're to believe that HAARP somehow automagically transmitted a focused beam with the energy equivalent of 600,000 megatons of TNT across the planet to Turkey? And then sent that same amount of energy there again, resulting in a 7.7 Richter scale aftershock,
I'm not sure about HAARP, but a directed energy beam with energy the size of an earthquake is not required to cause an earthquake.
In general, an earthquake is caused by tectonic plates moving against each other. You can think of the interface between two tectonic plates like an "accident waiting to happen." In other words, there is a tremendous amount of potential energy there, waiting to be released. How likely it is to be released is based on how stable the structure is between the two plates, not on how much energy will be released. Think of this like an "activation energy."
For example, a ball sitting on top of a pencil, even if it is perfectly balanced and "stable" is pretty likely to fall off. Thus all the potential energy stored in the ball will very likely be released. (It will take very little energy to release the potential energy stored in the system). A ball sitting on top of a curved niche, sitting just as high as the pencil, but that perfectly fits that ball, will have just as much potential energy to be released as the pencil situation, but a much less likely chance for it to be released. It is in a much more stable position, even though the potential energy is identical.
In each case the amount of energy required to take it away from it's stable position is only the amount of energy required to do so; very little in the pencil case, more in the curved niche case. But this activation energy has (basically) nothing to do with the potential energy stored in the system. It is the potential energy stored in the system when the earthquake happens that is what is read by a seismograph, not the activation energy (at least in any system where the activation energy is much less than the stored potential energy, like a natural tectonic shift).
This holds true for any place where the energy required to take a system out of equilibrium is less than the potential energy stored in the system, not just for tectonic plates.
I'm addressing your protest of the amount of energy required. It doesn't require that much energy. It doesn't require anywhere even close to that much energy. My point is only that something you stressed as incredible in your protest is not taking into account that any such "earthquake device" would take advantage of stored potential energy.
As to the other, as far as I understand, HAARP uses microwaves to cause a targeted heating in the ionosphere. I can't imagine how such action could possibly cause earthquakes. However, me not understanding how something works doesn't mean it doesn't work.
IMO, If there is a weapon that is able to cause directed earthquakes I doubt it is HAARP. I think that something that sets up a resonance within the earth is a more likely method. It wouldn't actually take that much energy to make that happen (no where near the energy released, at least potentially), and such a system could apply whatever energy was required over time, as a function of setting up that resonance, targeted at flaws in the earth. Alternatively, directed heating taking advantage of similar flaws could also potentially produce similar results. In either case, such hypothetical weapons would be some form of directed energy, taking advantage of flaws (fault lines) or other weak points in the earth's crust that already exist (they are all over the place), substantially reducing the energy input requirements.
Finally it is conceivable to create a directed energy weapon that heats up the subsurface sufficiently to create magma pockets deep underground, or even excite and/or expand magma pockets that already exist. This would cause the earth above it to move, shift, and/or fall. Again, a lot less energy is required to do this than the energy potentially released.
I am making these things up. I don't know if they exist, but I don't think it is impossible. Given the resources these people have, I don't even think it's that hard.
I'm not sure about HAARP, but a directed energy beam with energy the size of an earthquake is not required to cause an earthquake.
In general, an earthquake is caused by tectonic plates moving against each other. You can think of the interface between two tectonic plates like an "accident waiting to happen." In other words, there is a tremendous amount of potential energy there, waiting to be released. How likely it is to be released is based on how stable the structure is between the two plates, not on how much energy will be released. Think of this like an "activation energy."
For example, a ball sitting on top of a pencil, even if it is perfectly balanced and "stable" is pretty likely to fall off. Thus all the potential energy stored in the ball will very likely be released. (It will take very little energy to release the potential energy stored in the system). A ball sitting on top of a curved niche, sitting just as high as the pencil, but that perfectly fits that ball, will have just as much potential energy to be released as the pencil situation, but a much less likely chance for it to be released. It is in a much more stable position, even though the potential energy is identical.
In each case the amount of energy required to take it away from it's stable position is only the amount of energy required to do so; very little in the pencil case, more in the curved niche case. But this activation energy has (basically) nothing to do with the potential energy stored in the system. It is the potential energy stored in the system when the earthquake happens that is what is read by a seismograph, not the activation energy (at least in any system where the activation energy is much less than the stored potential energy, like a natural tectonic shift).
This holds true for any place where the energy required to take a system out of equilibrium is less than the potential energy stored in the system, not just for tectonic plates.
Great explanation!
Sure, this is the theory, but, now describe how the weapon works. There's a huge unsupported jump, here.
I'm addressing your protest of the amount of energy required. It doesn't require that much energy. It doesn't require anywhere even close to that much energy. My point is only that something you stressed as incredible in your protest is not taking into account that any such "earthquake device" would take advantage of stored potential energy.
As to the other, as far as I understand, HAARP uses microwaves to cause a targeted heating in the ionosphere. I can't imagine how such action could possibly cause earthquakes. However, me not understanding how something works doesn't mean it doesn't work.
IMO, If there is a weapon that is able to cause directed earthquakes I doubt it is HAARP. I think that something that sets up a resonance within the earth is a more likely method. It wouldn't actually take that much energy to make that happen (no where near the energy released, at least potentially), and such a system could apply whatever energy was required over time, as a function of setting up that resonance, targeted at flaws in the earth. Alternatively, directed heating taking advantage of similar flaws could also potentially produce similar results. In either case, such hypothetical weapons would be some form of directed energy, taking advantage of flaws (fault lines) or other weak points in the earth's crust that already exist (they are all over the place), substantially reducing the energy input requirements.
Finally it is conceivable to create a directed energy weapon that heats up the subsurface sufficiently to create magma pockets deep underground, or even excite and/or expand magma pockets that already exist. This would cause the earth above it to move, shift, and/or fall. Again, a lot less energy is required to do this than the energy potentially released.
I am making these things up. I don't know if they exist, but I don't think it is impossible. Given the resources these people have, I don't even think it's that hard.