ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
Since I was there from the beginning, I can tell you that you are making up a confusion that never existed in the technical media. The maser was first (1953) and the laser followed (1961)---taking its name as a variation of "maser." Anyone who confuses them is simply ignorant. Anyone who tries to say that such confusion is legitimate is trying to back-pedal ignorance.
Since I did study laser engineering---and applied it in the design and analysis of laser weapons---you are simply feeding me stuff I digested a very long time ago. When metal can be polished to 99% reflectance, they become tough cookies to heat up, which accounts for their alarming performance in microwave ovens.
Your various technical ideas are entertaining, but not representative of the field. That microwaves can be beamed from geostationary orbit to the Earth is not in question, but the size of the target zone is. The laws of optics dictate that the smaller the target zone, the larger the projection aperture. Under the best circumstances (large target zone), we are talking kilometers. In order to have pinpoint target selection (meters), the projection aperture must be tens of kilometers in size. This has nothing to do with power level, by the way. So, you are talking about a system so technically infeasible, it would never be built. (Moreover, it could never be kept secret. We are not the only ones who monitor what is in geostationary orbit.) It is for this reason of optical requirements that, when space-based lasers were first considered, the proposed orbital altitudes were not much higher than 1,000 km.
As for car wheels, maybe the tires did not catch fire in previous cases (burns hot). Don't forget that car wheels used to be steel, which melts at a significantly higher temperature than aluminum. There is also the possibility that in a very hot fire, the evaporated aluminum vapor would catch fire, at a very high flame temperature. My junior high school metal shop used to create molten aluminum for lost-wax casting, using a small forge (size of a suitcase) powered by propane. Hardly any more remarkable than melting lead.
Questions are good, but stupid or ridiculous answers are not. It is not "fair" to invoke something that does not exist (spaceborne or airborne DEWs), and for which there is NO EVIDENCE. That is just mental laziness. Yes, compared to you, I do know it all. That is what being in the field means.
You obviously didn't actually read a word I said. I think you are being pedantic, and you are perhaps completely unfamiliar with modern day lingo. A laser is just a laser, regardless of frequency. Everyone knows it but you. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
You didn't get what I was saying. The system I proposed was a dual frequency laser system based on existing technologies. The microwave is a much wider beam (by the time it gets to earth), and the coupling frequency laser, the "igniter" has a smaller beam. I think that because that is how these things are done in some metal 3D printing applications. It is also part of the construction of the solar energy collector I linked to you (though perhaps the stated purpose of the secondary laser is not exactly the same) and because the videos of these aberrant fire events show what appear to be occasional pulse beams, scattering off the clouds/smoke which would not be microwaves.
There is a metric fuckton of evidence, you just refuse to admit that it is, because you can explain it away in a way that is not actually an explaination at all, but a wagon full of suppositions.
That is why I question your motives. You come up with "plausibles" and call it "proof." That is exactly the tactic used to hide things by the media, the C_A, the government, corporations, etc.
I come up with plausbiles as well, but I am not stating my suppositions are "truth," one way or another, I am only showing that it is not impossible. That is always the greatest hurdle, admitting that a thing is not impossible.
You're not much of a hurdler.
It's not that I "didn't get the memo." It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology, and the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor. I can't help it if you embrace the sloppy thinking of an ignorant public.
Your laser (maser?) concept is vague, to be generous. Why you would need "dual frequencies" (we normally discuss this application in terms of wavelengths) is not explained. Microwave and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean). The fact of the matter is that past designs of power satellites require apertures hundreds of meters in diameter to project its beam to Earth---to be received by an aperture of similar size, for an intensity 1/4 that of sunlight. Do you want to burn down huge patches of forest, or just light a fire somewhere? You need to increase the size of the transmitting aperture. It's easy to figure out---if you know how. But I can assure you nothing of that scale has been built, or would ever be concealable from those other nations who jealously guard their slots in the geostationary orbit belt. You are basically engaging in a magical idea: just wave magic wand, no physical calculations required.
You don't have evidence if DEWs if the "evidence" does not display unique features that would be possible only with such weapons. Interestingly, DEWs would not leave behind any traces. You are therefore in the business of taking the evidence you have and construing it as being explicable in only one way---when in fact it is far from inexplicable. Melting aluminum is not very remarkable. I recall photographs of aircraft crash scenes where fire resulted and there was melted aluminum residue. At least my "suppositions" are based on known properties of materials and observed phenomena. Your "supposition" is based only on imagination. Since it assumes things not in evidence nor in prospect, it is pretty much not possible.
You come up with mythology and call it "possible"---then you get all huffy about the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."
And then the obligatory name-calling. You don't seem to realize that name-calling is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on an empty argument.
I was well aware of the origins of the maser and laser prior to your lecture. You assume I was ignorant because I wasn't using the words you wanted. That was an assumption that was false (like so many).
OK, maybe in laser engineering, but in the field of physics, where I have used and built lasers, we use the word "laser" to indicate a laser, regardless of frequency (or wavelength if you prefer).
It is what it is.
Technologically they couple, not optically. One performs one function, and the other uses that function to enhance an effect. It was perhaps a poor choice of words in this case.
Melted aluminum with demonstrably insufficient fuel and heat is. You keep ignoring and misunderstanding that fact. And it is a fact. I've tried to explain it to you using a thermodynamic argument, but your knowledge is insufficient to understand it would seem, so you brush it aside as irrelevant.
Not true. I have given argument and evidence. You ignore that argument and evidence. You imagine that there can't be anything outside of your sphere of experience, and that is what you base your argument on.
The only "name calling" I did was to state that I thought you were an agent provocateur. I still think that is possible, but I never based my argument on it, nor did I make the claim for the purpose of name calling, but to show you how you act like one. You on the other hand can't help but name call/ad hominem. It's a fundamental part of every single response: As just one of numerous examples:
No one is doing that but you, and I do not consider you to be rational, rather I consider you to believe and trust in your own knowledge beyond what is rational given the circumstances.
For example, if there are indeed technologies that can warp space, as the evidence suggests, making a lens out of spacetime is possible. You could make one of any size. You could argue that the "energy would be astronomical" and I would argue that you should be right based on everything I know, except somehow they appear to be doing it with little flying saucers.
My thesis was in GR on solutions to the Alcubierre Metric ("warp drive"). Warping spacetime based on what we know is not possible. Not only does it require "negative matter" to expand space, the energy requirements are ludicrous, even in the best possible scenario (at least based on all of the solutions I know about). If space time is indeed being warped by vessels 30 ft in diameter (or whatever size they are) then we pretty much need to throw everything we know out the window and start over.
You are not willing to even consider that your understanding of what is possible is wrong. My primary argument is not for microwaves, or dual laser systems or whatever, my primary argument is that a wheel melting by a fire alone without enough fuel and and no kiln while connected to ground (thermal ground) is impossible. This didn't just happen once. It has been happening all over the place in these "Crazy never seen before wild fires" for the past 5 years or so, and not before.
That is extremely good evidence that something is going on that is outside of what we would otherwise think is possible.
From metal 3D printing I know something about melting metal from microwaves, so that is where I looked. The solar energy collector I looked up used not completely dissimilar technology so that reinforced my ideas. I know it's not impossible, though I haven't actually worked out the optical requirements from geostationary orbit (or even just high altitude) to see how plausible it is based on known technology. I'd have to dig in, and I appreciate that you have given your estimate. There is more than one way to skin an optical cat however, and who knows what techniques have been employed.
You aren't willing to ask that question.
Under the circumstances, that is not rational.
Lasers/masers. Well, well. So it doesn't matter to you. Just to us laser engineers, I guess.
If you are meaning performing different functions, that is definitely not "coupling." But what different functions are you ascribing to them? Are you using a laser (which can be blocked by clouds) to do aiming for a microwave (which is not blocked by clouds)? If you are able to target with a microwave, why would you need a different aiming system? Just curious.
No, there was sufficient heat to melt the aluminum. You have a poor understanding of thermodynamics. Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature, When the temperatures are the same, there will be no further heat transfer. This is called conduction. I suggest you brush up on thermodynamics.
Supposition vs. Imagination. All this is within my field of experience. Based on your deficient understanding of thermodynamics, I don't think it is within yours.
Name-calling. Pointing out ignorance is no more "name-calling" than pointing out a shortness of height.
For example. Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary. One can say "if" to anything. "If" there are Menehunes, they took revenge on white-faces. That is only an example of an imagined thing.
Now, I am interested in your conclusions about the requirements for the warp drive. It shows that the mountain is really, really steep. I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum, however. And I don't understand how it is possible to "warp" space, when that would be a completely self-referential concept. As a result, you may legitimately conclude that I am less than fully convinced of general relativity. (It is easy to prove the falsity of the Correspondence Principle, for example.)
Oh, rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
The optical problems for laser power projection are inherent in the physics, not the technology. Assume ideal technology---you still get the problems.
The problem here is that I have encountered---and answered---many of these questions early in my career. I am still open to new ideas (e.g., information mechanics by Frederick Kantor, and a different explanation for intergalactic redshift by Halton Arp). Under the circumstances, experience counts.