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:
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.
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. We haven 't actually been able to test most of those questions. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional (a one to one mapping from every point in our idea of "space" to every other point in it), and the three dimensions we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from... whatever the fundamental really is. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength, density, and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
The energy component of the energy momentum tensor (T00) in the solution to the Alcubierre metric is a function of the velocity (v^2), the physical shape of the transition region (the bubble shape) as a function of the interior (df/dr)^2, and the size of the interior relative to the exterior ((y^2 + x^2)/r^2). Changing any of those things changes the energy requirements. Thus going slower than the speed of light (or much slower as the case may be) substantially reduces the energy requirements. Changing the size of the exterior bubble relative to it’s inside can also substantially reduce the energy (at least the negative energy), and changing the shape of the bubble itself can decrease it as well (or possibly increase it as a trade off for altering the relative interior/exterior dimensions).
Solutions to changing the shape of the bubble have accomplished substantial reductions in the required energy, as have solutions that change the size of the exterior relative to its interior (think the tent in Harry Potter). Interestingly, if such a bubble were to be made, I think the objects inside would appear smaller than they are (the light path (geodesic) from the interior to the exterior is "focused" at the smaller boundary). Then again, it depends on the exact shape of the boundary (it might spread (diffuse) the light e.g.). Regardless, I think this would cause some interesting visual effects upon a change in momentum (direction or speed) as the warp bubble itself (including its boundary) would be motivating the change, and would thus be changing shape slightly, altering the path for the light.
As far as I remember, the lowest energy requirements (using "negative matter") were on the order of 100-1000kg (E=mc^2) to make a bubble sufficient to drive a reasonable size ship, though if I remember correctly that was for v>c (or maybe v=c), so probably a fair bit less if your relative delta v is only a couple thousand miles an hour. Still a lot though, and every change in momentum requires more energy. I haven’t really considered how the exterior surface of the bubble would interact with the atmosphere, though I think it should act just like any other hard physical object (due to a pressure differential and/or build up of air at the boundary), which means drag, sonic booms, etc., thus more energy, though you can potentially change its shape and its size to reduce that interaction.
The energy requirements for the solutions I am aware of are pretty large, though there may be solutions that reduce it sufficiently, and/or it could be that GR is the wrong model to use in this scope, and movement through space however the hell you want and/or controlling inertia is trivial if you understand gravity on a more fundamental level ( if it is really an E&M effect for example).