You're a wizard, doomchaser.

At about 2:37 he says that HAARP is not a weapon, is not for weather control, is not a government plot, and that people just say that stuff to make money!

So this crackpot's accounts are inconsistent with your other crackpots! I wonder how much he is getting paid to lie about HAARP!

This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 24 2013 03:17pm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=asesblfb4zI



This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 24 2013 05:29pm

from the OP video:

that's the thing I listen to all or I may miss the 1 Tesla by calling all a nut like so many did to Tesla,,,,,....
sure most will be nuts and want attention only...How can he say what Haarp can or cannot be used for any more then most of us can.
unless we actually work on things it can do.. I would like hear all thoughts on the subject.
I wont take the word of a few who control such power.
only reason I posted this is soo we can see what is possible and would not be the first story like his... if this 1 false there is a lot of others of same circumstance, that need to be questioned also.
he has enough of conspiracy theories of his own why should he add HAARP lol

The problem is you've demonstrated -ad nauseum- that you can't not tell the difference between a nut and a genius becuase of your fundamental ignorance on the subject. So if/when you finally do stumble across a genius, you aren't going to know it. I mean look how you were snowed by these last two charlatans! Your ignorance on the subject can be fixed, but that will require hard work, remember I linked you a series of lectures where you can learn the basics of electromagnetism, I bet you haven't even started looking at them.

This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 24 2013 09:06pm

Just because I argue that maybe we do not know it all does not mean I agree with any. What is better the ability too question things or knowing it all?

We live in a electric universe ...Do you think the speed of light does not change? is it a constant? Like gravity? We think in terms we cannot work around because it is a constant. Sure I cannot remember every word or detail of such works .
My field is in other things my studies lead me else where.
you say I accept things to easy when I say you may of.
I like to question and it seems to me the underdog has it rigght more times then not.

Of course we don't know it all, in fact you can actually prove the laws of physics are not complete. This does not mean that any bullshit you make up is correct. Any new law of physics most make predictions consistent with the current laws under "normal conditions". This is why Eisenstein work makes the same predictions as Newton's laws under "normal circumstance". And why Newton's law's make the same predictions as Kepler's laws.

Essentially, not only must you how why this new law is correct, you must also show why the old law gave the correct answers for so long. This is why it is so hard to come up with new laws. Any new law describing an old force must meet this condition, and failure to do this is the hallmark of crackpots.

Your 'speed of light argument' is a good example. If the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum, what determines the speed of light, and why do we always get the same constant in the laboratory? Please provide the math, because without that, it is just you talking out of your ass. Are you starting to see how hard this will be?

It is easy to claim that light moves faster than c. Demonstrating it under reproducible controlled conditions, is a very different matter.

Your batting 0/2 so far. But never fear, there are thousands of crackpots out there. If you stick with it, you might be able to make it to 0/50!

This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 24 2013 10:22pm

dear

maybe you should stop smoking so much weed.

also azrad: can you pm me those e&m lecture links?

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Mar 25 2013 10:41am