You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #91: sorry, no fancy degrees here... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
uncle ray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #86
91. sorry, no fancy degrees here...
not that there's anything wrong with a good education...just wild assed speculation here, but then you probably suspected that.

"1. You would have to be able to exactly predict earthquakes. You would have to know where the plates were stressed to the point of fracture so you woould know where to aim your weapon. And you would have to be able to do that remotely. Current science is not able to do that."

why would we have to exactly predict them? hypothetical device could generate a increasing sine wave type pattern, at some resonant frequency of the earth in the targeted earthquake prone area. sure, i don't know of the exact current science that can do this, but i don't keep up with very many top secret government breakthroughs. they don't teach much about those at the schools i can attend.

"2. Once you have the target located, you have to be able to put enough energy into the fault to make the plates release. The amount of energy required for that is so extreme that even our mightiest nukes are notup to the task. You are talking about pushing a tectonic plate around. We simply are not able to release that much energy."

so how big of a force would it take to trigger an earthquake? i don't know. how big of an energy source have we been able to create? i don't know that either, or how it could be accurately measured. done all at once, probably a tremendous force, unimiganeable force. but, think of that force in practical terms, like rocking your car to get it unstuck, or bending a piece of metal repeatedly until it finally breaks, using smaller uses of energy to accomplish a larger task.

"3. You have to get that huge amount of energy to the target. Since one may assume that your aren't going to go to the target and drill down to the fault line, then you are talking about some means of doing it remotely. So you have to transmit an amount of energy that we can't even generate, to a target. (Star Trek Phasers?) We don't have the means to transmit that much energy."

well i don't keep track of much drilling in the mideast, but i suppose if they were so inclined, it could be disguised as maybe uh, an oil drilling operation? your idea not mine, sounds more plausable than the theories about a rocket not an airplane hitting the pentagon.

"4. You have to dispose of waste energy at the transmission site. When energy is put into a transmission system, there is ALWAYS waste, because no transmission system is 100%. Some of that incredible amount of energy is going to leak out at the transmission site and will have to be disposed of. We are talking about waste energy on the level of nukes. The waste energy alone would blow your transmission site to hell."

waste energy? allow me to take a drink of beer and a hit off my bong while i ponder the waste energy, ok i'll go along with a phenomonal nuclear explosion for the sake of your point, but suppose that transmission site is well below the surface, "all" the energy is going into the matter you are trying to affect. no? whatever is wasted is of little concern down there.

surely i know less than you on the math or science of this, of which nobody on the topic here has mentioned, and maybe the person who felt it was worth investigating to defend aganst teutonic weapons know more than you do about the status of devolpment of this kind of weapons? again, causing earthquakes sounds pretty far out to me, but why wait until after someone else figures out how to do it to worry about it? let us ask the questions without being ridiculed.

a question i asked earlier, rephrased, isn't the middle east, kind of like a giant landfill? where DID all that oil come from? is there NO possibility that removing what? millions, billions? of gallons of oil from the region might have some affect on the stability of the earth there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC