"Handover of the Northern co-presidency of the UfM to the European UnionPARIS, France, February 28, 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ -- Handover of the Northern...
PARIS, France, February 28, 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ -- Handover of the Northern co-presidency of the UfM to the European Union
On March 1, France will hand over the Northern co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean to the European Union, as reaffirmed in the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council of February 27.
At a time when the people of the Arab world are asserting their right to dignity, freedom and democracy, the UfM, building on and as part of the continuation of the Barcelona process, launched in November 1995, should allow us to take better account of the new realities in the region and foster economic and social convergence between these two shores of our common sea, which is essential for shared stability and prosperity.France, which has co-chaired, together with Egypt, the UfM since its creation in July 2008, lent particular support to the launch of concrete projects capable of meeting the needs of the populations of the southern shore: completion of the trans-Maghreb highway, the Mediterranean Solar Plan, Foundation of Women for the Mediterranean projects, projects to support student mobility and research, and a seawater desalination plant project in Gaza.
The transfer of the Northern co-presidency of the UfM to the European Union reflects the key role of the EU in supporting the changes under way in the southern Mediterranean countries, a role already marked by the upgrading of its European Neighborhood Policy. The EU will thus strengthen its bilateral actions in support of the transitions, through its regional action within the framework of the UfM, a unique forum for Euro-Mediterranean cooperation based on the principles of equality and shared ownership.This strengthening of the EU’s role in the governance of the UfM should also prompt the EU, through its European Neighborhood Policy, to lend increased support to the UfM’s concrete projects.
Provided by PR Newswire"
Query: Is this possibly a component of last year's "Mediterranean Spring," which clearly is part and parcel of the Worldwide "Occupy Movement."
I'd like to know what those of you who pondered Herb Peter's and my earlier research and studied on your own think.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
157 comments:
So the EU is expanding into North Africa?
for those interested in the idea of judgement against America or some modern world context, the reading today at http://www.goarch.org Isa. 2:11-21 speaks of God having a day of judgement to bring the proud low, "against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft." This is the Septuagint OT, and in KJV it says "pleasant pictures." Strong's says pictures can mean a ship also, and that the meaning is "ambiguous."
In those days, the only travel or war devices were ships, if chariots were meant it would have been said, so perhaps this refers to the beauty of war planes and suchlike? interesting.
The EU has been consistently expanding into North Africa. This is, I believe, your prophesied revived Roman Empire. It was set up by Javier Solana in 1995 as the Barcelona Process. They went relatively quiet for awhile after Herb Peters and others (me included) talked about the European Neighborhood Policy and their plans. It looks from this article like it is on the march again. Further, it is coordinating with the Occupy Movement as evidenced by reference to "recent changes", or in short, to the chaos in those countries as excuse to turn over power to the Barcelona Process aka European Neighbourhood Process.
Constance
Shocking news.
Andrew Breitbart has died at age 43
http://www.foxnews.com/politics
/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dies
-natural-causes-website-reports/
Dear Constance,
Regarding the "new realities, it must be borne in mind that Mubarak was still in charge in Egypt when this UfM was created in 2008.
Interesting that France is bowing out of the picture now that there is the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood might be taking over.....an entity that does not appear to be friendly to the United States....the efforts of Code Pink & Co. notwithstanding.
Early in February 2012, Andy B.bart anounced he was about to release an interesting video of Pres Bk Obm from his college days. Wonder if it relates to brk´s homo affair - which led to the murder of his alleged lover... and now Andy´s dead? Sure sounds suspicious.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic
h/2012/02/11/breitbart_on_obama_ive_got_
videosthat_nobody_has_seen
or
http://tinyurl.com/6rdoboj
"Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL":
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rdoboj
Much snow in Washington DC these days? IF so, you can be sure Pres O is there with a straw or a rolled up 20 & a couple of male hookers on call.
5+5 Group backs Arab League plan for ending bloodshed in Syria
2/20/2012 9:27:00 PM |
World News
By Mahdi Al-Nimr
ROME, Feb 20 (KUNA) -- The foreign ministers of member countries of Group 5+5 affirmed here on Monday support to the Arab League plan for putting an end to the violence in Syria.
"We back up the Arab League's plan and consult with our partners in the European Union regarding the Tunis meeting which is a diplomatic initiative of a great significance, Terzi went on.
The meeting will be a qualitative move in the Group 5+5 efforts to promote democratization and economic development in the region, the Italian minister added.
On his part, Abdussalam said the non-official meeting of the representatives of the 10-member group highlighted the need to promote the partnership between the EU and the southern shore of the Mediterranean.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said today's discussions highlighted the need to revitalize the Union for the Mediterranean.
* * *
http://tinyurl.com/85a2sve
or
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2222598&language=en
* * *
Thanks to CNAV for the link.
Javier Solana Paints Sober Portrait of Middle East in MBA Lecture
February 29th, 2012 | Author: ahpollen
This afternoon was the last session for Javier Solana’s class on Geopolitics and Global Governance for the MBA Program. Solana, the former Secretary-General of the EU, comes to Esade about once a month to lead this class. Today’s session dealt with the Middle East (cont'd)
* * *
http://tinyurl.com/7u45arf
or
http://mba.esadeblogs.com/2012/02/29/javier-solana-paints-sober-portrait-of-middle-east-in-mba-lecture/
* * *
Thanks to Pastor Roberts for the link.
In reference to your blog post today, Constance, the following implicitly suggests the possiblity of an EU shadow goverment, imho:
* * *
EU’s crisis-busting projects
Posted by Florian Pantazi on 23/10/11
On the 19th of October [2011], the European Commission has announced in a press release that it will invest 31.7 billion euros into the transport infrastructure of member countries in need. Until now, as the document states, rail and road networks have been developed within the EU on a national basis. Opportunities for interconnectivity have thus been lost and that has severely restricted the free flow of goods and people across the continent.
Mediterranean countries such as Spain, for example, stand to benefit most from such investments. According to La Vanguardia, a rail link along the coast from the Franco-Spanish border to Algeciras in the south will finally be built in the next few years, at a cost of some 19 billion euros. The railway will bypass Madrid altogether. This development is also in line with the measures advocated in a recent Project Syndicate op-ed (“Mediterranean Reborn”) by Javier Solana. According to him, the building of new rail links connecting southern Europe with the centre of the continent will reduce costs as well as pollution levels and help rebalance the current trade flows from the Pacific region to Europe. Since northern European countries have far better-equipped harbour and rail networks than the south, merchandise from the Far East or India that comes via the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean currently bypasses ports like Venice, Marseilles or Barcelona in favour of Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Hamburg, even though the trip is three days longer.
The Commission will allocate money for the upgrading and linking of oil and gas pipelines, as well, in an effort to streamline energy distribution across the continent.
Taken together, these projects have the potential of creating tens of thousands of low-level jobs across southern Europe, at a time when unemployment in Spain, for example, has reached alarming levels. (sources: Presseurop, European Commission press release, La Vanguardia, Project Syndicate).
* * *
http://tinyurl.com/7ykfyyl
or
http://florianpantazi.blogactiv.eu/2011/10/eus-crisis-busting-projects/
* * *
Fwiw.
March 1, 2012
What do you all think about the interesting 'timing' of the fact that Conservative publisher,
Andrew Breitbart is dead at age 43 (just after midnight this morning) of 'natural causes'... AND his very powerful CPAC speech on February 10, 2012?
Video...
http://tinyurl.com/7aoocz3
I remember about 10 years ago or so I printed a map from the Europa website which outlined the proposed EuroMed Union. I can't find it so I am going back and try to find it so I can give you a link here.
What this is all about is FRANCE giving up their domain and returning it to the EUROPEAN UNION. It is a relative defeat for Sarkozy and resurrection of the EU and its European Neighbourhood Policy. It specifically references the Barcelona Process which predated the Mediterranean Union one. I wonder where Javier Solana was when this one was crafted?
Constance
Not 10 years ago, it was just 4 years ago in 2008. I will try to find it.
I appreciate your continued attention to these issues related to the ENP and JS. Currently he seems to be fulfilling those aspects of prophecy that seem related to business. He has burnished his economic academic credentials. Someday we may yet see a connection between JS and a new currency for the world. It seems interesting to me that Russia, China and India are in the process of greatly increasing their gold holdings and this may be the requirement to backing a future world currency. Gold has remained an essential component of the reserves of nations and it is only the citizens of the world who are discouraged from requiring gold as a means of exchange. The bank of International settlements still shows a large component of reserves held by its 40+ nations as being in gold.
Next JS seems to be fulfilling as you have noted his connections to the Mediterranean. With the established nations of the middle east in transition they are now more easily set up for some sort of universal takeover. Remember Napoleon established his short term empire by claiming to his troops they were expanding the French Revolution when in fact they were setting up his empire and setting up relatives on the thrones of Europe. It seems to me the middle east is now weakened and ready for such a change. I am pondering just why it is that the actual KINGS of the middle east are not being replaced but just the secular dictators.
The one area where JS has not yet transitioned is into religion. Should that occur it would be prophetic and par for the course in terms of world history. According to Machiavelli nations need a religious prop. Some argue this was provided initially for Rome by its second King Pompilius who claimed to receive divine knowledge from a faun. Later Julius Caesar claimed descent from Venus while Augustus claimed patronage from Apollo and Marc Anthony from Dionysus. Authors claim Napoleon was interested also in using religion to rule. This would probably be the last of the things JS would do in fulfilling prophecy. JS's connections to the Mediterranean began in Jerusalem Nov 9 1993 when he signed in Jerusalem the Spain and Israel documents for an agreement on agriculture and desalination.
I am rambling in this post as these are simply pondering. What is most evident is that JS has given us tantalizing connections to prophetic fulfillment's which no other living leader is doing.
Scientist,Educator,Minister of Culture,spokesperson for Spain,Diplomat and Sec. GENERAL of NATO,Military leader of Europe, Diplomat for Peace in the Middle East,and now Economist as well as peripatetic senior statesman of the world. All one can say is that he is a fully prepared man to lead should a crisis yet arise. Both the middle east and soon Europe may be in need of a man with a vision. It seems to me that such a leader prophetically arises and is hailed a leader of peace after the Kings of the North and south have been destroyed on the "mountains of Israel". We may be in the eye of the storm for awhile longer but it seems that all of the geopolitical forces are in place. Other than JS only Putin seems to be a probable man we may suspect is a end time player. Articles today suggest Russia may only give Putin six more years to run Russia. I cannot put it all together either but the pieces seem ready
The EU and JS won the battle for control of the Union of the Mediterranean when its headquarters were placed in Barcelona,Spain.
Remember the Euro med Process was also called the Barcelona process early on.
"Articles today suggest Russia may only give Putin six more years to run Russia. I cannot put it all together either but the pieces seem ready"
That's assuming the usual interpretation of prophecy is correct. While you're at it, what about the calamity that displaces islands and has everyone hiding in the rocks and caves?
brown dwarf star inbound with orbiters, anyone? 2013 or so not 2012.
And no, this didn't start with Sitchin or the zeta chaneller, this goes back to discoveries in 1979. See
John Moore "Global Warming What the Government Isn't Telling You" (Its a fraud to cover for something more scary that is causing some problems and will get worse) on youtube and other sources there.
The EU is not expanding into North Africa. North Africa is expanding into the EU. Just come over here and see it for yourself. Charles Martel, we need you!
I suspect that JS uses a pro Arab/Islamist stance to connect and takeover North Africa with military force but also being received by some large portion of the population. A few years back he said that he was finding friends among Islam and "so should you go and do likewise". Europe seems unable to protect its cultural base from Islam anymore than the US seems able to protect its cultural base from illegal immigrants.
When it comes to prophecy and interpreting events, people (myself included) tend to interpret events according to their preconceptions of how prophetic events will play out. One should never be dogmatic about saying "This person fits here, that country fits there...."
Here is a sobering interview from Rick Wiles' TruNews show, where he and Jeff Nyquist discuss possible outcomes of the current crisis with Iran. War seems very likely, and sooner rather than later. Scroll down to the February 20 show to listen:
http://www.trunews.com/listen_now.htm
Anon 1:42
Yeah, and since when does anyone
die of "natural causes" at the age
of 43 ?
I thought the whole concept
of dying of natural causes was
outmoded, even for old folks.
exactly what I was saying, based on more subtle hints over the past couple of years to judge by post dates on my sources.
I am not surprised that these apparently more recent remarks are so explicit.
Come on, anonymous who played all the verbal disingenuity and redirection games of a delphi method facilitator out on a limb, you going to attack this information now?
However, it may be that Israel will be on its own if it attacks Iran, but what if we attack Syria? pray to God that the fight remains local or regional and does not incl. nukes.
I am waiting for disingenuous anonymous to remind me that Syria is not a nuclear power.
So let's rephrase so even he or she can understand (not that I didn't before on other matters to no avail), let us pray to God that if the USA or NATO its pawn attacks Syria, that the resulting fight with Russia (who is already in place explicitly to protect Syria) will remain local and conventional, and not go nuclear.
I just re read Ezekiel 38 and 39,
which most here are probably
familiar with. But this time I read
Ezekiel 36 and 37 as well. The
36th chapter begins with the Lord
speaking not to men but directly
to the mountains and rivers and
valleys of Israel. He explains that
it's because He loves this land that,
1, He drove the Jews out of it,
because they continually profaned
His name there, and that, 2, He would
eventually drive the Idumites (Edom,
the Arabs ), who took the land over,
out of it for pretty much the same
reasons and that 3, He would bring
the Jews back there, but not because
they had turned back to Him, but
He would bring them back to
make the land flourish again.
Chapter 37 is the famous picture of
the valley of dry bones coming back
to life.
But what I noticed this time around
is that even though He brings Israel
back to that land He specifically points
out that it ISN'T because of them or
because they are now in his favor,
but because He wants to prepare the
LAND.
So it's a picture of Israel restored,
but not spiritually. Israel as a nation
but still under a curse.
That's exactly how it's been since
1948.
Then we have chapters 38 and 39.
Gog and Magog, Tubal, Persia, Libya
and Ethiopia all swarm down on Israel
in a massive attack by a combined
army of perhaps millions ?
Five out of six of them all, all die
by a direct unmistakable act of
the Lord, and that is the event that
makes Israel repent and turn back
to Him in spirit and in truth.
I woke up from a sound sleep last
night when my little brain realized
that 70 years from 1948 would be
2018.
70 years to the day, was how
long they spent in captivity
in Babylon until the Temple
was rebuilt. ( Jer. 25:12,
Dan. 9:2, and Zech. 7:5 )
70 years, to the day, was how
long it was from the birth of
Messiah to the destruction of
the second temple.
70 years ( Isaiah, which Christine
quotes above ), chapter 23 is how
long, to the day, Tyre would be
forgotten, and then reborn.
70 years is the length of time that
God uses to punish a people or
a city and teach them a lesson.
Since 1948 Israel has had nothing
but uneasy cease-fire at best. Yet
the land has been revitalized and
it produces fruit and grain in
abundance.
Oh and, Chapter 37 of Ezekiel
is a picture of a Great, massive,
what would one call it...
reincarnation?
Interesting post, paul.
Ezekiel 37 is not reincarnation. It is RESURRECTION. Reincarnation is about going from one body, soul, etc. identity into another that was never a part of your original body, one that should by rights have its own soul and spirit. But the reincarnator displaces it.
Ezekiel shows RESURRECTION which is the return of spirit and soul to body and reanimation of the old body.
Granted a lot of bodies are nonexistent now, but at the general resurrection of the dead, God can grow new bodies for them out of their own souls. or however.
But that is not reincarnation.
OK, Paul - you had me at Ezekiel, but you lost me at 'reincarnation.'
Please clarify. Thanks.
Christine,
You wrote: "Come on, anonymous who played all the verbal disingenuity and redirection games of a delphi method facilitator out on a limb, you going to attack this information now?... I am waiting for disingenuous anonymous to remind me that Syria is not a nuclear power... So let's rephrase so even he or she can understand (not that I didn't before on other matters to no avail),"
Please apologise for your insults and ask me politely and then I might reply.
Do you still consider that you have never been wrong here BTW, even about fuel-air weapons?
not insults descriptions. someone has brown eyes, is such and such a height, and is evasive, or whatever.
I proved Russia has better standard fuel air than we do. It just might not be standard given its 4x more powerful but smaller and lighter. I also proved that electrifying gasoline or diesel makes it burn better, and that gives credence to the electrified version of FAE and Riconosciuto is proven correct on some computer stuff he was originally dismissed about.
Now, are you going to tackle this video which has more explicit and recent quotes than I dug up or not? If not, I suspect that it is because these are no longer diplomatically oblique hints but specifics you can't dodge.
By the way, dodging diplomatically oblique hints is a real bad idea in some explosive situations. Learn to pick up on verbal, tone, and body language signals. Might save your life someday. Or, might make the difference for a career move or failure at some power lunch or suchlike.
Christine and Anon.,
Well, I'm not trying to make a case
for reincarnation anyway. At least
not the way the Hindus
and / or Buddists have it.
But to take the word at it's basic
meaning is just to re-flesh something.
Your point is well taken though.
The word has a whole pagan
religion built around it.
http://tinyurl.com/6w7udtd
This is real solid information that has nothing to do with chanelled zetas or anything like that. Science and calculation based on odd behavior of elites and others.
Note Revelation 6:12-17. This would fit a crustal displacement and/or physical, not magnetic, axis flip or at least displacement.
http://tinyurl.com/6p36flm
for some real good info on what will happen (everything 100 foot elevation and below under water, maybe higher, thereafter.)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/med/index.htm
Here is the map I was talking about, I finally found it again digging into the European Union's website. This shows the European Union and it's Mediterranean partners. Plus there is lots of information here on the progress of this partnership since the 1995 Barcelona Process and on into the European Neighborhood Policy.
There is much knowledge and erudition and even impeccable politeness at this blog but there is no love in the Christian sense. So many people have disappeared over the months without a trace. Are they will? Terminally ill? In hospital? Otherwise in trouble? Do you people who claim allegience to Jesus Christ even notice these brothers and sisters?
All knowledge will cease and the only thing that remains will be love. This is what the gospel teaches. But a reader who did not know the Bible would never discern this fact from reading this blog.
This blog is filled with useful information but in equal proportion, the deadly sin of pride. I sometimes read here simply to marvel at the high levels of intelligence that accompany equally high levels of pride.
He who has ears, let him hear.
P.S. I am a Christian.
Christine,
I'm not going to trade insults with you. I am not one of those who have commented adversely on your character on this blog - I have argued only against some of the things you have been saying. There is a difference between saying that a statement is foolish and that the person who made it is a fool. You have made many wrong statements here but I don't know you personally and I do not regard you as a fool - you might be wise in other areas (and even if I did consider you a fool then I would not say so, because it doesn't do anything good - Jesus told me not to engage in character assassination, in the Sermon on the Mount).
Let me remind you - and Constance's readers - where we stand. I explained to you in scientific detail that a fuel-air bomb could not begin to match a nuke for destruction. You responded with a personal insult coupled to a YouTube clip that you believed showed otherwise. On full viewing, the clip revealed a fuel-air weapon with an equivalent of 40 tons of TNT, and somewhat more effective than 40 tons of TNT detonated in one place because it is dispersed over the target. However it cannot begin to match the megaton equivalents of nuclear weapons, as you incorrectly argued.
After I pointed this out you went unusually quiet. I have just asked you a direct question above, whether you consider you were mistaken in any way; and you have used evasiveness to duck it. I bring this up again from a recent thread because you made the astonishing statement there that you have never been wrong about anything on this blog. Constance's readers will not be fooled.
I've not seen the clip you refer to yet. After the fuel-air fiasco I don't assign high priority to these links. but has it never occurred to you that a major element of diplomacy is bluff and deliberate ambiguity? Neither of us knows the future with certainty, but I don't claim to.
Israel is likely soon to do what it needs to stop Iran nuking it a year down the line. Iran has a leader who plausibly is not deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction and who is developing nuclear weapons as fast as he can. He doesn't need a nuclear program for power generation since Iran is awash with oil, and nuclear power startup is veryy expensive. The US might give Israel all the logistical help it needs in such a strike while not using its own forces for active belligerence. Russia and China could not then do much. The USA might also say that it will use all means to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for the rest of the world. It will have tacit Arab support for that, and again Russia could not do much. The worry is that Iran's ally Syria will fire enormous numbers of rockets into Israel in response, which Israel will try to deter by saying it will nuke Damascus. That could lead to a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that Damascus will be razed (17:1). It is well known as the world's oldest continuously inhabited city, ie it has never been levelled even though it has changed hands often enough in war, so this hasn't happened yet. Nuke or earthquake? Who knows. But when you live in dangerous times the only thing to do is the right one, and Israel has the right to national self-defence.
"There is a difference between saying that a statement is foolish and that the person who made it is a fool."
yes, and assuming this to be the case I made effort to draw your attention to details on more than one issue, which you tended as a PATTERN to respond to in somewhat irrelevant ways. That's when I concluded you were either a fool or playing games.
"After I pointed this out you went unusually quiet."
I told you I wasn't going to bother arguing with you but occasionally did so anyway.
really, you don't pay attention do you?
"fuel-air fiasco" I rather thought the fiasco was on your side. I think you said something about electrifying something is only going to speed up the burn not increase explosiveness, DUH! what do you think explosiveness is based on? speeding up the burn. id you go digging into Riconosciuto and the PROMIS scandal, its buried in that. Of course not. those only deal with the standard two stage and NONE of them show what I saw in that film out of, I think, Cabazon reservation Indio where the tests were done.
The three stage form uses a perfectly times second explosion of something to do the electrostatic charging which practically glows, and then the third stage ignites it. The FAEs on youtube all show the two stage form. The three stages are visible in that film I am still trying to find. I saw it on TV years ago and it is probably suppressed by now. The three stages are visible as such. First, the diffusion of explosive material, second the strange looking condition that spreads through it, third the explosion itself.
Matching a nuke for destruction is simple. nuke is calculated in terms of tons of TNT. whatever can rack up that same level of equivalence to TNT is equivalent to a nuke. Maybe nothing beyond the kiloton range
The video I posted about Russian big bomb FAE is from RT and shows the difference between the bombs pre explosion, ours and theirs.
You keep repeating we can't know the future. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
That is like saying, oh, if I let the gas run for a while before I strike a match, I don't know the future. Sure you do. IF this THEN that. simple.
If we were to take the tack you describe and stay essentially out of the game with Israel and Iran, it will fizzle most likely. If we give material support not stuff we give them but our equipment under US or NATO flag and personnel, then, we are in it.
The relationships of Russia and China to Iran are long standing, and the situation between Russia and some of its ex soviet neighbors is such that this could impact Russia through its impact on them. Real simple.
And this isn't new bluffing. There have been remarks along these lines being dropped as far back as 2009.
I am going to "go quiet" again as you interpret refusal to argue with you. I am unimpressed by your answer to those latest Russian statements. It is same old same old, despite that it is no longer hints but explicit.
Ignoring clear and present danger is what got us the Tet Offensive disaster in Viet Nam and elsewhere except, the higher ups who not only ignored but penalized the agents or analysts warning of this, actually were part of the lets have wars to make money the CIA being Wall Street representatives more than anything else. Their failures have been less incompetence or commie infiltration than part of a deliberate scam.
" So many people have disappeared over the months without a trace. Are they will? Terminally ill? In hospital? Otherwise in trouble? Do you people who claim allegience to Jesus Christ even notice these brothers and sisters?"
Perhaps we just assume they have gone onto lurk mode, or gone anonymous, but now that you raise this point, does anyone know anything about the wellbeing of the posters who no longer post?
I'm here(not that I'm really missed) I just don't post much and skim over most of the comments. Since I'm typing anyway a little reminder to you all to love your God with all your might mind and strength and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Anon. 5:07
I find it hard to take seriously a
lecture in Christian compassion
from an anonymous poser, er,
poster. Isn't that exactly what
a subversive agent provocateur
would do ?
Is compassion even a thing that
can be distributed through a
website ?
Personally I find this blog to be
quite replete with compassionate
people, considering that it's
a discussion sounding board
about current events,
and not a group therapy session.
If Dorothy, for instance, is still
sucking her thumb because she
feels she didn't get her proper
admiration, that's unfortunate.
Sniping from the bushes doesn't
her cause though.
Oh come back Dorothy ! Please
come back !
Brothers and sisters argue all
the time. It doesn't mean they
don't love each other.
But when Small Farm reminds us
to love the Lord, I can respect that,
because Small Farm has an identity
and I assume that he or she will
maintain that identity and not
confuse the whole blog by being
lumped in with all the other
Anonymi.
Amen, Small Farm.
Christine,
Regarding Middle Eastern diplomacy neither of us knows what we are talking about, because secret deals that are not in the public domain might have taken place, a fact that you neglect. During the Cuba missile crisis your stance would have been to take Russia at its word, yet WW3 DIDN'T happen then and the missiles were removed. Yes it was a risky business, but logic identical to that which you are using now to assert that WW3 is inevitable if the US becomes involved in Iran, was proven fallible then.
The science of fuel-air weapons is different, because I know what I am talking about. You talk about "electrifying" the explosive but the word does not have any clear meaning and no scientist would use it. If you mean ionizing the explosive, explosives are generally covalent compounds that do not ionize, and even if you did ionize it then the bang would scarcely be any bigger. That is because the energy of the explosion comes from the fact that the quantum energy levels of the outer electron orbitals in the products of the explosive reaction are lower than those of the explosive. Ionizing it makes a negligible difference, because the ionization energies of these compounds are much smaller than the energy released in the explosive reaction per molecule. If by 'electrify' you do not mean 'ionize' but something else, what? The internet reference you gave was far too vague for any trained scientist to make any comment on. To say that by quoting it you 'proved' that fuel-air weapons could match nukes is self-delusion. Even without knowledge of the mechanism you are bandying about, the quantum energetics of the molecules involved rule it out.
You saw a clip of a 8-ton-weight fuel-air warhead being detonated - give or take a factor of two or three, the biggest that you can drop from jets or put in missiles - and the commentator said it was equivalent to 40 tons of TNT. It did further damage because fuel-air weapons disperse the explosive before detonating it. But nukes, which operate by a fundamentally different principle, can give you 40,000,000 tons equivalent of TNT. There is no way that the missing factor of a million can even begin to be made up for by dispersion and ionization.
Would you care to comment on the science in what I have just written, and explain to me where it is wrong if fuel-air weapons can match nukes? I would appreciate it if you do not evade the question on this occasion. I am writing this principally for Constance's readers now as I would gladly explain the relevant science to you but I find you unwilling to listen.
PhD in Physics
test
My son, Stephen Cumbey, was directly under the deadly tornado that struck Henryville, Indiana yesterday. The trucks surrounding his were damaged. He watched the truck stop destroyed. Miraculously, he was not hurt nor was his truck damaged. There was also baseball sized hail. That cracked one of his headlights. The trucks after him and before him were damaged. He was safe. I could NEVER be an atheist! Praise God!
To Paul:
"Since when does anybody die of natural causes at age 43?"
My son is 44 and I pray he remains healthy. He dodged two major tornadoes in two days, one passing right over him and he watched the damaged on all sides in Henryville, IN, but neither he nor his truck were damaged.
HOWEVER, my younger brother Howard Butler who appeared strappingly healthy and was a graduate of the FBI Academy's police training program at Quantico, Virginia, died suddenly and unexpectedly of natural causes (arrhythmic failure) at age 43. That was October 15, 1993.
Constance
Paul,
Jesus did not say Love God and if you are having difficulties in your life, go to Group Therapy, even though, in our secular age, it is quite convenient for many Christians to believe that He did.
Luca
Galatians 6:2 says nothing about Group Therapy as a response to suffering.
yes love can be sent in an egroup, anon or not, just like in a letter. what does Group Therapy have to do with people talking with each other in person or online? secular group therapy is just a godless version of Christians helping each other giving comfort like St. Paul says to comfort others with the comfort you have received.
anon. verbose critic, I am not even reading your stuff beyond a glance, which glance tells me you will figure out the consequences of actions only when those consequences are landing on your head. I refuse to read more, lest I be tempted to argue. I have been studying oddball stuff nearly 30 years. Not all of the sources are online. Not all of the public stuff is up to date, a good rule is by the time it IS public it has been around for a lot longer. Peace to you this is Lent and I especially want to stop my combative tendencies.
Constance, that is a real miracle. Glory to God!
Wise move Christine. When you are in a hole, stop digging!
The main problem in Christianity today is that it has become secularized. It is all about "my relationship with Jesus" without reference to how we relate to the larger community.
Paul's pejorative crack about Group Therapy was meant to mock the idea that Christians are meant to care for each other in all contexts, including in an online discussion group. In this respect he is mocking Jesus's second great commandment, which shows just how secularized Paul's own mind is despite his knowledge of scripture.
Most people are selfish by nature and do not wish to follow Galatians 6:2, which is why they will pray for you but offer little or nothing else. This is a cancer that has spread across all demoninations and is particularly virulent among the theologically orthodox.
Luca
seems to me that some of these "my relationship with Jesus" oriented people, should consider that their relationship with Him would benefit by helping the other people who are in a relationship with Him also.
Constance,
I thank God that He spared your son from injury or death yesterday. That is such an encouraging story that the power of God is alive and well. He watches over and protects His children who are in Jesus Christ.
Christine,
All Christians will give lip service to "love they neighbor" but very few will practise it. I have a neighbor who practises Reiki. Clearly she is deceived, but she has great moral character and is filled with practical compassion.
Having observed her actions over a period of years, I can say I trust her more than I trust most Christians I know, including Christians who know quite a lot about the New Age.
As referenced by the anon above, "knowledge" which coexists with a lack of love of neighbor (otherwise known as charity)is a very subtle (and thus extremely deadly) form of Satanic deception, and it is one that thrives among the theologically orthodox. These orthodox Christians are every bit as deceived by the Satanic as my neighbor.
I suspect that on the Day of Judgement they will have more to answer for than the Reikei neighbor, as they know the truth about charity, but will use every excuse in the book to avoid putting it into practise.
Luca
John Rupp,
Are you saying that the parents whose children were killed in the tornado lacked faith in Jesus Christ? What about children who die of cancer or are hit by cars?
As someone who personally knows parents of children who have died, I find your comment disturbing.
Luca,
I take it that your comment "As referenced by the anon above, "knowledge" which coexists with a lack of love of neighbor..." refers to me, as I am the physicist who has been trying to correct Christine for a long time about physics of certain weapons, to no avail.
You are judging me loveless on the basis of my attempts to correct someone who refuses to be corrected. I write as I do to expose Christine's false arguments for the sake of Constance's readers; I sadly gave up on trying to correct Christine herself (which would involve a different style of writing), although I would still gladly do so if she were receptive. I have never criticised Christine's personality - I don't know her. Some of the things she has said about her life on earlier threads seemed to me to be highly commendable, but they are not the subject here. Likewise, you don't know me. You don't know my name. You don't know where I live. You don't know what I do for my neigbor. If you think you can deduce my attitude to my neighbor from my writings about physics and diplomacy and my fruitless attempts to correct somebody else about science then you are making a dangerous claim to omniscience. Even if you did, you are commanded not to judge.
This is a blog, for heaven's sake, not a therapy session in which we tell each other all our innermost secrets.
Physicist,
No, I wasn't writing about you, even indirectly, but since you mention that "you are commanded not to judge" the fact that you have done so about me in your post does make you a flagrant hypocrite despite all your formal education.
Luca
Is Luca the New "New Ager" on board on this site?
Methinketh he may be
Anon 6:08 pm,
You are right in your response to my comment. There are many good Christian families who loose family members and children to accidents, disease, and natural disasters. This has happened in my own family to. My comment was insensitive to those families and I apologize.
"trying to correct Christine for a long time about physics of certain weapons, to no avail."
And I keep telling you I am talking about a THREE stage FAE whose second stage electrifies the explosive cloud, making it more efficient. to no avail. This is NOT the same thing, that ANY kind of FAE was in use in VN I didn't know, but it doesn't matter because this one is DIFFERENT. It may the same thing called "enhanced METC" with blurry talk to disguise it and it may not be, but in any case it is in the same range as at least multi kiloton nukes.
You on the other hand, can't wrap your mind around the idea of staging such a thing up to huge impact capability, and blither about spreading gasoline over a city, when gasoline isn't even the issue, that is not the stuff used aside from napalm which is jellied gasoline aka gelignite, and an incendiary rather than a proper blast explosive anyway.
correction " but in any case it is in the same range as at least multi kiloton nukes."
should read but in any case it is scalable up to multi kiloton range. obviously the experiments done at Cabazon under Wackenhut and others looking for a location outside of federal laws controlling their plans to sell bio and other weapons to unacceptable end users, weren't that big.
http://tinyurl.com/7nz4437
81% of polled Israelis oppose a strike on Iran.
Anon 5:07,
While I can't speak for all missing posters, I can generalize what has happened to some of us. Some of us are dealing with very weighing personal issues, and choose not to weigh the already bloated blog with our problems. Many of us are in contact and support of one another privately.
Some are extremely busy, choose to chime in at random. Yet even most of these will try to keep those that they know care about them somewhat in the loop as to what is going on with them.
Some have grown weary, for one reason or another, and choose to share via other mediums.
Most are still at least skimming this blog (though I haven't been able much lately)and choose to add when they feel comments can be relevant or won't fall by the wayside.
There are a lot more folks here who genuinely care for one another than often appears in the context of some posts or comments.
Constance,
Glad to hear all is right with the family after the round of storms in Indianna. I hope you got my text on your birthday.
http://tinyurl.com/8y8kk27
Defeating the Delphi Technique
Luca,
I judged what you were saying, not you as a person. It is right to judge a man's words, or one can go wrong. Even that judgement was explicitly provisional on your comment being aimed at me, which you said it wasn't (for which I am glad).
In what way do you consider I am a hypocrite?
Physicist
Christine,
My comments on the relative values of the ionization energy of molecules and the energy levels of the outer electron orbitals before and after the explosive reaction are in no way invalidated by your imprecise assertions. You say that the advances you refer to are not in the public domain yet (so how come you provide a web reference, even a lousy one, and how did you get to hear of it? The usual conspiratorialist way of Chinese whispers through multiple other people with no knowledge of what they are talking about?) The situation is rather like the fact that a general proof has been given of the impossibility of any construction to trisect an angle using only straight-edge and dividers, yet you assert that such a construction exists and is being kept private.
I write here that I hold a PhD in physics not to try to beat you with authority but as information to help Constance's readers decide who is telling the truth. I take the view that if I can't beat a layman in a disagreement about physics then I don't deserve my qualifications. But I once let a man who had claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine into my office. After a while I had answered all his queestions, put questions to him that he couldn't answer, shown him where his machine went wrong, but he still wouldn't change his mind. You are the same. Perhaps it has become personal, so please seek out a high school science teacher and see if he agrees with what I say.
You can't get more energy out of a fuel-air bomb than by detonating the explosive as usual plus any energy that comes from 'charging' it. Because the ionization energy of molecules is much smaller than the explosive reaction energy per molecule, the enhancement factor is negligible. And most explosives cannot be ionized anyway: they are covalent compounds.
Here's another question: do you know what a covalent compound is? Do you know what ionization means in molecular terms? Or do you not understand what you are talking about?
I write the following at the risk of overstating the obvious to many readers on here: Last night I caught Hal Lindsay (not that I believe he's the best arbiter of info) and he stated that Ahmadinejad wishes to hasten the coming of the Imam Mahdi so much so that he'll do most anything including killing 1/3 of the world's population to do so. Obviously, this is part of Muslim eschatology (the removal of 1/3 of the earth's population).
Lindsay went on to say that our State Department refuses to recognize this possibility/probability instead (presumably) projecting our own values upon Ahmadinejad thinking he'll not actually use nukes once he's fully capable.
I should also say that I was about half asleep when I heard this; so, I'm not 100% on the statement regarding the thinking of the US State Department regarding the nukes, i.e. they may think he'll use the nukes in some capacity but deny he'll use them just to hasten the coming of the Imam Mahdi.
Physicist,
There is no substantive distinction biblically speaking from judging a person's words and judging them. You have set up a false dichotomy.
See
Matthew 15:10-11
Matthew 12:34
1 Timothy 4:12
Your hypocrisy is based on the fact that in telling me I am commanded not to judge you judged me. Its similar to a person who claims "There is no such thing as absolute truth; all points of view are equally valid" to which I am inclined to reply usually, "You sound awfully certain about that." :-)
You appear to have responded emotionally because you felt you were being unjustly attacked, when my comments were not meant for you at all. This is understandable, I might have done the same. I have forgotten this misunderstanding now and hope you will as well.
Luca
Luca,
I hold nothing against you, but there is a difference of opinion that I would like to try to resolve.
You wrote: "There is no substantive distinction biblically speaking from judging a person's words and judging them."
And we both agree that people are not meant to judge people... so why were judges appointed to administer Mosaic Law? It was to judge the words and actions of alleged violaters - but not judge the persons themselves. That is Christ's unique future responsibility.
When Christians argue against advocates of eg abortion, New Age, etc, it is because they judge the words of these people to be wrong and harmful. Surely you can see the difference?
Physicist
Oxbridge Physicist,
"And we both agree that people are not meant to judge people... so why were judges appointed to administer Mosaic Law? It was to judge the words and actions of alleged violaters - but not judge the persons themselves. That is Christ's unique future responsibility.
When Christians argue against advocates of eg abortion, New Age, etc, it is because they judge the words of these people to be wrong and harmful. Surely you can see the difference?"
I see the difference you are trying to establish but I don't agree with it. When Christians argue against evils such as abortion, they are not arguing against the "idea" of abortion so much as they are the corpses of the butchered children and those who aid and abet the butcherers, both with words and in other practical ways. As someone once wrote about the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" - God does not send sins to hell, he sends people.
I am afraid you and I are not going to agree on this particular one.
Here is an interesting article about Matthew 7:1, the interpretation of which is a matter of great dispute even among members of the same denomination:
http://baptistbiblehour.org/2011/10/11/judge-not/
Luca
Luca,
Matt 7:1 ("Do not judge...") refers to judging the person intrinsically rather than his or her actions and words. Two points:
* The fuller version in Luke 6 reads "Do not judge or you will be judged; do not condemn or you will be condemned". Many commentators suppose that there are two statements here, but it is a clear example of Hebrew parallelism (common in eg Proverbs) in which the same thing is said twice using synonyms.
* What about judges appointed to administer Mosaic Law? Under your view they are doing wrong. Please reconcile them with your understanding of Matt 7:1.
Physicist
Hmm. Both the physicist and Luca make some great points. I don't know the answer, and I don't know how the story about the two brothers being asked to help out in the field, and one said yes, and one said no, but each did the opposite, fits into the discussion, but, for a bonus round, who can tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Sorry, I could not resist throwing this in, because physicists usually like to quantify data, and I hate being so prescise- no doubt because I am to disorganized.)
"who can tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
This question was first asked as a parody of medieval scholastic philosophy.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
I used to go along with this phrase but I don't like it any more, once I came to understand that (1) God hates sinners themselves (Psalms 5:4-6 and 11:5-6); (2) committed Christians are NOT 'sinners', as their core identity changed at their conversion from 'sinner' to 'holy one' (the NT says 'saint'), albeit saints who still sin and must learn to act out their new identity.
There are two meanings of the word 'sinner' - the shallow meaning, someone who sins, and the deeper meaning relating to identity. That latter is what counts for salvation.
Of course this raises the question of who is and is not saved - without question the line runs through congregations, in our lukewarm churches. I can only say that God knows, and if you have had your Spirit baptism - an experiential encounter - then you know you are saved, although you cannot know it with certainty of anyone else.
It is grievous that some denominations do not use the word 'saint' as Paul does, and reserve it for a minority, effectively denying the identity of 'holy one' to many of their faithful.
The article on judging - mostly correct, using The Bible as the standard of correctness. However the example given at the start is more in line with "judge not according to appearances but judge righteous judgement."
The whole judgement thing - the Luke passage pairs not being condemned with forgive and you shall be forgiven. It is clearly about extending to others the forgiveness and patience you want God to show to you.
Matthew 7:1 - interesting how it is quoted out of context, and a real short context at that, which means dishonesty on the part of whoever started this and blindness on the part of the followers.
"Judged not that ye be not judged. FOR WITH WHAT JUDGEMENT YE JUDGE YE SHALL BE JUDGED, AND WITH WHAT MEASURE YE METE IT SHALL BE MEASURED TO YOU AGAIN."
you condemn a thief, yet steal, your condemnation shows you knew it was wrong when you stole.
I will give you also an example from my own life. Long ago, noticing God is a God of justice as well as of love, I started asking Him to avenge me of various things, also to avenge some others. Things happened, sometimes they didn't, usually I realized it wasn't that serious and I was just being prideful. But things did happen.
And they also happened to me, I realized that if God was going to even scores for me, He was going to slap me upside the head for my sins as well.
Now as for the ability to judge or discern motives and so forth, this is a skill that is part of many a con man, manipulator and violent sort, picking targets and managing them up to the success of the game or the kill.
This is an ability you learn from experience from pattern spotting, and from catching people out on self contradiction too often.
The chronic misapplication of the judging issues may be done as a means of manipulation, or if merely bought into the person is actually crippled at critical points in their thought processes. And it IS hard to tell which category someone falls into.
You MUST NOT take an attitude of setting yourself up as the holy and exalted judge, that is pride. Whatever virtue you have, is overbalanced by the sin of pride. whatever correct judgement you make, whatever wisdom, whatever discernment, if done in pride that pride is sin.
I will tell you where I find this kind of misapplication acting at the top of its lungs. Among street criminals who don't like morality (also like to say someone is self righteous.) and among certain people in some egroups who were defending the coddling of active homosexuals by some churches, and objecting to those who objected to this.
Now that doesn't mean that everyone engaged in this stuff, is in either category. But it does mean that they are keeping bad company in effect, and this is not the kind of associating with sinners that Christ did.
This whole thing reminds me of some criminal creeps in real life and on TV real life who are obviously doing this and that and when called on it "you don't know me, I don't know you, you don't know anything about me" come off it, you're freaking obvious.
Some people you can ASSUME they are up to something, and you'd better keep that in mind while examining anything they say.
There is something called disinformation, and it usually contains a lot of truth, the bait to get you to bite the hook of a lie.
"but, for a bonus round, who can tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
that's easy, because someone solved that problem and wrote it up somewhere. An infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.
First, you figure one stand sized angel (who conveniently takes up half the size of the head of a pin).
Then you add a second angel, who is half the first angel's size, then another half the size of the second, and so on.
Has anybody seen this.
British courts rule Catholic midwives can be forced to perform abortions.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-court-rules-catholic-midwives-can-be-forced-to-participate-in-abort
How long before this madness comes to America?
I know Canadian tax-payers fund abortion against their will, but there has so far never been an attempt to force someone to perform one.
Savvy
Something for the physicist
http://tinyurl.com/7pzpc65
Christine,
Plasma (ionized gas) physics was what I got my doctorate in before I moved to physical applications of information theory (and, more generally, of probability theory). I understand the discussion you quote, but I don't understand why you bring up this routine academic discussion having nothing to do with what we are considering, ie fuel-air mixture detonation for military purposes. Do you still believe, after my explanation at the molecular level of why not, that you can get a megaton-equivalent bang out of an air-dropped fuel-air weapon?
I've been pondering your unreceptiveness to my scientific explanations, and I wonder if the key to it is in a phrase you once used "Your kind of physics IS valid, but..." Perhaps you think that there are ways round scientific laws, ways not presently understood. In reality there is only one kind of physics, because there is only one set of physical laws. We have been studying them for 300 years now and we know what they are, except in regimes of temperature and density so extreme that they bear no resemblance to what goes on in even nuclear explosions, let alone chemical ones. We understand the laws well enough to say that no chemical-explosive weapon can begin to match a nuclear weapon in TNT equivalent, by a factor of a million.
"Do you still believe, after my explanation at the molecular level of why not, that you can get a megaton-equivalent bang out of an air-dropped fuel-air weapon?"
you always talk beside the point. why? the key to enhancement is an electrical charging of the gas before ignition, which is not part of the normal FAE.
the post I put is just to show that all standard physics is not what it might be. Maybe a lot you grew up with is wrong.
(Frankly re electric universe I think the truth is somewhere between the extremes re planetary surface formation.)
HAVE YOU WATCHED THE VIDEO describing the FAE imbalance between Russia and the USA?
Even if such explosives can't go to megaton range, you don't need that much in one dose, just multi kiloton and mirv them.
Watching Christine take on the Physicist is like watching Roosevelt Franklin trying to explain to Shakespeare that "C" comes after "B".
http://occupyoakland.org/2012/03/unwelcome-israeli-president-shimon-peres-san-francisco-tuesday-march-6-2012-500-pm/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war-criminals-not-welcome-here-occupy-oakland-plans-major-protest-of-israeli-presidents-visit-to-sf-synagogue/
Christine,
I asked: "Do you still believe, after my explanation at the molecular level of why not, that you can get a megaton-equivalent bang out of an air-dropped fuel-air weapon?"
You replied: "you always talk beside the point. why? the key to enhancement is an electrical charging of the gas before ignition, which is not part of the normal FAE."
Beside which point? I have explained several times here now that charging of the explosive cannot make much difference, because the ionization energies of explosive/flammable compounds (most of which are covalent and can't be ionized anyway) are much less per molecule than the energy released by the explosive chemical reaction. Moreover you are unable to provide any details of this charging process.
Regardless of whether you agree with this explanation of why charging is ineffectual, do you understand it? And if so, on what grounds do you disagree with it?
A fuel-air explosive bomb of the size dropped from an aeroplane or as a missile warhead could devastate a city centre, but unlike a nuke could not at the same time damage the suburbs, and could not harm a missile silo hardened to withstand a nuke and having internal air circulation (which they already have, to defend against radioactivity from nukes). So any FAE imbalance between USA and Russia is irrelevant to large-scale war scenarios.
As for the link you provided, one of the commenters pointed out that parallel magnetic and electric fields are not so unusual in nature, as the main post implied. In any case, the equations of electromagnetism are what is fundamental, and nobody is questioning them as a result of these observations. They are called Maxwell's equations, they have been known for more than a century, and they have been tested to the limits of experimental accuracy, which is currently better than 1 part in a million.
Inm any reply, pleas include your answers to my questions above: Do you understand my explanation of the uselessness of charging the explosive/fuel? If so, on what grounds do you disagree with it in order to get the multi-kiloton bangs of which you speak?
Sure they are not unusual, however, as the main post writer says, the information in them supports electric universe theory better, and the scientists are hedging and floundering to keep to the usual view. Like I said, I am not going to get into long discussions with you, because I have been digging around wierd stuff that works for a long time, and the fact that these things do work, shows there is something missing in the theory.
Riconosciuto's neutron free (hence a- as in non- neutronic) bomb experiment allegedly dropped the desert floor by 30 feet. I see no evidence in your remarks that you have dug into deep politics subject that is where you will find him and the Cabazon scene, so don't bother me any more.
Riconosciuto was not a physicist but a clever tinkerer and good at tweaking computer stuff to make a back door to some software that became a scandal later.
Don't bother me with theory and why this and that can't work. Go find out if it HAS worked. I go silent to avoid getting angry and now because you are a waste of time.
electrifying gasoline or diesel increases burn and burn is what is at issue in an explosive.
Play detective.
more to the point of the thread, and the blog in general, I noticed decades ago in a book on sasquatch which went into climate and geological zones and stuff, that the European and North African locations are really part of the same thing.
Then, some time later, I noticed the same arrangement being suggested in a UN type context as a basis for some kind of political alliance or something.
Now this EU and North Africa thing, as if someone was deciding to try to move nation states together on the basis of shared geological issues.
Physicist,
I admire your tenacity in trying to win the argument. However, it may be to no avail, because sometimes appeals are made to a higher authority than the observable laws of the universe.
All: Just some thoughts I have regarding the discussions that take place here and elsewhere on the Internet:
There is a similar "authority conflict" that has come about since the rise of the computer. If the data about a person that has been entered into a computer is incorrect, and I dispute the data with the person on the phone or the person behind a counter, guess which one usually wins? The computer does. The real me, flesh and blood and thought, does not have as much authority with most people as the "me" that is in a computer database. It can be really frustrating.
Similarly, and more relative to the physicist's discussions with Christine, the Internet (a subset of the computer-based authority) has become an authority that in some people's minds supplants anything you or I can demonstrate scientifically. This is especially true in conspiracy circles. Here is the typical behavior of a conspiracy theorist: If someone thinks a certain thing is true, and I come up with proof that such a thing is not true, then that proof is either ignored, called false, or is "shoehorned" into what that person believes, doing injustice to the proof.
Sadly, many people grant the Internet (blogs, YouTube, etc) a higher authority than they ought. Anyone can be an "expert" on the Internet. And sadly, again, too many people start with a conclusion, then try to find an "expert" that agrees with them. The Internet has created an epidemic of this kind of research.
Christine,
Thank you. Your failure to reply to my questions is far more eloquent regarding your knowledge of science than you are.
The "electric universe" is a fringe theory of cosmology. Because cosmology is one of the research frontiers today there is room for speculation of this sort. In conventional cosmological research, gravity is held to be the dominant force determining the physics of the universe on the largest scales. That might seem surprising because the electromagnetic force between two protons (etc) is massively greater than the gravitational force between them. But the point is that electromagnetic forces can be either attractive (between opposite charges) or repulsive (between like charges), whereas gravity is always attractive between two masses - and on large enough scales it is generally believed that the universe is electrically neutral, so that there are no net electromagnetic forces and gravity is left to dominate.
The "electric universe" scenario challenges this assumption of large-scale neutrality. What it doesn't challenge is the set of equations governing the electromagnetic field - Maxwell's equations. So this stuff makes no difference to the charging of compounds. Nor does it have anything to do with molecular quantum mechanics, which is what demonstrates that the energy released per molecule of explosive is much greater than the ionization energy, ie charging the constituents of a fuel-air bomb make negligible difference to the bang. So this work in no way invalidates anything I have said.
"I am not going to get into long discussions with you, because I have been digging around wierd stuff that works for a long time, and the fact that these things do work, shows there is something missing in the theory."
Great, send your work off to Stockholm and win the next Nobel Prize. If it's all you say, I can assure you it would do that.
How do you *know* that it works, by the way? Have you done experiments and/or calculations? Or are you taking the word of someone on the internet?
And, once again: Do you understand my explanation of the uselessness of charging the fuel/explosive? If so, on what grounds do you disagree with it in order to get the multi-kiloton bangs which you claim?
Marko,
I'd gladly do it for the sake of helping Christine to learn some science, but in the absence of that I do it to prevent Constance's readers from being taken in by what Christine says about matters that relate to physical science.
Physicist
other people did this, this is the last time I will answer you. the basis on which I think you are wrong, is that it was done by someone who also did something totally else that was dismissed as impossible but turned out to be very practical indeed, and I repeat, if you would dig into that scandal, PROMIS and INSLAW, you will find out about both. Be prepared to be at this for a few months, if you devote at least a half hour or hour a day to it.
I will not answer you again about ANYTHING until you have had time to do your homework. At least late June. you will of course find debunkers. bypass them and keep digging and remember that a lot of people had a lot to gain by trashing the whole INSLAW matter, because it hit at the Republican upper establishment and Justice Dept.
bye for now.
Christine,
You never really have replied to me, so stopping now won't make much difference. Are you stopping because I am asking you too many hard questions you can't answer? I am only resorting to that to expose your false statements, for the sake of others here; I would gladly explain more of the relevant science to you but unhappily you are unwilling to learn. When I bump into experts on something that I am not myself expert in, I take the opportunity to be educated.
If people have really done this then give us all the references, and recommend them for Nobel Prizes. The internet is packed with crank physics, and you don't have the education to tell what is crank and what is kosher. I do, and it took me years of work to acquire it. I would gladly share the relevant parts of it with you but sadly you seem to be in output mode only, and on a subject you know little about. How do you know it works? Do you know someone personally who has done it? Or have you done it? Or did someone in the internet say so?
Will you duck these questions in full view of Constance's readers again?)
Christine: Ingenious computer software and scandals regarding its sale and use have got nothing at all to do with the physics of fuel-air weapons. If you want to talk about that business, go ahead and I won't call you. But please don't use it as a diversionary tactic from the physics of FAEs.
that is not "diversionary tactics" that is CONTEXT, and validation of the qualification of the alleged inventor in that something else he did was supposedly impossible but was verified later, which in turn lends credence to this claim.
Why do you bother arguing with me instead of finding out what happened? you waste your time and mine.
some thoughts on end time prophecy. Daniel chapter 7.
http://tinyurl.com/7z2awef
"that is not "diversionary tactics" that is CONTEXT"
There isn't a context for the laws of physics. What you believe to be physically possible is either right or wrong.
"Why do you bother arguing with me instead of finding out what happened? you waste your time and mine."
If you think you know what happened, why don't you give us all a reference that contains enough detail for meaningful critique?
I *know* that air-delivered FAEs that match the destructive power of nukes are impossible by a factor of thousands, because of the relative values of the ionization energies and energy released per molecule of the explosive reaction. That is a generic argument and no specific mechanism can overcome it.
When did you last let anyone change your mind about anything?
Christine,
Could it be that air-detonated gasoline
bombs are indecently powerful enough
already, seeing as they destroyed
Dresden Germany during WWII , and
that they don't need to be anywhere
near as powerful as nukes in order
to be absolutely devastating, so that
you should just graciously admit that
you're not an expert on these things,
no matter how much research you've
done on your own, on the internet,
without the checks and balances of
an academic pier-reviewed, objective
environment over the course of three
or four years of graduate study, so
that maybe you could be wrong about
just how ridiculously powerful these
a-bomb-inations are since they are
ridiculously powerful and deadly to
anyone within, say, MILES of their
detonation, and that THAT is the
real point ?
No doubt they're even worse than
they were in 1944.
How bad do they need to be anyway ?
Paul, I think you'll find that Dresden was destroyed not by a smaller number of fuel-air bombs but by the dropping of enough normal bombs in a small enough area in a short time to set up a firestorm - an updraught of a column of hot air large enough to suck air at gale force along the ground toward that column, to replace the rising air. This wind fanned the flames of stray bombs exploding outside the central area and the entire city went up.
Christine,
That is a good commentary you have on Daniel 7. It is really good food for thought. Thank you for sharing that. I find the prophecies in Daniel fascinating.
here you go, lots of trouble to find something this detailed, and do not try this at home, children. Begin page 235. This is not my original source, that was a lot less detailed.
http://tinyurl.com/7hldfcd
Dresden wasn't so much conventional explosives as conventional incendiaries. The essential difference between a bomb per se and an incendiary is the bomb has more blast than heat and the incendiary only enough blast to disperse the heat. Probably just basic napalm, tons of it.
Some POW who was hauled out to help clean up after described how they grabbed an arm to drag a body out and it pulled out of the socked - cooked meat.
Some atheist creep liked to tell the story of a woman who died praying to God during one of the Dresden or Hamburg raids, holding her baby up out of reach of the fire around her but both died.
Never crossed the atheist's mind, or the typical me my mine gimme keep me comfortable don't let me die ever type Christian's mind either I suppose, that at that moment it was the best time for both of them to die.
If they had lived, what then? backsliding and hell later on? One guy waiting for capital punishment said he knew himself too well, and if he were to live especially if he got parolled later, he might end up in hell, die right then he was headed for heaven, and refused appeals and the support of protesters outside. Some guy called Harris, looked a bit glitter eyed psychopathic in some photos, so he probably read himself right.
When someone mentions something that gets my attention, I highlight copy and paste into google or work up search phrases. I guess physicist is one of those products of modern education who got his degree fed to him. That's assuming he wants to give enough information he can be checked up on.
the original sources are vaguer on how this is done. Here are some, wade through a bunch of stuff to find it
http://tinyurl.com/7tgyh4o
http://tinyurl.com/77xy3gx
unlike the pdf link in my previous post, these do not hide some identities and events under a cloud of fictionalized presentation of the truth, but unfortunately Fatal Rebirth is the ONLY place I have found such detail on how it was made and why it works.
Christine,
Thank you for the links. Until now I have been perplexed by your attitude of I-know-it-but-you-find-it-yourself, when the usual way to run intellectual discourse is to give your references on request. (This is both out of courtesy and so that people will know that you are not just making it up as you go along.) I worry how tenuous is the information on which you have been basing your rhetoric to date, if you have only just found these links yourself; nevertheless it is good to have enough scientific details to comment upon.
The pdf link goes into considerable detail about the (two) small explosions that prime and disperse the compound which the bomb contains; it is certainly a nice feature that you can disperse it in preferred directions rather than as a (hemi)spherical cloud. Then a final detonator sets off the resulting cloud of explosive mix.
The second, dispersing, explosion of the three, apparently causes the resulting cloud of explosive material to be charged - which can only mean ionized. This pdf nowhere states that that is the intention; the purpose of this second explosion is dispersion, of which ionization is a side-effect. Based on the values of the ionization energies of chemical compounds and the energy release per molecule of decent explosives, this ionization will make little difference to the size of the final, destructive bang. This argument is based on molecular quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with the design of the bomb itself.
Your second and third links both quote an article which the latter says is from a magazine called the Technical Consultant (TC), Nov/Dec 1991 issue. The relevant quote is:
"...enhanced fuel-air explosive weapons were created and tested in league with Meridian Arms at the NEVADA TESTING RANGE which matched the explosive power of nuclear devices. These enhanced weapons gained their power from polarizing the molecules in the gas cloud by modification of the electric field, a technology developed from exploring Thomas Townsend Brown's suppressed work, a knowledge which Riconosciuto claims he gained from working at LEAR in Reno, Nevada."
This statement is simply incorrect, and whoever wrote it is using scientific language in a way that a scientist who has understanding would not. The warning phrase is "a modification of the electric field". WHAT electric field? Some molecules (eg nitrogen dioxide) are intrinsically polarised - one end of them is negatively charged, and the other is positively charged. Other molecules polarise themselves in response to the application of an external electric field, but they revert as soon as that field is switched off. A chemical explosion does not set up an external electric field. The quote above corresponds to what you have repeatedly been asserting, but I'm afraid that it is wrong. Not everything that gets into print is accurate, as surely everybody who contributes to this website understands.
CONTINUED...
PART II
More from the second link:
"He had created the a-neutronic bomb (or "Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"), which sank the ground level of the Nevada test site by 30 feet when a prototype was tested... Riconosciuto's bomb made suitcase nukes obsolete, because it achieved near-atomic explosive yields, but could be more easily minaturized. You could have a suitcase a-neutronic bomb, or a briefcase a-neutronic bomb..."
OK, a decent fuel-air bomb can have the same effect on a target such as a city centre as the smallest (suitcase sized) nuke. But you have been claiming - check above - that fuel-air bombs can match kiloton or even megaton nukes. They can't. Nor can they be used to destroy a missile silo hardened to withstand a nuclear blast (and having air recirculation, which is in any case standard to defend against radioactivity). What has happened is that you dropped the caveat "suitcase-sized" in some phrase like "equivalent in destructive power to suitcase-sized nukes"; or you took as accurate someone who had dropped that caveat.
The detonation of a fuel-air bomb releases exactly the same amount of only energy as the detonation of its contents (including the priming explosions, and plus the necessary oxygen) all in one place. This is an elementary consequence of the law of conservation of energy. Greater destruction is achieved because of the dispersal of the contents of the bomb before it is detonated, NOT because it is charged. And it cannot be scaled up to match megaton or even mere kiloton nukes. You can match only the very smallest suitcase-sized nukes. you will never destroy the suburbs at the same time as the city centre with one of these things.
Do you understand now?
Christine,
Thank you for the links. Until now I have been perplexed by your attitude of I-know-it-but-you-find-it-yourself, when the usual way to run intellectual discourse is to give your references on request. (This is both out of courtesy and so that people will know that you are not just making it up as you go along.) I worry how tenuous is the information on which you have been basing your rhetoric to date, if you have only just found these links yourself; nevertheless it is good to have enough scientific details to comment upon.
The pdf link goes into considerable detail about the (two) small explosions that prime and disperse the compound which the bomb contains; it is certainly a nice feature that you can disperse it in preferred directions rather than as a (hemi)spherical cloud. Then a final detonator sets off the resulting cloud of explosive mix.
The second, dispersing, explosion of the three, apparently causes the resulting cloud of explosive material to be charged - which can only mean ionized. This pdf nowhere states that that is the intention; the purpose of this second explosion is dispersion, of which ionization is a side-effect. Based on the values of the ionization energies of chemical compounds and the energy release per molecule of decent explosives, this ionization will make little difference to the size of the final, destructive bang. This argument is based on molecular quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with the design of the bomb itself.
Your second and third links both quote an article which the latter says is from a magazine called the Technical Consultant (TC), Nov/Dec 1991 issue. The relevant quote is:
"...enhanced fuel-air explosive weapons were created and tested in league with Meridian Arms at the NEVADA TESTING RANGE which matched the explosive power of nuclear devices. These enhanced weapons gained their power from polarizing the molecules in the gas cloud by modification of the electric field, a technology developed from exploring Thomas Townsend Brown's suppressed work, a knowledge which Riconosciuto claims he gained from working at LEAR in Reno, Nevada."
This statement is simply incorrect, and whoever wrote it is using scientific language in a way that a scientist who has understanding would not. The warning phrase is "a modification of the electric field". WHAT electric field? Some molecules (eg nitrogen dioxide) are intrinsically polarised - one end of them is negatively charged, and the other is positively charged. Other molecules polarise themselves in response to the application of an external electric field, but they revert as soon as that field is switched off. A chemical explosion does not set up an external electric field. The quote above corresponds to what you have repeatedly been asserting, but I'm afraid that it is wrong. Not everything that gets into print is accurate, as surely everybody who contributes to this website understands.
Continued in the previous post above (glitch!)...
PART I (posted later due to glitch)
Christine:
Thank you for the links. Until now I have been perplexed by your attitude of I-know-it-but-you-find-it-yourself, when the usual way to run intellectual discourse is to give your references on request. (This is both out of courtesy and so that people will know that you are not just making it up as you go along.) I worry how tenuous is the information on which you have been basing your rhetoric to date, if you have only just found these links yourself; nevertheless it is good to have enough scientific details to comment upon.
The pdf link goes into considerable detail about the (two) small explosions that prime and disperse the compound which the weapon contains; it is certainly a nice feature that you can disperse it in preferred directions rather than as a (hemi)spherical cloud. Then a final detonator sets off the resulting cloud of explosive mix.
The second, dispersing, explosion of the three, apparently causes the resulting cloud of explosive material to be charged - which can only mean ionized. This pdf nowhere states that that is the intention; the purpose of this second explosion is dispersion, of which ionization is a side-effect. Based on the values of the ionization energies of chemical compounds and the energy release per molecule of decent explosives, this ionization will make little difference to the size of the final, destructive bang. This argument is based on molecular quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with the design of the weapon itself.
Your second and third links both quote an article which the latter says is from a magazine called the Technical Consultant (TC), Nov/Dec 1991 issue. The relevant quote is:
"...enhanced fuel-air explosive weapons were created and tested in league with Meridian Arms at the NEVADA TESTING RANGE which matched the explosive power of nuclear devices. These enhanced weapons gained their power from polarizing the molecules in the gas cloud by modification of the electric field, a technology developed from exploring Thomas Townsend Brown's suppressed work, a knowledge which Riconosciuto claims he gained from working at LEAR in Reno, Nevada."
This statement is simply incorrect, and whoever wrote it is using scientific language in a way that a scientist who has understanding would not. The warning phrase is "a modification of the electric field". WHAT electric field? Some molecules (eg nitrogen dioxide) are intrinsically polarised - one end of them is negatively charged, and the other is positively charged. Other molecules polarise themselves in response to the application of an external electric field, but they revert as soon as that field is switched off. A chemical explosion does not set up an external electric field. The quote above corresponds to what you have repeatedly been asserting, but I'm afraid that it is wrong. Not everything that gets into print is accurate, as surely everybody who contributes to this website understands.
Christine:
Thank you for the links. Until now I have been perplexed by your attitude of I-know-it-but-you-find-it-yourself, when the usual way to run intellectual discourse is to give your references on request. (This is both out of courtesy and so that people will know that you are not just making it up as you go along.) I worry how tenuous is the information on which you have been basing your rhetoric to date, if you have only just found these links yourself; nevertheless it is good to have enough scientific details to comment upon.
The pdf link goes into considerable detail about the (two) small explosions that prime and disperse the compound which the weapon contains; it is certainly a nice feature that you can disperse it in preferred directions rather than as a (hemi)spherical cloud. Then a final detonator sets off the resulting cloud of explosive mix.
The second, dispersing, explosion of the three, apparently causes the resulting cloud of explosive material to be charged - which can only mean ionized. This pdf nowhere states that that is the intention; the purpose of this second explosion is dispersion, of which ionization is a side-effect. Based on the values of the ionization energies of chemical compounds and the energy release per molecule of decent explosives, this ionization will make little difference to the size of the final, destructive bang. This argument is based on molecular quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with the design of the weapon itself.
Your second and third links both quote an article which the latter says is from a magazine called the Technical Consultant (TC), Nov/Dec 1991 issue. The relevant quote is:
"...enhanced fuel-air explosive weapons were created and tested in league with Meridian Arms at the Nevada Testing Range which matched the explosive power of nuclear devices. These enhanced weapons gained their power from polarizing the molecules in the gas cloud by modification of the electric field, a technology developed from exploring Thomas Townsend Brown's suppressed work, a knowledge which Riconosciuto claims he gained from working at Lear in Reno, Nevada."
This statement is simply incorrect, and whoever wrote it is using scientific language in a way that a scientist who has understanding would not. The warning phrase is "a modification of the electric field". What electric field? Some molecules (eg nitrogen dioxide) are intrinsically polarised - one end of them is negatively charged, and the other is positively charged. Other molecules polarise themselves in response to the application of an external electric field, but they revert as soon as that field is switched off. A chemical explosion does not set up an external electric field. The quote above corresponds to what you have repeatedly been asserting, but I'm afraid that it is wrong. Not everything that gets into print is accurate, as surely everybody who contributes to this website understands.
PART 0
Christine:
Thank you for the links. Until now I have been perplexed by your attitude of I-know-it-but-you-find-it-yourself, when the usual way to run intellectual discourse is to give your references on request. (This is both out of courtesy and so that people will know that you are not just making it up as you go along.) I worry how tenuous is the information on which you have been basing your rhetoric to date, if you have only just found these links yourself; nevertheless it is good to have enough scientific details to comment upon.
The pdf link goes into considerable detail about the (two) small explosions that prime and disperse the compound which the weapon contains; it is certainly a nice feature that you can disperse it in preferred directions rather than as a (hemi)spherical cloud. Then a final detonator sets off the resulting cloud of explosive mix.
The second, dispersing, explosion of the three, apparently causes the resulting cloud of explosive material to be charged - which can only mean ionized. This pdf nowhere states that that is the intention; the purpose of this second explosion is dispersion, of which ionization is a side-effect. Based on the values of the ionization energies of chemical compounds and the energy release per molecule of decent explosives, this ionization will make little difference to the size of the final, destructive bang. This argument is based on molecular quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with the design of the weapon itself.
PART I
Your second and third links both quote an article which the latter says is from a magazine called the Technical Consultant (TC), Nov/Dec 1991 issue. The relevant quote is:
"...enhanced fuel-air explosive weapons were created and tested in league with Meridian Arms at the Nevada Testing Range which matched the explosive power of nuclear devices. These enhanced weapons gained their power from polarizing the molecules in the gas cloud by modification of the electric field, a technology developed from exploring Thomas Townsend Brown's suppressed work, a knowledge which Riconosciuto claims he gained from working at Lear in Reno, Nevada."
This statement is simply incorrect, and whoever wrote it is using scientific language in a way that a scientist who has understanding would not. The warning phrase is "a modification of the electric field". What electric field? Some molecules (eg nitrogen dioxide) are intrinsically polarised - one end of them is negatively charged, and the other is positively charged. Other molecules polarise themselves in response to the application of an external electric field, but they revert as soon as that field is switched off. A chemical explosion does not set up an external electric field. The quote above corresponds to what you have repeatedly been asserting, but I'm afraid that it is wrong. Not everything that gets into print is accurate, as surely everybody who contributes to this website understands.
[Apologies to all for the ordering and splicing of this 3-part post; Blogger has been playing tricks with me.]
the point is, it is in the same range, and it can be scaled up. and you keep insisting the electric charging has no relevance, when the experiment showed that it DID. And further, people who have rigged a charging device to their gas or diesel engines fuel flow, have found that the result was they went a lot farther on the same tank load, obviously they were getting more power, further this approach was used to increase the power of the explosions in some experimental jet aircraft. The booklet that detailed this, however, drawing on the writer's information and experience, is long lost. lent and never returned.
Instead of beating your head against a wall claiming "can't be done" "physics don't allow it" go find some place you can legally do this kind of experiment, see for yourself. you can probably use a tiny version maybe firecracker material or just gasoline. first, see what the yield is without a charge, then same stuff same amount with a charge. and stand way back.
"people who have rigged a charging device to their gas or diesel engines fuel flow, have found that the result was they went a lot farther on the same tank load, obviously they were getting more power... the booklet that detailed this, however, drawing on the writer's information and experience, is long lost. lent and never returned."
And also almost certainly wrong. There are millions of technologically savvy people, car nuts and drag racers out there who have been trying everything to get a few more mpg or mph out of their vehicles, to save money and to get rich by selling the idea, and just about everything has been tried now. Do you really think that this elementary idea hasn't? Somebody tries it, is a sloppy experimentalist and finds a weak positive result, then they self-publish a booklet about it - I note that you don't say a proper book - and other people then find it doesn't work; the booklet remains but the result doesn't. It's a common pattern, and years later people find this material and think it's something new (and possibly covered-up) when the truth is that it was tried and failed a generation ago. You are not ahead of the game, you are decades off the pace.
"Instead of beating your head against a wall claiming "can't be done" "physics don't allow it" go find some place you can legally do this kind of experiment, see for yourself"
*Why* do you think I say that physics doesn't allow it? That statement is based on a vast number of experiments, repeated to great accuracy in laboratories all round the world; and theories which corroborate those results. We are not dogmatic - reality is the arbiter. But when in the face of that you get a lone anomaly from somebody using their kitchen sink and proclaiming themselves as the next Einstein in the face of a hostile establishment, you tend to think that the error is theirs. Your attitude would require every physics major to personally redo every fundamental experiment of the last 300 years themselves rather than accept the textbooks in places - an obviously unreasonable attitude. In geography, by analogy, your attitude would not accept any map unless you had been to a place and verified it for yourself.
"the point is, it is in the same range, and it can be scaled up."
Yes, if you can disperse a megaton of explosive mist over a city and toss a match into it. But you tell me how to get a million tons of material into a bomber fleet or ICBMs and get it over a hostile target...
Ironic,
About a year ago, I heard an infomercial
on the radio for a product called "Platinum
Fuel Saver". It claimed to save as much
as 10% of your fuel, burn your gasoline
more efficiently, ( sparing the environment )
and produce more power in the process.
They claimed that they had had them
installed in an entire fleet of school buses
in Ohio, and an entire fleet of cabs
somewhere else and that the results were
amazing! This, by "electrically charging"
the fuel with a platinum vapor. I was
impressed and excited.
I bought it for $250.00.
I had it installed by a mechanic as per the
directions.
No results. Same exact 11.5 MPG around
town on my F150 pickup.
It doesn't work.
Physicist,
This book was recently recommended to me: The Quantum Brain: The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man by Jeffrey Satinover.
Are you familiar with it? If yes, any opinions?
Thank you
Anon@11.21am,
I've not read this book but based on what Amazon says about it and the reader reviews, it seems to me to be in the category which I discussed critically on the previous thread at this blog; go to the comments there and search for the word 'consciousness' and my cordial exchange with Susanna. You might find it helpful to start about three posts further back, with the comment by Paul about what he had read in Scientific American. (I don't mean St Paul!)
The great 20th century mathematician John von Neumann once responded to someone who said, in the 1950s, "Look here, you don't mean to tell me that a machine can think, do you?" by replying "You specify exactly what it means to think, and I'll construct a machine that does it." Ditto with a machine that is conscious...
chemical explosion doesn't set up an electrical field - the description was of a smaller explosion that with the right timing would cause the kind of eddying that makes charging in the atmosphere and gets you lightning.
platinum vapor as electrical charge source - sounds like BS to me. probably exploiting the reports of some other experimenters.
In CA you are not allowed to make certain alterations and conversions on your car.
Townsend Brown is someone you should be looking into more closely. Also the fact that a lot of alternative energy patents got snapped up by big oil and of course this prevented their use.
Diesel, the man who invented the diesel engine, said it would run on any kind of oil not just diesel. After he died (questions about the circumstances, too convenient) the design of the engine and the claims about it changed. Harder in many cases to run it on cooking oil or whatever without fouling it.
diffusing a huge amount of explosive over a whole city isn't the issue. it is getting a smaller amount to do the same job.
And if the target was a military target not civilian, you don't need to think about an entire city sized thing anyway. you only need kiloton measures. And I think you are showing some failure to understand in talking about diffusing a megaton of stuff - it is not the measure of the stuff it is the measure of the blast.
exactly what material is to be used in such a bomb is variable and it is NOT gasoline. you have gelignite or napalm confused with the non electrical FAE which is other chemicals entirely, and essentially duplicates the cause of explosions in dust laden conditions, mines and silos for instance.
The important thing is, no EMP and no fallout or poisoned environment issues.
an explosive cloud that is ionized before "tossing a match" is going to be more energetic.
"chemical explosion doesn't set up an electrical field - the description was of a smaller explosion that with the right timing would cause the kind of eddying that makes charging in the atmosphere and gets you lightning."
Christine, the number of scientific errors in one sentence here is impressive. All of the explosions in a fuel-air weapon are chemical - just different chemicals for each of the stages. As for the charge separation in thunderclouds that leads to lightning, the cause of that is uncertain. It's a great chance for someone to do some real research and find out.
"diffusing a huge amount of explosive over a whole city isn't the issue. it is getting a smaller amount to do the same job."
That is exactly what I have been explaining is impossible, with detailed reasoning. Do you actually read my posts, or do you just skim them? I am beginning to realise that the latter would explain a lot.
"an explosive cloud that is ionized before "tossing a match" is going to be more energetic."
Tell me why...
"I guess physicist is one of those products of modern education who got his degree fed to him."
Christine, you exemplify the fact that people use insults when they run out of arguments. I hold a doctorate in physics, not just a Masters, both of which I got 30 years ago from the university acknowledged to be the best for physics in the UK, Cambridge. Doctorate (PhD) means that I did original research, albeit under supervision. After that I held (unsupervised) postdoctoral research contracts at Cambridge (3 years) then at two other leading universities, before starting my own business.
Please tell me how someone doing original research can be spoonfed. It would be a handy way to increase the number of publications on my CV.
"tell me why" because the particles are going to be more reactive, precisely the situation that creates lightning in clouds the cloud to cloud kind aside from ground strikes. increase of motion is increased energy in and of itself. Which is why injectors are more efficient than carburetors. high school physics.
insult about credentials - again, not a specific insult, a suspicion based on your repeated unwillingness to do any effort to do any study work online, in the time it took you to write all those arguments.
However, since you have not given your full name and year of graduation, it is impossible to check your credentials.
Physicist, Christine, anyone who cares,
I find it funny that a fuel delivery system for automobiles is being used to back a claim about a incendiary device. First, the automotive application works to simply turn liquid gasoline to a vaporous state thus allowing the vehicle to consume the entirety of fuel making it's way into the combustion chambers. Second, these do require new delivery systems as the standard fuel pump is not designed for vapor. Next, in order for this to work, one needs a enclosed system, I.e. fuel tank. This simply a delivery augmentation designed for efficiency, it has zeroimpact on combustion ratio.
I could go into reasons this probably wouldn't work as well with diesel, but really don't need to because such a system would be redundant on a modern diesel engine. Vaporization of the fuel is exactly what happens within the turbo on a diesel. Fuel economy, or lack thereof, on a diesel has less to do with fuel and much more to do with air intake and back pressure. That is why larger turbos and increased exhaust size are big aftermarket upgrades for diesel owners, as they increase both horsepower and fuel economy so long as they are dialed in properly.
As for physicist, I know exactly who you are, and what your credentials entail, so I don't need to be sold, I trust the opinion. I also think even with what you've revealed to others here, you've under sold yourself.
Physicist, Christine, anyone who cares,
I find it funny that a fuel delivery system for automobiles is being used to back a claim about a incendiary device. First, the automotive application works to simply turn liquid gasoline to a vaporous state thus allowing the vehicle to consume the entirety of fuel making it's way into the combustion chambers. Second, these do require new delivery systems as the standard fuel pump is not designed for vapor. Next, in order for this to work, one needs a enclosed system, I.e. fuel tank. This simply a delivery augmentation designed for efficiency, it has zeroimpact on combustion ratio.
I could go into reasons this probably wouldn't work as well with diesel, but really don't need to because such a system would be redundant on a modern diesel engine. Vaporization of the fuel is exactly what happens within the turbo on a diesel. Fuel economy, or lack thereof, on a diesel has less to do with fuel and much more to do with air intake and back pressure. That is why larger turbos and increased exhaust size are big aftermarket upgrades for diesel owners, as they increase both horsepower and fuel economy so long as they are dialed in properly.
As for physicist, I know exactly who you are, and what your credentials entail, so I don't need to be sold, I trust the opinion. I also think even with what you've revealed to others here, you've under sold yourself.
Christine said that charging the fuel was why fuel injectors are better than carburettors. Here is the actual reason why, pasted verbatim from the Wikipedia article on "fuel injection," and it has nothing to do with charge: "The primary difference between carburetors and fuel injection is that fuel injection atomizes the fuel by forcibly pumping it through a small nozzle under high pressure, while a carburetor relies on suction created by intake air rushing through a venturi to draw the fuel into the airstream."
Still no mistake that you have ever made on this blog, Christine?
JD - thank you for your complimentary words. How do you know who I am, please, as I have never divulged myself here?
Christine,
I'd gladly give you my name in a 1:1 but this is a public blog and I prefer to remain anonymous, as Constance permits people to. It is not a worry to me if you don't believe me. My scientific arguments here are based on science, not on authority.
"not a specific insult, a suspicion based on your repeated unwillingness to do any effort to do any study work online, in the time it took you to write all those arguments."
Attempting to insult me by saying that I was spoonfed my science when I have a qualification in original research shows you up, not me. Apparently you don't understand the basics of discourse. If you make an assertion then you must be able to provide a reference or prove it from one; otherwise, you face the retort "Prove it!" Instead, you made an assertion and then challenged *me* to find the reference. You did that because you had apparently made that assertion without having a good reference, and when you did the hunting that you should have done first, the reference you found turned out to be scientifically incorrect, as I explained in detail above.
Now you apparently know (4.15pm) how charge separation comes about in thunderclouds. Please inform the research community of your breakthrough, because nobody else knows and it remains the subject of considerable research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Formation
I challenged you to explain your assertion that "an explosive cloud that is ionized before "tossing a match" is going to be more energetic." You replied: "because the particles are going to be more reactive". Even if true, that would affect the speed of the reaction, not the total energy release, and explosive compounds already explode fast enough even when uncharged to destroy their target.
Physicist
No you haven't, but I belive we have exchanged email. Unless there are multiple gentlemen sharing your credentials lurking around here. If so, even Susanna has assumed you are same said physicist. Lol
JD,
If it was you who put Susanna and a physicist in touch in mid-November 2010 then yes, I - Christine's contender - am that physicist. Greetings!
I would be one and the same
"Even if true, that would affect the speed of the reaction, not the total energy release, "
just what the hell do you think total energy of a reaction IS?
The only difference between a hand warmer packet and a roaring fire is speed of oxidation.
even if you are right in theory, obviously SOMETHING that doesn't fit that theory happened, so SOMETHING else applies in that case.
meanwhile, whether enhanced or standard FAE is involved Russia has one that is lighter smaller and 4X stronger than the biggest of ours. Which was the original issue.
Two or three of the biggest conventional FAEs would incinerate and disintegrate most military bases.
Also, seems American press didn't report this, but Euro did. We were moving air power in to help that bunch was that South Ossetia or what was it? part of Georgia? anyway the Russians said, small nukes aimed on your LZ and we backed off and moved the planes out of there.
It doesn't have to be megatonnage to do the job.
and they are willing to use the tactical nukes.
Hmmmm....sounds like they wouldn't have to actually hit the US homeland itself, just eliminate our forces and naval presence and use ABMs against retaliation.
fuel injectors - just what do you think the effect of this delivery system is? finer particles of the gasoline mix more efficiently with the air and burns hotter (more energy) and gives more bang for the buck. Ergo, better mph. This is not about electrifying, of course. But it IS about getting more energy out of a reaction than just the normal crude mixing does.
About the only way your position can be correct, is if the total possible energy in the reaction is in fact larger than usual ways of engaging it is, so that yes the total energy isn't changed, potentially, on paper, except....in reality though a limit exists, that limit is not reached by the usual means of getting the reaction started.
The issue of electrification would be comparable to injection vs. carburetion, i.e., getting more efficiency out of the reaction, and approaching closer in reality to its potential in theory.
oops, error. mph should have been mpg.
missile silo hardened to withstand a nuke - hmmmm. I can't remember, does a nuke create a vaccuum effect and then extend blast around corners and through ventilation spaces? Some few critical components could be messed up. Or not. But your air bases, naval and army could be eviscerated. Literally. blast damage of apparently semi okay people can include internal organ damage.
Christine,
Your words confused speed of reaction with total energy released in it, then when I corrected you, you wrote as if you had always understood the difference. Unless you didn't properly understand what you were writing, that is the maximally dishonest thing to do. I'm not going to paste in your words and mine to prove it as they are immediately above for all to read.
"even if you are right in theory, obviously SOMETHING that doesn't fit that theory happened, so SOMETHING else applies in that case."
That would be the case if you could get a bang equivalent to a full-sized nuke from an air-delivered fuel-air bomb. THAT was the original issue and you said as much, but the YouTube clip that you posted to make that claim actually showed the opposite. What it did show was that Russia could get 3 or 4 times the bang from fuel-air bombs of a given weight than America, IF the USA doesn't have similar secret FAEs. But armageddon scenarios are still all about nukes, not FAEs. You were wrong about that too.
"Two or three of the biggest conventional FAEs would incinerate and disintegrate most military bases."
First, most military bases have nuclear bunkers that would just laugh at FAEs. Second, if enemy planes or ICBMs approach continental-US military bases, it cannot be known whether they are carrying nuclear warheads or FAEs and you have to assume the worst-case scenario - so FAEs do not alter the strategic balance in any way.
"Your words confused speed of reaction with total energy released in it, then when I corrected you, you wrote as if you had always understood the difference. Unless you didn't properly understand what you were writing, that is the maximally dishonest thing to do. I'm not going to paste in your words and mine to prove it as they are immediately above for all to read."
Total energy actually released in a specific time, depends on speed of reaction.
There is a big difference between for instance, between gasoline lit with a match while mostly fluid, and gasoline lit with a match while vaporized and well mixed with oxygen. Sure the total energy POSSIBLE is the same, but the total energy that WILL be released and/or that will be released in terms of seconds, is NOT the same.
Another problem. All the calculation of energy release is based on information from the experiments that determined what something's BTU's for instance are. Which in turn depend on the means of extracting the energy used.
There is a big difference between total energy released in a control nuclear reaction, and a bomb. The same amount of the same or similar material is usually in use, however.
If carburetion got x mpg from gasoline, and fuel injection gets x + a mpg, obviously the means of extracting the energy is changing the total energy released.
Which means, of course, that the usual calculations about the energy potential of gas + O2 plus electric arc were slightly wrong.
oh, yes, and, don't forget the use of multiprong spark plugs to get a more efficient burn.
So go ahead and argue the total energy is the same. If it is released faster from less of the material, then the effect is NOT the same. And that is all that matters.
Now, you don't put FAE's on ICBMs. I am talking about planes from offshore aircraft carriers, stuff like that.
remember the scenario, Chinese or Russian or both warships control the Canadian coast with offshore artillery, while the Russian forces come down the coast, having already secured Alaska, into the lower 48.
SECOND, I did NOT post that video to prove anything about enhanced FAEs or nuclear equivalent I SPECIFICALLY POSTED IT TO SHOW that even in convention FAE technology they are ahead of us,
AND suggested that MAYBE they only way they could get such an edge is using Riconosciuto's improvement.
It would be nice if you paid attention to detail.
Perhaps you are better at dealing with numbers than words, visual thinking dependent calculating as opposed to abstract and so forth?
I find it puzzling for you to argue about fuel injectors, since the point was that yes, you CAN improve the amount of energy you get from something with a change in delivery system.
Christine,
Now I see your misunderstanding. I hope you will let me correct it. That, and preventing Constance's readers from swallowing it, is all I wish to do regarding the scientific matter.
When a fixed number of molecules take part in a specific chemical reaction, a fixed amount of energy is released. That is because of the way electrons orbit atomic nuclei in the atoms involved. Depending on circumstances such as temperature and pressure, the reaction may proceed slowly or quickly to its completion, defined as when all the starting compounds have been used up and all the end-products have been created.
The same amount of energy is released by the combustion of a fixed amount of gasoline and air whether it enters an internal combustion engine via a carburettor or by fuel injection. Your third paragraph at 8.34pm states otherwise, so you are probably wondering why the car runs farther and/or faster with fuel injection. The answer is EFFICIENCY. With fuel injection, more of the energy goes into powering the car and less is wasted as heat. You will find that in the fuel-injected car the radiator needs to work less hard to prevent the engine from overheating for a given performance.
The amount of energy released is intrinsic to the molecules involved. The speed of the reaction can be controlled by varying factos such as pressure and temperature. The efficiency is not a molecular-level concept and depends on what you want the energy for. You might actually want to burn the fuel for heating purposes rather than to power a car, for instance.
With nuclear reactions, you also get exactly the same amount of energy from the fission of a single nucleus of uranium-235 whether it is inside a bomb or a nuclear reactor. Obviously you can vary the rate of that reaction too, as it proceeds a lot more slowly in a nuclear reactor as in a nuclear bomb. You vary the reaction rate in a reactor by manipiulating the control rods to keep the reaction just sub-critical. A bomb proceeds to completion in a small fraction of a second.
Please would you now reread some of my explanations of why FAEs CANNOT be jacked up to kiloton range? Hopefully they will make more sense to you now. and we can agree on the science, at least.
Anonymous 5:13AM
WOW! Your explanation was crystal clear. I understand exactly what you are saying.
Thank you for so patiently and generously sharing your knowledge with us.
I thought this website was to deal with the New Age movement and all of its branches, an extremely important topic. Constance appears tired out and I wonder if she even checks the comments. Serious researchers have moved on.
Christine may mean well, but that doesn't justify her being off topic continuously. Lurkers, if there are many left, and Constance, are too polite to tell her to get back on topic, probably feeling she is a lonely soul looking for people to talk to. If she decided to post something about baking a chocolate cake, connecting it with New Age in some strange way, the same people would not tell her to stop.
While physics is an interesting topic, I've yet to see how it ties in with the political New Age movement. The only thing I can figure is that showing where Christine speaks dogmatically about physics and is wrong will somehow reflect on her other dogmatic statements. Over 50 years ago I learned that just because someone speaks firmly and coherently, there still is no reason to believe they know more than their listeners. Use of the language is a skill that can be learned by many.
For old times sake, which is why I check back here, there is a link which provides ongoing political information I've not seen covered elsewhere. The connection to the New Age movement should be clear.
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/01/putin-issues-arrest-warrant-against.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTap+%28the+tap%29.
http://tinyurl.com/6po4656
I've dropped out of posting here because my concern is about THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT and just not arguing. Anyone dropping in on this blog over the last several months would have a hard time figuring out what the New Age movement is all about.
And no Christine, I do not intend to waste my time responding to you. After first reading than skimming your posts, you really have nothing new to offer.
I posted a comment. It appeared as 131. Then disappeared. Front page says there are 134 comments. Only 130 appear.
The same amount of energy is released by the combustion of a fixed amount of gasoline and air whether it enters an internal combustion engine via a carburettor or by fuel injection. Your third paragraph at 8.34pm states otherwise, so you are probably wondering why the car runs farther and/or faster with fuel injection. The answer is EFFICIENCY. With fuel injection, more of the energy goes into powering the car and less is wasted as heat. You will find that in the fuel-injected car the radiator needs to work less hard to prevent the engine from overheating for a given performance."
Doesn't matter. you are getting more work - another definition of energy - out of the same reaction when it is done more efficiently. phrase it any way you like.
The issue of enhanced vs. normal FAE is precisely efficiency. And I might add, that in the given reaction, let's say gasoline, okay, so the given molecule amount does thus and so no matter what, next question, just how much of those molecules available to do whatever are ACTUALLY doing whatever and not just fizzling or doing nothing? Here comes efficiency issues.
Next problem. Are we sure we know exactly what the actual capability of any reaction really is?
If you can get the same amount of gas to go farther by doing something, obviously either the assumptions about the total capability are wrong, or the assumption that all the molecules do what you expect under all circumstances are wrong.
Now, lets take a look at something that will really fry your patience.
Radioactive half life.
I assume you know that this is not in fact the time it takes each and every atom to break up into smaller atoms and release some radioactivity while doing so.
This is an AVERAGE of the time that it takes the atoms to do so.
That means there are a lot of individual atoms that do not decay that fast, in fact, decay maybe twice, four or eight times slower.
Ditto a lot of individual atoms that decay twice, four or eight times faster.
Now, what causes the decay? Nobody knows. It happens so it is said to be "instability" because of the way the atom just IS, number of neutrons give it indigestion and it burps now and then. So to speak. ;)
Okay, why the speed difference? Nobody knows.
Okay, what if whatever it is that causes some to decay fast were to be more predominant suddenly or over time? or conversely the cause of the slower decay of the slower atoms?
Obviously you are going to have problems with radiometric dating.
By the way, one of the ways of bumping something up from hypothesis to theory status, or at least getting it more respectability, is when something can be used to predict something.
The electric universe theory (you will find this at the thunderbolts site) predicted certain findings of a space probe out there around Saturn or Jupiter, before it got there.
Have fun with that one.
Meanwhile, be sure and tell yourself, next time you decide to shake a soda pop before opening it, that the total energy release reaction is the same whether over seconds with energization by shaking, or with less energization by letting it just fizzle slowly, and there is no reason to be careful where
you are aiming it when you open it, at some socially important event near someone you want to impress.
Count is now 136 on the front and 132 showing.
http://tinyurl.com/6v2hsa4
\This article is from the perspective of religious indiffentism to outright atheism I suppose, but the issue is serious, because the dominionist cult is leading the charge, NAR in particular the new apostles heresy.
I would suggest, that this be used against NAR, that someone who has a kid in this situation, get the kid to get the others to read carefully and show them where the characteristic ideas of dominionism and NAR are wrong.
Christine,
The energy released depends on what goes on at molecular level. The burning of a fixed amount of fuel in an engine always provides the same amount of energy within the cylinders. Some of that energy is available to power the car; the rest enters the engine block as heat and is dissipated. The energy available to power the car is conventionally defined as work, and the efficiency of the engine is the fraction of energy released that is available as work, to power the car. Fuel injectors lead to higher efficiency than carburettors.
Do you understand? If No, I'll gladly try explaining it a diferent way. If Yes, do you agree? If you don't agree, why not? If you answer these questions then I'll help you. I am assuming that you are interested in understanding and put that above all else. You can, incidentally, get all that I am saying from a high-school science book; this is not degree-level stuff. It was worked out in the 19th century and is nowadays far from the research frontier. It is based on a multitude of experiments that have been repeated in laboratories round the world countless times. The only dissenters today are a few cranks on the internet. It is common knwledge that you get internet cranks in all areas and science is no exception.
To FAEs. You wrote: "The issue of enhanced vs. normal FAE is precisely efficiency."
For internal combustion engines I gave a precise definition of efficiency. Please define exactly what you mean by the efficiency of FAEs and I can make a meaningful reply. Otherwise we are just wasting each other's time with terminological issues.
"And I might add, that in the given reaction, let's say gasoline, okay, so the given molecule amount does thus and so no matter what, next question, just how much of those molecules available to do whatever are ACTUALLY doing whatever and not just fizzling or doing nothing?"
Pardon?
by the way, FAEs do not use gasoline. it is an ammonium nitrate involved thingy, though ethylene oxide is a major player in some.
http://tinyurl.com/6njzpz5
article about NASA admitting to a kind of cold fusion
http://tinyurl.com/7dj4yae
link in the article to NASA gateway technology video about it.
ah yes, another impossibility. Ever hear of chickens who make thin shell eggs and get sick on no calcium no potassium, but are fine on no calcium plenty of potassium? sounds like some kind of quiet cold or chicken body temperature nuclear reaction going on in the chicken. hmmmmm.
Christine,
You wrote: "Now, lets take a look at something that will really fry your patience. Radioactive half life."
Your words suggest that you are knowingly trying to wind me up. In that case you will bear responsibility before God for deliberately confusing Constance's readers.
There are partial truths in your summary. Let me explain it in a way that subsumes those truths in a bigger picture that can be applied to our discussion.
The nucleus of an atom contains protons and neutrons, and is bound together against the mutual repulsive force of the protons (since like charges repel) by further forces than electromagnetism, which come into play only at the short distances within the atomic nucleus. (Gravity, though attractive, isn't strong enough to do it.) The consequence is that the atomic nucleus is not static but a dynamic entity, in effect continually shaking. Sometimes the spontaneous shaking becomes enough to shake a nucleus into bits. Some nuclei only need a little bit of shaking to split; others need a lot. Imagine 10000 of the first type, isolated from each other; after a certain length of time 5000 of them will have split. That is the half-life of that nucleus, ie of that combination of protons and neutrons. (You can measure it more accurately by using larger numbers of nuclei.) The shorter the half-life, the more unstable is that nucleus. Many nuclei that need a lot of spontaneous shaking to split are such that the half-life is far greater than the age of the universe, and we call them stable nuclei since for all intents and purposes they are.
That is the situation if you leave nuclei alone. But what if you start playing pool? If you hurl a neutron at an otherwise fairly stable atomic nucleus, it might get incorporated and the resulting nucleus be a less stable one; certainly the impact will set up a shaking that for some nuclei could be enough to split them. Now remember that nuclei themselves contain neutrons, so that in some cases individual neutrons might be released. Those neutrons can then hit further nuclei, which splinter and release still more neutrons... and so on. That is known as a chain reaction. There are some well-known nuclei for which a chain reaction can take place. Furthermore, the bits into which some (heavier) nuclei splinter weigh less than the starting nucleus plus the neutron that you threw at it, and the 'missing' mass goes into energy according to E=mc2. This is the basis of nuclear (fission) reactors and the first nuclear weapons. (Today we have nuclear *fusion* bombs and are working toward nuclear fusion reactors, but that's enough for now.)
I've already commented on the 'electric universe' scenario in relation to FAEs above, including an explanation of what it is. I haven't the time to discuss it in relation to space physics generally - science primers are not the principal purpose of this blog so please google it for yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/6q7tzvt
interesting discussion on explosives, note references to Russian pipeline explosions in the kiloton range and similar events in the US in accidents many many years ago, calculated from the damage.
one guy speaking about the MOAB bomb (not electrically enhanced) seems confused however about thermobaric and thermometric. The ref. to Port Chicago is irrelevant, since that was most definitely a small nuke test to see how people react when one goes off in a port, details on why see
http://tinyurl.com/7u2zr9l
Christine,
I am skeptical of cold fusion, and here is why you should be. First, a quick primer on fusion. Just as when a really big atomic nucleus splits (fission), the resulting pieces weigh less than what you started with and the discrepancy comes off as energy according to E=mc2, so if you bring two *light* nuclei together and get them to fuse into one (fusion), then that one weighs less than the two you started with and you get energy liberated. That is nuclear fusion. It is what powers the sun and other stars. (There is a tipping point in the periodic table of the elements; heavier than iron and fission gets you energy, lighter than iron and fusion gets you energy.)
There is a problem with fusion that doesn't arise with fission. To get two atomic nuclei close enough to each other to fuse together, you have to overcome their mutual electrostatic repulsion - both nuclei are packed with positively charged protons. The only known way to do that is to get a large amount of the material incredibly hot. Heat is just random 'thermal' motion, the hotter, the faster. Get two of these nuclei going straight toward each other fast enough and they will overcome that problem and fuse.
So fusion schemes have so far always been 'hot fusion'. People have been looking for cold fusion schemes for several decades now. There was a famous fiasco in 1989. Those researchers were in good faith but deluded. It is also necessary to watch out for investment scams. I am not suggesting that the schemes you link to are scams, but I am doubtful that they work. Of course, the test is independent replication, and we need to wait for patents to be issued so that enough details can be placed in the public domain to allow for independent testing. I feel under no obligation to pronounce definitively until that has been done. Incidentally, patents taken out by Americans would, if the idea works, bring huge wealth into the USA and make it energy-independent, so all these Big-Oil claims are conspiratorialist nonsense. In any case the once Big-Oil companies now regard themselves as Big-Energy companies; several were enthusiastically touting the Green energy agenda because of the massive government subsidies on offer. Note also that the NASA scientist you link to says elsewhere on the internet that his claimed cold-fusion device is not a NASA product; NASA is simply his day job. As for its presence on the NASA website, that is a matter of NASA internal politics.
Christine,
Yes, the sundering of a natural gas pipeline left to flow for several hours and then ignited by eg a flash of lightning would give a catastrophic explosion comparable to a kiloton nuke - because a few thousand tons of gas would have escaped. No chance of delivering thousands of tons to the atmosphere above a city by bomber or ICBM though, just as I have repeatedly said.
"The ref. to Port Chicago is irrelevant, since that was most definitely a small nuke test to see how people react when one goes off in a port"
Utter nonsense. You get a mushroom clouds and a very bright flash from the detonation of a large enough amount of conventional explosive. There were hundreds of tons of explosive ordnance being loaded onto ships, which went up and are sufficient to account for the size of the bang. Nobody knows how it started because the site of the origin of the explosion was blown to smithereens, but the local head of the Coast Guard tasked with overseeing the loading had already warned the Navy that its procedures were unsafe, even by wartime standards. None of the effects of a nuclear million-degree temperature were seen (you only get to thousands of degrees with conventional explosives, no matter how much you have). And where is the radioactivity? Even if a nuke is detonated under water and enough water rushes back to prevent much local contamination, plenty would have gone up in the mushroom cloud and come back to earth in the wider area, yet none has ever been detected. Finally, Los Alamos was the only place capable of producing nukes at the time, and many of the scientists there had grave reservations about developing the Bomb and justified it to themselves only via the great evil they believed they were confronting in WW2. You can bet that they knew where all the fissile material was and how many bombs they had produced, and if the Port Chicago bang was one of theirs then there would have been an internal outcry that would by now be very much in the public domain. Just about everybody who was anybody at Los Alamos has now written their memoirs and there is no mention of this.
The man who came up with the Port Chicago nuke theory was not a trained scientist, and after 25 years he repudiated it. During that time he had presented only the evidence FOR and none of the (always-decisive) evidence AGAINST. Today others who are ignorant and conspiratorialist continue to do the same online.
PS Chicago was almost exactly a year before the first Los Alamos acknowledged nuclear test, and the Los Alamos memoirs of the physicists who worked there (many of which I have read) are unanimous that they hadn't worked out the detailed design of a bomb by that stage.
Just a repeat of what I tried to post earlier.
I've followed this blog because I believe understanding the New Age movement is extremely important. Anyone coming to this blog in the last few months would never learn anything about it.
While physics is interesting, nothing here has anything to do with the New Age movement. While Christine speaks dogmatically and coherently, it does not mean her information is valid whether she speaks about physics of New Age. No one really cares how far off topic this blog has become.
For old times sake, here are thoughts that may be more pertinent. Lucis Trust writings attack Judaism and Catholicism as does the Obama group. Respect for human life is being downplayed to the point where academics are saying that killing the born until the age of 12 can be acceptable.
The occult? Reading the ulsterman blog I saw a section on where an occult chant may have been used to arouse Obama in Denver.
Santorum's concern about social values is being reported as a negative when the changeover in social values is very New Age.
Anonymous,
I come here for New Age too, it's just that I'm a professional physicist and I'm not prepared to let pass a large amount of nonsense spoken about my subject. I am entirely reactive and if rubbish about physics ceases here, I shall gladly discontinue the science lecture (apart from eg New Age abuses of quantum theory). I regret how unwilling people can be to admit that they are mistaken. When I bump into eg a biochemist, I regard it as an opportunity to learn rather than to teach them biochemistry based on internet trash.
Physicist, your comments here have been valuable. Otherwise the stone hard lady could have convinced others she had something important to offer. So few people are able to go head to head with someone who makes what they say sound intelligent. It's why others had to take on another come in to tackle a person named Joyce. Constance does little to moderate the comments section and keep it on topic. Consequently trolls have a field day. And heaven knows that New Agers take advantage of that.
the issue about learning about the New Age and its hazards is very important, and I apologize for detracting from this blog's capacity to do this. From now on, I will only post relevant to the blog.
Two angles on the New Movement or NAM. Someone once stated in a book or article, I forget who or where, that there are two categories to this. Both in the spiritual category. One focusses on what is effectively neopaganism revival, and is a hodge podge of eclectic stuff, often denounced by the Native Americans of misusing
out of context the stuff NAM borrows from them.
This hodgepodge incl. a range of practices that are essentially conveyorbelts, especially if learned in a teacher student or group with leader context, into paganism of the Hindu sort usually, and some things that are just left over from before medical science sorted out superstition from what works. (For instance, the Ayurveda system of medicine, which of course can act as a conveyorbelt by stirring curiousity into the other stuff.)
The other part is the Theosophy derived stuff, which is concerned with externalizing the hierarchy and causing a planetary initiation and stuff like that.
From the secular perspective, there is another categorization, the strictly apolitical spiritual etc. stuff, usually personal practices, and the political. The political however is an effort to embody "oneness" and so forth into the political scene, not to mention setting the stage for the externalization of the hierarchy Bailey talks about.
Someone complained here a while back about someone who focussed on spiritual/occultic angles on all this as being a distraction from political issues and what to do about things.
Well, frankly, taking note of oddball ideas, and noting who in the political scene is into them, can be an indicator of what evil spirit influence they might be under, or what long range goal they might be in favor of.
Christine, you don't have a clue as to what the New Age movement is about. You twaddle about all manner of fringe activity. Take some time off to learn what you are talking about. Try reading Lee Penn's book, False Dawn, The Occult Underground or the Occult Establishment by James Webb, Toward the Maitreyan Revolution by Karl Heussenstamm, New Age Religion and Globalization, Edited by Mikael Rothstein, New Age Youth and Masonry by Lynn Perkins, New Age Guide by Daren Kemp, Lucis Trust books or the Theosophical Society books or any of the books listed in the bibliographies. I could go on with dozens of other researched books.
Nothing you have written suggests that you are talking about anything other than strange websites, provisions made for dissidents.
We desperately need to share information about the ongoing New Age movement and not just what is going on in the head of one casual researcher.
"Christine, you don't have a clue as to what the New Age movement is about" and then list James Webb and others I should read. I have been reading James Webb and other books not on your list and Constance Cumbey was one of the first - by the way, I notice that Deborah and Joyce who address things she always did in her books got heavy flack here, why? - for years.
Where do you think I get my information about the New Age from?
Let's hear your take on it, and of course yes it is ultimately laying the groundwork for the antichrist, but I doubt he is going to show up next year or anything like that.
Dear Friends,
The discussions i find on this blogsite are interesting - usually - and helpful - usually. I've posted here once before as "anonymous".
My concern for some time has been that the greatest threat to our freedom in Christ Jesus is more subtle than mentioned anywhere on or off the internet. This threat manifests itself in problems found in the church universally. Can't we say that the world has changed the churches - all of them - to varying degrees to be sure - more than the churches have changed the world in recent decades?
Our Christian doctrine has gradually become less and less biblical to the point that we do not stand out in our society as shining lights any more than a "good" Buddhist or even an agnostic or do-gooder atheist ( of whom there are a few, at least). Why is this??
The answer is found, I believe, in "gradualism". Because of diluted doctrine "Christians" are smug about their salvation and are willing to look at acceptance of Jesus our Savior as the same thing
as believing in Him and His miraculous power to change us. Thus they are satisfied with their present state.
Christians need to question themselves about whether they really believe in miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. We know that His resurrection is questioned now by an unknown number of people.
But also review 2 Thessalonians 2. The world's greatest con artists are soon to appear. Are we really spiritually ready for them and their miracles? Even the very elect ( Mat 24) could be fooled if it were possible.
I'm very concerned that if we are not truly converted our fear of not being able to buy or sell will cause many to give in to the great temptation soon coming.
There is a lot to review and discuss either here or elsewhere. I am not involved with Christian forums very much and wonder if free speech is always allowed since i see little questioning of the commonly accepted doctrines that need clarification. (This could be just due to the widespread acceptance of modern teaching, too)
What are your thoughts?
Christine: I - the Physicist - am not one of the Anons who has insulted you since your apology. Personally I welcome your comments about New Age, even if I don't always agree with all of them.
Phil: The church must be in the world, but the world must not get into the church. Because the church recruits from the world, it faces an unending battle to keep pure. But we have Christ's promise that we can do it if we choose. Western churches have conspicuously failed to do this in recent times. I believe that the deepest reason why is that we have lost our fear of God. A forgiven sinner should both love God AND fear God, and we have been lulled into falsely thinking that this is a contradiction, when it is really the way to maturity. I believe that we are in for persecution and that this will be Christ, not abandoning his church, but purifying it.
I totally agree with physicist on this.
To Physicist and Christine,
Thank you for your comments. While I think we are on the same track, I believe we need to go deeper into doctrinal issues if we want to be truly protected against deception.
To all-
The Holy Spirit assisting us in several ways is our key to discernment. Even back when i was growing up, (my father was a pastor) my liberal denomination implied a holy attitude when speaking of the Holy Spirit. Of course He is a person! Later i left that church, but more conservative ones still overlook the way to receive the infilling i believe most of us ( if not all of us) still need.
Regardless of what is taught, my own experience and study has led me to understand that while faith is the prime need for conversion, that faith must lead us to ask, "What shall we do?" Acts 2:37.38 & 22:16
More later- I hope to touch upon repentance, decisions vs true faith, patterns for baptism, the necessary understanding of God's name in the New Testament, self evaluation, the latter rain of the Holy Spirit and whatever you would like to bring up.
May the LORD Jehovah bless you and keep you now and throughout the challenging years ahead!
Love to all (any Muslims and others who may read this are included) in Christ Jesus,
phil
Amen Phil.
But, believe it or not a few people
close to this website, going back
to it's origin, will actually bristle
and whine if you persist in bringing
Jesus and the Bible into the discussion
that they want, which is strictly about
the N.A.M.
I know, I know, what's the point of
exposing the New Age Movement,
if not to also bring up and publish
the ONLY antidote to this paganism,
which is Jesus the Christ ?
Understand I'm not referring to Mrs
Cumby, who is a Christian sister and
her books are clear on that, but there
are a few people who consider this
their blog and their forum and they
aren't necessarily of the same mind as
Constance.
For instance, if you scroll up a ways
above this comment you find a comment
about how one Joyce was an unbearable
blog hog and the implication is that
"we're all glad that she's gone".
Well, we're not all glad that she's gone.
She is a brilliant researcher, an astute
scholar and she happens to be a Jewish
person who believes in Jesus with all
her heart and all her strength and all
her soul.
I found her writings, which were extensive,
to be inspirational and Holy Spirit filled.
Nor did I have any problem with her
doctrine.
But, frankly, she was quite literally
run off this site by continual harassment,
probably by the above person who
comments above here at 6:59 PM.
Notice that that person says that she
had to take it upon herself to "tackle"
a person named Joyce.
Notice that she actually criticizes
Constance for a lack of vigilance.
She's a real hero in her own mind,
and she doesn't believe in Jesus.
The same element made life
unbearable for a dear sister who
went by the name Rudi, who doesn't
post here anymore, and she probably
has more peace of mind since leaving.
But I dare say there's never been a more
astute and thorough fact-finder and
deception-exposer anywhere.
Hi Rudi !
I'm just saying, this isn't a solely
"Christian" blog, so don't be surprised.
The world really hates Jesus.
Did you notice? They crucified him
and they thought they were doing
God a favor.
Füle stresses EU commitment to Union for the Mediterranean as key catalyst for projects on the ground
08-03-2012
Europe has a duty and an interest to support the democratic transitions in the Arab world, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle said in speech in Barcelona today, in which he stressed the EU’s commitment to the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) as a catalyst for concrete projects.
Speaking at a working breakfast organised by the European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed), in the presence of new UfM Secretary General Fatlallah Sijilmassi, Commissioner Füle said Europe - more than any other international actor - must support and engage with these transitions to ensure their success, “not only because it is important and the right thing to do; but also because it is in our own self interest”.
“Indeed, what happens on the other side of the Mediterranean is not only a strategic issue for Europe; it is a matter that impacts on our societies and our destiny. We have a common fate centred around the Mediterranean Sea.”
While the EU was delivering on its pledges to the region, the Commissioner warned that significant political and economic challenges remained. He said the process of democratisation would be long, with inevitable setbacks and frustrations:
(skip)
The EU was stepping up its engagement with regional organizations such as the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the 5+5 or the Arab Maghreb Union, he said, and added: “Among these organisations, the Union for the Mediterranean plays a special role. It is a unique forum where 43 partners can develop common strategies.”
(skip)
The recent decision by EU foreign ministers to transfer the UfM’s Northern Co-presidency to the EU “demonstrates our commitment to support the Union for Mediterranean”, he said. “This arrangement will ensure the full complementarity between the ENP and the work of the UfM.
(skip)
The Commissioner said the EU would continue its financial support and increased its technical cooperation with the secretariat of the Union for Mediterranean.
(skip)
The Commissioner told his audience that the vision for the EU response to the Arab Spring had been laid out last year in two joint Communications of March and May 2011, and he detailed the implementation of the proposals made in these documents, around the so-called ‘3Ms’ – money, mobility and markets.
For money, he said the EU planned to make available additional grant funds of up to €1 billion for the Neighbourhood as a whole for the period 2011-2013, on top of the €5.7 billion already programmed, (cont'd)
* * *
http://tinyurl.com/7teusbr
or
http://enpi-info.eu/mainmed.php?id=28258&id_type=1&lang_id=450
* * *
Thanks to Rapture Ready news for the link (fwiw, brings to mind pouring money down a hole).
Particularly note the 6th paragraph, above:
"The recent decision by EU foreign ministers to transfer the UfM’s Northern Co-presidency to the EU “demonstrates our commitment to support the Union for Mediterranean”, he said. “This arrangement will ensure the full complementarity between the ENP and the work of the UfM."
Post a Comment