Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[The Almond]

I specualte here. Waves are tuned to certain frequencies, which excite the natural resonant frequencies of some materials, not others.

Completely false. Resonance is a macroscopic property of matter, in the form of compression waves. Two different materials with the same modulus of elasticity will resonate at the same frequency.

Like a microwave oven. The beams are tuned to excite steel and/or concrete.

I'm going to lay a shocker down on you: All electromagnetic waves interact with all matter regardless of the frequency. Heat, as you will recall, has a far longer wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum than microwaves. Thus, in order to get matter to produce heat from microwaves, you need said matter to absorb 99% of the energy produced and radiate the balance of the energy as heat. In other words, the heat produced is a property of the matter's ability to absorb the incoming energy, not a property of the source itself. These reactions are independent of density, structure and material properties on the order of the difference between paper and concrete. Thus, the microwaves cannot be "tuned" to attack some matter and not others. This, might I add, is why Judy Wood's theory is completely bogus.

Whether by design or accident, "stray beams" with different frequency hit certain cars.

Once again, this is completely false. A stray beam on the order of a few meters on earth from [SIZE=-1]38500km away from the surface would provide a signal sigma of 0.00011%. The electron microscope I worked with at school had a signal sigma of 0.033% and it was one of the most advanced microscopes in the world. You could never possibly get such an exact beam at such a distance.

[/SIZE]These excited the natural frequency of rubber, and leave the metal.

Again, natural frequency is a macroscopic property of matter. Energy absorption is a microscopic property.

Different densities, and different resonant frequencies.

Resonant frequency is based on modulus of elasticity or spring constant, not density. Why don't you know that?

Same reason a microwave will cook your food and not heat a paper towel.

Microwaves interact in a very specific way with water molecules. It has nothing to do with the density difference between a potato and a paper towel.

Only enough time/energy to wilt, not disintegrate. Stray beams. Second part answered above.

Signal sigma. QED.

If you move the beam in a line, it will make a straight-edged cut, ala WTC4. Most of the cuts appear scalloped.

I'm going to drop another shocker: the energy required to move a beam is proportional to the power exerted by the beam. The energy required to move a microwave beam with the accuracy you purport is far greater than that required to produce the actual beam. You actually could do this experiment at home with a garden hose.

Speculating, of course. I'm starting to think of this like a focused microwave. Longer than visible light, between infrared and microwaves.

This is astounding. Visible light is between infrared and microwaves when ordering the electromagnetic spectrum from longest to shortest wavelength.

And don't you mean shorter than visible light? Remember Plank's law of black body radiaiton? Frequency and energy are proportional. Higher frequency microwaves are more energetic than lower frequency infrared.

It cooks steel from the inside out. The beam is round, a cylinder.

Which would indicate that the absorptivity of the steel changes across its cross section. Why isn't steel isotropic?

NOt to my satisfaction you can't.

How can you expect to have any credibility?

 

[Horatius]

For the record, here are some of the posts in this thread where the "anomalies" in the Reynolds/Wood paper have been explained to TruthSeeker.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2017084#post2017084

......


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2100826#post2100826

Damn!

That must have burned your mouse out.

But I bet it didn't singe your printer paper, right?

 

[maccy]

If you want to proceed scientifically, you must consider all of the evidence in total. Viewed in isolation, many if not most of the phenomena seem reasonable. Taken together though, the picture changes.

We have a whole parking lot full of toasted cars. What do you suppose happened there? Flaming rubble? Where is the rubble? We have cars parked on the street whose engines burst into flames. Why? Flaming rubble again? Tell me specifically what event occurs so that car engines burst into flames, car windows explode from the inside out, rubber tires disappear leaving steel belts behind, and paper is unscathed. Just give me the scenario. Imagine the car is parked anywhere you want to imagine.

We have dripping, wilted car parts. What caused this? Don't say heat. I know it was heat. Heat from what?

Not surpisingly, you're repeating yourself, again. The cars were dealt with after your entry into one of Docker's threads here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2032937#post2032937

Again, I'm really just adding this for the record. I couldn't care less if you're convinced by this or not. Your opinion doesn't matter to me and isn't going to change anything.

 

[Horatius]

isotropic

Oh come on now. Using fancy "physics" words is just mean.

Anybody want to take bets on TS knowing the definition of "isotropic"?

 

[maccy]

I'm going to lay a shocker down on you: All electromagnetic waves interact with all matter regardless of the frequency. Heat, as you will recall, has a far longer wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum than microwaves. Thus, in order to get matter to produce heat from microwaves, you need said matter to absorb 99% of the energy produced and radiate the balance of the energy as heat. In other words, the heat produced is a property of the matter's ability to absorb the incoming energy, not a property of the source itself. These reactions are independent of density, structure and material properties on the order of the difference between paper and concrete. Thus, the microwaves cannot be "tuned" to attack some matter and not others. This, might I add, is why Judy Wood's theory is completely bogus.

And he's already had some of the problems with an earlier version of his microwave theory explained to him, starting here.

 

[DarkMagician]

It was cold and stormy last night, so I started a fire in my fireplace. This morning I looked and found little bits of unburned paper in the corner of the fireplace. This proves that star wars weapons were used in my fireplace! I am changing the locks as we speak. I bet it was the Zionist couple upstairs...

That fireplace goes to the outdoors, right?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I specualte here. Waves are tuned to certain frequencies, which excite the natural resonant frequencies of some materials, not others. Like a microwave oven. The beams are tuned to excite steel and/or concrete. Whether by design or accident, "stray beams" with different frequency hit certain cars. These excited the natural frequency of rubber, and leave the metal.



maybe they did.



Different densities, and different resonant frequencies. Same reason a microwave will cook your food and not heat a paper towel.



Only enough time/energy to wilt, not disintegrate. Stray beams. Second part answered above.



Good questions. Why did the towers explode? There clearly had to be some source of tremendous energy, far beyond GPE.



If you move the beam in a line, it will make a straight-edged cut, ala WTC4. Most of the cuts appear scalloped.



Good questions.



Speculating, of course. I'm starting to think of this like a focused microwave. Longer than visible light, between infrared and microwaves. It cooks steel from the inside out. The beam is round, a cylinder.



There were optical effects, the afterglow recorded on many videos. I don't think it behaved differently at the same time.



NOt to my satisfaction you can't.

I have Two just Two Question for you, what triggers Nano-Super Thermite do you under stand that what triggers Nano-Super thermite also means that aluminum has to burn in the twin towers? Would flash temperatures of 2800c cause the effects on the cars yet allow paper to drift down afterwards?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is astounding. Visible light is between infrared and microwaves when ordering the electromagnetic spectrum from longest to shortest wavelength.

And don't you mean shorter than visible light? Remember Plank's law of black body radiaiton? Frequency and energy are proportional. Higher frequency microwaves are more energetic than lower frequency infrared.


How can you expect to have any credibility?

Let's begin deconstructing your response with your frank and complete admission that you are wrong about the wavelengths, and I am correct about the wavelengths. Infrared is longer than visible light, microwaves are a bit longer than that.

After you admit your blatant error, we can proceed.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/images/Electromagnetic Spectrum.jpg

 

[The Almond]

After you admit your blatant error, we can proceed.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/images/Electromagnetic Spectrum.jpg

All right, I'll admit that I'm in error. You've shown quite conclusively that microwaves have longer wavelengths than light waves.

 

[Garb]

Let's begin deconstructing your response with your frank and complete admission that you are wrong about the wavelengths, and I am correct about the wavelengths. Infrared is longer than visible light, microwaves are a bit longer than that.

After you admit your blatant error, we can proceed.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/images/Electromagnetic Spectrum.jpg

Wavelengths=/=frequency


Actually, aren't they inversely related?

 

[jsfisher]

Actually, aren't they inversely related?

Shorter wavelengths = higher frequencies, and vice versa.

 

[Garb]

Shorter wavelengths = higher frequencies, and vice versa.

I thought so.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

All right, I'll admit that I'm in error. You've shown quite conclusively that microwaves have longer wavelengths than light waves.

Great. Next.

All things, including molecules, have resonant frequencies. Yes, macroscopic things like guitar strings derive their resonant frequency from their stiffness (modulus). Water molecules can be made to behave in certain ways by microwaves, for two reasons. One, the natural resonant frequency of a water molecule is a sub-harmonic of the 2.5 gigaHz microwave. This makes the molecules vibrate. Two, the electrical field makes the water molecules want to line up "north and south". The oven switches around the polarity many times per second. This makes water molecules rotate. Both generate heat.


Steel molecules have resonant frequencies. So does rubber. It is quite plausible that some sort of beam could excite and make vibrate certain molecules, and leave other ones alone.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel molecules have resonant frequencies. So does rubber. It is quite plausible that some sort of beam could excite and make vibrate certain molecules, and leave other ones alone.

but you claim that its exciting the steel in the towers, and melting it, then hitting the cars, exciting the steel in the door and melting then, then hitting the steel-belted radials, but NOT exciting the steel, and rather just melting the rubber

explain that one

 

[The Almond]

Great. Next.

All things, including molecules, have resonant frequencies. Yes, macroscopic things like guitar strings derive their resonant frequency from their stiffness (modulus). Water molecules can be made to behave in certain ways by microwaves, for two reasons. One, the natural resonant frequency of a water molecule is a sub-harmonic of the 2.5 gigaHz microwave. This makes the molecules vibrate. Two, the electrical field makes the water molecules want to line up "north and south". The oven switches around the polarity many times per second. This makes water molecules rotate. Both generate heat.

Ok, you've provided an excellent explanation of the specific mechanism which allows a microwave to produce heat in water.

Steel molecules have resonant frequencies.

But not the same polar properties of water. Have you ever put tin-foil in your household microwave?

So does rubber. It is quite plausible that some sort of beam could excite and make vibrate certain molecules,

All molecules vibrate. But how is it possible to allow one set of molecules to vibrate under exitation by a microwave an not another? What property of matter allows them to do this?
[/quote]

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually atoms have resonance frequencies so your saying that it burns the carbon in the rubber but not in the cellulose in the paper, woo hoo.

 

[maccy]

Water molecules can be made to behave in certain ways by microwaves, for two reasons. One, the natural resonant frequency of a water molecule is a sub-harmonic of the 2.5 gigaHz microwave. This makes the molecules vibrate.

I don't think so. Can you provide a source for this?

An electromagntic wave is not the same as wave of kinetic energy, like a sound wave in air.

Two, the electrical field makes the water molecules want to line up "north and south". The oven switches around the polarity many times per second. This makes water molecules rotate.

Roughly correct. The oven doesn't switch around the polarity though. We're talking electromagnetic waves here. The molecules also collide with each other, generating heat. Resonance doesn't occur on the molecular level. A guitar's strings can all be made of steel, but they resonate at different frequencies.

Both generate heat.

I'd say that only the second generates heat, the first doesn't exist.

Steel molecules have resonant frequencies. So does rubber. It is quite plausible that some sort of beam could excite and make vibrate certain molecules, and leave other ones alone.

No, molecules don't have resonant frequencies - it's not a molecular property. The microwave effect works particularly well in water beacuse the molecules can move freely, it doesn't work so well in solids and doesn't work at all on molecules that aren't dipoles.

Because metals have electrons that can move more freely (hence their conductivity), they act as an aerial - producing a current when exposed electomagnetic waves. This produces some heat, but most of the energy is in the form of moving electrons - ie electricity, sparks!

 

[apathoid]

It is quite plausible that some sort of beam could excite and make vibrate certain molecules, and leave other ones alone.

I thought you said the steel melted, shredded, and vaporized? Your beam did all of that by exciting the steel?
How does the death ray account for the collapses initiating in the impact area?

All things, including molecules, have resonant frequencies. Yes, macroscopic things like guitar strings derive their resonant frequency from their stiffness (modulus). Water molecules can be made to behave in certain ways by microwaves, for two reasons. One, the natural resonant frequency of a water molecule is a sub-harmonic of the 2.5 gigaHz microwave. This makes the molecules vibrate. Two, the electrical field makes the water molecules want to line up "north and south". The oven switches around the polarity many times per second. This makes water molecules rotate. Both generate heat.

Verbatim regurgitation isnt impressing anyone here, BS.

You should also re-read what The Almond wrote about the difficulty in focusing such a beam in a small area. The frequencies(inveresly proportional to wavelengths) would certainly have to be incredibly high to focus a death ray in a small area. I believe the operable word is collimation(sp?)

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't think so. Can you provide a source for this?

An electromagntic wave is not the same as wave of kinetic energy, like a sound wave in air.



Roughly correct. The oven doesn't switch around the polarity though. We're talking electromagnetic waves here. The molecules also collide with each other, generating heat. Resonance doesn't occur on the molecular level. A guitar's strings can all be made of steel, but they resonate at different frequencies.



I'd say that only the second generates heat, the first doesn't exist.



No, molecules don't have resonant frequencies - it's not a molecular property. The microwave effect works particularly well in water beacuse the molecules can move freely, it doesn't work so well in solids and doesn't work at all on molecules that aren't dipoles.

Because metals have electrons that can move more freely (hence their conductivity), they act as an aerial - producing a current when exposed electomagnetic waves. This produces some heat, but most of the energy is in the form of moving electrons - ie electricity, sparks!

Now you know he will come back that the current produce a magnetic field and that pulled the buildings down, it is endless I tell you it will never ended!
(Places star wars laser beam weapon to head pulls trigger.)LOL

 

[maccy]

To put this idea of resonance another way:

how much kinetic energy does a microwave have?