ForumsWEPRHAARP

68 8097
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP
http://www.bariumblues.com/haarp1.htm
Our tax dollars going to this crap

  • 68 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

Thought of a simple explanation.

The concept "shades of gray" arises from a distant look. Let's say false is white, and true is black (ironic, but hey).

If you have more black than white, it's 'more true' and 'more black.' But there's still parts that aren't 100% true. This is where the argument of "not everything is true or false" comes into play, and why I say that there is a true/false to everything.

Thus, I would argue there is no gray, just truth and falsehoods, and a lot of them.

Think of a pixel image, hundreds of millions of them.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.


There is a site on the internet with the address armorgames.com.

Is that statement true regardless of whether it's believed or not or is it true for some but wrong to others?

Reality isn't something mutable by opinion and belief.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,625 posts
20,745

I don't see any reason why gravity would be less then.

The spin of Earth, I think, has been shown to decrease. If we assume Earth spun faster during the Triassic period, would that have influenced gravity?
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

I could go on like this for a while, because there's really no end to it. Each component is made up of parts which is made up of different areas which are evaluated based on certain criteria because of arguable FACT. There IS a true/false in everything, there just can be quite a few, and in different places.


This is all fine from and individual point of view, but what happens when two applications of this meet? Say, you make a valid reason for why rare meat is the best, and i for why well-done meat is the best. If both are supported with valid points, and the evidence for each side is correct, how can we determine which is true?

To set up truth and falseness as being mutually exclusive and opposite to each other is dine at a philosophical or metaphysical level, but it has no place in being applied to a tangible reality because the real world doesn't simplify down into a simple "either/or" supposition.

Let's say you have two judges in charge of a contest, to determine which singer is best among three. Judge One decides that Singer A gets first place, Singer B gets second, and Singer C gets third. Judge Two aggrees that Singer A should get first, but digresses in that Singer C should get second and Singer B third.

To take a holistic approach in which one judge must be entirely right, and the other entirely wrong, we arrive at a nice conumdrum. If Judge One is correct in his choices, than Judge Two must be wrong... Except that the the fate of Singer A recieving first is both right and wrong because it exists simultaneously in both set ups: Singer A should win because Judge One said so, but should not win because Judge Two was deemed wrong.

Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place. Setting up false dichtomies to govern the individual when they can negate themselves is ridiculous.

Reality isn't something mutable by opinion and belief.


Define reality. And while you're at it, true and false. Because you keep using those words, and I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

As you said, it's impractical. We don't know the answer to everyone, or have any way to say conclusively what is better than another. Hence where opinions come into play. An opinion is valid as long as it has some kind of reasoning behind it, because no one can 'prove' that something is 'better' than another when it comes to a preference.

Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place


I wouldn't try to, but this is going far beyond what Mage was saying.

Something either exists or it doesn't. There's no in-between.
Something either causes something or it doesn't. Even if we're wrong about what that result is, reality is irrelevant to our belief. It's still happening.

What is and is not, either is or isn't. And that's as simple as it gets. Our personal beliefs do not matter.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

So we came from HAARP to arguing semantics on what is and isn't absolute fact.

While I myself contributed to the problem by pointing out that Science must be countered by Science, we gotta make sure to also dispute for or against HAARP as well.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

Define reality.


What actually exists and existed, regardless of whether it's been observed or conceived.

And while you're at it, true and false.


True; The actual state of something.

False; Not the actual state of something, untrue. This can be intentionally deceptive or not.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Are you guys denying HAARP's existence or just it's power?

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,625 posts
20,745

It is an existing research station, no doubt on that; there's the facility, the "open doors"-day, the webcams, etc.

The problem is that it is incapable of doing what conspiracists say it does; or looking at it from another angle, independent of its capacities, it isn't that strong anymore; several radio stations including the BBC send out signals at least as energetical, if not more, than the HAARP. Simply it is broadcast all over the world, while the HAARP does specific research.

So if you're afraid of the HAARP, be very afraid of radio stations...

KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

First of all, I'm not afraid of HAARP. I am not afraid of anything of man. What I fear is that these men might hurt people, which some believe they have already.

Karasaar
offline
Karasaar
164 posts
8,395

Congratulations on cherry picking that Hihaha said you're afraid of HAARP and ignoring the much greater point he made:

The problem is that it is incapable of doing what conspiracists say it does; or looking at it from another angle, independent of its capacities, it isn't that strong anymore; several radio stations including the BBC send out signals at least as energetical, if not more, than the HAARP. Simply it is broadcast all over the world, while the HAARP does specific research.


There, I've repeated it for you, since you thought you could so easily ignore it.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

I am not afraid of anything of man. What I fear is that these men might hurt people

"I fear nothing", "I fear the actions of others"
No contradictions there...
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

I am not afraid of anything of man. What I fear is that these men might hurt people


Just to be a bit more clear I think what EmperorPalpatine is getting at is these men might hurt people is something of man.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,274 posts
430

If we assume Earth spun faster during the Triassic period, would that have influenced gravity?

More spin = more gravity.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

More spin = more gravity.

[I'm no physics major, so feel free to beat the crap out of this if it's way off] Spin has no effect on gravity itself, but it would slightly alter the weight (not the mass) of objects. However, more spin would counter the effects of gravity on the object due the centrifugal force, not assist it. Kind of like how if you spin around holding a string with a ball on the other end and try to reel it in, it feels heavier than if you were not spinning.
Showing 31-45 of 68