Help Debunking HAARP/Scalar Weapons?

[Tweet1962]

Sorry to bring this up, as I know it's been done before.

My knowledge of physics is pretty limited, basic physics 101 stuff.

On a different forum, I'm doing my best to show that the recent earthquake in Japan had nothing to do with HAARP/scalar weapons. From my admittedly limited knowledge of physics, everything I can find that claims this is possible smacks of bad science. However, some of the stuff thrown back at me is over my head, and I could use a little assistance.

I can tell that Tom Bearden's work is bunk just from what I already know. Now I'm getting guys like R B Duncan, Dan Fitzpatrick and Milo Wolff tossed back at me. Not surprisingly, everything I've found on fellas like this has been on their own websites. I haven't come across any mention of them on real science/physics sites, and as soon as see things like "theory of everything" tossed around, it immediately raises doubts with me.

So anyway, if members here could point me in the right direction, or pass on relevant information that could help me confirm my suspicions that these guys and their "work" is a bunch of hooey, I'd be most grateful.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry to bring this up, as I know it's been done before.

My knowledge of physics is pretty limited, basic physics 101 stuff.

On a different forum, I'm doing my best to show that the recent earthquake in Japan had nothing to do with HAARP/scalar weapons. From my admittedly limited knowledge of physics, everything I can find that claims this is possible smacks of bad science. However, some of the stuff thrown back at me is over my head, and I could use a little assistance.

I can tell that Tom Bearden's work is bunk just from what I already know. Now I'm getting guys like R B Duncan, Dan Fitzpatrick and Milo Wolff tossed back at me. Not surprisingly, everything I've found on fellas like this has been on their own websites. I haven't come across any mention of them on real science/physics sites, and as soon as see things like "theory of everything" tossed around, it immediately raises doubts with me.

So anyway, if members here could point me in the right direction, or pass on relevant information that could help me confirm my suspicions that these guys and their "work" is a bunch of hooey, I'd be most grateful.

Thanks for reading.

We don't waste our time debunking crackpot theories here. There are far too many to address and it reverses the burden of proof. When someone publishes a formal paper in a reputable journal showing a relationship, then the proposition is worthy of rebuttal.

The short answer: The claim is absurd as the energy required for such a device, if even possible under any conditions, would exceed anything used by HAARP by many many orders of magnitude. Beyond that, this is a closed topic as cited in banned topics list, in the Global Guidelines.

HAARP conspiracy theories
Not to exclude legitimate discussion of the HAARP [research program], the conspiracy theories related to this subject are banned.
The HAARP site:
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html
Previous discussions:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301296
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61472
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75190
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15422