Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: ca314159
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:12:37 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4FED422830F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Robert. Fung wrote:
> >
> > If these references aren't convincing enough, I'd like to hear
> > constructive or corrective comments:
> >
> > [1] This is referred to as "aliasing" in DSP,
> > in physics it's called "interference".
> > A related effect is superheterodyning
> > http://www.antique-radio.org/terms/shetrod.html
> > which applies equally well to light waves:
> >
>
> Physicists call "aliasing" ... aliasing! It is always caused by
> the same thing: undersampling. That is, you are not sampling
> fast enough. The undersampled data then has the wrong frequency
> components.
>
> Best Regards, Peter
Here's some source that shows some interesting "aliasing".
Which looks remarkedly like "interference".
Are you saying there is a difference between the two,
or that physicists sometimes call "intereference", "aliasing" ?
--
http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?query=ca314159&defaultOp;=AND&svcclass;=dncurrent&maxhits;=100&showsort;=date&site;=yahoo
--------------4FED422830F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ALG5.PAS"
program algebra;
uses graph,crt;
label 111;
const ho=450;
ver=450;
density=2.0;
c=16;
var
i,j,col,count:integer;
temp,x,y,x1,y1,q,r,basefn,rd,xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,iotax,iotay:real;
var gd,gm:integer;
begin
(* writeln('xmin xmax ymin ymax ');
readln(xmin);readln(xmax);
readln(ymin);readln(ymax);
*)
xmin:=-5;
xmax:=5;
ymin:=-5;
ymax:=5;
iotax:=(xmax-xmin)/ho; iotay:=(ymax-ymin)/ver;
gd:=detect; initgraph(gd,gm,'e:\tp55');
for i:=1 to ho do
for j:=1 to ver do
begin
x:=xmin+(i*iotax);
y:=ymin+(j*iotay);
q:=x*x;
r:=y*y;
basefn:= sqr(q+r)-6.75*(q+r-1)+x*(3*r-q);
col:=trunc(density*basefn) mod c ;
if basefn=0 then col:=0;
putpixel(i,ver-j,col);
if keypressed then goto 111;
end;
repeat until keypressed;
111: textmode(co80);
end.
--------------4FED422830F8--
Subject: How time, space, mass and impedance arise from pi
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 20:27:37 GMT
As I made serious typo's in my original post,
( Suggested that the impedance of space
should be set to one rather than 2 pi,
and copied some constants wrong. ),
I am reposting this article and cleaning it
up a bit, to make it more clear.
---------
This article explains how "pi", the "exponential function",
the "impedance of space", time, space, and the other
physical properties arise from simple standing waves, and
how the "wave function" relates to the physical properties.
--------
Reality is basically observed and measured in
in terms of "time intervals" and "time periods".
Time intervals are most fundamentally associated
with radi, and time periods are most fundamentally
associated with circumferences.
Both of these times are quantized by counting
some external reference cycle such as those
obtained from atomic clocks. The reference
cycles that have been historically used to
quantize observations have been "day cycles",
"month cycles", "year cycles" and the cycles
of spring/mass systems and pendulums.
--------
Time periods come about when two bodies interact
about a common point, in a common "period".
In interactions, time or period is a physical property
that is common to both parties to the interaction.
A time period can be defined as:
time(period, system) = cycles(reference)
-----------------
cycles(of system)
A time period is a count of the reference cycles,
between each cycle of a system under observation, as
observed against some assumed stable background,
which is needed to determine when a cycle is complete.
-----------
A separate time interval exists for each party
to an interaction. This time interval is a count
of the reference cycles, between when a cause is
observed in a body, and a casual effect is observed
in the system the body is associated with.
Time interval, or distance ( X = Ct ), is the physical
property that is identified with each party
to an interaction.
A time interval can be defined as:
time(interval) = cycles(reference)
-----------------
cause to effect
----------
A constant k1, associated with an isolated entity,
can be defined as:
cycles(reference) cause to effect
k1 = ----------------- * ---------------
cycles(period) cycles(reference)
In the case of a perfectly symmetrical, isolated
entity, k1 is equal to "2 pi".
----------
A constant k2, associated with an isolated system,
can be defined as:
k2 = exp(k1)
In the case of a perfectly symetrical, isolated
system, k2 is equal to exp(2 pi) or 535.488....
---------
The physical expression of k1 is "2 pi",
the ratio of two distances", circumference and radius.
The physical expression of k2 is also the ratio
of two distances, a small and a large circumference.
An easy to visualize physical representation of k2
would be the two circumferences ( or radi or diameters )
of a coaxial transmission line.
A transmission line with a charactistic impedance
of 376.733.. ohms matches the impedance of space.
The physical condition that satisfies the
"impedance of space" can be defined as:
Z = Z0 * ln(exp(2 pi))
------------------
2 pi
Now it is obvious that ln(exp(2 pi)) equals
"2 pi" but this equation is more familiar to
electrical engineers as:
Z = k * ln( outer diameter / inner diameter )
where the ( outer diameter / inner diameter )
for a 376 ohm transmision line equals 535.488,
and k equals ( Z0 / "2 pi" ) or 59.959..
This is commonly expressed as:
Z = 59.959 ln( outer diameter / inner diameter )
As far as I know, this is the first explanation
of how these two constants arise.
( 59.959 and 535.488 )
Note that Z0 is simply a constant used to
scale the numeric value of impedance, and if
Z0 were set equal to 2 pi, then the electrical
properties could be defined from the equation:
Z = ln(exp(2 pi)), or 2 pi, for pure space, and
Z = ln( outer diameter / inner diameter ) otherwise.
-----------------
Distance is fundamentally an interaction time
which is multiplied by a constant to differentiate
it from period time. This constant is of course "C",
which serves no purpose other than to differentiate
between the two fundamental kinds of time.
Mass is simply a property used to differentiate between
two interacting bodies. Humans perceive
conserved "objects" having mass, varying in
homogenous "media" such as time, space and magnetic flux.
In the simplist case, we perceive the object Earth
varying in media without considering that the
Earth's media is an expression of the Sun's mass.
In fact, the media associated with objects is a
more complete and fundamental expression of
objects than mass.
This can be expressed as:
mass(A) = (time(interaction B)*C)^3
-----------------------------
( time(period) / 2 pi )^2 * G
mass(B) = (time(interaction A)*C)^3
-----------------------------
( time(period) / 2 pi )^2 * G
Note that "C" is used to express interaction time
as a distance, while "G" is a constant used to
differentiate between object A and object B,
or more fundamentally between media A and media B,
such media fundamentally being standing waves.
Of course, all other physical properties can be
defined in terms of the time, distance and mass
thus defined, but the most fundamental expression
of the physical properties is:
property(X) = tan(A)^L * tan(B)^M * time(period)^N * C^(L+M) / G^O
where:
L, M, N and O are integers
C = the speed of light
G = the universal gravitational constant
tan(A) = orbital velocity(A) / C
tan(B) = orbital velocity(B) / C
In other words, what we perceive as velocities
are basically tangent functions associated with
what we perceive as interacting bodies.
Note that when "C" and "G" are set equal to one,
that the simple elegance of reality becomes apparent.
----------
Although I mentioned that I would explain how
the "wave function" and quantum mechanics
relates to all this, rather than make this article
too long, I suggest that anyone who is interested
in pursuing this, or wants more graphical details
on these concepts visit my Web site, and
read some of the articles. Read "Potter explains all"
on my main menu, and some of the articles under
"Random thoughts".
In these articles, I assert that Special Relativty
is basically the addition of tangents:
tan(A+B) = tan(A) +- tan(B)
-----------------
1 +- tan(A) * tan(B)
and that spectrum of hydrogen-like ions
is basically a trig identity:
sin(A)^2 + sin(B)^2 = 1
which after a little juggling is expressed as:
v = Rydberg's constant * ( 1/M^2 - 1/N^2 )
----------
The bottom line is that all this stuff ( reality )
is just standing waves and geometry.
The physical constants "Z0", "C" and "G"
are unnecessary, and should be discarded as they
complicate reality by creating a plethora of
unnessary properties. This makes people look at
the properties as separate things, rather than
as a part of a simple matrix.
---------
I might mention that the issue of setting
the impedance of space equal to one,
depends upon whether the standard of measurement
should be based on circumferences ( 2 pi ) or radi
( radians ). Currently we measure time in
cycles, while we measure most of the other
properties, including distance, mass, etc. in radians.
Radians have to do with "bodies" and interaction
times, while cycles have to do with systems
and period times. I, of course, opt for cycles,
as ultimately, even interaction times are
measured in cycles, and determining the
coincidence of "cause" events, and "effect"
events have an "uncertainty" about them.
( Cycles can be "zero beat", intervals cannot. )
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Re: Superconductor at room temps... ????
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 15 Dec 1996 21:02:13 GMT
bd518@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jean Parent) wrote:
>
>
>Here's a surprising news from reuter ;
>
>Anyone have an opinion about that ?
Li, Be, H - No lattice phonons, no excitons, no low-lying d-orbitals, no
magnetic interactions, and the ions are hard acids and bases - not even
polarizable. Cooper pairing , anyone? And if not, wherein lies the
basis for bosonic superconductivity?
I want to see the technical readout in a refereed journal. It's either
Nobel-caliber discovery set to bedevil theoreticians, or grandiloquent
pap.
[snip]
> LYON, France (Reuter) - A team of French researchers said
>Wednesday they had made a major breakthrough in the field of
>superconductivity, saying they had found a powder that could
>conduct electricity at room temperature with no loss of power.
> The team led by Serge Contreras, of the National Institute
>of Applied Science in Lyon, in central France, found the powder
>acted like a superconductor at 77 F, scientist Jean-Pierre
>Bastide, the director of Contreras' laboratory, told Reuters.
> That is around 200 F higher than other known
>superconductors, Bastide said.
> In addition, the powder is composed of lithium, beryllium
>and hydrogen while previously discovered superconductors have
>been ceramics or oxides, Bastide said.
> ``Its novelty is that both its structure and its materials
>are different,'' he said. ``We must proceed cautiously, however,
>as this discovery has to be confirmed,'' Bastide added.
> He said, for example, that the scientists had not yet
>determined how to measure the powder's resistance, nor how to
>remove impurities.
> The team, which includes scientists from the National Center
>for Scientific Research and the Atomic Energy Commission in
>Paris and the Claude Bernard University in Lyon, has submitted
>its findings for publication in the Proceedings of the Academy
>of Sciences in Paris, Bastide said.
> Superconductivity is a poorly understood phenomenon in which
>electric current flows through some materials with virtually no
>resistance and no loss of power.
> All materials that can conduct electricity become
>superconductors at ``absolute zero'' -- minus 459 F -- a
>discovery made in 1911.
> But some materials are superconductors at higher
>temperatures, a fact discovered just a decade ago which opened
>up the tantalizing prospect of dramatic reductions in power
>generation, and thus fuel consumption and pollution as well.
> The phenomenon also has been found to have important
>applications in computer science and electronics.
> Scientists have, for example, developed super-efficient
>electric motors with superconductor components, though they can
>operate only in super-cold rooms.
> Since 1986, scientists have identified a number of materials
>able to carry an electric current with virtually no resistance
>at higher and higher temperatures, though still well below zero.
> But until now, no one has identified a material acting as a
>superconductor at room temperatures.
> Bastide said the chemical identified by the French research
>team would not be suitable for use in applications such as power
>cables, since it was a powder.
> But it could prove useful in electronics applications where
>it could be applied in thin layers, such as in a microchip, he
>said.
[snip]
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: mai96ise@studserv.uni-leipzig.de (Udo Stenzel)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 21:11:50 GMT
In <582cr1$gd3@news.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
: (A*) An Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass Mo of the Cosmos at
This means Mo = 1 Abian
: the Big Bang, i.e., at T = 0 Abian. For practical considerations
: Mo can be taken as 1O^n (for a suitable n) Abian units. Thus,
Now is Mo = 10^n . How do you explain.
So far for inconsistent statements.
: (1) Mo indicates the Mass M (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian).
: The following initial conditions are assumed:
: (2) 0 Mo.
: Next, based on (3), we give a mathematical formulation of m mentioned
: in (A). From (A) it follows that m = Mo - M where M is given by (3).
: Thus
: Abian
: (4) m = Mo - M = Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
: >from which it follows 1 - (m/Mo) = exp (T / (kT - Mo)) and therefore
: (5) T = -Mo(Log (1 -(m/Mo))/(1 - k Log(1 - (m/Mo))
: where Log is the natural e-log.
: We note that (4) as well as (5) expresses the equivalence of Mass and
: Time. For instance they say that m units of Cosmic mass is
: spent to produce T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
Actually not. Not (5) but (A*) expresses the mass - time equivalence,
namely where you introduced the same "Abian-Unit" for mass and time.
: Now Mr. Painter how do you show that (A*), (1),(2),(3),(4),(5)
: lead to a contradiction! How? Equations are there - just show
: how. Those are equations, given explicitly, nothing more explicitly
: can be given! Just show how do you arrive at a contradiction.
No further comment. I see two contradictions - see above.
: As for the units just read (A*). As far as experimental data is
: concerned I said I HAVE NONE since I , as yet have no COSMIC
: MASSMETER. But that is a detail.
: ABIAN vs EINSTEIN refers to the radical difference of the notion of
: TIME between ABIAN and EINSTEIN. For ABIAN, TIME is a manifestation
: of MASS and their equivalence are given by (4) or (5). For EINSTEIN,
: TIME is what the dial of a watch indicates. Why don't you address
: your questions to the followers of the establishment and ask them
: WHOSE WATCH ? THE DIAL OF WHOSE WATCH!!
: For ABIAN, Time is Mass and not a dimension on par with spatial
: dimensions. For EINSTEIN Time is a dimension on par with a spatial
: dimension.
You compare your half-physics to Einstein ?!?
Well you say the Abian formula (4) states equivalence of time and mass just
as Einsteins formula E=m*c^2 states equivalence of energy and mass.
The difference is, that you just wrote on a piece of paper
M = Mo exp(T/(kT - Mo)) with scalar k < 1
and claim, this is somewhat related to reality.
While Einstein first OBSERVED that the speed of light is constant, then
made a (thought-) experiment, and then derived his famous formula.
You don't have anything that leads to (4), except your bias, that time and
mass are equivalent. Then you assume your opinion proved, because you were
able to put it into some formula.
: Just ask the Establishment " the dial of whose watch measures the TIME"
: and let me know their answer. The question is Whose Watch? Post your answer.
: --
In GR it does not matter whose watch measures the time. Every measurement is
correct (thats the whole point of "relativity"!)
-Udo Stenzel
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: mai96ise@studserv.uni-leipzig.de (Udo Stenzel)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 21:11:53 GMT
In <58iunq$vv@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
wrote:
: NNTP-Posting-Host: ccshst01.cs.uoguelph.ca
: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: Xref: news.uni-leipzig.de sci.physics:167537 sci.skeptic:181275 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:32775 alt.consciousness:29144 sci.physics.relativity:5284
: Steve Thornton (thornton@netidea.com) wrote:
: : A friend called today, said he heard on CBC radio a story about a
: : Univ. of Cologne scientist who had made something go 4.7 times the
: : speed of light. I said nonsense. He asked me to look into it. Is there
: : any substance (no pun intended) to this?
: I too heard this interview.
: He says that he has transmitted information at 4.7c through quantum
: tunneling (he was, apparently, attempting to measure the speed of quantum
: tunneling).
That's what I heard, too.
: The device he used has a filtering effect, however, which may (or may
: not) have created an illusion of superluminal velocity. In certain kinds
: of frequency filtering of goups of QM particles, it is possible to get
: apparently superluminal motion by essentially cutting off the 'back end'
: of a group of particles. The particles with higher velocities in certain
: kinds of experiments are better localised than the slower ones, which
: causes their peak at the detector to arrive sooner than the peak for the
: original group would have, had it been allowed through. This creates an
: apparent superluminal motion where none exists.
In the mentioned experiment, the waveform after the tunnel was shown by a
oscilloscope. I can hardly imagine that the back end could be cut off,
cause the waveform looked exactly as before.
: It may be that this is the real cause of the effect, even such a large
: one, if the tunnel is short enough. I rather doubt that he'd have missed
: this possibility, however, because this is precisely the sort of thing
: you'd expect to be the first explanation he'd consider for this rather
: astounding result.
If I remember right, the tunnel in the first experiment (the one with
microwaves) was about 8cm long. In a second experiment (with a laser)
the tunnel was a mirror or the metal coating of the mirror, to be exact.
I dunno, how long a tunnel must be to allow the effect described above.
Another explanation is that SR states, no WAVES can travel at superlumuinal
speed. This includes paticles but it can't be applied to quantum tunneling
because in the tunnel there are no waves. Therefore it is possible, that the
speed in the tunnel exceeds c.
I also heard theories, that the time spent in the tunnel could be zero. This
would mean endless velocity. Even negative velocities could be possible
(the signal exits the tunnel before entering it).
From what I know of the mathematics of the tunneling effect, instant
transmission (endless velocity) sound the most probable.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: curran@remove_this.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 20:42:49 GMT
In article ,
merk077@servtech.com (Gregoire) writes:
>Peter F. Curran wrote:
>->
>-> There are several ways to measure physical time to great
>-> degrees of accuracy totally independently of own perception,
>-> and they are more or less in agreement with each other, (but
>-> not necessarily with us). I therefore feel time is not
>-> effected by our perception of it. I also don't really feel
>-> that the past, present or future have to have any sort of
>-> meaning other than just "being".
>->
>Mr. Curran has done something to his consciousness that is all too
>common today (and perhaps common since language & tools allowed us
>to *conceive* of existence objectively). Imagine slowly awakening
>as a babe and discovering first the difference between "me" or "I"
>and "it" or "them". Discovering, in other words, embodiment. Next
>comes memory and expectation. Mama will soon come back, because
>she has here before. This is time-awareness. Soon we see it from
>the outside (as it were) and believe time is our tool.
>
Actually, this seems more like an awareness of sequence, or
cause and effect, or pattern-matching. If momma comes back
in one minute or two, it still tends to reinforce the pattern
and subsequent expectation. However, the infant doesn't distinguish
the difference between momma arriving in 60 seconds, or 61 seconds.
>At some point, someone measured this movement, this change which
>seems to take place sub-atomically and with no small degree of
>randomness. Our crude clocks which *seem* to click with a certain
>sort of regularity are not TIME or even its measure. They are
>simply controlled motion. The alarm? Awake, my friends.
>
You notion of time is probably in opposition to that of many
others. The randomness you speak of is inherent in observation
of the very small, but these are not the observations used to
measure time to great accuracy. You say clocks are "controlled
motion", and my response would be to say, "controlled with
respect to what?"
The answer is of course, time. :)
- Pete Curran
Subject: Re: Physics GRE
From: coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 17:29:30 -0500
In article <591o8n$cmm@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>,
Nathan M. Urban wrote:
>In article <591htc$1c6@news.asu.edu>, jjtom4@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>
>> Michael Niczyporuk (mikenicz@kaon.mit.edu) wrote:
>
>> : I took it today also (and look forward to inspirational stories
>> : as well!). Did you study using old GRE tests, by the way? Compared to
>> : the previous tests in the GRE practice book, this one seemed MUCH
>> : harder.
>
>> No, I didn't study using old practice tests but some of my friends did and
>> they say basically the same as you: MUCH harder.
>
>Am I the only one who thought the real thing was easier than the
>practice tests? (Not that it was all that easy!!)
Most people I have spoken to in the last couple years have thought the
real thing was harder. When I took it, I thought it was somewhat
harder, but not dramatically. I also got more wrong than I expected
(But still enough right to do well)
>
>> I wonder how the
>> difficulty compares to the ones in the little physics GRE booklet that
>> they give the number right and corresponding scaled scores for. What do
>> you think the cutoff for, say, an 800 will be? Any idea?
>
>I can tell you what it was for the October exam. It was a raw score of
>47. (That's Correct - Wrong/4.)
Out of curiousity, how do you know this? My score report didn't
include any comparison of raw score to scaled score. OTOH, sounds
about like I would expect.
>
>> By the way, how
>> many questions did you answer? Most of the people I talked to answered
>> about 35 or less... I got about 54 but I've already figured out I missed
>> about five.
This sounds fairly typical based on people I've talked too. You
probably got more wrong than you thought you did. I got about twice
as many wrong as I was expecting.
>
>If you got 49 correct and only 5 wrong, then that's an 800 right
>there. I personally missed over 30, but then again, I guessed like mad
>and put down answers for nearly everything.
Well, if you answered almost everything and only got 30 wrong, you must
have done pretty well.
Good luck to all
--
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"
Subject: Re: Wien's Law (wavelenght * Temperature = constant)
From: Michael McDonnough
Date: 15 Dec 1996 23:40:53 GMT
lbrunet@netcom.ca(LUC BRUNET) wrote:
>
>Hello!
>
>I'm a science student and, for a physic project, have to find Wien's
>first law. What my teacher gave me was a light bulb. I had to change
>the voltage (which changed the filament's temperature) and note the
>relative emission for each visible wavelenght ( I used from 450 to 700
>nm) The maximum output I received were between 560 and 570 nm,
>something that seems to be consistant with a source I had read about
>usual 60 Watt bulb (these, it was written, had their maximum at about
>550 nm and the bulb I use is less than 20 W) My wavelenghts are higher
>than the hotter bulb described in the article, wich is consistant with
>the law. So, I should get a direct variation for the relation between
>the Temperarure and the inverse of thee maximum output wavelenght.
>Now, I don't have the exact temperature of the filament, but
>considering the relation: total emissivity = constant*T^4, I though the
>fourth root of VI (voltage*amperage) would be proportional to
>1/wavelenght. Yet, it doesn't work at all...
>
>anyone has any insight on why????
>
> Jean-Frédéric Brunet, Cégep André-Laurendeau (LaSalle,Québec)
>
Check your units,...in general, Wien's law is:
Peak wavelength = .29cm / Temp. in Degrees K
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 18:37:13 -0500
Why Is Mind Control Also Lives Control?
(Part Eight)
" Why will the Current Mind Control System And The Career Officers
(Under-cover Operators) Destroy The Freedom And Democracy of Our
Society?"
Our current society is that which represents freedom and
democracy. However, the freedom and democracy which the US citizens
enjoy today will be slowly eroded away by the mind (machine) control
operators if we do not stop their crimes or the Congress does not enact
laws to stop them abusing the invisible wave weapon.
How would the mind control operators destroy the current democratic
and freed society which we live in?
Before we answer the question, we should know why this mind control
surveilliance system has been built?
I would show you the information below;
As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security
Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, predicated a "more controlled
and directed society" would gradually appear, linked the
technology. This society would be dominated by an elite group which
impresses voters by allegedly superior scientific know-how.
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this
elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the
latest modern techniques for inflencing public behavior and keeping
society under close surveillance and control (these words is the
hints which the research of mind machine has remarkble progress).
Technical and scientific momentum would then feed on the situation it
exploits. Brzezinski predicted (see page 200 on _Angels Don't Play
This HARRP_).
In August 1971, there is a general efficiency surveillance security
system program proposal submitted to the President Nixon. It proposed
to "wire" every "house", "car", and "boat" in America. The plan included
a blueprint for a government- operated propaganda system via a TV network
that would have linked every state, city, and home (See page 181 on the
_Uncloaking the CIA_).
Although this program wasn't accepted At that time. It did prove that
they did have this plan and should have the technology to accomplish it
for a long time. How could they propose to "wire" every house, car
and boat in American? It must use the radio wave or low radiation wave
to network these objects (house, car, boat, etc.), otherwise, they
cannot achieve this goal. This program has proven that these security
officers have the technology to use the low radiation wave or radio wave
to "wire" the house, car, boat, etc. (via a TV network that would have
linked every city, state, home) since 1971.
In 1980, the US Senate passed the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980.
This Bill include establishing no standards for covert operations or
employment of academics, clergymen or journalists as spies or
informers and no penalty for the public disclosure of agents
working for the US. (See page 73 on _CIA_ by Brian Freemantle)
The above Bill already prove that the Intelligence Agencies were
allowed to build the entire nation surveillance system (as the
general efficiency surveillance system plan of the former
President Nixon) if they could operate it covertly (What a
coincidence, the GWEN system also has begun to be built since 1980.
A tower of this system can prove [emit] VLF to 360 cycle degree in
250- 300 miles distances).
So this entire nation surveilliasnce system should have been built
in 1980 because they have waited the law to legally build it for a
long time.
Furthermore, besides the mind machine, this system should have been
used to in conjuction with the Invisible wave weapon (microwave or radio
waves weapon) at that time in order to control the activation of human
organism
